December flO, 1979 - U.S. Government Publishing Office

December flO, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECQRD- SENATE 37611 Bdwa.rd J. Shinn Michael C. Turner Lee Shipman Warren E . Tuthill, Jr. Michael A. Silev1na.c Clarence W. J. WilliamJ. I. Skelton Twyman Dennis L . Sk.ra.msta.d Charles W . Upham WeJ.ter R . Sly, Jr. Robert L. Vanauken Edwin v. Smith Bernard J. J. Va.nsell Robert L. Smith . Bufor.d R . Vanzandt William R. Smith Manuel T. Vasquez Wllliam L . Smoot Irv.ing Velez James R. Smythe Claude R . Wainscott Bruce H. Snyder . .Floyd A. Walker David H. Spencer Alfred A. Wallace Robert L . Spindle, IV Thomas G . Warner Richard A. Spon Daniel M. Watson. Charles w. Stafford Bryan J . Wellbrock Alfred B. Stevens, Jr. Thomas A. Weller Ira. L. Stokes Robert E. White. Michael w: Stone Rickey D. Whitworth Richard M. Strong Frank E . Wilcox, Sr. Marvin G. Stroud, Jr. William D. Wilkes Jackie D. Stump Wllliam E . Wilklrson Elwood c. Sulzer, Jr. Richard E . Williams Gary D. Sumner David A. WilsOn Ronald E. Swart Jack L. Wilson, Jr. Ronald w. Tallman Murle R . Wilson Allen E. Teneyck Thomas D. Wilson, II Stanley J. Thien Thomas D. Wing David J . Thomas Jimmy L. Winstead James A. Thompson, Harvey B. Woodma.nse

Jr. John :E. Woolard Charles D. Threatt Bruce G . Wra.y . Walker J. Tindell · John R. Wright Larry K . Todd Michael A. Wulf Charles E. · Trent Michael E . Yetzke

The fonowttig-na.m.ed (U.S. Navy officer - (Ret.) ) to· be reappointed from the temporary disability retired list as a temporary Chief Warrant Officer 1n the line of the. U.S. Navy, subject to the qualifications therefor as pro-. vided by law: ·

Ivan E. Gray The. following-named (Ex-U.S . Navy offi

cer) to be appointed a permanent Ca.pta.ln ·in the Medical Corps in the Reserve of the

- U.S. Navy; subject to the qualifications there-for as provided by law:

Robert J. Schultz ·The following-named (U.S . Navy officer) to

be appointed a per.manent commander in the Medical Corps in the Reserve of the U.S. Navy, subject to. the qualifications therefor_ as pro- . vided by law:

Phillip M. Da.scher The following-named (U.S. Navy officers)

to be appointed temporary commanders in the Medical Corps in the Reserve of the U.S. Navy, subject to the qualifications therefor as provided by law:

Vincent D. Bradley, Jr. Timothy M. McCormick The following-named (ex-U.S . Air Force

officer) to be appointed a. temporary com7

mander in the Medical Corps in the Reserve of the U.S. Navy, subject to the qualifications as provided by law:

Bruce S. Steir The following-named (ex-U.S. Navy offi

·cers) to be appointed temporary commanders in the Medical Corps _in the Reserve of the U.S . Navy, subject to the qualifications

_therefore as provided by law: Lawrence B. Mutty Donald W. Schmidt The following-named (U.S. Navy officer)

to be appointed a temporary comin.ander in the Judge Advocate .General's Corps in the Reserve of the U.S. Navy, subject to the qualtfica.tlons therefor ·as provided by law:

·Larry R. Rowe ·

CX:XV--2364-P&rt 28

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Wlllia.m Lee Smith, of Maryland, to be Commissioner of Education, vice Ernest LeRoy Boyer, resigned. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND

INFORMATION SciENCE The following-named persons to be Mem

bers of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science for terms expiring July 19, 1984 :

Helmut A. Alpers, of Connecticut, vice Joseph _Becker, term expired.

Carlos A. Cuadra, of California (reappoint-ment~. .

Margaret S. Warden, of Montana, vice John E. Velde, Jr., term expired.

CONFIRMATIONS-DECEMBER 20-21, 1979

Executiv~ nominations confirmed by the Senate December 20, 1979:

AMBASSADOR Sol M. Linowitz, of the District of Colum

bia, for the rank of Ambassador during the tenure of his service a.s Personal Representative of the President of the United States . of America. INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR REOONSTRUOTION

AND DEVELOPMENT Colbert I. King, of Maryland, to be United

States Executive Director .of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 2 years.

David S. King, of Maryland, to be United States Alternate Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 2 years.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY George Fumich, Jr.; of Virginia, to be an

Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil En-ergy). .

George W. CUnningham, of Tennessee, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Nuclear Energy) .

Leslie J. Goldman, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (International · .<\1faii·s). ·

Thomas Eugene Stelson, of Georgia, to be 8.n Assistant Secretary of Energy ( Conservation and Solar Applic~tions) .

Haze-l Reid Roll1ns, · of the District of Columbia,- to be Administrator of the Economic Regulatory ·Administration.

Edward Allan Frieman, of New Jersey, to be Director of the Office of En~rgy Research.

·John J. Partington, of Rhode Isl81Il.d, to be U.S. ma.rshal for the district qf Rhode Island for the term of 4 yea.rs.

'DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Joseph A. Doyle, at New York, to be an .A561stant Becretaey of 1ihe Ne.vy.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Frank A. Oamm. of Virg1.nie., to 'be an As

soola.te Director Of the Fedeml Emergency Management Agency.

DEPARTMENT OF ColiOOBCE Homer E. Moyer, Jr., of the District of

COlumbi-a, to be Gener&l counsel of the D&pa.rtrnent of Commerce.

:r.uther IH. Hodges, Jr., of North. Qarolma, to be Deputy Sec-retary of COmmerc&.

FEDERAL MARrrn.m: CoMMISSION ~es _v. Da.y, of Maine, to be e. Federal

Maritime Oomm.issioner for the term expir-. ing .June 30, 1984.

DEPARTMENT OF CoMMERCE Philip M. Klutznick, of Dlinols, to be Sec

retary of Commeree .. The aibove nominations were approved

~'bject to the nominees' commitments to respond to requests to appear· e.n.d testifY before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.

THE JUDICL\RY Richard Alan Enslen, of Michigan, to be

U.S. district judge for the western district of Michigan.

William Matthew Kidd, of West Virglnia, to be U.S. district judge for the southern district of West Virginia. ..

L .. T. Senter, Jr., of MississLppi, to be U.S. district Judge for the northern district of Mississippi:

IN THE NAVY . Vice Adm. Ola.rence R. Bryan, U.S. Navy,

(age 56) for appointment to the grade of vice a.cUnlral on the retired list pursuant to the provisions of title 10, United · States Code, section 5233.

Vice Adm. Robert P. Coogan, u.s. Navy, (age 57) for appointment to the· grade of vice admiral on the retired list pursuant· to the· provisions _of title 10, United States Code, section 5233. ·

The following-named officer, having been designated for commands and other duties of great importance and responsibility in the grade of vice admiral within the contemplation of title 10, United States Code; section 51231, for appointment while so serving . as follows:

To be vice admiral Rear · Adm. Robert F. Schoultz, U.S. Navy.

IN THE AIR FORCE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY . Air F9rce nominations beginning Cirilo L.

Michael E . Witt_. of Colorado, to be ASsayer Adan, Jr., to be colonel, and ending Brooks ·of the Mint of the United States at Denver: w. Booker III, to be fi.rst lieutenant, which

.DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN nominations were received by-the Senate and DEVELOPMENT 81ppea.red in . the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD On

Victor Marrero, of N~w York, to be -Under . ·December 11, 1979. Secretary of Housing and Urban Dev~lop- . Air Force nominations beginning David W. ment. Abati, to be captain, and ending William

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Susan J . Williams; Of Virglnta., .to be 8ID. As

sist~t Secretary of Tmnsporta.tlon. William B. Johnston, of Virginia, to be an

Assistant Secreta.ry of Transporta.tion. . FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY . Ri~hard J. Green, of New Jersey, to be an

Associate Direc~or of the Federal Emergency MMl.agement Agency . .

OFFICE ·oF GOVERNMENT ETHICS

J . . Jackson Walter, of Florida, to be Direc. tor of the_ Office o! Government Ethics.

.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTXCE

Sanford M. L1tvack, of New .York, t() }Je an Ass1st8.nt Attorney Generail ..

A. Zahler, to be cap~in, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on December 14; 1979. . ..

IN THE NAVY Navy ·nominations beginning Edward J ..

Kelly, Jr., t9 be commander, and ending Darrel G. Johnson, to be ensign, which nominations were received by . the Senate and appeared in the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD On December 12, 1979. · .

Navy nominations beginning Donald 0. Boling; to be chief warrant officer, and end- · ing Larry R. Rowe, to be commander, which "nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the ·CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD on December 20, 1979.

37612 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS December 20, 1979

UNINTENDED DISCRIMINATION IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1978

HON. JAMES G. MARTIN OF NORTH OARO~A

IN THE HOUSE OF REPREEENTATIVES Wednesday, December 19, 1979

• Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a bill to remove the unintended discrimination against fiscal year individuals with respect to the changes in the minimum tax on capital gains made by the Revenue Act of 1978. The effect of my bill is to permit a taxpayer with a taxable year which includes December 31, 1978 to change to the calendar year for 1979. This would remove ·an unintended discrimination against fiscal year individuals as compared with calendar year individuals with respect to substantial changes in the minimum tax on capital gains preferences made by the Revenue Act of 1978. The discrimination is particularly unfair where an individual with a fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, was negotiating the sale of his life-time business during the consideration of the 1978 act in the fall of 1978 and closed the transaction in January 1979 believing all of the capital gains tax changes were fully effective.

In the Revenue Act of 1978, Congress attempted to reduce the prior law's disincentive to individuals' gain realization and capital mobility by (a) increasing the capital gains deduction from 50 to 60 percent under code section 1202, (b) eliminating the capital gains deduction as a preference item for individuals for purposes of the ad-on minimum tax under code section 56 and, (c) eliminating the capital gains preference as a dollarfor-dollar reduction of personal service income for purposes of the maximum tax calculation. See, General Explanation of the Revenue Act of 1978, by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

All of these reforms except item (b) apply uniformly to calendar year and fiscal year indivduals alike. The elimination of the capital gains deduction as a preference item for purposes of the ad-on minimum tax <item (b)) was made effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1978. As a result, calendar year individuals obtain the more favorable treatment of this reform <maximum tax rate in most situations of 28 percent> with respect to capital gains realized during 1979, while fiscal year individuals could be subject to tax at a rate of 37 percent. These circumstances created a particularly harsh and inequitable situation for an individual taxpayer whose fiscal year began before January 1, 1979 and who, forced by per-sonal or business exigencies, or in reliance on generalized summaries of the 1978 act which did not publicize the highly technical aberrations in effective

dates, realized a capital gain during January 1979.

Because of this unfairness, taxpayers whose taxable years include December 31, 1978 should be permitted to change their fiscal year to a calendar taxable year for 1979. Some of the general and particular reasons why they should be given such permission include the following:

1. Delay in the etrective date of the alternative minimum tax as it pertains to fiscal year taxpayers was not consistent with other provisions of the act.

The provision of the act that delayed the elimination of the capital gains deduction as a tax preference item with respect to fiscal year taxpayers until their taxable year beginning after December 31, 1978, was inconsistent with other key provisions of the act applicable to the taxation of capital gains. Other key provisions took effect between November 1, 1978, and January 1, 1979, as follows:

(a) Capital Gains Deductions. The increase in the long-term capital gains deduction (I.R.C. § 1202 took etrect on November 1, 1978.

(b) Maximum Tax on Personal Service Income. The Act removed the capital gains tax preference as an otrset against personal service income. With respect to fiscal year taxpayers, the provision applied to transactions on or after November 1, 1978.

(c) Elimination of the Minimum Tax. The add-on minimum tax on the capital gains deduction was eliminated as to calendar year taxpayers (the vast majority of individual taxpayers) on J{!onua.ry 1, 1M9.

All of these reforms except item <c> apply uniformly to calendar year and fiscal year individuals alike.

2. Provisions of the act with taxation of capital gains were ·adopted in haste and reported to the public in confusing fashion.

The taxpaying public was advised that the act created large cuts in the taxation of capital gains and that those cuts were effective as of January 1, 1979, at the latest. Taxpayers attempting to negotiate transactions involving capital gains were given the impression that transactions on or after January 1, 1979, would be subject to the new, liberal treatment. One example (of many) of this kind of information is the following:

On page 3 of the Wall Street Journal, October 16, 1978, it was stated:

The conferees accepted a package of changes that would reduce the top tax rate on individual capital gains . .. to 28 percent from 49 percent.

The conferees voted to raise the capital gains exclusion to 60 percent, starting next November 1, 1978. They voted to repeal the alternative 25 percent rate on the first $50,000 of gains January 1. They agreed to stop "poisoning" the maximum tax break with the excluded part or gains, also starting January 1. They further agreed to subject the excluded 60 percent of gains . . . to a new alternative minimum tax.

Individuals would pay this new alternative minimum tax only if it exceeded regular

taxes plus the existing minimum tax, which would continue to apply to a modified list of eight other preferences. For capital gains and excess itemized deductions, the new alternative minimum tax would replace the existing add-on tax January 1.

A booklet prepared by a national firm of certified public accountants describing the new act states with reference to the new alternative minimum tax:

Etrective date: Tax years beginning &iter 1978.

With respect to the "ad-on" minimum tax, however, <the tax with which we are concerned) , the firm states:

E1fective date: For individuals and other noncorpora.te taxpayers, capital gains and excessive itemized deductions are not subject to the "add-on" minimum tax after 1978.

As we have seen, both provisions are effective for tax years beginning after 1978. We submit, however, that the language quoted above carries with it the clear implication that even for fiscal year taxpayers

Capital gains • • • are not subject to the "ad-on" minimum tax after 1978.

A booklet published by a . regional firm of OPA's states that the old alternative tax provision which limited the maximum tax rate on the first $50,000 of net capital gain to 25 percent repealed

Etrective for tax years beginning after 1978.

and that The new minimum tax is etrective for years

beginning after December 31, 1978.

With respect to the matter in which we are interested, however, the firm states:

The excluded portion of capital gains and itemized excess deductions will be removed from the preference items subject to the 15 percent tax after December 31, 1MB.

Here again, the language quoted above carries with it the clear implication that even for fiscal year taxpayers:

The excluded portion of capital gains • • • will be removed from the preference items subject to the 15 percent tax after December 31, 1978.

Other examples are available. 3. The delay in the etrective date of the

alternative minimum tax as it applies to long-term capital gains was not consistent with the intent of Congress as refiected in the Act.

The general explanation of the Revenue Act of 1978 prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation <the "Blue Book") describes why Congress increased the capital gains deduction and eliminated the capital gains deduction as a tax preference as follows:

Congress believed that the capital gains treatment under prior law was counterproductive in the sense that it could discourage investment and sa.les of appreciated assets to such an extent that it did not provide as much revenue as would result !rom lower capital gains tax rates. In addition, the prior rules regarding capital gains, which

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

December ~0, 19 79 involved a regular tax, a minimum tax, an alternative tax and a maximum tax, were believed to be unnecessarlly complex. As a result, the Act included a major restructuring of the tax on capital taxes. (Page 61.)

The Blue Book gave no reason why the increased capital gains tax deduction and the reformation of the minimum tax should have different effective dates: On the contrary, the staff said

The Congress believed that the increased deduction, in conjunction with the. Act's other capital gains tax changes and its reformation of the minimum tax, should contribute significantly to a more favorable economic climate by increasing the mobility of capital, and by providing an incentive for taxpayers to both realize gains and increase savings. (Blue Book, p. 252; italic added.)

In adopting the Revenue Act, the Congress acted to make its policy with respect to the realization of capital gains apply with a minimum of delay. For fiscal year taxpayers, however, the actual result was to discourage realization of gains until as late as December 1, 1979, or 13 months after the generally effective passage of the act.

4. Sophisticated taxpayers avoided the discrimination by actions now unavailable to unsophisticated taxpayers.

Sophisticated fiscal year taxpayers were aware that the changes in the minimum tax on capital gains (having the effect of generally subjecting such gains to a 28-percent maximum tax rate) applied only to gains in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1978. Such taxpayers had at least three alternatives available:

A. Their 1979 capital gain transactions could be recast as installment sales, delaying realization of gain until their fiscal years beginning in 1979,

B. Their 1979 transactions might have been postponed until the new fiscal year, or

C. They could shift, with the consent of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue, to the calendar year if a timely election was made ( 1 Y2 months after the calendar year began).

Some unsophisticated fiscal year taxpayers did not realize that the minimum tax changes did not apply to their 1979 capital gains transactions occurring in fiscal years ending in 1979 until they began preparing their tax returns following the end of such fiscal years. By that time it was obviously too late to take advantage of the above explained alternatives available to sophisticated taxpayers.

5. The minimum tax on the long-term capital gains deduction was imposed for a longer period of time on fiscal year taxpayers than on calendar year taxpayers in similar circumstances.

Under the act, the add-on minimum tax was effective for taxable years ending after December 31, 1969. The elimination of the capital gains deduction as a tax preference item was made effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1978.

As a result of the interplay of those effective dates, fiscal taxpayers were subject to the minimum tax on the long-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

term capital gains deduction for a period of 1 year longer than were calendar year taxpayers. Taxpayers, whose fiscal year begins on October 1, were subject to the minimum tax on long-term capital gains for 11 years (October 1, 1969, through September 30, 1980). A calendar year taxpayer was subject to the tax for only 10 years (January 1, 1970, through December 31, 1979).

6. Permission to change to the calendar year would be. fair to taxpayers in general and to the Government.

A change to a calendar taxable year would not benefit fiscal year taxpayers in contrast with calendar year taxpayers nor would it deprive the U.S. Government of a significant amount of revenue. The e.mendment would put fiscal year taxpayers on the same footing as calendar year taxpayers. In fact, even with the change, some fiscal year taxpayers would still be at some disadvantage with respect to calendar year taxpayers: If they were fiscal year taxpayers in 1969, they became liable for the minimum tax 3 months before their calendar year counterparts.

7. The Internal Revenue Code favors the use of the calendar year as the taxpayers' accounting period for income tax purposes.

The provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, sections 441 and 442 pertaining to accounting periods for income tax purposes reflect the Congress clear intent to favor the calendar year over a fiscal year as a taxpayer's fiscal year.

Section 441 (a) provides that: Taxable income shall be computed on the

basis of the taxpayer's taxable year.

Section 441 (g) provides in part that: • • • the taxpayer's taxable year shall be

the calendar year 1!-( 1) The taxpayer keeps no books; (2) The taxpayer does not have an annual

eccounting period; or (3) The taxpayer has an annual account

ing period, but such period does not qualify as a. fiscal year.

Section 442 provides that: If a. taxpayer changes his annual account

ing period, the new accounting period shall become the taxpayer's taxable year only if the change is approved by the Secretary. For purposes of this subtitle, if a. taxpayer to whom section 441 (g) [above] applies adopts an annual accounting period (as defined in section 441(c)) other than a. calendar year, the taxpayer shall be treated as having changed his annual accounting period.

Accordingly, the text of the bill which I have introduced provides that the Revenue Act of 1978-Public Law 95-600, 92 Stat. 2763-be amended by adding new section 421 <h> as follows:

(h) An individual taxpayer (or individuals in the case of a husband and wife filing jointly) may elect to change his taxable year from a. fiscal year that includes December 31 , 1978, to a. calendar year without approval of the Secretary by filing a return for the short period ended December 31, 1978, within 90 days of enactment of this provision. Section 6072(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 shall not apply to a. return flied to effect the election provided by the preceding sentence.e

37613 IRAN CRISIS IS A MORAL CRISIS

HON. DANIEL B. CRANE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, December 19, 1979

e Mr. DANIEL B. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Iran is more than the kidnapping of American citizens, horrible as the act is. It is a reminder that, throughout the world, civilization is receding before our eyes.

The past decade has seen an unprecedented decline in American power and influence; going hand in hand with this decline is the whirlpool of barbarism into which the world seems increasingly drawn.

In a recent analysis, the Wall Street Journal examined this decline of the stabilizing influence of America and concluded that-

The world that emerges as America. declines is proving not to be a very nice place at all ... liberal law and' standards have retained influence in the world only insofar as there's been American power to support them.

Ultimately, the Iran crisis is a moral crisis; the result of men looking to themselves or to false gods for guidance. Let us pray that God will grant us the wisdom to recognize the consequences of the path we have chosen, and the time to change our direction.

The editorial follows: CIVILIZATION (AMERICAN STYLE) RECEDING

The events in Iran, with their gross vio-lation of diplomatic immunities reaching back into the Middle Ages, are · the latest and most dramatic symptoms of a. more general collapse of established values and conventions of conduct. Throughout the world, civilization is receding before our eyes.

This decline of what we have thought of as civilized conduct results from the decline of the Western powers that spread these ideals to begin with, and in particular from the decline of American power, wm and influence in the last decade. Nowhere is this more clear than in Iran itself.

The past decade of American retreat has stamped its signature on every impulse and calculation of the Ayatollah's mob and every agonized twist of our response to it. The lack of resolve in our policy was one of the things that fatally weakened the shah in the first place; our lack of challenge to the vilification dumped on this country over the past years has shown itself in the vocabulary of anti-Americanism that the Ayatollah's regime so easily adopted and steadily amplified. Our lack of military preparedness has emerged in this crisis as the reason we have no appreciable force available to us in the Gulf area..

These were the large facts of our situation, but a. sense of helplessness has also marked our particular responses to the Iranian terror. The U.S. allowed the shah entry but somehow did not think it possible to protect our Tehran embassy against violent reprisal. Wben the mob took over, our first reaction was not to mob111ze and redeploy our forces as a. matter of course but to dispatch Ramsey Clark to negotiate.

Wben all the peace missions !-ailed, the administration began to toughen its pronouncements, to embargo Iranian oil, to freeze Iranian financial assets and to try to

37614 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS round up megal Iranian imm.tgrants. The rifice, I honor these two men today. In ehlef effect of both the 1mm1gration crack- remembrance of them, the other nine down and financial freeze wlll be to create a firefighters injured in the blaze and the lot of windfall profits for American law .firms, entire Valley Stream Fire Department, I . but the cosmetics of it all do seem to be o1Ier them a flag flown over the U.S. Capwinning the administration some points for itol. Like the flag, these men are Symbols toughness.

The real tests may yet lie ahead. we can of the greatest virtues of our Nation, and hope that the release of some hostages is _a like the flag-we cherish them dearly. sign that the Ayatollah is having second All too often we forget the awesome thoughts, .but his threat to . try remaining demands placed on public servants such hosta~ before Islamic courts ·iS hardly as firefighters--both professional Snd comforting. Are we deploying power to react volunteer-and law enforcement offi.cers. militarily if hostages are killed? If the mat- Each day they risk their own lives to ter is resolved, are we prepared to protect our own embassy, or will we take the further protect our lives and our property. It is cosmetic step of breaking relations and aban- only when we lose one of these ·brave doning the field? Most of all, will we learn men and women in the line of duty that enough lessons to avoid the next Iran? we trUly appreciate the jobs they have

For the power of barbarism is not flexing undertaken. its muscle there alone. In Cambodia we've Michael Moran became interested in seen by now the kind of wholesale murder firefighting as a youth, joining an Exthat makes the previous authoritarianism plorer Scout ~t which introduced its there seem llke a nursery school in compari- ~., son. We can also observe in Indochina the members to the world ·of the fire departspecially crazed horror that comes when ment. Fully aware -of the dangers-juSt rulers like Pol Pot and Heng Samrin show as John Tate, Jr. was--he nevertheless themselves utterly indifferent to histOrical o1Iered his services as a fireman to ·the notions of humanity. community. ·

In short, the world that emerges as America Surviving Michael Moran are his declines is proving not to be a very nice place father, Philip; a brother, Philip, Jr.,· and at all, and one that does not· hold much truck with the standards of international law two sisters, Ann and Mary. Surviving and decency that we had such high hopes for John Tate are his wife· Mary and his in international affairs. Over the past decade mother and father, Mr. and Mrs. John America has often been. pictured, and often Tate, Sr. These people may truly be proud by Americans, as the world's chief offender of the loved ones they have lost. Most against international peace and independ- definitely, they deserve the deepest_gratence. The Tehran crisis and like· events in itude of those of us they were heroically other places are bringing us face-to-face t · to with the possib111ty that something like the . rylllg serve.e opposite is true: that liberal law and stand- -------ards have retained influence in the world only insofar as there's been American power · to support them.

ITALY-AN ALLY IN TIME OF NEED

· December 20, 1979

the same day, he caned for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. This action was followed by simi .. lar approaches on November 12, November 28, and December 3.

On November 26, of his own volition, Italian President Sandro Pertini wrote a personal message to the Ayotallah Khomeini requesting, in the name of human rights and dignity, the release of all American hostages. Other statements in support of our position .have been made by the Italian Cabinet, the Liberal and Republican Parties in Italy, and the Christian Democratic Youth Movement, as well as the Socialist Party Youth Organization.

As the Iranian crisis drags on and we enter an even ·more diffi.cult phase with Iran, it -is essential that the United States secure the absolute commitment of our allies in ·applying e1Iective diplomatic actions against Iran.

I believe that the unselfish assistance o1Iered by Italy thus far is representative of the absolute commitment which .America needs to secure from all its allies. Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of this distinguished body to be aware. of the total support of Italy for the American e1Iort to free the hostages.•

MMNLAND CHINA

HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI · ~F ILLI'NOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES If thls is true, then facing the declit;le of

American influence may mean facing the erosion of values that in their importance go far beyond questions of narrow national selfinterest. If the Iranian crisis serves to make that more clear, it will at least .have performed some small service in return for the evil it's visited on us.e

HON. HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK Wednesday, December 19, 1979

THE GREATEST SACRIFICE

HON. JOHN W. WYDLER OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, December 19, .1979

e Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Speaker, Long Island is mourning the deaths of two young Valley Stream residents who put their dedication to their duties as volunteer firemen above their own lives when battling a devastating blaze Thanksgivilig Day.

Their names are John Tate, Jr. and Michael Moran. They· were critically in- . jured when the roof collapsed. on Temple Gates of Zion Synagogue, Where the tragic fire broke out. John Tate, Jr., 28 years old, died November 30, and Michael Moran, 23 years old, died just last Saturday.

These two .men, both fire captains in the Valley Stream Fire Department, exhibited the highest level of courage on that fateful Thanksgiving Day. Trying to preserve a structure which many people held dear, they· sacrificed their own lives. ·

In ~ecogn~tion of their awesome sac-

oF NEw JERSEY • Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, in Au-IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES gust of 1975, I visited. China as a member

Wednesday, December 19, 1979 of a. congressional delegation. Whereas most of the Members who accompanied

• Mr. HOLLENBECK. Mr. Speaker, me were laudatory in their comments on during-the last 46 days our Nation has the prospects of future relations with endured the many pressures and frus- mainland China, and returned . with trations demanded of us following the glowing reports of China as a "great exsiege of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. We periment for all mankind" and a nation hope and pray for the safe and speedy where hundreds of millions work happily release of all .50 American hostages pres- and enthusiastically to build a "New Or- · ently being held by terrorists in Tehran. der'', I took a somewhat di1Ierent out-

As this crisis continues to unfuld, and look. We had a very carefully controlled we seek a peaceful resolution through schedule with visits to model factories, diplomatic channels, it is imperative model communes, model workers' apartthat we have the support of our allies ments which I personally feel utilized throughout the globe. I would like to take the "Potemkin village" strategy. While this opportunity to praise the complete the Chinese Government did seem to be cooperation which has been extended to taking care of the basic food, clothing, our Nation by the Republic of Italy. and housing needs of the people, meeting

As with Britain, West Germany, and minimum standards, this is certainly not other members of the EUropean Eco- an amazing accomplishment for a modnomic Community, Italy has o1Iered ern government, especially in a counAmerica support which is both consistent try as rich in reSources as China. and in accordance with basic principles My views were fortified in an article of international law. by Reed Irvine appearing in the Decem-

Both bilaterally and collectively with ber 18 Washington Weekly newspaper. other member nations of the European . Mr. Irvine is presently on a trip to the Common Market, the Italian record has Far East, and the following is excerpted been an exemplary one, ·a.s alluded to from a talk he gave to the Journalism yesterday by my colleague JoE MINISH. School at National Chengchi University To cite just a few examples, on Novem- on Taiwan: ber 10, ShOrtly after the Embassy take- MEDIA LONG MISLED BY MISINFOlUioiATION over, the Italian Ambassador to Iran FRoM CHINA vehemently protested the blatant disre- (By Reed Irvine) gard for the human rights of those held TAIPEI.-One of the great mysteries of our hostage and strongly objected to the will- time is why tl;le information machinery of ful Violation of diplomatic immunity. On the West has for so long been spewing out

December 20, 1979 · 1nforin81tion about the Communist countries that was so incorrect and mislea.din.g. -In no

· case in the post World War II period has this been worse than with respect to Communist China. Even during the 1950s when antiCommunist sentiment was very strong in the United States, our scholars and our media showed great willingness to swallow the propaganda claims of the Chinese Communists.

When Mao announced in 1958 that China had doubled its food production in a single year, shock waves were felt throughout the Western world. Dr. Josne De Castro, the head of the United Na.tions food and agricultural organiza.tlon, ha.lled this as "China's victory over hunger." As late as 1976, Michael Oxenberg, who holds the eXIIIJ.ted position of Chinese expert on President Carter's National Security Council, was stlll arguing in print that the "Great Leap Forward" had brought economic security to the Chinese pea.sa.n.ts.

How often were we to read _in our press and hear on television, especially after Nixon's visit to the mainland in 1972, that Communist China had solved the food problem and that everyone was well fed and that famine was no longer a problem.

In the past year, however, there has been considerable confil'mation from o111.cial sources of negative reports about conditions in Communist China that refugees had been telling for years. One of the most noteworthy and newsworthy of those refugees was Fan Yuan-Yen, the Communist Chinese Air Force omcer who fiew his Mlg-19 to Taiwan and requested asylum on July 7, 1977. Fan's message d11fered substantially from much of the reporting that had been coming out of the mainland from reporters and short-term visitors. Fan said that people were eking out "a very miserable life," the food shortage was serious and people were half starving in many places. Our journalists were sure that must be nonsense, we had television pictures of happy, well-fed chlldren frollcklng in Ttenanmen Square.

The current leadership in Communist China has now played a dirty trick on all those helpful purveyors of misinformation who helped create the image of Mao as a combination of Jesus Christ, Julius Ceasar and Henry Ford. The New York Times reported on August 29, 1979, that during this past summer Chinese Communist papers admitted publicly that they had for years been using false and exaggerated stories. The Tientsin Dally provided a delightfUl explanation for these past sins. It said the vllla.ins were lazy and unethical journalists. "They spread hearsay and parrot the views of others," the paper said, adding that some do not bother to check the information given them. The paper ·went on: "Some only pretend to understand the facts or a. report and put on an appearance of wisdom." "Others," it said, "bend to the wind and the wishes of the leadership."

I'I'his is amusing because it so aptly describes those foreign journalists who reported on Communist China in precisely the same way as did local reporters. But they, of course, are far more culpable. The local reporters bent to the wind and the wfshes of the leadership. They spread the o111.cial propaganda Une. Had they dared to do otherwise they would have quickly found themselves on a corrective labor farm in Sinkiang.

But now that Deputy Party Chairman L1 Hsien-Nen himself has reportedly stated that 10 percent of China's 950 million peoplei.e., 95 mil11on people in China-do not have enough to eat, now that it is admitted that factory workers get only 31 lbs. of grain a month, not enough to sustain hard work, what are we hearing from those pundits who assured us for so many years that the Com-munists, for an their denial of human rights and even brutality, ha.d at least solved the problem of hunger in China?

Notlhing.e


SAVE MONO LAKE

.HON. NORMAN D. SHUNn¥AY OF CALIFORNIA



e Mr. SHUMWAY. Mr. Speaker, today I. am introducing legislation of critical importance to the future of one of the country's most unique resources-Mono Lake in california. Mono is in serious danger and deserves the attention of Congress.

The United States is blessed with many truly wonderful ·resources, and the environment of Mono Lake is one of the most beautiful areas I have ever visited. The lake itself dates back to the ice age, and as such, is considered to be between 1 and 3 million years old. In fact, the lake may be the oldest continuously existing water bodies in the North American continent.

Mono supports the largest nesting ground for California gulls in the country as some 50,000 adult birds raise their young on the islands of Mono Lake. This "country of wonderful contrasts" as John Muir wrote over 100 years ago is alive during the spring and summer with the sounds of thousands of birds raising their young. In 1865 J. R. Brown wrote of this magnificent spectacle:

Immense swarms of gulls visit these islands during the spring of the year and deposit their eggs on every available spot. Myriads upon myriads of them hover over the rocks from morning tlll night, deafening the ear with their wild screams, and the water is lltera.Uy covered with them, for a circle of many miles.

These birds travel to Mono's shores every year to take advantage of the great abundance of feed in the form of. the brine shrimp and brine fiy. Because Mono Lake is six times as alkaline and twice as salty as the ocean, only a few organisms are adaptable to its waters. Mark Twain visited Mono Lake in the 1860's and labeled Mono the "Dead Sea of America."

Mono Lake is one of the largest lakes in California and is located on the eastern side of the majestic Sierra Nevada Mountains. Mono, long known for its unique and pristine .environment, is in serious jeopardy. Since 1941, diversions of its tributory waters have caused its level to drop to a point where the survival .of the life it supports is threatened.

Water· dliversions made by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power <LADWP> have been ongoing since 1941, and .as a result, the level of Mono :ua.ke has dropped continually. In fact, the lake level has declined by roUghly 2 feet per year since 1970.

Some 20,000 acres of alkaline shoreline are now exposed; when windy conditions prevail, alkali dust blows into the atmosphere creating havoc for the area's residents and adversely affecting the lives of plants and animals. Both Federal and State ambient air quality standards ·have been violated.

Alkali dust is not the only problem at Mono Lake. Two of its islands, Negit and Paola, have been enlarging because of

37615 the declining water level. As a result, a land bridge has formed between Neglt and the Mono shoreline allowing predators to walk across and feed upon the easy prey of nesting gulls.

A study: by a University of California biologist indicates that not one gui) chlick was raised on Negit Island this year. Between 1976-and 1978, some 38,000 nesting gulls made Negit their home, but in 1979 no breeding adult gulls used the island. All told, less than one-quarter of the population of Mono gulls raised any chicks in 1979.

To combat the predator problem, the California. Legislature passed legislation which provided funds for a dredging operation to d!ig a trapazoidal channel between Negit Island and Mono's shore. However, subsequent tests by the State Departments of Water Resources and Fish and Game-as well as LADWPrevea.led. that such a dredging operation is unfeasible. The tests revealed that Mono Lake's bottom would not hold in the prescli.bed position necessary to prevent the land bridge from reappeariilg. Earlier dynamite blasting operations proved unsuccessful as well. Instead of digging the channel the State will now have to resort to constructing a. very long fence· whlich mu.st be extend~ periodically as the lake level continues to decline. State fish and game officials are attempting to meet an April 1, 1980 constructiOn deadline when the birds begin to arrive next spring.

In order to identify and resolve these and other problems prevalent at Mono Lake, an interagency task force was formed las-t year. Membership includedrepresentatives from the California State Department of Water Resources, Inyo National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, LADWP, MOno County Board of Supervisors, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California. state Department of Fish -and Game. The task force began operations in December of 1978 and developed 19 alternative solutions. After an extensive public hearing process, the group adopted "Plan P." The lone dissenting member of the task force was the Los Angeles. Department of Water and Power.

Plan P provides that LADWP reduce. its current 100,000 acre-feet per year diversion to 15,000 acre-feet which allows 85,000 acre-feet to naturally flow back into Mono Lake. At this rate in approximately 50 years the level of Mono Lake would reach 6,388 feet which is the task· force's preferred elevation. With the level at this point, the predator problem would disappear and the alkaline dust would become less extensive. Plan P also protects LADWP's water rights and allows it to purchase water elsewhere with funds appropriated equally by Federal, State, and city governments. In addition, the plan calls for a 5-year study conducted jointly by the BLM and the California State Department of Fish and Game.

The legislation I am introducing today provides for the necessary Federal participation under plan P. It authorizes $25,000 for each of 5 :fiscal years for the Federal share of the joint BLM-

37616 state study, and authorizes such funds as may be necessary for LADWP to purchase replacement water. The latter authorization may not exceed $2,379,000 per year for the next 5 :fiscal years.

What is at issue at Mono Lake is not a mere north-south water dispute, but the survival of one of our country's beautiful and unique environments. David T. Mason in Liminology of Mono Lake, Calif. describes Mono as "a land of stark contrasts, of dramatic gradients, of vast expanses, where even a sense of the passage of time stands graven on the slopes, a superimposed dimension • • • ."

Already Mono's wildlife resource is seriously threatened. Since Owens Lake to the south is now dry, most of the birds that fty to Mono every year have nowhere else to raise their young. The lake ls a scientific resource and since it supports such a simple and unique environment, Mono serves as a natural outdoor laboratory for biological research.

Mono Lake and its environs are in danger. If present diversions continue and no action is taken, the lake will continue to decline in water level and as a resource. Mono's Negit Island will become a more pronounced peninsula allowing predators even easier access to it. The major migratory stopover for birds will be lost.

Alkali dust storms will only worsen with devastating effects on plants and wildlife.

By enacting this legislation, the recommendations of the interagency task force can be implemented. Numerous organizations and newspapers have endorsed the merits of saving Mono Lake. Gary Brechin in an October 1, 1978 San Francisco Examiner article, summarized the Mono Lake issue most effectively:

One harsh, lone sea. cry cuts across the desert as hundreds or gulls wheel and rise against the dawn moon, bidding farewell to Mono Lake before marshaling in ragged streamers !or their ancient migration through the mountain passes to the coast. In flight, they see the sunrise while the plain is stm in shadow. The eastern horizon shifts through the spectrum: carmine, rose orange, gold, until whlle incandescence boils over the rim and the sagebrush takes light. A last sea cry echoes down the canyon. Farewell, Mono. The migrations must end. The lake is dying.e

RETIREMENT OF MARIE <GRUBER) STILES

HON. IKE SKELTON OF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, December 19, 1979

• Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, too seldom do we acknowledge a successful career when someone outstanding retires. I wish, thus, to bring to the attention of this body the career of Marie Gruber Stiles of Lexington, Mo., who just retired after 41 years of dedicated service to Wentworth Military Academy. Mrs. Stiles joined the staff at Wentworth in December 1937, and she worked in the quartermaster's office and retired as assistant quartermaster in recent days. During that period, she was a friend to


literally thousands of students, spreadIng a warm smile across their path, and, even, on occasion, helping to cure homesickness. She will be greatly missed at the school, but many good wishes go with her during her retirement years.e

THE SOVIET BUTIDUP IN AFGHANISTAN

HON. ROBERT H. MICHEL OF ILLINOIS


• Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, on November 13, I inserted in the RECORD material dealing with the Soviet buildup in Afghanistan. At that time I pointed to the fact that the United States has neither warned the Soviet Union nor aided the Afghanistan rebels :fighting the Communists.

On November 26, I once again brought to your attention the danger of the increasing Soviet infiltration of Afghanistan. I inserted in the RECORD a wire service story telling of Soviet combat troops engaging in action in Afghanistan.

Now, more than a month since I :first brought these facts to the attention of the Congress, the Carter administration has publicly acknowledged the Soviet buildup. The United States, we are told by a State Department spokesman, is "concerned."

Concerned? We ought to be outraged. We ought to be angry. We ought to be telling the Soviet Union that we do not believe in any concept of detente which allows them to en:fiame the situation in Iran by radio broadcasts and send combat troops into Iran's eastern neighbor.

But we are at least concerned. That is something, I guess.

At this point I wish to insert in the RECORD, "U.S. Concerned by Soviet Buildup of Combat Troops in Afghanistan," the Washingoon Post, December 19, 1979.

The article follows: U.S. CONCERNED BY SOVIET BUILDUP OF

COMBAT TROOPS IN .AFtiHANISTAN

I(By iDon Oberdorfer) The United States expressed renewed con

oem yesterday about a continuing buildup or "com/bat-equipped" Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

tSta.te DeG>artment spokesman Thomas Reston said the U.S. estimate of Soviet militaey personnel in that country is now somewhat higher than 5 ,000, the figure released by the depwrtment last Sunday. However, Reston said reports or 10,000 to 20,000 Russian troops in the country "a.ppea.r to be exaggerated."

More than 11,000 of the Russians are ~ ported by the State Department to be recently arrived troops equipped !or combat. It is this growing contingent, rather than the military adVisers and air base guards previously reported in the mountainous country, which is drawing the Amert<J&n. puzzlement and concern.

Some U.S. officials have speculated that the Soviets a.re prepa.rtng to shift :fi"OIIll an essentiaJ.ly advisOry role in the Kabul government's war against rebelling 'MO&iem tribesmen to direct involvement in ground combat. Such a comlbat role would be highly unus'l.l8l !or the Russians in a Third World con1Uct.

Soviet pilots a.nd gunners were reported this !all to be flying some helicopter gunship

December 20, 1979 missions against the rebels, and Russians reportedly had taken over Barga.m air ba.se near Kabul, the capital city, to ha.n.dle incom!~ flights.

The officieJ.s a.tso said, however, that there is no certainty that the Soviet role is changing, nor do they have an estimate or the numbers or troops which will be sent to Mgh&n.istan 1n the present round o! trainsport flights. It is st111 considered possibl~ though soonew'h.e.t less likely as the buildup continues-that the new Soviet force is intended to protect the airfield aiD.rd other Russian facilities and personnel, or that the troops are intended to shore up Mghanl support !or the embattled regime or Hadzullah Amin.

American offic:la.ls said there is no indication that the Sov~et troop infiux is connected With the disturbalnces in Afghanistan's western neighbor, Iran, or With the U.S. response to Iran's hOilding o! American host.ages.e

U.S.S.R. BACKS TERRORISM IN PUERTO RICO

HON. LARRY McDONALD OF <?EORGIA


• Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, twice in this month, Puerto Rican terrorists have shot at U.S. armed services personnel in Puerto Rico. Two Navy enlisted men were killed; 10 were wounded. In October, the same consortium of terrorist groups carried out simultaneous bombings in New York, Chicago, and San Juan. The principal demands of the terrorists were for the independence of Puerto Rico and for immediate withdrawal of the U.S. Navy from its Puerto Rican bases.

Not coincidentally, the murder of the Navy communications specialists coincided with a conference in support of Pueroo Rican "independence" organized by the chief international Soviet Communist front, the World Peace Council <WPC). The WPC has two principal functions: To influence public opinion in Free World countries along lines favorable to the U.S.S.R. ; and to provide logistical support to Soviet-supported revolutionary terrorist groups that it terms "national liberation movements."

Through its chief Caribbean satellite, Cuba, the U.S.S.R. had been providing minimal training and support to Puerto Rican Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries since the early 1960's. However, Soviet aggression in the Caribbean and Central America has markedly increased in the past 5 years. The Kremlin strategists may well believe that they have little to fear from an America that sat by and allowed Vietnam and Cambodia to fall into Communist hands; which declined to resist Soviet and Warsaw Pact intervention in Angola and Ethiopia followed by the training of terrorist armies in Mozambique, Zambia, and Angola for the invasion of Rhodesia and South Africa; which gave to a drunken leftist tyrant the U .S . Canal and Canal Zone in Panama; which actively acquiesced to the destabilization and overthrow of long-time American allies in Nicaragua and Iran by forces openly hostile to this country; and which in spite of it all is feverishly trying to force passage of a Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty that

December 2'0, 19 79

will lock this country into a second place military position.

I would suggest that those of my colleagues concerned over these developments should read the following article on the recent World Peace Council meeting to back Puerto Rican revolutionary terrorism that appeared in a recent edition of the Information Digest, the authoritative newsletter published by John Rees.

The article follows: PUERTO Rico-TERRoR

On Monday morning, December 3, 1979, a school bus transporting 18 U.S. Navy personnel to work at a communications station was ambushed near the country town of Toa Baja, ten miles west of San Juan, PR. Two U.S. sailors were kUled and ten were wounded, five of them women. The terrorists escaped.

A joint communique from three terrorist groups said the attack was in vengeance for the deaths of Carlos Soto Arrivi and Ernaldo Da.lio Rosado, shot to death by police on July 25, 1978, while planting a bomb at an electrical transmission tower, and Angel Rodriguez Cristobal, 33, a member of the Central Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Socialist League ( SL) of Puerto Rico, who was found hanged on November 11, at the federal prison at Tallahassee, FL, where he was serving a six-month sentence for trespassing on U.S. Navy property on Vieques Island on May 19, 1979.

It is noted that the k1lling of the U.S. Navy perEonnel came almost a year and a half after the deaths of Soto and Rosado, and a month after the death of Rodriguez, ruled a suicide; but only a day after the conclusion of a major World Peace Council conference in support of the Puerto Rican revolutionary movements. The World Peace Council (WPC), controlled by the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and by the KGB, has two principal functions: to coordinate propaganda compa.igns to infiuence public opinion in the Free World, and to provide logistical support to Soviet-approved revolutionary terrorist movements.

The main political resolution of the November 30-December 2, 1979 "Conference in Solidarity with the Independence of Puerto Rico," attacked U.S. "colonial domination of Puerto Rico" and stated, "Puerto Rico is a. strategic center of the U.S. Navy, especially the enormous Roosevelt Roads Nuclear Military Complex at Ceiba and the island municipality of Vieques which is m:ed as a. shooting camp and where NATO members carry out important maneuvers against the wishes of its inhabitants who struggle valiantly for them to leave."

The WPC conference's main resolution went on to describe efforts of some Puerto Rican political figures to promote statehood as "the culmination of colonialism" and "a. menace to the territorial integrity of Latin America.."

The "honored guests" at this Second International Conference in Solidarity with the Independence of Puerto Rico [the WPC held the first such conference in Havana. in September 1975] were the four surviving Nationalist Party terrorists who had attempted to assassinate President Truman in 1950 and kill Members of Congress in 1954. The four, Lolita Lebron, Oscar Collazo, Irvin Flores and Rafael Cancel Miranda, received Presidential pardons earlier this year, and met with Fidel Castro during his stay in New York earlier this year. The Nationalist Party terrorists received ovations for their reiterated statements backing terrorist "armed struggle" tactics after their release from prison.

In her address to the WPC audience of 400

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS delegates and as many observers from 53 countries and terrorist "national liberation movements," Lebron gushed, "Nicaragua and the Sandinista.s give us strength, stimulate us. Fidel shines over us as the sun of the Caribbean!"

Furthermore, the 48-member U.S. delegation to the Mexico City WPC meeting issued a press statement expressing outrage ".at the murder of Puerto Rican liberation fighter Angel Rodriguez Cristobal in the U.S. federal prison in Tallahassee."

One of the more militant of the U.S. delegates, New York City Councilman Gllberto Gerena-Valentin, also a. member of the New York Committee in Support of Vieques, said that U.S. "repression" had been demonstrated in the meting out of jail terms to the Vieques demonstrators, and charged Rodriguez "was brutally tortured." "This murder is the mechanization of U.S. imperialism. While we have called upon the U.S. Department of Justice and the pollee for an investigation, we have no faith in the investigative system. They are not going to find themselves guilty of a system of racism in the United States."

Although several· members of the separate 28-member Puerto Rican delegation live in New York, in keeping with the "independence" theme, the delegations remained separate. In addition to those already named, the members of the U.S. and Puerto Rican delegations included tAngelo. Davis and Gilbert Green, Communist Party, U.S.A. (CPUSA); Juan Marl Bras, Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PSP); Bishop Antulio ParrUla; Luis Lausell, UTIER (electrical workers union); Helen Rodrieguez-Tria.s, MD.; Eneida Vasquez, Puerto Rican Peace Council; Mike Myerson, U.S. Peace Council; Tom Soto, Workers World Party (WWP); Javier Colon, Federation of University Students for Independence (FUPI); Carlos Reichehoff, Nationalist Party; Juan Bautista, Communist Party of Puerto Rico; Massachusetts Representatives Mel King and Clemente Soto Velez.

Additional U.S. organizations represented in the delegation included the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL), Venceremos Brigade (VB), La Raza Unida Party (LRUP), American Indian Movement (AIM), Black United Front (BUF), and "trade unionists from the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (ILWU), International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU), and the United States Steel Workers of America. (USWA) ."

Other participants included the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Sandinist National Liberation Front of Nicaragua (FSLN), the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angol·a. (MPLA), the CommuniBt Parties of Latin America and the Caribbean, other international Soviet Communist fronts such as the Women's International Democratic Federation (WIDF), the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization (AAPSO), and the World Federation of Trade Unionists (WFTU); delegates from the "peace movements" of the USSR, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Cuba, the Congo, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, and other Soviet client states. The largest delegations were those from Mexico, Cuba, Jamaica, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, Haiti (exiles) and Grenada.

U.S. Representative Ronald Dellums [DCA 1 sent a message apologizing for his inablllty to attend and outlining his intention to hold Congressional hearings on the U.S. Navy's use of Vieques Island. The Dellums message also stated he would introduce another resolution calling for Congress to unconditionally transfer all sovereignty and powers to the people of Puerto Rico.

The chief WPC resolutions on Puerto Rico called for e. "complete and unconditional" transfer of powers by the U.S. to Puerto

37617 Rico; for the repudiation of all "colonial plebicites;" for the U.S. to renunciate any plans for the statehood-termed "annexation"-of Puerto Rico; for immediate U.S. Navy withdrawal from its Puerto Rican facilities.

Minor resolutions touched on such "popular front" organizing issues as deteriorating housing conditions for Puerto Ricans in the U.S. and on the island, sterilization as a form of birth control ("genocide"], and on the "growing oppression of the Puerto Rican independence movement, most recently seen in the murder of Vieques activist Angel Rodriguez Cristobal."

It should be noted that although Rodriguez was a member of a small MarxistLeninist group once affiliated with the Progressive Labor Party (PLP), the Communist Party, U.S.A. (CPUSA), Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Workers World Party (WWP), the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), the Castroite communist Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PSP) and the Puerto Rican Solidarity Committee (PRSC) have all joined in support activities around the death of Rodriguez.

While under the control of Moscow-line parties, the WPC's Puerto Rican Independence conference was dominated by the theme of the U.S. presence in the Caribbean as a "threat to world peace," several terrorist movements strongly infiuenced by Trotskyism presented a slightly different view. The Revolutionary Workers Party/People's Revolutionary Army (PRT/ERP of Argentina, the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR) of Chile, the NOI' of the Dominican Republic, and several Salvadorean groups--the Unified Front for Popular Action, the People's Leagues-28th of February, and the Popular Revolutionary Bloc (BPR) placed the Puerto Rican independence movement in the context of the new revolutionary upsurge in Latin America and a U.S. intention to strengthen its position in the caribbean by holding on to Puerto Rico.

SABANA SECA AMBUSH

At 6:40 am, a few minutes after a yellow U.S. Navy bus left the residential town or Toa Baja carrying 18 Navy enlisted personnel to a communications tower along Highway 867 at Sabana Seca, a green pickup truck passed the bus and traveled slowly, blocking the bus from passing on the narrow country road.

When the pickup truck and bus came abreast of a parked white van, the truck stopped, forcing the Navy bus to a halt. A fusilade of automatic weapons fire from an M-16 and Soviet AK-47 and shotguns raked the bus of unarmed Navy personnel, killing two and wounding ten.

The terrorists, believed to have been four or five, abandoned their vehicles and fied on foot to a van later found abandoned in San Juan. The bus carrying the dead and wounded was permitted to drive away.

A communique found in a San Juan bus station phone booth stated the ambush was "a military attack against the Naval intelligence base" in reprisal for the deaths of Carlos Soto Arrlvi, 18, and Arnalda Dario Rosado, 23, killed by police while planting a bomb near Cerro Maravilla, PR, on July 25, 1978, and of Angel Jose Rodriquez Cristobal, 33, found hanged on November 10, 1979, in the Tallahassee federal prison.

The Communique, signed jointly by the Armed Forces of Popular Resistance (FARN), the Borlcua. Popular Army [also called Los Macheteros), and the Volunteers for the Puerto Rican Revolution (VRP), the same groups that issued joint statements of responsibility for bombings in New York and San Juan on October 17, 1979, said:

"We warn the Yankee imperialists that they must respect the life and security of our prisoners according to the Geneva Convention on War."

37618 (NoTE: I.D. of 9/21/79, pp. 287-293 refer to

the new additions to the Geneva conventions that provide advantages to revolutionary groups who restrict their targets to mllltary and government targets.)

The communique went on to. declare war on the u.s. The secretary-general, Juan Antonio Corretjer, issued a statement after the attack that "The ambush of a U.S. Navy bus that occurred this morning should notify everyone that the fight for Puerto Rican independence should not be taken as a joke. It is a serious matter." Most intelllgence analysts agree.

The involvement of National Lawyers Guild (NLG) lawyers in the Vieques demonstrations and with SL leader Rodriguez Cristobal is also noted. NLG Puerto Rico Project member Judith Barkan, a Brooklynborn graduate of H.a.rva.rd Law School, is appealing her conviction and sentence for her role in the May V~eques demonstration

·on U.S. Navy property. NLG lawyers Mara Siegel of the Westown Community Law Office in Chicago and Michael Deutsch, a veteran of the People's Law Office of Chicago, visited Angel Rodriguez on separate occasions in prison. Both have been publicly active with the Weather Underground Organization's overt arm, t he Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC), with support efforts for FALN bomber William Morales, and for the Socialist League and its U.S. affiliate, the Movlmlento de Liberacion Nacional (MLN).

The U.S. Navy has instituted new security measures. The communications personnel bus is now accompanied by two security vehicles with armed guards and communications equipment. And the school buses transporting the· children of Navy personnel also have ~uards aboard. Sixty Marine guards have been brought from Camp Lejeune and the Marine guards at the main gates to the Sabana Seca base were armed with M-16s and wearing flak jackets.

Nevertheless, six days after the ambush, two persons fired at a. patrol jeep driven by a Marine Lance COrporal who was patrolling the perimeter of the Roosevelt Roads air base and naval station. Shots struck both the front and rear windshields of the jeep. The corporal was not hit, fired at the ambushers, and chased them over an 8-foot fence.

Additional attacks on U.S. government targets in Puerto Rico are expected. It is noted that the Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN), which was a fourth signer of the October communiques taking responsibllity for the New York and San Juan bombings, did not sign the bus ambush statement. Although the FALN's members are believed to have traveled to San Juan on various oc~ casions, their official operational field remains the·u .s. mainland.

Nevertheless, attacks on Naval recruiting stations and other fa.clllties on the mainland in support of the WPC and "independentisa" effort to remove the U.S. Navy and Air Force from Puerto Rico must be expected.

SOVIET NAVAL BASE IN CUBA

In conclusion, it is noted that top officers of the NATO navies have expressed growing concern over the continuing Soviet naval buUdup at Cienfuegos on the south coast of Cuba. Expansion o! Cien!uegos began in the early 1970s with construction including moorings for nuclear submarines and their tenders and a pier. In early 1978, work was started on a new pier and barracks were built ashore. Should the U.S. leave Roosevelt Roads, the Caribbean and South Atlantic vacuum would likely be filled by the Soviet Navy.e


IMPERIAL VALLEY FARM OWNERSHIP-CORRECTING SOME MYTHS

HON. CLAIR W. BURGENER OF CALIFORNIA



• Mr. BURGENER. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a '1977 appellate court decision which ruled that the Imperial Valley farmers of California were under the acreage limitation restrictions of the 1902 Reclamation Act. The court's action was welcomed.

On September 14, the Senate approved s. 14 which included an amendment recognizing the fact that the Imperial Valley was never intended to be covered by the 1902 act and rea:ffinning the Federal Government's many previous assurances that Imperial Valley farmers were not subject to the limitations of the 1902 act.

As was illustrated during the Senate debate on S. 14, and during Senate hearings on that bill, the vast majority of the Imperial Valley farms are owned and operated by family farmers who generally live in the valley. Ninety-three percent of the irrigated acreage in the Imperial Valley and 94.5 percent of the farms are operated by families, and 76.5 percent of these landowners are residents of the Imperial Valley. ·

That is why I was a bit puzzled about the subsequent press coverage of the Supreme Court's decision to hear the Imperial Valley case. The Wall Street Journal, in an otherwise factual article, said:

If the limit is upheld, large· corporate farms in the Valley might have to sell off land to obtain water. Big landowners in the Valley include United Fruit, a unit of United Brands Co.; Purex Corporation; Tenneco Inc.; and Southern Pa.clfic Co.

The New York Times, in their extensive article stated:

Among the owners of the largest Imperial Valley farms are some of the country's biggest corporations : The United Brands Company, the Purex Corporation, Tenneco, Southern Pacific, the Standard Oil Company of California and the Irvine Co., among others.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that erroneous impression has been conveyed that Imperial Valley is the bastion of corporate agribusiness, and I suspect it will not be the last, but I would just like to set the record straight on who owns and farms the land in the Imperial Valley.

Imperial Valley farmers, who have been dismayed by this type of reporting previously, had a complete title search made of the land within the Imperial Irrigation District by Safeco Title In·SUrance Co. of EI Centro, Calif. Extensive research of the county tax assessor's records was also undertaken. And in order to double-check their finding, the companies referred to in the newspaper articles mentioned earlier were called concerning their ownership of farmland in the valley.

December 20, 1979

Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker. Standard Oil of California owns exactly 8 acres in the valley which are used for their 10 service stations. Their farm subsidiary neither owns nor leases farmland in the Imperial Valley.

Tenneco does not own land .in the Im-perial Valley. .

Purex does not own or lease land in the Imperial Valley.

Southern Pacific owns 4,441 acres of land in the Imperial Valley, of which 540 acres is used for farming, and that 540 acres is leased to a local Imperial Valley family farmer. The balance of their land is used in relation to nonfarm or railway operations.

The Irvine Co. owns 4,163 acres of irrigated farmland. They have been in the process of selling off their landholdings, having disposed of 4,250 acres since 1970 with the most recent sale of 1,888 acres having taken place only last year.

United Brands and its subsidiary, Sun Harvest, including its division known as United FrUit, do not own any land. They do lease about 3,500 acres of land for the short lettuce-growing season in the valley.

So these, Mr. Speaker, are the "big corporate landholders" in the Imperial Valley. Their holdings constitute only a minute portion of the irrigated land in the Imperial Valley, and indeed, family farmers, as was envisioned by the Reclamation Act, are the ones farming the valley.e

THANKS

HON. PAUL FINDLEY OF ILLINOIS



• Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, the end of the year is an appropriate time to thank those who have been helpful in many tangible and intangible ways throughout the course of the year.

I would, therefore, like to express my gratitude to my colleagl.Ie from Maryland, Mr. BAUMAN, my friend from Dlinois, Mr. DERWINSKI, the able gentleman from Missouri, Mr. !cHORD, and· my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. SoLARZ. They have all contributed in an active, intelligent, and persevering way to the congressional effort to promote peace, stability, democracy, and majority-rule government in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Each has steadfastly defended his beliefs on the issue Qlld each has compromised, in the end, to reach a congressional decision which promoted U.S. national interests and made me proud to serve in this institution.

If it were not for their important contribution to this debate, the United States might never have had a fair opportunity to understand and review the situation in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Despite the strong convictions on both sides of this issue, a consensus was somehow reached that ultimately turned out to

December flO, 1979

provide the best opportunity to promote peace in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Congress played a positive role in promoting U.S. foreign policy interests, thanks in good part, to the role played by these gentle-men.•

GASOLINE SHORTAGES: IS THE DOE PREPARED?

HON. STEWART B. McKINNEY OF CONNECTIC'OT



• Mr. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, for the past several months I have been keeping close watch over the trends in domestic gasoline supplies, as reported by the Department of Energy's weekly Petroleum Status Report. Despite the fact that DOE's own statistics show gasoline supplies to be critically low, the Department has thus far failed to official acknowledge that fact and apparently is no more prepared to deal with the present supply shortage than they were during this summer's debacle.

After several unsuccessful attempts to obtain an acknowledgment of the seriousness of the supply situation from the Department of Energy in telephone con-. versations, I forwarded a letter to Secretary Duncan requesting: A statement on the supply situation; the accuracy of DOE's statistical reporting; and on any contingencies the Department might have prepared to address the continuing decline of gasoline stocks. Subsequent to my sending the letter December 10, 1979, the Department issued another statistical report, the contents of which confirm my fear· of the impending crisis we face. In the latest report the trend 1n gasoline stocks continues to run directly contrary to normal, historical patterns and we continue to hover right at the DOE's minimum acceptable level. From November 30 to December 7, primary stocks of gasoline fell by 3.5 million barrels and are presently 1.9 percent below 1978 levels. Domestic refinery production of gasoline again declined by 300,000 barrels per day. And, imports of gasoline dropped another 1,000 barrels per day to a level that is 11 percent below last year. The critical level of primary supply, DOE's minimum acceptable level, for the month of November is 219 million barrels. For December the minimum acceptable level is 228 million barrels. As of December 7 the United States had 220 million barrels of motor gasoline in primary storage.

Mr. Speaker, every day that the situation worsens, it becomes more and more incumbent upon the Department of En ergy to issue an official acknowledgment and begin to institute measures that wm avoid a recurrence of the chaos and danger which we experienced last summer. I again call upon Secretary Duncan to inform the Congress as to these matters and I am including a copy of my letter to him for review by my colleagues.

The letter follows:

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 37619 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, last year's mark. Stim, exclucHng the alleged

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, miscalcule.rtions of !D.O.E.'s November 28M re-Washington, D.C., December 10, 1979. port, primaey stocks of gasoline have de-

Hon. CHARLES W. DUNCAN, Jr., creased by 16 million ban-els from July to Secretary of Energy, Forrestal Building, November. In light Qf tlha.t, wlhy is the U.S. Washington, D.C. gasoline production down 10 percent from.

DEAR SECRETARY DUNCAN: I am extremely . November 1978 and imports af gasoline concerned by t~e Department of Energy's simultaneously dbwn 5 percent from Novemfa.ilure to adequately respond to its own ber •19'18? statistical reports which clearly indicate a. Just prior to your taking omce, !Mil". secreserlous shortage of motor gasoline in pri- ta.ry, the Depa.rtmcmt of Energy allowed this mary storage. Since August I have been country tb run headlong into e. horrendous scrutinizing D.O.E.'s weekly petroleum sta.- gasoline crupp.l.y shortage with vtrtue.lly no tistica.l reports (DOE/EPC-series) and have w.a.rning. In fact, the Department's allocation been made aware of some extremely trou- policies contributed to the prdblem by malnbling trends. ta.ining the highest allocations Where they

As you know, gasoline stocks normally were needed the least. COnnecticut was grow a.t a. steadily increasing rate during the among the hardest ihit lby low allocations and autumn months. Thus, when the Depart- the severity of supply shortages in my own ment's report .for the week of October 12. Congressional distr1ct was unsurpassed 1n 1979 showed gasoline imports 46 percent . any other region of the country. It 8jppe8ilS below last year's level and domestic produc- from the Depa.rtment's J..a.c.k af response to tion of gasoline 1 million barrels short of last our present six month decline in primary year's mark, I became concerned. That con- gasoline supplies, that few lessons have been cern was temporarily allayed by a. phone call learned from this summers debacle. Mr. secto the Department's Energy Information Ad- reta.ry, if we cannot rely on you for accurate ministration which provided the assurance and timely forecasting, less relia.ble informa.tha.t demand for gasoline was down and pri- tron will undoubtedly be reported and ultima.ry stocks were a. healthy 4.5 percent above ma.tely reorea.te the panic we experienced this last year's level. summer. .

My concern again piqued when the Octo- I .am e.wa.re of the Departments recently ber 26th report showed that in direct con- developed program to reduce g8BOline contrast to normal trends, gasoline stocks had sumption in the various regions and jurisdicdropped by 3.2 million barrels in one week. tb:>ns of the U.S. Indeed, proper elliforcemen.t I was again assured, however, that lower de- of such a. program. w1ll be helpful in the long mand and stock levels (that were now only run.. However, m the Short term, if the 'De-2.8 percent above last year's level) provided a. partment aJ.lOIWIS us to a.ga.ln confront a. sesa.fe margin of comfort. With the issuance vere suwlY shortage without adequate warnof the November 16th report, gasoUne stocks lng, I wou~d expect the Oongress to react had further decUned. Primary supplies were swiftly and harshly and I !WOuld expoot to be a mere 1 percent above the November 1978 deeply involved in proposing such "rem.ed!ial mark and we were fast approaching D.O.E.'s action." In this case, we would be justified in own "minimum acceptable level" for ga.so- blaming the lbea.rer af bad nt!IWS. line stocks. I! urge you, Mr. Secretary, on behalf of the

The November 23rd report, Mr. Secretary, Congress, the Am.ertca.n public and indeed showed gasoline stocks to be 2.3 milUon bar- the !future Of the Department af Energy itrels below 1978 levels. For the first time this self, to make the nation a.wa.re of both the year, including the "summer crisis", stocks seriousness of the shortage we face and any had fallen below the D.O.E.'s minimum a.c- contingencies the Department has prepared cepta.ble level. Again, I called your Depart- to avoid a. recurrence of this summers chaos. ment to ascertain what action was contem- Your prompt reply to my concerns would plated in response to the most severe stock be very much appreciated. shortage of 1979. This time, however, I was . Sincerely, told that stock levels were incorrectly cal-culated and were actually 7 million barrels higher than reported. Again, "no need to worry." That latest response, Mr. Secretary, seems dangerously akin to the solution adopted by the Senate Finance Committee upon diScovering their Energy Security Trust Fund proposal short of necessary revenuessimply change the forecasts to improve the picture.

Very simply put, Mr. Secretary, either we are facing a. serious supply shortage as the D.O.E. rweekly !Petroleum statistics have shown since August, or, the iDepa~tment's reporting and forecasting sutrers a. da.ngerOIUS a.coura.cy shortage. Even the "corrected" Novemlber 30th report lists the m1nlmum accept.able level for the month of November e.t 219 million barrels (p. 9) lbut charts the November stock levels of 2'19 million barrels well above the minimum a.cceptaible level (p. 12 grey area.) .

Even if gasoline stocks increase in the next few weeks, as the latest reports seem to indicate, the con1;1n.uous decline of those stocks since July has wrea.dy verified a. trend that is directly contmry to noriiUIJ. supply patterns. Assuming that D.O.E.'s i,nforma.tion does truly reflect the present supply picture, my concern remains: What is the Deparlment of Energy's "plan. of action" in response to decreasing gasoline stocks, declining crude on runs and &n 8 percent drop in refinery yields compared to November 1978? As you know, crude oU stocks are 8 percent higher than

STEWART B. MCKINNEY .•

THINKING OF MOST AMERICANS ON IRAN CRISIS REFLECTED IN CONSTITUENT'S LETrER



Wednesday, December 1.9, 1979

e Mr. DANIEL B. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I join with many other Americans in applauding President Carter's actions in dealing with the Iran crisis. As you know, I telegraphed the President on Tuesday, November 6, urging him to take action to deport certain Iranian nationals and to dispatch an .aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. I was therefore especially pleased that he .took action on Saturday, November 10, in line with several of my suggestions.

Among the many letters and expressions of support for the position I enunciated is a letter from Brad F. Gritton, the head of the social science department at Potomac <Til.) High School. I

believe his comments, some of which are directed at my colleagues, reflect the

37620 thinking of the American people at this· critical time. I would like to share Mr. Gritton's letter with my colleagues at this time by inserting it into the RECORD.

POTOMAC, ILL., November 7, 1979.

Congressman DANIEL B. CRANE, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN CRANE: I want to tell you that I whole-heartedly support your statement that appeared in tonight's Commercia.l .News. It is not often that you find a public otllcial that will speak out for the silent majority of Americans. I am glad that you did.

Many nations and people in the world today believe that America is no longer a strong nation; that she is afraid to standup and say what she believes, and that she is afraid to take any action. I am one American that is proud of his country and am tired of having other nations thumb their collective noses at us and then ask us for economic aid when conditions are rough in their own country.

I hope that you will continue to speak out for Americans and I hope that a majority of your colleagues wlll take up your battle cry. If these minor powers see that America will not bow to economic pressure and is not the easy giver of foreign aid, we may find ourselves in a better light throughout the world.

Sincerely, BRAD F. GRITTON, Social Science Head, Potomac High School.e

TEMPLE ISAIAH URGES ASSISTANCE TO CAMBODIA

HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN OF CALIFORNIA



e Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the board of trustees of Temple Isaiah in Los Angeles has adopted a resolution urging concerted U.S. action to provide relief for the starving people of Cambodia. It is my hope this resolution will serve as an example for other religious institutions, and that its provisions will guide our Government's actions in averting a larger tragedy.

I am pleased to bring Temple Isaiah's resolution to the attention of my colleagues:

RESOLUTION On November 14, 1979, the Board of

Trustees of Temple Isaiah adopted the following statement of principles regarding the starvation of the Cambodian people:

1. The impending starvation of the Cambodian people is one of the great moral tragedies of this century.

2. Unless food and medical aid is 1mmediately and continually provided, millions w111 die-an entire nation will be annihilated.

3. Under such circumstances, the guiding principle of "Pekua.h Nefesh"-saving hu-man lives-must override all other con· sideratlons.

4. We call upon the government of the United States to use all diplomatic means at its disposal to assure the immediate and continued delivery of food a.nd medical supplies to the people of Cambodia..

5. We call upon the government of the United States to make such assistance a matter of the highest national priority a.nd

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS to require the cooperation of all government agencies involved.e

FULTON J. SHEEN




e Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, the death of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen has reminded all of us of the unique and admirable role he played in American life for many years. Archbishop Sheen grew up in Peoria, Ill., and was a parish priest there. Two Peoria newspapers recently honored this great man of God in an editorial and article I hope will be read by many.

At this point I wish to insert in the RECORD, "Fulton J. Sheen" from the Peoria Journal Star, December 11, 1979, and "Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen" from the Catholic Post, December 16, 1979:

FuLTON J . SHEEN When Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen won an

Emmy Awa.rd in 19&2 for his television series, "Life is Worth Living," he asserted:

"I feel it is time I pay tribute to my four writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."

Milton Berle, whose comedy show competed for viewers-a.nd lost--f:la.ld more or less the same thing: "Of course, he had bett er writers."

WhiJ..e it was true that Archbishop Sheen, who died Sunday, had the advantage at Inspired materia.l, he achieved widespread a.ccla.lm because, unlike many other preachers working with the same writers, he k!new what to do with the materia.!.

Until Pope John Paul II came along, no other Roman Oa.tholic clergyman was able to reach so many Americans--ca.tholic and non-Catholic allke.

Archbishop Sheen enjoyed such great popularity because he was the unusual combination of an intellectJua.l who could make his message understandable to ordinary people.

Anyone who has read scholarly works knows that this is no minor achievement. Most writing by scholars these d8JYS is so full of technical jargon and fuzzy language that not even their peers ca.n comprehend it. Most of them know what they mean, but they fail utterly to communicate the meaning to others.

Fulton Sheen demonstrated his rare eloquence and wit long before TV came into American homes. He was a popular radio preacher in the 30s BJD.d 40s, speaking to millions and demonstrating his remarkable ability to use anecdotes and other verbal illustrations to clarify difficult concepts.

But it was TV that gave him his phenomenal audiences; something like 30 m1llion people watched his weekly show. Many of those viewers will carry with them forever the memol"y of Sheen turning to the blackboard to simplify a complex theological idea with the ease of Vince Lombardi diagramming a play for the Green Bay Packers--and just a.s effectively.

Archbishop Sheen preached love, not ha.te; reason, not emotion. Although his eyes were piercing and stern, he wa.s not given to shouting a.nd pounding the lectern. He ha.d no need to. The clarity of his thought made higher decibels unnecessary.

Peoria. ha.s e. right to be proud that Archbishop Sheen grew up in this area. Born on a farm near El Paso, he graduated from Spalding Institute and got his only experience in parish work on the south side of Peoria e.t St.

December 20, 1979 Patrick's church. He used to say that he was sent to St. Pat's to see if, like a.n obedient young priest, he could take orders. He could, 8.1Il.d nine months later he was sent to Cathollc Umversity in Washington, D.C., as a professor.

We mourn h18 passing, but with gratitude tha.t this remarkable me.n of God ca.lled the Peoria area his home town.

ARCHBISHOP FuLTON J. SHEEN-HE N'EVER FORGOT THE FARM

(By Albina Aspell) "I see you 've come to have your faith

lifted . . "An atheist is a man without visdble means

of support ... " "Long time no Sheen . . ." Such one liners, and the fact he gave

credit to his writers-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John--endeared Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen to m1llions around the world who fell under his spell in his many long years on radio and television.

But to members of Sheen's family-his close relatives in the Peoria diocesememories of deeper dimension were recalled this week as preparations were underway for the archbishop's funeral in New York. Their information corrected a few facts long popularly accepted. For instance, that he was born on a farm.

In truth, the future bishop was born not on a farm, but in an apartment over his father's hardware store, and he was christened not Fulton, but Peter John Sheen.

And the 60 years of his priesthood-years that took him from a crossroads town on the Illinois prairie to the capitols of the world and the church-were marked with very special achievement already well known and recorded.

Archbishop Sheen was a member of a large and now scattered Irish family, his kith and kin bear names l!lke Cleary, Berry, Fulton, Hayden, Mcintee, Kavanaugh, White, Marlatt, Flynn, Chambers, Boyle, Coughlin, Shannon, Barrett, Flanagan, Phelan and, of course, Sheen.

And this is the way some of those who were closest to him remember him.

"He cried the loudest and screamed the hardest of any baby in the family. We all said later he was probably already practicing for the pulpit."

They referred, of course, to the timbre and power of his speaking vOice which he trained even as a child. The story is that he often made up spiritual talks which he delivered before relatives, and already concentrated on inflection and proper dramatic effect. He was later to hone his skill on debatdng teams at St. Viator, and at Catholic University of America where he eagerly sought chances to speak in public and earned the name "Fulltone" Sheen.

The future archbishop was born May 8, 1895 in his parents' home in El Paso where his father, Newton Sheen, a widower and former farmer from Minonk, operated a hardware store. His mother was Della Fulton Sheen, of Kickapoo, who traced her roots to the Irish v1llage of Croghan, near Boyle, in County Roscommon.

Young Peter was the first , and smallest, of a family of four sons, but there was also a half sister, a daughter born to Newton's first wife, who, after the death of her mother. ha.d been absorbed into the family of Newton's brother, Andrew.

While their firstborn son wa.s baptized Peter John, the family says he refused to answer to that name almost as soon as he could talk, preferring instead to be known as Fulton, a tribute they say to his love for his maternal grandfather. He got his wa.y even at that early age, and became Fulton J. Sheen forever more.

Young Fulton was of grade school age when his family moved to Peoria. and enrolled

December flO, 1979 him in the Cathedral school where he distinguished himself in his studies, sold ads !or the cathedral bulletin, and served as altar boy to Archbishop John Lancaster Spalding, Peoria's first bishop.

In a return to Peoria in 1951, Sheen recalled the words of Aristotle:

"The really perfect movement is the circle because it always goes back to its beginnings. I have come back to my starting point--the city, the people, the clergy, the streets. I've lived under all the bishops of Peoria."

That was another thing about Archbishop Sheen, say his family and friends. He never forgot his roots. He never forgot the farm. Whlle there wasn't much of the farmer about him, he was always happy to come back to his family's acres to relax and be reabsorbed into its pleasant, unhurried life.

But in truth, the Dlinois soU never had much chance to stick to the soles of young Fulton's shoes. He was not one to poke around in the dirt and disliked farm work so much he often dodged it by burying himself in a book and leaving the chores to others. Given responsibi11ty for the chickens, he hated the task so much, he said in later years he could never enjoy a chicken dinner.

A family story he often told on himself concerned a pet goat that followed him around when he was six. A real love affair developed between the young Fulton and the goat, and his family hoped it might lead to a love for farming as well. But Providence intervened, the goat wandered into the !arm kitchen, helped himself to a large batch of bread dough that had been set to rise, and died shortly after of acute indigestion. Fulton took the loss with characteristic strength.

The Sheen family , while not poor, led a simple life. There was no running water in the home, and no phone, and the Sheens would use a neighbor's phone whenever they needed to make a call. But they enjoyed having people around and family gatherings were not unusual. (Although they owned good Haviland china, they used the old plates even when company came.)

Young Fulton was graduated from Spalding Institute for Boys and went off to St. Viator's in Bourbonnais, Ill. But he returned summers to Peoria where, since his family had moved to a farm in Wyoming, he boarded in the home of his cousins, the Arthur Fulton family on Linn Street, during his summer stints as a clerk at O'Brien-Jobst, a men's haberdashery.

"I remember very well the day he came to our house and told my family he was going to be a priest," says Mrs. Clarys Cleary, a cousin. "It came as no surprise. He read all the time; he was really a scholar."

Mrs. Cleary also remembers going to his ordination, and says there was no party, no celebration afterward. And she saw only little of him in his brief time as assistant at Peoria's St. Patrick's a few years later: he was too busy with parish work to visit very often.

The Bishop's years away from the diocese are no mystery-his fame grew and his accomplishments mounted and his relatives back home watched and cheered as honor piled upon honor.

"But he came back often; he liked to be with the family," says Mrs. Cleary, remembering that 'he always drove up in a big car. "And once when the pigs got out of their pen just as he arrived, he casually waved off the family welcome until they were corralled again.

"When he came back for my anniversary a few years ago, he went out and walked down the street in El Paso because he wanted to see the building he was born in. It has since been torn down, but then he wouldn't have wanted it preserved as an historic building or anything like that."

The Bishop's mother and fa.ther lived to see his fame, but they never visited him in

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Wssbinglton. D.C., or in N~ York, although he made himself accessible to members of his family.

He was generous with his nieces and nephews, helping them with funds for their education and often inviting them to visit in his home.

IAt the height of his fame, Archbishop Sheen was surrounded, even mobbed, by admiring crowds, and the same was true on his visits to Peoria. During his •1951 stay he drew vast numbers to his side here, but on his last trip at the age of 82, the occasion proved to be ditferent.

Then, when he left the Peoria airport to return to New York, he was all but unrecognized. The crowd was young, and the smaJ.l, dapper figure unfamiliar to all except a nun who, at the last minute, walked up, kissed him and walked on without saying a word. He took the gesture with equanimity, as if such spontaneous displays of affection were common.

"The young didn't know him, and the older people loved him so much they forgot convention," says Mr. Cleary, who remembers also that, as they prepared for his departure from the home of his nephew, Dr. John Sheen of St. Anthony's Parish in Bartonv1lle, Mrs. Sheen asked if she could pack him a lunch.

The famous "Uncle Fultie" had replied that yes, she could.

And so Archibshop Fulton J. Sheen---mho had · dined with popes and princes, whose priesthood had taken him far abroad from the central Il11nois crossroads to mingle with the rich and famous and who had made his mark forever on the church and the nation~left Peoria for the last time with a peanut butter sandwich in his pocket.e

THE NEED TO FOCUS ON MONEY MARKET MUTUAL FUNDS

HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE OF NEW YORK



• Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, in recent months we have seen a great deal of press play on the soaring popularity of money market mutual funds, and for good reason: In 1979, the funds have nearly quadrupled to nearly $42 billion.

My concern over money market mutual funds-that is, funds which invest their customer's funds in such shortterm certificates as Treasury securities, bank certificates of deposits, and commercial paper-is the fact that it is obvious that these funds have attracted a significant volume of dollars that would otherwise have gone to banks and thrift institutions.

The explosive growth of the money market funds is due, in no small part, to the overall shape of our economy and the chronic rates of inflation with which we all must deal. Depositors everywhere have become increasingly sensitized to regulation Q interest rate controls, and naturally seek the investment which provides the greatest yield. The end result of this, however, is that the housing market unduly suffers because funds are not available to be pumped into the mortgage market, and consumer loans will become less available and more expensive.

The upshot of all this is that we are witnessing a continuous shifting of deposits from a broad base of closely super-

37621 vised financial institutions to a relatively small number of largely unregulated mutual funds. While money market funds must initially register with the SEC pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940, they are generally not subject to Government bank supervision regarding their day-to-day activities. This trend toward holding a large volume of consumer savings outside the established regulatory framework for assuring safety and soundness is already having an impact on the Nation's banks and thrift institutions, which threatens to become more severe as long as the present inflationary trend remains. In fact, the overwhemling popularity of money market funds could also frustrate efforts to reduce inflation.

Surely, regulating money market funds is not the panacea for our current economic ills, but it is a matter which beckons congressional investigation.

A recent newspaper article in the Washington Post accurately describes the money market fund phenomenon. I would like to share this article with my colleagues.

The article follows: BORROWERS, LENDERS ScRABLE FOR FuNDS

(By RObert J . Samuelson) !Bill Donoghue is one of those irresponsible

souls who seem to th1nk fsster than they talk, and he talks so fsst that he usually answers your next question before you ask it. But there is something fitting in his sty·le, because he has become the Howard! Cosell of an astonishing new phenomenon : money market mutual funds.

!Money market funds? In case you hadn't heard, they're mutual funds that invest in l~ypically $100,000 or more-ehortterm securities: bank certificates of deposit; commercial paper, which is unsecured loans to corporations and banks; and U.S. Treasury securities. In 1979, the funds have quadrupled to nearly $42 b1llion; Donoghue, who runs a newsletter that he modestly calls Donoghue's Money Fund Report, thinks they may hit $100 b1llion in 1980.

rrhese mutual funds represent something of a triumph of financial democracy. By merging amounts as small as a $1,000, they allow individuals to invest in higher-yielding securities once reserved for corporations and the very wealthy. Donoghue follows 75 funds and, in November, their average interest rate exceeded 12 percent.

But this is more than a financial innovation. Money is power, and the mobilization of such sums raises important political, social and economic issues. Not even Donoghue thinks the mutual funds could capture all consumer savings deposits, which stood at $1.1 tr1llion at the end of 19'78. But as infiation consciousness spreads, they may compete for one-fifth to one-third of the total.

Traditional depository institutions--banks, savings associations and credit unions-could lose much of their base of personal savings. Conceivably funds could be drawn out of housing into corporate and government securities, or out of small cities and rural areas into the major big-city money centers. Federal regulatory agencies dl-a.matized that threat last week by authorizing banks and savings associations to issue new savings certificates with sharply higher interest rates.

·At one level, the competition pits Wa.ll Street against Main Street. Most of the money market mutual !unde a.re sold by brokerage houses. The brokers typically earn a management fee of 0 .5 percent or less of the funds' assets.

But the real confiict is more complicated. It isn't so much between brokers and banks

37622 as between borrowers and lenders. For years, a variety of federal and local regulations effectively have subsidized borrowers at the expense of lenders.

It's easy to portray the regulations as hurting evil lending institutions and helping the average borrower, but that isn't how it was. The average Joe and Jane were also the lenders, and federal interest-rate cemngs prevented them from earning adequate interest rates on their savings. If borrowing rates were lowered somewhat by this cheap money-and also by various state usury ceilings-the extra inducement to take down real estate and consumer loans probably has added to today's inflationary momentum.

In any case, this artificial system is disintegrating, and money market mutual funds are a big part of the story. To see them as Everyman's antidote to lnflation is an exaggeration, of course. They appeal primarily to the upper middle class, which probably means fami11es with annual incomes exceeding $25,000-a group that includes about one-fourth of all families. Most of the mutual funds have minimum investment-for example, $5,000 !or Merr111 Lynch & Co; Inc.'s Ready Assets Trust, which 1s the largest.

But this new mob111ty of savings also means that the old, subsidized borrowers may no longer get their accustomed share of credit. We now have a pool of nearly $300 blllion in consumer deposits that is up !or grabs by depository institutions and the mutual funds. That pool consists of the existing mutual funds and about $250 billion in six-month money market certificates at depository institutions. · Issued in minimum amounts of $10,000, these money market certificates-not to be confused with the $100,000 certificates of deposit-already constitute one-fourth of deposits at savings associations. By regulation, their interest rates are tied to the rates on Treasury bills. Inevitably the availability of these certificates has sensitized savers to higher market interest rates. Much of this money, therefore, is vulnerable to being transferred to mutual funds.

Why would anyone shift? Personal preference, mostly.

The money market certlficates give you a fixed rate of interest for six months, which is good 1! rates go down but bad if they don't. The new savings certlficates complicated the decision even further by offering slightly lower rates of interest and maturities ·of two and a hal! years. By contrast, the mutual funds give you the option of putting money in and taking it out at will. Savings associations, credit unions and banks-especially small bil.nks that have relied heavily on consumer deposits-could lose deposits or experience reduced deposit growh. Their lending, particularly mortgage lending, could suffer.

That isn't inevitable, of course. All these institutions could attempt to sustain their lending by issuing their own $100,000 certlficates of deposit, which would be bought by the mutual funds. In effect, the banking institutions would be borrowing the money back and, to some extent, this already has occurred. But such large-scale borrowing may be too great a leap of sophistication for many smaller banks and associations. '!'hey're competing with the cert11lcates of deposit which big-city banks ha.ve offered for years and with the commercial paper of major · corporations.

Moreover, this money-shuffling game might raise questions about the safety of the mutual funds. Donoghue is surely right when he argues tha~espite the absence of anything comparable to deposit insurancethey are now safe. To meet withdrawal demands, the funds simply can sell securities. But as the funds expand, they not only will attract less knowledgeable investors but alSo

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS induce the creation of more commerclal paper and certlficates of deposit. Quality may suffer.

The basic problem here cannot be made to disappear by repressing the mutual funds, but only by unshackling the banks and savings associations from all the government restrictions-mostly interest-rate limitations on deposits and loans-that inhibit them from competing effectively for consumer deposits. Over the long run, that may mean slightly higher average loan rates. But it's the only way to assure the stab111ty of our savings institutions and the continuity of credit flows.

Last week's column said U.S. apparent steel consumption in 1978 was 119 mill1on tons. The correct figure is 116.6 mi111on tons.e

COMMISSION NEEDED

HON'. FRANK J. GUARIN'I OF NEW JERSEY



• Mr. GUARINI. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the world is facing an energy crisis. Our fossil fuel supply is rapidly dwindling, and our expansion and development of alternate energy source$ is not progressing quickJy enough to displace a significant portion of the oil we use. As a result, the only way we can cope with the problem is by asking the American public to make sacrifices. Well, the American public has made sacrifices. Average consumption of gasoline has dropped over 500,000 barrels a day since last year, and our citizens are will1ng to do more if necessary.

However, everyone is not sharing the sacrifice equally, and some are exploiting the situation outright. The major on companies have throughout this crisis reported higher and higher profits. Every time OPEC raises its prices, the profits of the oil companies rise along ·with them. And their profits rise even though the American people are consuming less oil.

I certainly believe that an oil company, like any other, deserves to receive a fair return on its investment. This is the backbone of the American economy; and, throughout the history of the oil industry, investors have received a fair return. However) 200 percent increases in profits every quarter-while the rest of the Nation loses ground against inflation-do not seem to me to be fa.ir or reasonable. If the oil companies will not exercise some restraint :tn the public interest, I believe it is up to us in the Congress to do something about it.

That is why I am today introducing legislation which will call upon the President to appoint a commission to study one possible answer to this problem. The commission would study the feasibility of making the energy industry a national public utility, much like the telephone companies and gas and electric utilities. I believe this concept, if applied to the oil and other energy industries, could be used to make the oil companies more responsive to the needs of the public.

The commission would look into what impact the various types of regulation

December 20, 1979

would have on oil production, refining and distribution; what segments of the energy industry should or should not be regulated for the most etfective production, refining and distribution of energy; and what etfects this type of regulation will have on the consumers of energy.

I believe this study commission can furnish the Congress with useful information about how better to bring the energy, and particularly the oil, industries in line with America's interests, and to provide the American people with an adequate energy supply at a reasonable cost.•

MD-GOVERNOR'S RX: STRONG MEDICINE

HON. ELWOOD HILLIS OF INDIANA



• Mr. Hn.LIS. Mr. Speaker, in the December 7 issue of the American Medical News there appears an article on Governor Bowen of Indiana entitled "MDGovernor's RX: Strong Medicine." Governor Bowen, as the article details, has proven to be one of the most popular and

· etfective Governors in the State's history. In recognition and appreciation of the Governor's fine work, I am placing a copy of the article in the RECORD at this point:

MD-GOVERNOR'S RX: STRONG MEDICINE

He is the Marcus Welby of politics. However, Otis Bowen, MD, unlike tele

vision's doctor saint, is anything but celluloid. In seven years as governor of Indiana, he has built up unparalleled popularity and carved out pace-setting legislation. Keen intelligence and adroit political instincts are among his ab111ties, but the words Indiana citizens keep mentioning have an old-fashioned ring: "honest," "sincere," and "real."

The Bowen administration has come to be synonymous with a word usually not associated with the political scene: integrity.

In 1972, he was elected to Indiana's highest office by a record 303,000-vote margin. In 1976, he was reelected by 309,000 votes.

There is a reason. In !act, there are six reasons. · When Dr. Bowen campaigned in 1972, he pledged six goals: To reduce property taxes, break the crime cycle, improve cooperation between state ·and federal governments, clean up the welfare mess, improve the highways, and care for the handicapped. The goals have not all been reached, but the progress is marked.

The popularity ~f the Bowen administration is one of this nation's untold political stories. It's not that the Indiana media have not b.een supportive-their editorials about the physician governor read like love letters-it's just that Indiana does not play that well in New York and Washington, D.C.

But recognition is building. Dr. Bowen, 61, is not only chairman of the Midwest Governors Assn. and the Republican Governors Assn., but this past summer was elected chairman of the National Governors Assn.

Not bad for a. former coroner of Marshall County, Ind. , in the tiny town of Bremen. Dr. Bowen got hooked on what he calls his "incurable disease" with election in 1952 as county coroner, a position "more or less filled by physicians as a. professional obligation. It was just my turn to run."

He went on to serve seven two-year terms in the Indiana legislature, including three as speaker of the house. He was rebuffed in

December 20, 1979 1968 in his first bid for governor, and patiently returned to his job as a state legislator.

Sitting in his enormous, ornate office in the Indiana State Capitol Building in Indianapolis, Dr. Bowen makes it clear his Ufe does not depend upon politics.

"The legislature only meets 81 days a year," he says, "and I carried on an active family practice until my election as governor in 1972." He invariably signs all s~ate correspondence as "Otis Bowen, MD," and insists that the "MD" be included on state signs and other official things "because I worked awfully hard for that degree."

His 1972 campaign slogan was "He hears you," and Dr. Bowen crisscrossed the state to listen to the people. He said he wanted to "solve problems'' to "help people." At 5'7", 180 pounds, Dr. Bowen reminds some of the late actor Spencer Tracy. With his silver hair, horn-rimmed glasses, and three-piece gray-striped suit, he reminds others of the local Rotary president. His warmth and wisdom remind most of the country doctor he is. He looks, in fact, like almost anything but a politician.

"It's funny," Dr. Bowen says, "I can remember that 1972 slogan like it was yesterday. But for the life of me, I can't remember what our slogan was the next time around.''

He really didn't need one. In urging his reelection, Indiana newspapers issued enthusiastic editorials of unprecedented unanimity: "A second term for Doc," said the IndianapoUs News; "Carry on doctoring," read the paper in Portland, Ind.; and "Gov. Bowen: a remarkable rarity," read the Michigan City News-Dispatch. Concluded the Portland, Ind., newspaper: "Voting for Doc Bowen wlll secure for Indiana another four years of the services of an executive of uncommon ability and integrity."

Dr. Bowen is interchangeably referred to as "Doc" and "Governor," and he likes it that way. "Government is much like medicine," he says. "You diagnose a problem and then you prescribe a remedy."

Dr. Bowen has prescribed some strong medicine, but always in the interests of what he considers the general welfare:

His landmark accomplishment is the "property-tax relief'' package he pushed through the 1973 legislature. This program, which predated California's heavily publicized Proposition 13 tax bill by five years, cut property taxes by doubling the state's sales tax (to 4 percent) and clamping strict controls on levies of local governments and school districts. "In 1973," Dr. Bowen says "the statewide average property-tax rate w~ $10.05 per $100 of assessed valuation. This year, it was $7.11."

His real stature, though, comes from the special interests he has taken on in the name of the common good.

He said that pari-mutuel horseracing · betting was not worth the money it might bring to state government, and three different times he vetoed a betting bill. When the legislature overrode his third veto, he went to court and had the law declared unconstitutional.

He said that he would not approve collective bargaining for policemen and firemen unless there was a no-strike provision. When legislation was approved without this safeguard, he vetoed it.

When arguments were raised that the state could use money from a lottery, he said that the added revenues were not worth the bother. He vetoed the bill.

When liquor legislation raised the possib111ty of price-fixing, he vetoed it.

When truckers successfully campaigned for a b111 raising load limits to 80,000 pounds, he announced that he would veto it. "Trucks do not pay enough highway taxes to cover the additional damage that would come from an increased weight limit," Dr. Bowen de-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS clared-before a convention of the Indiana Motor Truck Assn.

During the coal strike of 1978, he activated the National Guard to escort convoys carrying coal to public ut1lities. "Why should In- · diana schools be closed and residents face ·blackout simply tbecause union coal miners don't want to work?" the governor concluded.

In medicine, he six years ago pushed through a tort-reform package. that helped solve the malpractice insurance problem for Indiana's physicians----a.nd patients-while most other states were only beginning to recognize the problem. He vetoed a laetrile bill, although state legislators would later reverse the veto and legalize the apricot-pit substance as a treatment for cancer. When the medical examiners board relicensed a convicted psychopath, 'he revoked ·the license and accepted the board's mass resignation.

This past summer when President Jimmy Carter held his economy summit at Camp David, Md., Dr. Bowen was the only Republican invited. After the conference while prominent Democrats assailed President Carter's lack of leadership, the Indiana governor urged the nation to give the President "time to reassess his A(\ministration's policies on energy and infiation." In Louisville, where he was chairing the National Governors Assn. meeting, he asked his gubernatorial colleagues to hold off on criticisms of Carter "until he can unveil his new programs."

There is more, but you get the idea.. In practicing superb politics, Dr. Bowen

has, in sense, transcended them. He is known for his personal honesty first and as a candidate second. Or, in the words of the 1976 slogan that escaped his memory, "Doc Bowen-A governor first, a. candidate second."

When he and 'his wife Beth set off on an afternoon walk in Louisv1lle a.t the National Governors Assn. meeting, they were stopped by so many people--press, staff, governors-they finally gave up and returned to the hotel. Part of this was due to Dr. Bowen's recent return from the Camp David summit, but most of it was because he has friends that cross political party lines.

On a. less impressive but more telling level, the Bowen appeal was summed up in a. letter to the editor of the Paoli (Ind.) Republican. Dr. Bowen's decision to get the coal through angered some miners who suggested the governor might have a. financial interest in the mines. Said the letter writer: "Gov. Bowen is known by all Hoosiers a.s an honest and truthful man, and any statement he makes has never been doubted. We talked to him and he told us he had 'not one nickel' invested in any coal mining operation anywhere. That's good enough fw us."

A few years ago, a. marketing opinion firm under contract to the Republican State Committee surveyed Dr. Bowen's public image. "By a. substantial margin," the firm reported, "the voters agree that the two words which best describe Otis Bowen are 'honest' and 'sincere.' Of clearly secondary importance are his position as a. doctor, his interest in people, a. down-to-earth person, 'morally good,' 'like him-nice guy', and a good governor.''

The governor's friends, critics, and fellow state politicians were asked to comment on the poll's findings and concluded, in the words of one, "He comes as near being one and the same man in public and private as anyone I ever saw.'' ~he physician has not yet achieved sa.tnt

hood. One respondent pointed out, "He is not as good a. fisherman as he thinks he is." Another noted that, "He can sometimes get angry. You can tell when he sets his jaw or taps his right foot. But it goes down as quickly as it comes up."

Dr. Bowen is patient and polite, but known to be firm. When he was booed by state employees seeking higher pay, he reminded the crowd that it ha.d invited him to speak and asked that it be courteous enough to let him do so. When angry truckers requested a

37623 meeting only to tell him, "You don't understand the problems of the trucking industry," he responded, "Well, you doh't understand the problems of running a state government. Meeting adjourned!"

For seven years, Dr. Bowen has run state government in the same calm, cool, and col· lected manner he u~d to run his family practice in Bremen----,rea.ssuring here and remedying there. When in 1976 he decided to seek a second term, he chose for the announcement not the state capitol of Indianapolis but high school graduation ceremonies in Bremen. Many of the senior class remembered that they had been delivered by the physician governor. The candidate said sim· ply, "I want_ to complete the work now under way. I a.m running for the people of Indiana. It will be a. positive endeavor. I am not run• ning against anything or anybody."

rrhe voters heard him. Not only was he re• turned to office by a record plurality, but h1s voter-approval rating has hovered at 70 percent-an unheard of popularity level for politicians in the post-Watergate era. ·

His office sVaft' refer to him "as the most demanding person of himself I have ever known. He works incredible hours."

This day, he is leaving early (4 p.m.) for a haircut. The governor is participating in an evening roast of a canning-ind!ustry lobbyist. He works hurriedly to read some of the 900 staff-written letters that are sent each week !rom his otflce, often with gubernatorial additions penned into the margins. Each of the 900 are read each week by the governor. He also writes a newspaper column, "Capitol Comments" and participates in a weekly "Report from the Statehouse" television news conference. He has 250 speaking engagements a year. !It is ali part of his pledge to liFten to the people.

Tonight's speech is light fare. Gov. Bowen is an old hand, having "participated in about 50 roasts and been the object of several." A few hours later in French Lick, he takes the podium to a standing ovation and begins, "As governor, I have coped with fioods, droughts, cold weather, strikes, and emergencies. I have survived World War II, three major operations, and several accidents. Tonight, I aim to make it &11 worthwhile .... "

Relaxing later in the state police plane at his disposal, the Republican governor says he is uncertain about his future plans. This past spring, he decided not to try for the Republican nomination, that was his for the asking, to oppose Birch Bayh for U.S. Senator from Indiana. ("I would have won," he says softly.) The governor's wife suffers from a. bone-marrow disease, and he preferred being with her to campaigning.

Then, too, he is not so sure how he would like working for the federal government, which he thinks has "gobbledygook" regulations and programs that "sometimes are such that the money you get from them costs you more than what it's worth.'' He is a free-enterprise man, pointing out, "The post omce and railroads, I think, are pretty good examples against undue federal control." He likes Jimmy Carter !better than Teddy Kennedy, who "frightens me with his liberal programs,'' and likes Kennedy better than Jerry Brown. He does not yet have a preference ·for the Republican candidate for President.

In recent months, Dr. Bowen has been mentioned as a. possible vice presidential candidate. Some Indiana columnists have even mentioned that he is exactly what the country needs as a. President. Dr. Bowen calls the speculations "far-fetched," but says he would serve if called. He chuckles at recalling how during a pre-roast cocktail party one young man described being a. National Guard omcer and barring Dr. Bowen from a. parade. "I didn't know who you were,'' the Guardsman told his commander-in-chief.

The next day, he 1s at work at 8 a.m. for a. staff meeting. He delegates the routine

37624 workings of government to his seven executive assistants.

"You wake up every morning," he says, "hoping somebody hasn't run off with the store during the night."

Today's crisis is an overturned truck leaking vinyl chloride. Nearby residents will have to be evacuated. At 10:30 a .m., he approves a feasib111ty study to build a new omce complex for the state capitol ("We have too much bureaucracy, but real1stically, we know that in the years ahead there will be more state employes."}

Lunch is set aside for trustees from ·Purdue u. honoring that university's recent Nobel laureate.

That afternoon, he meets the television press in "Statehouse Report." One of the reporters, UPI's Hortense Myers, meets him at the capitol bu1lding to be driven to the conference. They are old friends and, Hortense points out, "Like the governor says, it helps to conserve fuel." Another woman panelist asks the physician what he thinks of the recent Indiana elections in which several women were elected. "I think it's long overdue," Dr. Bowen says.

Later, he will meet with various delegations. He decides to beef UlP security for the local historical society and declines to meet new demands from the state patrolmen's association. Long into the night, he works at his paperwork. wm, his driver-bodyguard observes that he is "usually the last person to leave the omce." At 7 p.m., he finishes, turning out the omce lights as he leaves. Walking through the marble corridors of the capitol building, he makes small talk with the clean-up crew.

At home in the governor's residence, Dr. Bowen likes to relax by playing the organ. Wife Beth, mother of four, Indiana's 1978 "Mother of the Year," and a past president of the Indiana State Medical Association Auxlliary, needlepoints beside him. The Bowens' upstairs living quarters are offlimits during omcial state functions. ("I want this to be a home, not a museum," says Mrs. Bowen. "That's why we discontinued the guided tours."}

Dinner talk is about the family and friends. Dr. Bowen takes time out on the phone to keep the vinyl chloride crisis in hand, but his real satisfaction comes from learning from Beth that the caretaker of the gubernatorial residence has been able to purchase at a fair price the governor's old car leased for him by the state. The caretaker's wife, who is the Bowen's cook, is equally happy, as her husband was "giving me no peace. He said he was going to pay cash, because this will be his car."

The Governor is asked 1f his low-key style has hurt his potential as a national personality. "I'm not one for flash and dash," the physician says, "but I believe that if you just keep at things, everything will work out. It's much more satisfying in the long run."

He may lack color and controversy, but Doc Bowen is a Hoosier original. Like Notre Dame football and the Indianapolis 500, he represents a slice of Americana. Although he might not have the charisma to ignite national media attention, few politicians inspire the kind of editorial Dr. Bowen received in the Bluffton News-Banner when he decided he would not seek a senate seat.

Titled, "Governor Bowen, a fine person," the newspaper noted, "The greatness of Dr. Bowen has been evidenced in the great battles he has fought-for property tax relief, for budget control, for public health and a good environment, for law and justice and decency . .. this man could be elected President of the United States."

Dr. Bowen wm leave omce next year (he is barred by statute from a. third term} with Indiana government debt-free and money in the bank.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS He doesn't know what's next. "I may go

back to practicing medicine in Bremen. I really don't have time to consider opportunities now, because I have another year to run this state and I don't want to have a lame-duck administration."

As a country doctor and a politician, Dr. Bowen has seen it a.ll. He concludes, "You take it as it comes."e

ELMWOOD PARK SPEAKS OUT

HON'. HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK OF NEW JERSft



e Mr. HOLLENBECK. Mr. Speaker, strong support for the release of U.S. hostages in Iran has been expressed throughout the Nation. In the face of this continuing crisis, many citizens have written letters to Iran, or to the Iranian Embassy here in Washington. I applaud these efforts and hope they will continue to show Iran and the rest of the world that the American people have taken a determined and united approach in protecting the lives of Americans and the honor of this Nation.

I am, therefore, pleased that the citizens of Elmwood Park, N.J. have expressed their feelings on the crisis in Iran. The patience and deliberate actions taken by the American people in support of the Government's negotiations to secure the ultimate release of the hostages is to be commended. The American people are aware and stand together on this matter, and I believe the following :a.·esolution is a tine example of the true concern being expressed for their fellow Americans held hostage in Iran.

The resolution is as follows: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR,

Elmwood, Park, N .J ., December 6,1979. RESOLUTION PRoPOSED BY MAYOR R. A. MOLA

Whereas, the residents of Elmwood Park, in the State of New Jersey, have always exhibited a strong sense of nationa.lloya.lty and patriotism; and

Whereas, our Nation has been placed in the unenviable position of having its foreign representatives taken as hostages with the consent of the Iranian government; and

Whereas, our national leaders are attempting to gain the release of our citizens through peaceful and diplomatic channels; and

Whereas, these paclflstic methods are not to be construed as a lack of either spirit, national unity or a firm conviction to stand by our flag, our government and the ultimate release of all United States hostages in Iran;

Now therefore be it resolved that the Mayor and Council of Elmwood Park, in the State of New Jersey in the United States of America, acting in behalf of our community of 20,000 residents stands firmly behind our leaders in a strong sense of national unity; and

Be it further resolved that the Iranian Diplomatic Corps in Washington, D.C. and the Iranian delegation to the United Na· tions be notified of our community's pledge of loyalty and determination to remain united, strong and unswerving in our effort to free our people.

RICHARD A. MoLA, Mayor.e

December 20, 1979

STATEMENT ON THE ESSENTIALS OF EDUCATION

HON. DALE E. KILDEE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVFB


e Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the Congress a statement entitled "The Essentials of Education," which has been endorsed by several prominent organizations in education. The endorsing organizations are: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, International Reading Association, Music Educators National Conference, National Art Education Association, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Council for the Social Studies, National Council of Teachers of English, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, and the Speech Communication Association.

The statement follows: THE ESSENTIALS OF EDUCATION

PREAMBLE

Society must reamrm the value of a balanced education.

Leaders of several profeSSiOnal organizations reached this conclusion in 1978. They circulated a statement on the essentials of education among a number of professional associations whose governing boards endorsed the statement and urged that it be called to the immediate attention of the entire education community, of pollcy makers and of the publlc at large.

The statement that follows embodies the collective concern of the endorsing associations. It expresses their call for a renewed commitment to a more complete and more fulfilling education for a.ll.

The associations invite the concurrence, support, and participation of everyone interested in education.

Publlc concern about basic knowledge and the basic skllls in education is valld. Society should continually seek out, define, and then provide for every person those elements of education that are essential to a productive and meaningful life.

The basic elements Of knowledge and sklll are only a part of the essentials of education. In an era dominated by cries for going "back to the basics," for "Inlnlmal competencies," and for "survival skills," society should reject simpllstic solutions and declare a comInltment to the essentials of education.

A definition of the essentials of education should avoid three easy tendencies: to Uinlt the essentials to "the three R's" in a society tha.t is highly technological and complex; to define the essentials by what is tested at a time when tests are severely limited in what they can measure; and to reduce the essentials to a few "skllls" when it is obvious that people use a combination of skills, knowledge, and feellngs to come to terms with their world. By rejecting these simplistic tendencies, educators will avoid concentration on training in a. few skills at the expense of preparing students for the changing world in which they must live.

Educators should resist pressures to concentrate solely upon easy-to-teach, easy-totest bits of knowledge, and must go beyond short-term objectives of training for jobs or producing citizens who can perform routine tasks but cannot apply their knowledge or

December 20, 1979 skllis, cannot reason about their society, and cannot make informed judgments.

What, then, are the essentials of education?

Educators agree that the overarching goal of education is to develop informed, thinking citizens capable of participating in both domestic and world a1fairs. The development of such citizens depends not only upon education for citizenship but also upon other essentials of education shared by all subjects.

The interdependence of skills and content is the central concept of the essentials of education. Skllls and ab111ties do not grow in isolation from content. In all subjects, students develop skllls in using language and other symbol systems; they develop the ability to reason; they undergo experiences that lead to emotional ·and social maturity. Students master these skllls and abtllties through observing, Ustening, reading, talking, and writing about science, mathematics, history and the social sciences, the arts and other aspects of our intellectual, social, and cUltural heritage. As they learn about their world and its heritage they necessarlly deepen their skllls in language and reasoning and acquire the basis for emotional, aesthetic and social growth. They also become aware of the world around them and develop an understanding and appreciation of the interdependence of the many facets of that world. ~

More specifically, the essentials of education include the ab111ty to use language, to think, and to communicate effectively; to use mathematical knowledge and methods to solve problems; to reason logically; to use abstractions and symbols with power and ease; to apply and to understand scientific knowledge and methods; to make use of technology 1Uld to understand its limitations; to express oneself through the arts and to understand the artistic expressions of others; to understand other languages and cultures; to understand spatial relationships; to apply knowledge about health, nutrition, and physical activity; to acquire the capacity to meet unexpected challenges; to make informed value judgments; to recognize and to use one's full learning potential; and to prepare to go on learning for a lifetime.

Such a definition calls for a realization that all disciplines must join together and acknowledge their interdependence. Determining the essentials of education is a continuing process, far more demanding and significant than listing isolated skills assumed to be basic. Putting the essentials of education into practice requires instructional programs based on this new sense of interdependence.

Educators must also join with many segments of society to specify the essentials of education more fully. Among these segments are legislators, school boards, parents, students, workers' organizations, businesses, publishers, and other groups and individuals with an interest in education. All must now participate in a coordinated effort on behalf of society to confront this task. Everyone has a stake in the essentials of education.e

RISK AND OTHER FOUR-LE'ITER WORDS

OF TEXAS


Wednesday, December 19, 1979 • Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Walter B. Wriston, chairman of Citicorp, recently addressed the Economic Club of


Chicago on the subject of "Risk and Other Four-Letter Words."

Mr. Wriston's talk is an eloquent indictment of the self-styled consumerists who, in seeking a governmentally mandated risk-free society, are doing horrendous damage to consumer interests. Only a free market, free of governmental interference, can serve the consumer.

I would like to call this speech to my colleagues' attention:

RISK AND OTHER FOUR-LETTER WORDS

(By Walter B. Wriston) The men and women who founded our

country were at once adventurers who took personal risks of the most extreme kind and pragmatists who wrote a Constitution based on the tested theory that men are not gods. No assumptions were made that elected leaders would all be selfless persons devoted to the public interest. Rather, the rock upon which our structure rests is a Constitution that diffuses power, lest one person or group grow too powerfUl. Alexander Hamilton put it succinctly when he said, "If men were angels no government woUld be necessary." The system they devised based on this assumption about human nature has stood the test of time. Our government has proved to be one of the most enduring in history.

While the constitutional framework set limits on power, the driving force of our society is the conviction that risktaking and individual responsib11lty are the ways to advance ow· mutual fortunes. Our Founding Fathers were themselves political adventurers and fighters who did not hestiate to sign a document pledging "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" in pursuit of a. brighter future against overwhelming odds. They woUld have been more than a little surprised to learn that what they were really fighting for was a totally predictable, riskfree society.

THE RISK-FREE GENERATION

Today, however, the· idea is abroad in the land that the descendants of these bold adventures should all be sheltered from risk and uncertainty as part of our natural heritage. We seem to have raised a generation of advocates, writers, and bureaucrats to whom the word "risk" is an acceptable term only when used in connection with promoting a state lottery. Emerson's counsel, "Always do what you are afraid to do," is now rejected as too upsetting, and one should steer the safe noncontroversial course. One has only to look at the gray stagnation of planned societies where this idea is far advanced to wonder how such a system can continue to attract so much intellectual support. But it does.

It can be argued that if the desire to avoid risk above all else becomes the predominant objective of American society, it may in the end destroy not only our economic system but our form of government along with it. At bottom, democracy itself rests on an act of faith, on a belief in individual responsib111ty and the superiority of the free marketplace, both intellectual and economic, over anything that might be devised for us by a committee of bureaucrats disguised as guardian angels. There is real reason to fear that those who do not share that faith, in their efforts to build a risk-free society, have in fact not only drained the spirit of our people but have already seriously impaired the viability of the most productive economic system that the world has ever seen.

THE CONESTOGA WAGON WAS UNSAFE AT ANY

SPEED

This is a relatively new problem for Americans. The whole of this country was opened up by people who were-no less than the Founding Fathers-at once adventurers and

37625 patriots. My own grandmother, in company with hundreds more, went west in a Conestoga. wagon, which by today's standards was unsafe at any speed. The environmental problems were enormous. They used buffalo dung to fuel their campfires. Half of the wagon train in which my grandmother traveled was massacred by Indians. But many more followed in their tracks along trails which today no government agency at a city, state, or federal level would think of certifying as safe for travelers. In fact, the pioneers would probably not even be allowed to settle down at the end of their journey. The sparkling, exciting city of San Francisco was built and rebuilt on a set of hllls that woUld test the footing of a mountain goat. And if that is not bad enough, it lies along the San Andreas earthquake fault which has already destroyed it once. No modern urban planner could possibly approve the building of San Francisco today. The risk would be said to be too great.

The unremitting atmosphere of protective custody which now seems to surround us is producing a new kind of national mood. Tlie American spirit of optimism and enterprise is being overwhelmed by a. malaise perhaps best described by the English journalist, Henry Fairlie, when he wrote:

"If the American people for the first time no longer believe that life wm be better for their children, it is a.t least in part because they e.re beginning to think that there will be no food which their children will be able to eat without dying like rats of cancer, no form of transnort that will be considered safe enough to- get them from here to there, and in fact nothing that their children may safely do except sit like Narcissus by a riverbank and gaze at their wan a.nd delicate forms e.s they throw the last speck of Granola to the fish."

This is a far cry from the spirit of enterprise that turned a raw continent into a great nation. Of course, there have always been those among us who bewail all forms of risk: political, economic, or personal. They are the ones who have never understood the Biblical injunction, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it." But such people of little faith did not always have a nationwide, instant forum for their tlmld views nor the power to enforce them upon others. When the great English constitutional scholar, Lord Bryce, uttered his judgment that the American "Constitution is all sail and no &nchor," his verdict was not proclaimed electronically around the world. In fact, it passed almost unnoticed. There was no clamor for a new constitutional convention to remedy our disastrous mistake, so clearly identified by an "expert." Tod:ay, however, we all live in Marshall McLuhan's "global v1lla.ge," and Chicken Little runs through the square twice a day.

SIMPLEMINDED PANACEAS FOR COM.PELX PROBLEMS

In times pe.st, ideas spread by pamphleteers and later on in books and by the press. Great centers of learning grew up which refined and nurtured ideas and passed them oro from one generation to another. This saue function was also performed by the churches. Today, a pop phrase rooted in some private discontent, some transient desire to transfer responsib111ty' for one's own actions to somebody else, or some simpleminded pe.nacea for complex problems, is echoed and re-echoed throughout the land in a matter of minutes on the 7 o'clock news.

The signs carried by a hundred protestors on the site of a nuclear plant may be seen instantly by 50 mill1on Americans in living color. Contrast the impact of this with the great draft riots ln New York in 1863 where mobs ranged over the city for four days and four nights, looting and burning. It was

37626 only on the fifth day that 6,000 federa.l troops poured into the city and order was . restored. Most Americans Uving at that time never heard of the Incident. One of the so-called "volunteer special" pollcemen who was Involved in the riot said, "No adequate account of the draft riot of 1863 has ever been printed."

Today cameras zoom in on the face of the man struck by the rock or the polleeman's club. I do not argue here that this is bad, far from it. But I have to observe that, for the first time 1n the history of man, our life with all the flaws inherent In human nature, all the breakdowns in technology, and all of our social foibles is communicated instantly to the world. Things will Inevitably go wrong, because men still are not gods. But because all the failures, the mistakes, and the acciden ts intrude upon our consciousness 1n an almost unbroken stream, the clamor grows for a. !a.il-sa.!e society.

This growing thirst for an Impossible physica.l and economic security has a direct bearing on whether or not we will maintain our spiritual and political freedom. The relevance of risk to liberty is direct and clear. For in the end, it always turns out that the only way to avoid risk is to leap Into the arms o! an all-knowing government. George Gilder put it best when he wrote:

"Strangely enough, the man who sees a. future blighted by coercion and S'ca.rcity also tends to believe that the present can be made as free of risk and uncertainty as the past, receding reassuringly in the reliable lenses of hindsight. He calls upon government to create an orderly and predictable economy with known energy reserves a.lwa.ys equa.ling prospective needs; with jobs always assured in current geographic and demographic patterns; with monetary demand a.lways expanding to absorb expected output of current corporate goods; with disorderly foreign intruders banished from the marketplace or burdened by tariffs. and quotas; with Invention and creativity summoned by the bureaucrats for forced marches of research and development; with inflation insurance In every contract and unemployment insurance in every job; with all windfa.ll wealth briskly taxed away and unseemly poverty removed by income guarantees. In this view, risk and uncertainty are seen to be the problem and government the solution 1n the fail-safe quest for a managed economy of steady and predictable longterm growth."

NINE WORKERS, FIFTEEN DIRECTORS

I! you carry this logic to its bitter end, it all gets reduced to the motto under the picture o! Mussollni which plastered Italy at the height of his power. It said, "He Wlll Decide." The respons1b111ty no longer belonged to the indivldua.l. The leader would decide. The pattern is always the same. A bureaucracy is put 1n place to coerce the people into doing something for "their own good." The bureaucracy then assumes a Ufe of its own, and the coercion continues as the bureaucracy's primary task, long after the original plWp<>Se has been forgotten. The Securities and Exchange Commission was created In response to a. felt need to protect the Investor against fraud. It was a. worthy objective, but llttle by little its role has expanded until now it's attempting to dictate everything from how a board of directors should govern a company to how lawyers should exercise their professional judgment. The ultimate in what now seems to be the trend in corporate governance, incidentally, was achieved by the City Bank as long ago as 1844, when we had nine employees, but fitteen directors who assisted in the day-to-day operations. If we are obligated to revive that ratio, we are going to end up with 83,000 new directors.

OUr American economic system, like our political system, is untidy-it offends those

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS people who love tidy, predictable societies. We make a. lot o! mistakes 1n this country, we have a lot of failures. Some people see only the failures; they cannot seem to grasp the fact that the failures are the price we pay !or the successes. It's as though they wanted to have "up" without "down" or "hot" without "cold."

We read In our newspapers, and even 1n our business magazines, solemn words about "risky investments" and "risky loans" from writers who do not seem to realize that these phrases are as redundant as talking about a one-story bungalow. All Investments and all loans are risky because they are all based on educated guesses about the future rather than the certain knowledge of what will happen. Despite the most sophisticated market research, no one really knows if the public will bu y the product or use the service which we are about to produce. The new product might be an Edsel with a $400 million price tag, or it might be Peter Goldmark's longplaying record. It could be the decision of a Joe Wilson, risking all the resources of his small company to make a. copier later ca.lled Xerox, and doing it in the face of a. careful study which showed that it would be a bad substitute for the familiar carbon paper.

The odds against success of any kind in our society are formidable. Some 300,000 businesses are started each year in America., and only about a. third of them survive as long as five years. Proponents of a. safe, stagnant, boring tomorrow view this as a. wasteful process, to say nothing of its being irrational. On the contrary, George Gilder has argued:

" ... such waste and irrationality is the secret of economic growth. Beca.use no one knows which venture will succeed . . . a. society ruled by faith and risk rather than by rational calculus, a. society open to the future rather than planning it, will call forth an endless stream of innovation, enterprise, and art."

Our bookshelves today are piled high with books warning us that the pace of change has become too much for human beings to tolerate, that it is not just risk that people fear, but the future itself. We are being overwhelmed, we're told, by new technology. When we see what the electronic computer has done and is doing to the world, and consider that it was invented in 1946, this argument may seem plausible. But go back a. hundred years to 1846 and the argument falls apart.

That was the year Brigham Young led the Mormons out of Dlinois on the way to Utah-and coincidentally the year that saw the invention of the sewing machine and the steel moldboard plow. Historians have called the period that began then and lasted to the outbreak o! World War I the "heroic age" of invention; From the sewing machine in 1846 to the radio vacuum tube in 1911, a major new invention appeared on the average of every 15 to 18 months, .and was followed almost immediately by a new Jndustry based on the invention. That's what the last half of the nineteenth century was Uke,.but there were few voices then ca.lling, "Stop the world, I want to get off."

There were a. few, of course. Not long after Lee De Forest invented the vacuum tube amplifier, he was arrested for stock fraud. He'd been going around saying that his service would be able to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic. At his trial, the prosecuting attorney said: "Based on his absurd and deliberately misleading statement, the public, your Honor, has been persuaded to purchase stock in his company."

The jury acquitted De Forest, but the judge admonished him to forget his crackpot inventions and go "get a. common, garden-type job and stick to it."

I! De Forest were .Inventing his gadget today, and he could convince people it worked, he might still be in trouble. Before he could go Into production, there would

December 20, 1979 probably be a. long delay while committees were formed to study the environmental impact of bouncing radio waves off the loDOsphere.

FEELING GUILTY ABOUT SUCCESS

The people who insist on seeing only the failures have still another deb111ta.tlng effect on our society: they frequently manage to make us feel guilty even about our successes.

Malaria, for thousands of years the number one killer of human beings, was finally brought under control after World Warn by DDT. But Instead of hearing about the tens of millions of human lives that have been saved over our the past 30 years, we are told about the damage to our natural environment. Concern for the environment Is obviously justified, but the highly publicized demonstrations, complete with rock stars and movie actresses, would have us believe that man, and particularly his technology, is single-handedly polluting what would otherwise be a. pure and benign Nature, something like Disneyland on a. nice day 1n September. Michael Novak recently reminded us that this just is not so. He wrote:

"Nature was raw and cruel to nature long before human beings intervened. It may be doubted whether human beings have e\Ter done one-tenth of the polluting to nature that nature has done to Itself. There is infinitely more methane gas-poisonous in one respect, and damaging to the environmentgenerated by the swamps of Florida. and other parts of the United States than by all automobile pollution of all the places on this planet. In our superhuman efforts to be nice and feel guilty, we sometimes try to take all the credit for pollution improperly."

Be nice, feel guilty, and play safe. I! there was ever a. prescription for producing a. dismal futue, that has to be It. It is a sure prescription for the demise of our way of life.

It is almost Impossible to exaggerate the Importance to the general welfare of the willingness of individuals to take a. persona.! risk. The worst thing that can happen to a society, as to an indivdua.l, is to become terrifl.ed of uncertainty. Uncertainty is an Invitation to innovate, to create; uncertainty is the blank page in the author's typewriter, the granite block before a sculptor, the ca.pltalin the hands of an Investor, or the problem challenging the inventive mind o! a sc1entis1; or an engineer. In short, uncertainty is the opportunity to make the world a better place. Despite this, everything 1n our national life today seems designed to encourage our natural caution, urging us to play it safe, to invent a risk-free system and give up being tough-minded.

The tax structure discourages the Innovators, penalizes the successful, and preserves the inemcient. Even many medicines in common use around the world to prevent human suffering are denied to Americans on the slender grounds that an overdosed mouse has contracted a tumor. This is not prudence. Prudence is one of the intellectual virtues, and there is very little Intelligence to be found In all this. It is Institutionalized timidity, and I -submit that it does not represent the will of the vast majority o! the American people. .

I! we observe the world around us, Americans as Individua.ls seek out risk. Every chlld who plays footba.ll, or hockey, or any other contact sport, risks injury. There is no shortage of test pilots for new aircraft, nor candidates for any of the other hazardous jobs in our society, including the job of President of the United States. If we perceive that llfe is too easy, we put sand traps and other obstacles on the golf course and create artificial hazards where none exist. In short, risk is a necessary part of life and one which belongs on our list of natural rights.

DEMOCRACY IS A DANGEROUS T&ADJC Let those who seek a. perpetual safe har

bor continue to do so. Let them renotince risk for themselves, 1! they choose. What no one

December flO, 1979 has a right to do is renounce it for all the rest of us, or to pursue the chimerical goal of a risk-free society for some by eliminating the rewards of risk for everyone.

The society which promises no risks and whose leaders use the word "risk" only as a pejorative may be able to protect life, but there will be no liberty, and very little pursuit of happiness. You will look in vain in the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution for promises of a safe, easy, risk-free life. Indeed, when Woodrow Wilson called for "a world safe for democracy," it was left to Gilbert Chesterton to put that sentiment in perspective.

"Impossible," he said, "democracy is a dangerous trade." e

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCEBAD IDEA

HON·. RON PAUL OF TEXAS



• Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, few journalists know the political scene and the bureaucratic landscape as well as M. Stanton Evans, chairman of the ACU Education and Research Institute.

In the December issue of Private Practice, Mr. Evans gives an excellent analysis of the Kennedy and Carter National Health Insurance proposals, and I would like to call this article to my colleagues' attention.

NHI-an expensive and harmful idea-deserves oblivion instead of congressional consideration. I hope that we will all take Mr. Evans' eloquent words seriously.

The analysis follows: NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE STAGES A

LEGISLATIVE CoMEBACK

(By M. Stanton Evans) Comprehensive national health insur

ance--an idea whose time has, on its merits, long since passed-is threatening to stage a legislative comeback. This revival has reltively little to do with the nation's health care probleins or the issues of cost control to which the NHI proponents so frequently refer-although it could have significant impact in both these categories. It has a great deal to do with the internal politics of the Democratic Party as President Carter and Senator Edward Kennedy jockey for political advantage nnd for issue postures that will appeal to potent liberal-left constituencies within the Democratic coalition.

As the challenger, Kennedy has the tactical initiative, and health care is the issue on which he has chosen to use it. In other policy areas, he has been trying to modulate his liberal image, apparently recognizing the rightward drift of the electorate. His major thrust against the president has been a. generalized appeal for "leadership," supposedly embodied in hiinself, rather than specific disagreement over policy. But to energize the liberal elements in the party, he needs at least one clear, symbolic issue, and health care appears to be it.

This selection, of course, is hardly surprising. Kennedy has been identified with the NHI question for upwards of a decade. It is a. favorite issue of the United Auto Workers and of other liberal elements with which he is allied; and it is one of the few remaining issues in our politics on which it 1s still possible for a liberal-intemrentionlgt position to be presented as an initiative on the side of the angels.

Responding to Kennedy's pressure, Mr.

CX.XV--2365-Part 28

-EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Carter has presented a.n NHI proposal of his own. The Carter version is roughly what one would expect from the dynamics of the political process: More "moderate" than Kennedy's, but sufiiciently interventionist, and expensive, to undercut the senator's appeal to liberal constituencies inside the party. Carter's position, an too clearly, is dictated by Kennedy's, and inevitably tends to resemble it.

Indeed, exa.m1n1ng the two proposals, most 0bservers will be prompted to wonder what the squabbling 1s about. The progra.Ins surfaced by Kennedy and Carter have far more in common than one could possibly guess from the excha.nges between the opposing camps. They are alike in general objectives, the reasons given for further intervention, and the mecha.ntsins by which that intervention would be achieved. The maJ.n distinction 1s that Kennedy would give us NHI all at once, while Mr. Oa.rter would give it to us piecemeal.

The common objective of the two proposals is to federalize the existing network of private health insurance programs, extend coverage to areas where it presently does not exist, and integrate the resulting system with the machinery of Medicare a.nd Medicaid. Both proposals would make health insurance coverage mandatory for all Americanswhether employed by others or self-employed-would cut back on the amount that patients would have to pay out of pocket for health care, and would finance the program with additional billions in federal taxes.

Because such proposals woul~ manifestly increase demand for health-care services, both candidates would couple this tax-paid largess with stringent plans for "cost containment." In essence, both would have insurance premiUins, doctors' fees, hospital charges, and other aspects of health care supply intensely regulated by the federal government. ·

Kennedy's plan would provide for all Americans' "comprehensive, universal" coverage including hospital, physicla.n, and lab bills. Employers-including the self-employed-would be required by law to provide health insura.nce to their workers, with employees picking up no more than 35 percent of premium costs (in essence, further taxes). Medicare would be extended to everyone over 65. Medicaid would be folded into the program by having government pay insurance premiums for the indigent.

In Kennedy's scheme, every American would have a "health-care card," entitling him or her to all manner of medical services, regardless of income or employment status. Equally important, all these people would have first-dollar coverage; there would •be no coinsurance or deductibles. In theory, everyone would be entitled to the most lavish health insurance imaginable, while paying directly no more than a third of the resulting ta.xes-premluins.

Considering the upward pressure on demand exerted by existing government healthcare progra.Ins, the potential impact of the Kennedy plan in boosting prices is obviously immense. The current system of Medicare and Medicaid subsidy, and federal tax treatment of group insurance plans, has created a payment mechanism in which some 90 percent of hospital charges are paid by someone other than the patient at the point of consumption. By pushing for "comprehensive, universal" coverage, Kennedy would try to make this 100 percent-for hospitals and physician services alike.

At zero price, the demand for a valued good is potentially infinite, and the Kennedy program would vastly intensify the already large demand for hospital and physician services, at the most expensive levels of technolgy. That prospect makes the senator's estimates for the cost of his program seem-to put it mildly-unreallstic. Not that these costs are negligible, even on Kennedy's projection:

37627 $211.4 b1llion by 1983--$40 billion higher than estimated outlays under the existing set-up.

That the added costs will be "only" $40 b1llion may readily be doubted. We have heard such projections before, and they always turn out to be wrong. (Cost overruns for Medicare and Medicaid have ranged into the hundreds of percentage points; most recently, otlicial estimates for adding renal dialysis to Medicare were $160 m1llion, while the actual costs have gone to more than $1 billion annually.) Under Kennedy's plan, with every vestige of price restraint reduced or removed entirely, the likely cost explosion is mindboggling.

Mr. Carter offers a somewhat more modest version of the Kennedy proposal. Because of its phased, piecemeal approach, the Carter plan is more complex, but is essentially a half-way approximation of what Kennedy 1s demanding, to be converted at some future time into full-fledged NHI. The Carter program would extend the present insurance system to those not covered, mandate provision of insurance by employers, extend subsidized care to the aged and indigent not now covered under Medicare and amalgamate the whole into a single, federally-regulated program.

In some respects, Mr. Carter would maintain the principle of coinsurance, at least temporarily, while imposing upper limits on how much the patient would have to pay at the point of consumption. Under Carter's plan, the maximum that any insured worker would have to pay out of pocket in any year would be $2,500 (the federal government would provide a siinilar policy for those who are not employed). The 11m1tation for the aged and disabled would be half this amount, replacing the present co-insurance arrangement in which the patient pays for 20 percent.

Otherwise, the Carter plan would seek to do away with deductibles and cost-sharing. After the first day, the aged and disabled would be entitled to an unlimited, fullysubsidized number of days in the hospital; there would be no physician charges to Medicare patients other than the publicly-provided payment; there would be no costsharing at all for maternity benefits. Also, the president, in one respect, has managed to outbid his rival: Mr. Carter would have the employee pay no more than 2'5 percent of mandatory premium costs, as opposed to Kennedy's 35 percent.

Again, by extending coverage and lowering perceived costs to l'atients, the Carter program would obviously increase demand for health-care services. The official cost estimates, as the administration itself concedes, must therefore be taken with a grain of salt. These tell us that by 1983 the nation's increased outlay for health care, above and beyond what is now projected, would be in the range of $23-$25 bilUon, compared to $40 billion for Senator Kennedy. On the previous track record, we may readily calculate that the true increase will be much higher.

Alike in objectives and mech&ntsms, the Kennedy and Carter pJans are also alike in underlying fallacies. Both a.rgue .tm.a.t we face two overriding health-care probleins: (a) inadequate insurance coverage for some Americans, and (b) rising total costs of health-care services for all. Both propose to cure these probleins by projecting a. federal takeover of the medical economy--blandly ignoring the fact that .the problems complained of are the result of existing federa.i interventions, and that further mtruslon can only serve to Inake such prOblems worse.

Most fundamental, both candidates gllde over .the fact (Kennedy ignores it entirely, Mr. Carter alludes to it in passing) that any attem.pt to solve "problem" (a) ca.n only lntenst!y "problem" (b). The preceding decade or rising health-care demand, aocei-

37628 era.tlng outla.ys for med1C811. services, a.nd consequent rising prices has been a direct result of flna.ncing hee.lth-ca.re pa.yments through third-pa.rty meche.nisms, courtesy of t'he federa4 government. By flna.ncil).g even more such payments on this basis, Kennedy a.nd Ca.rter would 8100entua.te the very cost explosion of whWh they oompla4n.

Their tacit admission of .this fact is tha.t both programs a.re predica.ted. on tight federa.l regulation of hea.lth tnsura.nce premiums, hospital cha.rges, doctors' tees, etc. Uill.d.er either progra.m, the federa.l government will set out to control the very demand tha.t it ha.s engendered, a.nd proposes to increa.se stlll further. Ha.ving destroyed the nOl"IIlla.l function of the pricing mechanism in restraJ.ning demand a.nd bringtng it Into ha.rmony with supply, the federal regulators will try to ma.nipula.te the supply a.s well. In other words, another va.ria.tion on a. timedishonored theme: Price controls holding the perceived cost of goods or services below their ma.rket level, followed by government ra.tioning of the commodity iaJ. question.

As the energy crisis ha.s d.emonstra.ted, the economic effects of such a. procedure a.re a.lwa.ys ca.la.mitous: There is no way tha.t government pla.nners ca.n properly substitute their judgment o! wha.t is needed in terms of energy, or health ca.re, for the judgment tha.t would be made by cc:msumers In a. freely functioning ma.rket. Ml.sa.lloca.tion of resources, shorta.ges, a.nd other somber economic consequences a.re sure to follow, a.nd pa.tients wlll be the ultimate losers.

From the sta.ndpolnt of insurers, hospitals, a.nd physicians, the outlook is equa.Ily torbidding. I! either of these pla.ns goes through, the hea.lth insura.nce industry will be Uttle more tha.n a. public ut111ty; hoepita.ls will be government-damina.ted institutions; a.nd physicians wlll be well on their WS.Yi to becoming sa.la.ried employees of the government.e

SOME THOUGHTS ON mAN

HON. LEE H. HAMILTON OF INDIANA



• Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington Report for Wednesday, December 19, 1979, into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

SoME THOUGHTS ON IRAN

We continue to face a grave crisis in Iran, where our embassy has been seized and 50 fellow citizens have been held hosta.ge in an a.ttempt to force the return of the Sha.h to Iran for trial. As the captivity of these Americans enters its seventh week with little sign of how it will end, a few observations xnay be useful.

First, it is essential to keep in mind the basic objectives of the United States. The paramount objective is the relea.se of the hostages unha.rmed, but there a.re other objectives as well to re-establish the inviolab111ty of embassies and the immunity of diplomats, to refuse to surrender the Shah in response to pressure from terrorists, to protect vital economic interests (the oil trade) and key political interests (our relations with other countries in the Middle East). In deciding what steps to take, all these basic objectives must be kept in mind.

Second, the crisis in Iran may be shaping up a.s one of those pivotal International events that change the way people think and the way governments act. It may not be an isolated incident, but rather a watershed with far-reaching implications for the conduct of American foreign pollcy. My guess

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS is that it will make the United Sta.tes more willlng to project its power to p.rotect legitimate American interests in the world. America.ns simply do not like the hum111ation and the sense of vulnera.b111ty that the crisis in Iran ha.s brought them. They will demand more a.ssertive military policies, such a.s the development of a ra.pld deployment force and a bigger naval presence in the Indla.n Ocean, and they wlll tend to view the Middle East a.s a. critical part of the American sphere of influence. It is to be hoped that they will rea.lize just how necessary energy conservation is. At very lea.st, the crisis in Iran is causing Americans to rediscover feelings of patriotism burled by the remorse and confusion of the past.

Third, with the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Saudi Arabia and the lethal mob attacks on our embassy in Pakistan we see that the world's most important on-producing area is caught up in the throes of fundaments.! change. The impllcations of tha.t change for the United States cannot be fully known a.t present, but many things should be considered: the impact of the upsurge in Islamic fundamentallsm on America's position in the Middle East; the opportunity for the Soviet Union to expand its influence in the area; the risk of polltical 1nsta.b111ty in the conservative Islamic governments of the Persian Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia; the effects of a tighter world oil supply on all nations, Including those in the Third World; the ramifications of Iran's repudiation of its international debts; the consequences of the freeze on Iranian assets for the delicate international financial system; the pressure on America's relationships with its allles, most of whom a.re heavlly dependent on oil from the area. What flows from the ordeal of the American hostages wlll probably transcend the event itself, making the whole world more dangerous and the rational management of international affairs more difficult.

Fourth, the Preslden t knows that the crisis in Iran is an acid test of his administration. Whatelver the ultimate outcome, the crisis at present is a two-edged sword capable of cutting short the political future of either the President or his opponents. Because his opponents have been flalling away at him for his failure to get the country moving, the short-term political fallout has been positive for the President. He now ha.s the credentials of leadership that he allegedly lacked. The Ayatollah Khomelnl ha.s done for him wha.t he has been una.ble to do for himself: make the Presidency appear to be a source of strong leadership. The President merits high marks for the leadership he has displayed so far.

Fina.lly, the appropriate course of action for the United States, frustrating a.nd nervewracking though it may be, is to patiently exhaust all peaceful means at its disposal as it attempts to resolve the crisis, showing the same mea.sured restraint tha.t the President has shown during the past weeks. T~e dilemma for the United States is to project a tough posture (to datt> we have moved naval units into place in the Arabla.n Sea, halted on imports from Iran, and frozen Iranian assets) without jeopardizing the lives of vhe hosta.ges. We should generate as much international pressure as possible against the Ayatollah, isolating him with moves in the United Nations and the World Court. Other options for the future are available, including a series of diplomatic and economic steps to increa.se the pressure. I would favor such steps as these before exercising any of the military options (bombing air fields or oil fac111ties, seizing oil terminals on Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf, or slapping on a. naval blockade) because I do not believe that the military steps could be taken without the killing of the hostages. In addition, military engagement could make it more dlffi-

December 20, 1979 cult to achieve our basic objectives. A military option should be used only as a la.st resort. I know of no one in Washington who beli~es that the hostages could be saved with an a.lr strike or a comma.ndo raid.

One useful step to help resolve the crisis would be to convey to the Iranian people our belief that they have the right to sta.te their ca.se against the Sha.h in an impartla.l public forum. Many Iranians are sincere in their opinion that the Shah practiced political repression, condoned corruption, and subverted Islamic values with Western concepts. While insisting on the prior release of hosta.ges and making it clear that we will not reward terrorism, we should not appea.r to block the efforts of these Iranians if they pursue their claims in a legal manner acceptable to the world communlty.e

DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT

HON. RICHARDSON PREYER OF NORTH CAROLINA



• Mr. PREYER. Madam Chairman, the House of Representatives on December 13, 1979, approved the dispute resolution bill <S. 423) and I would like to congratulate my colleagues for their support of what I telieve is a very workable, innovative and cost-effective process for aiding our localities in solving disputes that confront many of our citizens. I would, however, also like to expand briefly about one of the criticisms of the bill that was made during the debate of the bill, that is, the contention that the dispute resolution bill is an unwarranted Federal intervention in a State and local responsibility. Let me assure you, initially, that both the Interstate and Foreign Commerce and Judiciary Committees which jointly considered this bill were very conscious of this potential problem. and the bill which passed was carefully crafted to avoid such an intervention.

The Federal involvement in this program is at an absolute minimum, basically that of making available seed grants to States, localities and nonprofit organizations over a period of 4 years at which time Federal involvement must end. Even this limited 4-year involvement includes a decreasing percentage of the Federal share to 75 percent in the third year and 60 percent in the fourth year. The legislation envisions an initial partnership between the States and the Federal Government but does not interfere with the distinctive role that States and their justice systems are assigned in our political systems.

The program sets up very broad guidelines for a completely voluntary process to allow State and local grantees to experiment with procedures for solving their own problems.

During the debate it was demonstrated that this carefully drawn bill had support from ·such diverse organizations as businesses. consumer groups, public agencies, l_)rivate organizations, and bar associations, among others. The administration also strongly endorses the legislation as does Chief Justice Burger.

December flO, 1979

It is very rare that one piece of legislation is so widely supported.

During the legislative process, all of this support was made part of the record, but I would like to add to this impressive portfolio two recent letters to Mr. KASTENMEIER which I believe WOuld be of interest to my colleagues:

HARVARD LAW ScHOOL, Cambridge, Mass., December 3, 1979.

Hon. ROBERT W. KA.sTENMEIER, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. KASTENMEIEB: Thank you . for

sending me a copy of the Judiciary Committee's report on the Dispute Resolution Act ( S. 423) . I am very pleased that both the Judiciary and Commerce Committees have strongly supported the b111. I noticed that Mr. Butler cited my research in his dissenting views on the blll, and I would like to comment briefly regarding his remarks. First, I would like to note that the citation of my work in the dissent in no way signifies that I am in opposition to the b111. I strongly support the Dispute Resolution Act and have testifled in favor of the b111 in both Senate and House hearings.

In citing my findings regarding the extent of American experimentation with dispute processing mechanisms, Mr. Butler implied that enough is currently being accomplished without federal assistance of the type contemplated in S. 423. I strongly disagree. The present existence of experimental projects merely demonstrates that the state recognize the striking need for improvements in our dispute resolution mechanisms. A few states have pioneered improvements in dispute processing, and it is the aim of s. 423 to encourage the refinement of these advances and their spread across the nation. This b111 can be of great assistance in helping all the states to experiment with justice system improvements in light of practices elsewhere. Our justice system is predicated on principles of equal justice for all and ready access to forums for dispute handling. This b111 wlll help bring these ideals closer to reality.

The hearing records in both the Senate and the House indicate the great needs in the nation for improved dispute processing, and as you know a wide variety of organizations have endorsed the bill. In short, Mr. Butler's view that enough is being accomplished simply does not square with the facts. It is true that Umited experimentation has begun. Indeed, if it had not, one could seriously question the federal government's role in the legislation since this role is merely to assist state-initiated efforts at improving mechanisms for dispute processing.

I greatly appreciate your continuing efforts in support of S. 423 and hope for its early passage by the House of Representatives.

Sincerely, DANIEL McGILLIS,

Research Associate, Harvard Law School.

THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, St. Paul, November 30, 1979.

Hon. RoBERT W . .KAsTENMEIER, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN .KASTENMEIER: I have

only today had an opportunity to review the House Judiciary Committee Report on the Dispute Resolution Act and hope you w111 excuse my delay in thanking you for it.

I am pleased to note that the b1Il as reported is consistent with the position of the Chief Justices and contains provisions which wUl permit its administration in a manner respecting the independence of state court systems.

I am particularly pleased that it provides authority, as we requested, for the Depart-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ment of Justice to work with state and local courts through qualified non-governmental organizations and am confident the Department will take full advantage of it.

We think, then, that the legislation provides appropriately for judicial participation in a program well conceived to help us deal with the most neglected areas of the justice system.

The Congress is to be congratulated on its work.

Yours very truly, ROBERT J. SHERAN,

Chairman, Committee on Federal State Relations, Conference of Chief Justices.

I think Professor McGillis and Chief Justice Sheran eloquently have embellished the case for S. 423 and I am glad that the House in its wisdom passed this bill .•

MORATORIUM ON NUCLEAR PLANTS

HON. AL SWIFT OF WASHINGTON

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATTVES

Wednesday,· December 19, 1979

• Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, we recently debated an amendment to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorization bill that would have established a 6-month moratorium on the issuance of construction permits of nuclear plants while Congress could take a look at safety issues. Many of us argued that if nuclear power was to be a part of the energy mix of this country, that the American public had to be assured the design of plants, the operation of these facilities, and the final disposition of waste products was safe.

A daily newspaper in my district recently financed an indepth professional survey of public opinion in its area concerning important local and statewide issues.

The survey taken by the Skagit Valley Herald gives some very concrete and specific support to our contention at that time.

I think it is important to note that the survey was based upon telephone contact with 437 registered voters in Skagit County, a very large number of calls in proportion to the population of this one county. It is also important to note that the calls were made in the 12 days preceding a vote by the people of Skagit County on proposition 4, an advisory vote that dealt essentially with support or opposition to the building of a nuclear plant in their county.

I ask unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD at this point the relevant portion of the report on this survey because it clearly reinforces the arguments we used in urging a reasonable moratorium:

SURVEY REPORT The most significant insight gained from

the survey concerning the reasons for oppooing Proposition 4 was the identiflcation of the enormous concern about nuclear waste disposal. This was the most salient reason on which the "voters" chose to focus in voting against the proposition, by a 71 percent to 29 percent margin. This 1s not inconsistent with recent statewide voter analyses and findings concerning the nuclear

37629 question and, we believe coupled with cost, it may be a national stumbling block to the future of electrical generation by nuclear reaction.

We found an electorate that was articulate, that understood the issue, that was able to actually separate the various points raised en both sides and able to focus on very specific and detalled reaso~s for their opposition. (In analyzing the verbatim responses to the open-ended question, it is clear that people were really sorting through the propaganda and focusing on concrete, specific, realistic rationales for their opposition.)

We are confident that the carefUl construction of the questionnaire and the refinement of the various issues allowed us to be extremely accurate in predicting the outcome. (For example, one of the questions of the survey relating to the nuclear issue was: "I am going to read you a list of issues that have been mentioned during the debate about the Skagit nuclear project. Please tell me if each one was important or unimportant in making up your mind on the issue: the issue of nuclear waste disposal, the need for more electrictt.y, the incident at 3 Mile Island, the issue of jobs and employment, the problem of a possible earthquake at the building site, the possible impact on . the Skagit River." Their responses were further refined to "very" or "somewhat" important or unimportant. Choices were rotated as well for validity.)

It is a testimony to both the validity of the sample selection and the ab111ty to focus on what we perceived to be the main problems that the prediction on Proposition 4 of the survey was within 3/ loth of one percent of the actual vote.

We know of no other instance in the United States where the nuclear siting issue has been on the ballot and where an attempt has been made to analyze with detail voter opinions on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, the survey showed the following things.

When asked how important they felt the various issues that had been raised were, the citizens of Skagit County believed the issue of nuclear waste was paramount; 71 percent thought it was "important'' or "very important." Only 5 percent thought it was "unimportant.''

Earthquake danger was an issue here because of much controversy over the adequacy of geologic studies and because the area has a known active fault. Even so, that issue was not as major as the more national issue of waste; 45 percent found it "important" or "very important" and 16 percent found it "unimportant."

The issue listed as Three Mile Island fared about the same. So did the need for more electricity; 45 percent found it "important" or "very important" and only 10 percent dismissed it as "unimportant.''

I believe the significance lies in that people in Skagit County were primarily concerned about a nuclear safety issue that is national in scope rather than some of the parochial issues that had been raised. I believe they reflect a broadly based national concern.

On the simple matter of nuclear safety, those who voted for the nuclear plant were virtually certain that nuclear power was safe--98 percent. But of those who voted against the plant, 79 percent believed it was unsafe. And remember, 71 percent of the people voted no.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this survey 1s very revealing and entirely supports the

37630 concerns of those of us who believe that 1f nuclear power is to be a part of the energy mix of this country, we are going to have to do more than merely assert they are safe. We must take the time and make the effort to do the things necessary to assure the American public of the safety of the plants; 71 percent of the people of Skagit County say so. I do not believe that they are alone.•

THE AMERICAN STEELWORKERS' VIEWPOINT

HON. DON RITTER OF PENNSYLVANIA



• Mr. RITrER. Mr. Speaker, the Nation's steelworkers have something to celebrate in this holiday season, but storm clouds do loom on the horizon. The news of 13,000 recently laid-of! U.S. Steel employees makes for a gloomy Christmas in the steel industry. This goes far beyond the number directly affected by the recent layoffs. Management, investors, Government workers--all have come under fire as the cause for the growing decline in steel productivity and the American competitive position in the face of the increasingly sophisticated and ofttimes subsidized foreign competition. I would point out that the steelworkers themselves are not often heard in this debate on cause and effect. For Members' attention, I would like to include in today's RECORD the following statement from steelworker President Lloyd McBride, which appeared today as a letter to the editor in the Washington Post.

The statement follows: STEELWORKERS' LAMENT

The Post's :Dec. 3 editorial, "The SteelMaker's Lament," needs a response. It's a better written than reasoned editorial, based as it is on a couple o! false assumptions.

First, the assumption that steelworkers are paid too much cannot stand examination. It's true thart rates of pa.y in the mills have gone up substantially over the past decade. But 57.3 percent of the higher wages resulted from cost-of-living increases--increases generated largely by the costs of fuel, food, medical care and housing. When The Post complains about the rates of pay in the steel .t.ndustry, it suggests that the union should have avoided negotiating cost-of-living adjustments on the one hand and productivity increases on the other. Today, the average rate of pay in the mill is $10.96 per hour, hardly too high !or the average !amJ.ly income.

The second erroneous assumption is that this nation's steel industry competes ln a world of private markets free of contrived encumbrances.

Today, with new and export-oriented steel industries in Japan and the European Economic Community nations, our industry competes with steel selling !or less here than it does in the country of origin. This "lossleader" kind of marketing 1s supported by government and consortium subsidies. The bargain prices do not persist once a market has been sufllciently penetrated.

For the Japanese and European nations, a. primary objective of industry is to provide full employment--a social goal a.s much as a commercial one. Those nations, put their people first. They 11m1t imports with various trade be.rriers. Profit in a particular industry


is not so important at a given tlme as the overall performance of the entire economy.

Over here, the problem 1s not good wages in the steel or other industries. It's the !allure of our traders, llttle and large, to recognize that their trading partners overseas are governments in one guise or another whose tl'l&dlng strategies are dictated by long-range political and social considerations.

I'm afraid our lamentations will greatly Increase before thls reality is generally perceived.

LLOYD McBRIDE, President,

United Steelworkers of Amerlca.e

VISITING AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN mAN

HON'. GEORGE HANSEN OF IDAHO



• Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, my recent visit to see the American hostages in Iran has continued to generate interest and therefore, I include for the RECORD several additional transcripts by Mr. Lee Roderick, the Washington Bureau Chief of Scripps League Newspapers, who accompanied me on the trip.

The articles follow: ODYSSEY TO IRAN-PART 5

(By Lee Roderick) TEHRAN.-Before our first 48 hours in the

country had passed, Rep. George Hansen (RIdaho) and I had become the first Americans since the U.S. Embassy was seized to hold face-to-face discussions with top Iranian officials and to visit the three Americans held captive at the Foreign Ministry.

Immediately following that breakthrough, Hansen lntensltled his effort to visit the 50 Americans imprisoned by milltant students at the embassy itself.

No one seemed quite sure what levers of power to pull to gain access to the hostages. Since the shah's downfall and rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolutionary government early this year, power ln Iran has been defused and confusing.

Khomeini himself lives in the holy city of Qom, about 80 miles from the capital of Tehran where the rest of the government is located. Day-to-day decisions in running the country are made by civil servants presided over by a 15-member Revoluntionary Councll-roughly comparable to the U.S. Cabinet.

However, Khomeini frequently has overruled the council's decisions almost as soon as they have been made public.

Then there are the university students and other young toughs who captured the U.S. Embassy on Nov. 4. They appeared to be a mixture of Shlite Moslems fanatically committed to Khomeini's vlslon of hatred toward the deposed shah and hls protector, the U.S. government, as well as leftists apparently motivated more by policies than religion.

The students a.re running their own show at the embassy, answerable to no one except possibly Khomeini himself.

Hansen approached a young American expatriate in Iran who reportedly is close to some of the students at the embassy, asking him to deliver a letter of introduction to them. The letter, dated Nov. 21 lliD.d addressed as suggested to "The students following the Imam's (Khomeini's) Line," sM.d in part:

"I am here as a private citizen at my own expense because o! my great concern that justice be done for the people of Iran and United States. It is important to exchange

December 20, 1979 ideas with you regarding the deposed shah and the Amertcam. hostages. I must be leaving Iran ln one more day and will take your message to the American people."

The letter didn't bear fruit lmmed.fa.tely, but Hansen extended his stay in the hope of a future meeting. (Hansen, in fact, made and broke at least six plane reservations before fiylng home.)

Nov. 24 d.&wned with still no answer !rom the students. Hansen, with Impatience turning to frustration, decided to break the logjam by appealing again to the major government figure below Khomelnl-Actlng Foreign Minister Abol-Hassan Bani S&dr.

As we entered the Foreign Ministry !or an 11 a.m. session with Bani Sadr, we were met in the waiting room by six nervous a.mba.ssadors from Western Europe, there to appeal to Bani Sadr for restmint. They also were anxious to learn lf Hansen had brought e.ny good news regarding the impasse from the United States.

During our session with the foreign minIster, Hansen stressed he we.s returning soon to the U.S. and urged Bani Sadr to make arrangements !or him to talk to the students and see the hostages. Bani Sadr agreed to do what he could.

Hansen, now well-known in Iran, spent much of the rest of the day giving interviews to local newsmen and reporters c&lling long distance from other countries. He also met with worried Americans living in Iran who turned to him wlth problems they normally would have taken to the nowcaptured U.S. Embassy.

Hansen's first clue that something big was about to break came when the National Iranian Radio and TV NetWork came to h1s room !or an Interview. Knowledgeable sources told us the network never could have done the interview 1f Hansen's activities ha.d not been looked upon favorably by the government.

Finally, word reached Hansen that hls request to see the hostages had been taken directly to Khomet.ni at Qom, and that an answer would be forthcoming that night.

At 11:40 p.m. Bani Sadr's omce called: Hansen had been cleared at every level to talk with students and see the hostages. He was to be at the embassy gate at 8 a.m. tbe following day . .

Hansen's quest-which has since been widely reported in the world's press-at last was at hand.

ODYSSEY TO lRAN-P~T 6

(By Lee Roderick) TEHRAN.-Early Sunday morning, Nov. 25

Rep. George Hansen arose, shaved, and put on the one suit he had brought with him to Iran. This was to be his biggest day in the country-the day he would face m1llta.nt students inside the U.S. Embassy and meet with their 50 American hostages.

Time in Iran is 8¥2 hours later than tn Washington, so he'd been up almost all night answering phone calls from reporters during their omce hours on the other side of the world. At 8 a.m. he was scheduled to face the students, having had only his usual two hours of sleep.

As we left hls room, I reached over and instinctively turned off the light. "Leave it on, I llke light," he snapped. The tremendous pressure was getting to him.

Hansen had quietly invited two other reporters as well to accompany him to the embassy-Edwin Smith of UPI and Eric Rouleau of Le Monde. He would try to get us into the embassy with him.

Reaching the embassy wall, which !s shrouded with propaganda, banners and posters in both English and Farsi, we handed our identification cards through the tall steel gate to a student. Patrolllng on our side of the gate were two very stern revolutionary

December flO, 1979 guards carrying Iranian-made 00 assault rlfies.

Twenty minutes later Hansen was admitted inside-alone. The last free American government official in Iran was now totally at the mercy of the students.

We were left on the sidewalk in the chilled morning air, with the loud speaker on the red-brick wall now coming to ll!e with a deadening cadence of martial music and revolutionary slogans.

several young women in chadors--the long cape, usually black, worn !rom head to toeapproached and were admitted inside. Hundreds of workers !rom a factory marched through the streets to !ace us at the front of the embassy. In a show of support that has become a daily ritual, they began to shout in Persian: "Death to Carter! Death to the shah!"

As the morning wore on the workers were joined by thousands of others. Only a thin rope separated them for us. It seemed a good time to find out what was on their minds, so I stepped to the rope and sought someone who could speak English.

Above the frenzied roar of the crowd, Nasser Sha.rlata came forward. "We love the American people, but not the American government,'' said Sharlata in a re!rs.in that we had heard many times before.

Shariata, a clean-cut young sergeant in the Iranian navy who lived in the United States for six years, said, "everyone in the military here is ready to die for the cause. We don't care 1! the United States navy comes ln. Maybe 10 of us wm die, but we wlll k111 one of them."

Sharlata. was in the United States when the shah was toppled early this year and IranU.S. relations turned ugly.

"My father told me to come home to fight against the Americans. He said, 'If the Americans come here and you're still in life and in America I don't want you anymore: "

Another young man who had just .returned from attending the University o! Wyoming pressed against the rope. "Americans don't understand, and don't want to know, what the shah has done to Iran," he said. "I have many friends in America, but this is m"Y homeland. And I'll gladly fight if we are attacked."

Others in the crowd were less approachable and more argumentative. When our conversation began heating up, I retreated toward the embassy gate, 15 feet away, leaving the two armed guards between us.

At 10 a.m. a. student from inside the embassy compound reappeared at the gate and admitted Eric Rouleau. Later, Rouleau, who has wide contacts among Iranian leaders, said he alone was allowed to join Hansen inside because France is regarded by Iran as "outside the confiict."

An hour later, Rouleau came out, bringing the news that Hansen had finished talking to the students and was about to be taken to see the hostages.

Even though the visit with the Americans had been cleared up to and including Khome1n1, Hansen st111 had to convince the students on the spot to let him do so. Finally, a.!ter much delay, they told him lhe "deserved" to visit his compatriots.

Hansen's account of being blindfolded, placed in a van, and driven to a separate building where he visited with about 20 hostages, already has been widely circulated. Here, in part, it what student leaders told the official Iranian news agency, Pars, about Hansen's visit:

" ... the truth is not reaching the American public. Therefore, we thought we should let Hanson (sic) to visit the hostages and take our message to the American publtc. We have only one demand added the representative, the return of the deposed shah. This is our justified right and we will not compromise on this issue."

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS "At one point Hansen reminded that he

had not come for negotiations and he did not have any such authority ... Hansen was allowed to meet the American hostages and talk with them for a.n hour."

ODYSSEY TO IRAN--PART 7 (By Lee Roderick)

TEHRAN.--An Iranian official who lived in the United States 14 years came to Rep. George Hansen's hotel room unannounced late the night before Hansen returned to the United States.

The official, who is a favorite among foreign correspondents here, was calling on the congressman because ea.rller that day Hansen in a TV interview had called the takeover of the U.S. Embassy a. "criminal" act.

Hansen's use of a word frequently thrown at the deposed shah had, unbeknown to the congressman, set of! an alarm in government circles. The official was now coming to determine if he should be barred from the TV studio.

Knowing he at last would be leaving Iran at 10 a.m. the following day, Hansen took the occasion to have a. long, emotional talk with the official in a. final efiort at mediation.

"During the past week I have learned that while your people are angry at our government !or supporting the shah, they truly do like the American people," Hansen told him. "I have never found basically friendlier people or been treated better personally. Is there not something further we can do to help establish a dialogue between our governments and avoid bloodshed?"

In Engllsh that bore not a trace of a.n accent, the man answered that "I'm the best proof you could have that most Iranians still desire good relations with the Americans."

"Let me tell you what happened while I was Uving in South Dakota.," he continued. "My nephew suddenly stopped writing--for no apparent reason. For two years I didn't hear from him, and my family never wrote to tell me why.

"Then one day an underground newspaper arrived in the United States from Iran. In the paper I found a. list of those who had recently been executed by the SAVAK (the shah's secret police) . My nephew was on the list. And my family had been afraid to even write a letter about it."

As tears welled up in his eyes, he told of how his br1llia.nt young nephew had graduated magna cum laude from the University of Tehran. The practice at that time was for each graduate of that distinction to walk across the stage, receive a medal from the shah and, in turn, to kiss the shah's hand.

When his nephew's turn came, he walked across the stage and was awarded the medal. But the devout Moslem refused to kiss the shah's hand, saying "I bow only to God." Shortly thereafter he was executed.

"My nephew's sister was also graduating with high honors from the university; this was her whole life. But just two weeks before graduation the SAV AK came to get her and she was immediately sent to prison for two years. And another brother of hers was sentenced to life imprisonment for talking about freedom. He was only released following the revolution this year."

"The proof that the Iranian people in their hearts want peace with the American people is sitting before you," he added. "I have every reason to hate your country, but st111 I don't hate."

Before going to Iran, Hansen was the hardest of the hardliners in Congress. He was probably the only member of Congress to suggest President Carter should be impeached for not taking sterner measures against Iran following seizure of the embassy on Nov. 4.

But Hansen could not fall to be moved by

37631 such accounts, which fiooded in on him wherever he went--from Iranians on the street, American journalists who Uved here under the shah, and such documents as ghastly picture books of butchered bodies.

It is now widely accepted that repression under the shah included systematic torture by SAVAK. The notorious secret police, set up in 1957 with the help of the CIA, have been indicted by Amnesty International, among other organizations, for their atrocities.

It is true, of course, that the revolutionary government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini has plenty of blood on its own hands. Over 600 persons have been executed openlyafter a summary kangaroo court has passed sentence-and others have been killed quietly.

While Khomeini's "justice" has perhaps been more capricious than that meted out under the shah, few if any accuse his poorly organized government of the widespread terror experienced under the shah. And with his political grip on the country apparently slipping as the economy continues to stagnate and ethnic minorities agitate for autonomy, many here doubt that the ayatollah wm ever get a chance to systematize his ruthlessness throughout Iran.

The fury Iranians now hurl at the United States emanates from two major grievances: (1) U.S. support of the shah and (2) the erosion of their ancient Moslem culture as a result of a vast American-style "westernization" program under the shah.

"We were not sensitive enough to the cumulative efiect of the rate of change in Iran,'' CIA Director Stansfield Turner said earlier this year.

But Hansen left Iran with the belief that past mistakes can yet be overcome, with goodwill on both sides. And after carefully explaining this to his Iranian guest the night before his departure, the official picked up the phone in Hansen's room, called the Iranian information department, and rescinded the order taking Hansen of! TV.

ODYSSEY TO IRAN-PART 8 • (By Lee Roderick)

TEHRAN.--The day after Rep. George Hansen made world headlines with his visit to 20 of the 50 American hostages at the u.s. Embassy, he was interviewed! by a pane1 of editors at Ettelat, Iran's largest Persianlanguage n:ewspaper.

The interview was held in a newsroom stlll pockmarked by bullet holes from the recent revolutiollr--Souvenirs of sufiering worn with a pride typical of post-shah Iran.

As Hansen and! an editor were walking down a city street following the interview, a passerby stopped the editor, pointed at the 6-foot-6 congressman, and spoke excited·ly in Persian. Rejolnlng us, the editor, smiling broadly, said, "You're like a big American cowboy to lraDJla.ns."

That response typified Hansen's reception by the people of Iran. At his departure, for example, the congressman was stopped at least a. dozen times in the airport terminal by travelers who recognized him and wanted to chat or wanted his autograph. '

But in the United States, at least In official circles and in much of the media, the response was something else. House Speaker Thomas (Tip) O'Nelll (D-Mass. ) said Hansen was "out of bounds." State Department spokesma.n Hodding Carter said "we'd rather have the guy home."

Even Hansen's visit with hostages--the first and OD.!IY by an American to that time-was of little value and, in fact, was probably a. "distraction" to them., added. Jody Powell a.t the White House.

Reporters calling from throughout the English-speaking world began to reflect such criticism in their questions to Hansen. "Are you afraid of being censured by Congress

37632 when you get home?" asked a. reporter ln Detroit.

"I! you C&Dj be censured for wanting to help your fellow ma.n, then a lot of people in the world are in trouble," answered Hansen.

The congressman added that in his sporadic phone calls to the State Department from Tehran, he had noted that he wasn't getting paid to be in Ira.n and offered to ret~ to the United. States if the State Department would send over a professional diplomat. "So tar I've had no takers."

"J ody Powell is like a man standing on a river bank watching someone drowning," Hansen told a. reporter. "He isn't w111ing to dive in to save the swimmer, but he's . very wi111ng to . criticize someone else who dives in."

What had Hansen actually accomplished on his extraordinary "mission for peace"? He had opened a dialogue with student leaders an.<~ high-level omclals to assure them both of U.S. resolve not to give in to hostageblackmail and of a desire to defuse the crisis through peacefuL negotiation; a.n.d had become the first American to visit with the three U.S. captives held at the Foreign Ministry as well as nearly half the hostages a.t the embassy.

Eric Rouleau, chief Middle East correspondent for 25 yea.rs for the liberal French newspaper Le Monde, summarized Hansen's impact on Irani~ in a commentary dated Nov. 27:

"Tehran-In less than three days one American has won fame and even popular! ty in Iran. In a country which is expecting a U.S. 'attack' at any time, Republican Congressman George Hansen has succeeded in painting a different picture of the United States-so widely reviled-without ever making a concession on the fundamental elements of the conflict between his country and the Islamic Republic.

"His photograph has been printed on the front pages of the newspapers, which devote columns to interviews he has given. The television is broadcasting his statements translated into Persian at peak viewing times. The demonstrators acclaim him as he passes.

"The Islamic students have opened the locked doors of his embassy to allow him to visit his imprisoned compatriots. He is the first American in three weeks to have crossed the threshold of this 'den of spies' turned 'bastion of the revolution' and come out e. free man.

"This 49-year giant ... has impressed and seduced the Iranians. He treats them like a U.S. politician on an election campaign. Everywhere he goes he shakes hands, including those of the Islamic militia, forcing them to place their rUles on the other shoulder, a.nd of vociferous demonstrators who drop their menacing fists in contusion.

"I am George Hansen, I am an American; what is your name?' he invariably begins, before listening attentively to a mixture of accusations and complaints. 'Yes, yes,' he comments, 'there must be an inquiry to verity your statements on the shah and on my government's policy. . . .' The Iranian's face relaxed, the game was won."

Hansen is convinced he has opened doors in Iran through which the Carter administration can now walk to defuse the crisis with honor for both countries and without bloodshed.

But he also knows the way will not be easy. Both the opportunity and the challenge for the United States were indicated in a note pressed into Hansen's hand by a prominent Iranian as Hansen left his hotel for the last time. "As an Iranian, thank you for coming to Iran," it began. "I! a grain of good comes out of this trip, you would have served the people of our two nations well in this time of crisis.

"But please do not underestimate the people of this country's resolve to fight for their rights. We are not afraid of United States'

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS military might, for that might be used to destroy our bodies. We are afraid of God and thus afraid of losing our souls." e

NICARAGUA-PART vn: HUMAN RIGHTS

HON'. LEE H. HAMILTON OF INDIANA


• Mr. HAMll..TON. Mr. Speaker, most of us agree that the state of human rights in a nation is one of the most important signs of the quality of life in that nation. There is also widespread agreement that human rights say much about what a. government is, what it will become, and what it sees as central to its relations with other governments. For at least two reasons, then, one moral and one practical, Members of Congress are properly interested in the state of human rights in Nicaragua. They want to know whether the exercise of human rights there is openly encouraged, merely tolerated, or actively suppressed. They hope to discover whether tyranny in Nicaragua. will be replaced ·by genuine freedom in all areas of public and private life, or by another tyranny, one di1ferent only because its ideology and rhetoric are populist in nature. The congressional mission to Nicaragua spent a considerable amount of its time in an attempt to find satisfactory answers to the questions about human rights it knew would be asked.

Whether our interest is the general trend or the particular incident the notable achievement or the obviou~ setback, we cannot fall to have been impressed with one simple fact about the Nicaraguan revolution: Its leaders believe that a public commitment to human rights is an indispensable part of the process which they see themselves guidmg. The emphasis on human rights can be perceived in the very first acts of the Government of National Reconstruction. The basic statute of the Republic of Nicaragua, announced while the junta was in Costa. Rican exile and intended to serve as the forerunner of a new constitution and system of laws, gave human rights a. prominent place. For example a "truly democratic government" was 'to guarantee the right of all Nicaraguans to "political participation and universal su1frage." All political organizations would be permitted to operate, except that none could advocate the return of the dictatorship. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man were endorsed, a~d fx:eedom of expression, reporting, ~1ssenunation of thought religious practiCe, and trade unionism <including the right to strike) were to be "specially guaranteed." Furthermore, "repressive" laws and institutions those threatening "the dignity and integrity of individuals" and resulting in "assassinations, disappearances, and torture" would be repealed or abolished.

Other similar acts followed hard upon the announcement of the basic statute.

December 20, 1979

While still in exile, the junta contacted the Organization of American States (OAS> with a pledge to respect international covenants on human rights and an invitation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to visit Nicaragua. The junta asserted to the OAS that functionaries of the Somoza regime who were not wanted for crimes would be guaranteed safe passage out of the country. Approximately 5 weeks later, on August 21, a government newly arrived in its capital city issued a bill of rights providing for most of the liberties common to Western democracies and promising some social benefits not usually regarded as rights. Among the former were a prohibition against the death penalty and a guarantee of the right of an accused to a speedy trial with defense counsel. Among the latter were items, such as the right to protection against hunger, which showed the new government's strong desire to better the economic circumstances of the Nicaraguan people.

Everyone knows that promise a.nd practice often diverge when the issue is human rights. What Nicaraguan leaders promise is important, but what they practice will decide the issue for us. My impression is that the human rights situation in Nicaragua is mixed but generally positive. For example, national elections will probably not be held for sometime, but political parties are active now and they intend to establish themselves in the electorate. An independent newspaper, La Prensa, publishes open criticism of the revolution and circulates more widely than does the governmentowned print medium. The broadcast media are dominated by the new government and their presentations are slanted, but not quite as slanted as one might have supposed. We learned from our conversation with the Archbishop that freedom of religion has not been compromised in any way. There have been rumors of troubles in the labor unions.

One of the most important factors in assessing the state of human rights in Nicaragua must be the treatment a1forded by the new government to its former enemies, and here the record is about as good as one could expect. For example, the right of safe passage for functionaries of the Samoza regime was recently affirmed when 24 persons left their refuge in the Spanish Embassy and departed for Madrid. What is more important, some 7,000 partisans of the Somoza regime, having been detained in prison for the past 4 months, are now being tried by special three-member tribunals operating throughout the country. Reports are that the prisoners are repre~ented by defense attorneys, have the right to appeal convictions, and plead to charges of violating specific Nic-araguan laws. No sentence may exceed 30 years' imprisonment in severity, and the proceedings are open to all interested parties-including human rights observers. On the negative side, it should be noted that the detention of the prisoners has been hard since conditions in prison are poor. Some abuses of prisoners have been reported, and there has been some torture and killing. The new

December 20, 1979

government admits that such acts have occurred, disavows them, and has taken steps to punish perpetrators. It makes the plausible claim that it does not yet have the power to control al'l aspects of detention in all regions of the nation.

We members of the congressional mission to Nicaragua quizzed our hosts intently on human rights. More than information about unfortunate incidents that might have occurred in this city or that, we wanted to take the measure of our hosts' thinking. Junta member Sergio Ramirez called to our attention the fact that Nicaragua already had a free press and free political parties. He said that theirs would be a society in which "all seeds" would be allowed to grow. Mr. Ramirez spent some time on the subject of the prisoners. He characterized the then upcoming trials as a "Nuremburg without gallows." Crimes committed during the war would be punished, but not by death. Directorate member and Minister of the Interior Tomas Borge spoke at some length on human rights, especially the fate of the prisoners. He acknowledged the harsh conditions of their detention, noted that independent observers had been permitted to see them, explained that some prisoners had been abused, and vowed that such abuse would soon be a thing of the past. Mr. Borge expressed the opinion that the tribunals would release most of the prisoners because of the incompleteness of the evidence against them. In one of the most forceful statements we heard during the mission, he swore that capital punishment would never again exist in Nicaragua.

The question of human rights in Nicaragua is highly relevant to our supplying Nicaragua with the additional aid that President Carter has recommended. As we consider the question, however, we should beware of two pitfalls, one on each extreme. First, it is condescending and impudent to suppose that human rights need not be fully respected in Nicaragua because the nation is not developed. Such is the attitude of the armchair observer, not the man who faces incarceration without charge, brutal torture, or summary execution. The vigorous pursuit of social and economic goals is absolutely essential in Nicaragua, but it is not now and will never be incompatible with care for the human rights of Nicaraguans. Second, it is unrealistic and unfair to hold Nicaragua accountable to a standard of respect for human rights that few, if any, nations could meet. Such, too, is the attitude of the armchair observer, not the leader who faces the staggering social and economic problems of present-day Managua . .fi quick reaction to violations and an earnest desire to improve are what we should insist on.e

A LESSON IN POLISH ECONOMICS

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS


• Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, some politicians and economists try to make a dis-


tinction between human rights and property rights. But this is a phony dichotomy. Property and our economic rights are human rights, and this can most clearly be seen in socialist countries.

Dr. Michael Novak, an eloquent theologian and journalist, recently returned from a visit to Poland. His newspaper column about this experience contains good lessons for all of us. I would like to call it to my colleagues' attention.

The article follows: A LESSON IN POLISH ECONOMICS

(By Michael Novak) I ha.d always thought, before a recent 10-

day tour in Poland, that totalitarianism reigns by armies and by police. In Poland, I discovered it rules effectively through a socialist economy which strangles individuals at every turn.

Prices are rigidly controlled. So are wages. The state employs almost everyone. Hardly anyone is ever fired. There is no unemployment, !or every job is padded. Since customers have nowhere else to go, employees are not rewarded !or pleasing them. Rudeness and host111 ty characterize economic relations.

Goods and services are allocated. Scarcities are constant. To obtain basic necessities, families must plan to spend at least two !ull afternoons a week standing in line. A trip to the bank requires an entire morning. One day in Poznan I saw 43 people lined up outside a store to purchase toilet paper. Their breath frosted in front o! their !aces. The line did not move during the five minutes I watched. Afterward, most would !ace other lines !or cheese, then !or fruit. So it goes.

Housing experts told me most young marrieds live !or at least seven years in the crowded !our-room apartment o! the in-laws. Some wait 12 years. Even then, an apartment often cannot be purchased !or Polish money. It is best bought with "hard" (Western) currencies. On the black market, a dollar sells !or several times the omcial rate. It is a crime to use the black market. Yet simply to live in socialist Poland one must use it.

Bribes, shortcuts and 1llegal activlit1es become a way o! life. In a totalitarian economy, no one can survive by the rules. So everyone becomes, o! necessity, a criminal. Everyone is vulnerable to reprisal.

I asked my hosts why their rulers continue to insist upon unworkable dogma.. Why don't they rely upon political and military controls, a.nd permit rthe economy to operate freely? Why don't they allow energetic Poles to stop waiting in line, to work for themselves, and to end all the s1lly inemciencies? Because--! was told-economic freedom would make total state control impossible. Economic controls govern every other form o! aotivity. When the state controls money. prices, wages and jobs, the state opens and shuts every valve o! life. This was a. new concept !or me: economic tota.lita.riantsm.

The state, for example, tells a.n independent Catholic newspaper how much newsprint and ink is "available," a.nd how many copies they may print. Everything must be !ought !or, waited in line !or, properly applied !or. Delays are used as punishments. The state consumes as much o! its citizens' energies as it can in the mere details o! physica.l operation. By the time the censor looks over the last proofs--using a red pencil on every proper name a.nd concrete fa.ct, so that nothing may appear except a vague, abstract muddle--the ediltors a.lready have squandered hours a.nd hours of energy whlch they could not spend on editorial work. So It goes with architects, plumbers, mechanics, merchants and everybody else.

Alienation 1s visible on every face . People talk about It openly. "It is not anti-American," my hosts assured me: "the host111ty you experience is even worse !or Poles. No

37633 one ' has responsibility. There is no reason to do your job better. Why should you bother? Finish your state job as quickly as you can, save your energy, and hurry home to your secret job." I remember an American proverb which I mentally paraphrase: "You don't know what alienation is unless you've worked in Poland."

The Polish people are like a br1llia.nt show horse ready to perform with unparalleled energy and grace, forced into the hitches o! a creaky !arm wagon. Socialist economics hold the free spirlrt back, burdening it with feudal backwardness.

In Krakow, the most medieval and beautiful of Poland's cities, its Oxford, its Cambridge, socialism has created the worst air pollution I have ever encountered. Seeing is believing: particles are visible in the air, gather quickly on one's shirt, congest one's nose.

If God is indeed just, and if there is a special hell for socialists, I !eel certain John Kenneth Galbraith will spend at least hal! o! eternity standing in line for toilet paper in Poznan, and the other half blowing his nose in Krakow.

If God is just, the Soviets will suffer grievously from imposing upon this people who suffered so horribly from 1939-1945 the stiming half-life o! the present.e

CHRYSLER CORPORATION LOAN GUARANTEE ACT OF 1979

RON. TED WEISS OF NEW YORK



• Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, I voted yesterday in favor of the aid package for the Chrysler Corp. essentially because it offered the only way to save the jobs of some half-million workers throughout the United States.

I do not support special relief for companies that are threatened with bankruptcy except in the most extraordinary situations. In my judgment. the collapse of the lOth largest corporation in the country would have had such a devastating impact on the lives of millions of Americans that ultimately there was no choice but to make an exception in this case.

Ours is supposed to be a free-enterprise system in which profits and losses, successes and failures, are determined by market forces, not by Government intervention to rescue a company from its own mistakes. As a general principle, with only very limited exceptions, I believe that poor management and organization inemciency should not be rewarded through the approval of special bailouts.

Chrysler stands as an exception to this rule, in my view, because it has such a major impact on the overall U.S. economy and on the well-being of hundreds of local communities and on the fiscal security of the Federal Government and many States and localities.

Should Chrysler go bankrupt, up to 600,000 workers in the United States would lose their jobs, adding one-half a percentage point to the nationwide unemployment rate which already stands at an Wlacceptable 6 percent. Not only would autoworkers, dealers, and related service employees be thrown out of work.

37634 but the ripple effect of a Chrysler collapse would ruin many local businesses, especially those in communities with a high proportion of Chrysler employees.

Minority workers and their families would be particularly and disproportionately affected by Chrysler's fall. About 28 percent of all Chrysler employees are black or Hispanic, while 34 percent of the company's blue-collar workers are members of minority groups. In Detroit--a city already reeling under the current recession-37 ,000 residents are employed by the company, and 79 percent of them are black or Hispanic. A total of 75,000 minority jobs would be lost in Detroit alone were the company to fold.

In New York State, 4,205 people work for Chrysler. Another 9,000 are employed by Chrysler dealerships. Nearly 15,000 more New Yorkers are working for companies that supply Chrysler with goods and services. The State and various localities would lose $15.4 million in tax revenues if New York's Chrysler components folded. Clearly, this is an issue with an important and direct consideration for New York.

The U.S. balance-of-trade deficit, regarded as a reliable barometer of infiation trends, would increase $3 billion in the wake of Chrysler's failure. The cars now produced by this third-largest of U.S. automakers would in all likelihood be sold by foreign companies to U.S. purchasers. Our total gross national product would likewise decrease by $10 billion as a result of this increased dependence on foreign corporations.

The Federal budget deficit would meanwhile swell by some $2.75 billion in 1980 and 1981 because of increased unemployment and welfare payments as a half-million workers are laid off and as they stop paying taxes. State and local governments would also lose an estimated $266 million in revenues.

For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I felt it was necessary to vote for the relief package, but I must again emphasize that I did so with the greatest reluctance. I realize that a most unfortunate precedent may have been established by the House vote to mitigate the effects of mismanagement and to sanction Federal intervention minimizing the supposedly inherent risks of a capitalist economy.

Alternatives to this lesser-of-two-evils approach are available to us and should now receive the careful consideration they so clearly deserve. Had a program of job training and plant retooling been in operation, it would not have been necessary to provide special relief to Chrysler. I am currently sponsoring legislation which provides for full compensation, meaningful job retraining, and plant conversion in the event of a shutdown of a defense-related facility. The same sound principles could and should be applied to nondefense corporate sectors so that workers are not severely penalized for the errors and incompetence of their employers.

I would urge the Congress, and indeed American society to address this underlying issue so that we will have in place a functioning alternative to either bail-


ing out a major employer or letting plant capacities stand idle and human beings thrown on the economic scrap heap.e

THANKS, BUT NO THANKS

HON. BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR. OF CALIFORNIA


Thursday, December 20, 1979

e Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Speaker, I present the following observation, without comment, to my colleagues for their attention:

THANKS, Btrr No THANKS

From Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr. comes a. kind note that shows the dilemma. faced by those in and out of government who would curtail wasteful government spending.

The Goldwater note came attached to copies of two pages of the Congressional Record, which records every word spoken on the floors of the House and Senate and millions which aren't. The latter sneak into the Record under the "extensions of remarks" category.

On those two pages were an editorial that appeared in this newspaper early last month and which Goldwater thought enough of to enter into the Congressional Record.

I would be a. liar if I said there was no thr111 to seeing the editorial there, although I think some news stories I wrote earlier in my career may have been my first prose ever published in that august document.

But I would be a hypocrite 1f I didn't acknowledge I think the extension of remarks section of the Congressional Record is a. waste of taxpayer money.

Therein lies the dilemma. faced by both Goldwater and editorial writers who share my view.

Congressmen in general love the extension of remarks section of the Record because it enables them to fiatter constituents by dropping the names of visitors, the prose of editors or any number of other bits of information into the Record. It doesn't matter that nobody reads the extension of remarks part of the Record except those whose achievements are forever enshrined there-those who are mentioned usually think it's great.

So let's say Goldwater heeds the advice of a. newspaper editor who says the time, effort and material spent on the extension of remarks section of the Congressional Record isn't worth it.

If Goldwater's constituents suddenly find they're shut out of the record while constituents of 434 other congressmen are honored In such fashion, Barry has a. problem. He has lost a powerful PR weapon. And congressmen need public relations like newspapers need subscribers.

It ma.tJters not e. whit that GO'ldwateT"'s constituency elects him partly •because of his v1ew that govemment wastes too much money. Waste, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. A project that 1s wasteful in another congressman's district 1s a good investment of public funds when it's in your own.

Thus it is with the Congressiona.l Record. The extension of remarks costs taxpayers thousands upon thousands, maybe even mil-lions of dollars each year. But it buys congressman good will. And it ma.kes constituents whose natnes show up t.here !eel good, too.

All of us like .to feel good. The Goldwater note made me feel good. But I still wish Congress would do away with the extension of remarks. At the sa.me time, I know they won't.

December 20, 1979 So should I tell Goldwater, thanks for the

mention but please don't do 1t again? That could mean 1'111 be forever left out of the Record while other newspaper editors &re in again and again. But I'm a hypocrite if I don't.

So here goes. Baorry, thanks for the mention. I stncemy

appreciate it and don't want .to appear ungrateful. But 1f we can save tlhe federal government a few dollars by not extending your remarks to include my editorta.ls, we should. And, by the way, if anybody in D.C. was impressed enough to want to read more of my ed1 torials, we w1ll be halppy to ma.1l .them a subscription in Washington---.but please ask them to pay for it out of their own pocket, not with tax money ·•

THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY: RESISTING REGULATION

HON·. RON PAUL OF KENTUCKY



• Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the eloquent Mr. Charles Koch, 'chairman of Koch Industries, is one of our most effective spokesmen for the free market. He is also chairman of the Council for a Competitive Economy, an organization whose advisory board I am proud to serve on. The council makes the same consistent defense of freedom as Mr. Koch. It is a partial, inconsistent advocacy o~ the market that has made so many busmessmen into helpers of government control. I would like to call a speech by Mr. Koch to my colleagues attention. Here is what freedom means.

THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY: RESISTING REGULATION

(By Charles Koch) The majority of businessmen today a.re

not supporters of free enterprise capitalism. Instead they prefer "political capitalism," a. system In which government guarantees business profits while business itself faces both less competition and more security for itself. As California Governor Jerry Brown puts it, "Sometimes businessmen almost operate as though they'd feel more comfortable in a Marxist state where they could just deal with a few commissars who would tell them what the production goals were, what quota they had. . . . I am really concerned that many businessmen are growing weary of the rig-ors of the free market." New York Times columnist William Sa.fire agrees with this sobering analysis: "The secret desire of so many top-level managers for controls and regulated monopoly is never openly stated. But today's managerial trend is not toward accepting risk. It is toward getting government help to avoid risk."

Even Henry Ford ll has pointed out that "It's not just liberal do-gooders, Democrats, unions, consumerists and environmentalists who are responsible for the growth of government. It's also conservative polltlclans who favor increased defense programs, especially if the money is spent in their own districts. It's bankers and transporters and retallers and manufacturers who want protection from competitors. It's insurance companies that lobby !or bumper and air bag regulations that might lower their claims costs. It's even, if you'll forgive me, car dealers who want state government to protect them from the factory or from new dealers In their territory."

But that is only the tip of the Iceberg. It was support from a large portion of the busl-

December 20, 1979 ness community, including the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, which enabled Nixon to impose wage and price controls in 1971. Much earlier, bankers succeeded in pushing through legal prohibitions on the payment of interest on demand deposits. Moreover, the steel industry has just caused the government to set minimum prices on imported steel.

Businesses often fight bitterly against deregulation, as well as urging new controls. Despite support by both liberals and con-. servatives in Congress, deregulation of the airline ·industry was blocked for some time by heavy pressure from the airlines themselves. Deregulation of the trucking industry has buckled under pressure from the American Trucking Association.

My own industry, otl, is no different. Over the past five years our company has partlcipated in dozens of hearings on regulatory matters before the Federal Energy Administration and the Department of Energy. At virtually all of these hearings, a number of oil companies have come down on the side of state regulation. Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger summed it up: "The oil industry loves regulation and has been in love with it for many years." Precisely so.

Businessmen have always been 8Jlxious to convince a gullible public and an opportunlstlc Congress that the free market cannot work efficiently in their industry, that some governmental planning and regulations would be in the "public interest." Indeed, much of the government regulation which plagues us today has come only after businesses have begged and lobbied for it. Nearly every major piece of interventionist legislation since 1887 has been supported by important segments of the business community.

This old business strategy of accommodation with government paid off in the past to some extent, perhaps, but today it falls on its face. Business now suffers as much as the rest of society from the adverse consequences of its own interventionism-the exhaustion of the "reserve fund" predicted by the great economist Ludwig von Mises. Passed at the behest of business, regulations boomerang. A refiner may procure price controls on his purchased crude oil, yet later he experiences shortages and even may find price controls slapped on 'h'is own gasoline to ca.pture his politicaJly derived "excess" profits. 011 pipeline companies invite the DOE in to study regional pipeline needs, hoping that their particular project will be favored. But in the future, Washington may well make all pipeline decisions, 8illd even build all pipelines.

Businessmen should realize that the more regulated an industry becomes, the less it can cope with changing condi tlons in the world. It is no cotncidence that the four lowest ranking industries in return on capital today (airlines, railroads, natural gas utllities, and electric ut111ties) are also the most highly regulated.

The final stage of political capitalism is even worse. Richard Ferris, president of United Airlines (an exception in h1s industry) predicts, "Continued governmental control will mean airline service as you know it today will be seriously jeopardized. And, as serVice and equipment deteriorate, you will stand by helplessly as the threat of nationalization becomes reality." In the electric ut111ty industry, a number of states have already organized agencies to take over from private uti'lities unable to finance needed additional generating capacity.

Even business's dwindling successes in achieving precisely the regulatory scheme desired by them do not guarantee future control. Just the opposite often occurs. Politically derived benefits for business cause hardships for other special interest groups who apply pressure on the regulators to turn the regulatory weapon around.

Thus, the business community is growing

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS more and more aware of the shortcomings of this strategy as more and more firms directly suffer the after-effects of their own pathetic schemes. Moreover, examples of the ultimate consequences of interventionism, especially the plight of the railroad industry in the Unlted States and major industries in Great Britain, are awakening businessmen to thier own probable fate.

Businessmen are also becoming justifiably concerned with the rapidly growing antibusiness sentiment in this country. Recent public opinion polls show that a large portion of intellectuals and the general public believe that business-especially big business-has undue political power, which it uses to stifte and smash competition and to control prices.

THE LmERATION OF BUSINESS

But business can free itself from this predicament, 1! . only it wlll. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, "Despite the blows they have suffered in the political arena [businessmen] stlll have the capacity to be highly influential in the political sphere. But they will not bring about such a reversal unless they are able to put aside short-term concepts in favor of those longerterm considerations ..... We may be reaching the point where American businessmen wm have to decide whether they really believe in the market system. I! they don't, it is hard to see who will muster the political forces to defend it against its very real and often intensely committed enemies." In spite of businesses sullied record in defending free enterprise, there are large numbers of businessmen who want nothing more from government than to be left alone. And these numbers are growing quickly today.

To survive, business must develop a new strategy. The great free-market and Nobel Laureate economist F. A. Hayek has prepared a guide for us:

Almost everywh.ere the groups which pretend to oppose socialism at the same time support policies which, 1! the principles on which they are based were generalized, would no less lead to socialism than the avowedly socialist policies. There is some justification at least in the taunt that many of the pretending defenders of "free enterprise" are in fact defenders of privileges and advocates of government activity in their favor, rather than opponents of all privilege. In principle the industrial protectionism and government-supported cartels and the agricultural policies of the conservative groups are not different from the proposals for a more farreaching direction of economic life sponsored by the socialists. It is an illusion when the the more conservative interventionists believe that they will be able to confine these government controls to the particular kinds of which they approve. In a democratic society, at any rate, once the principle is admitted that the government undertakes responsiblllty for the status and position of particular groups, it is inevitable that this control will be extended to satisfy the aspirations and prejudices of the great masses. There is no hope of a return to a freer system until the leaders of the movement against state contro! are prepared first to impose upon themselves that discipline of a competitive market which they ask the masses to accept. The hopelessness of the prospect for the near future indeed is due mainly to the fact that no organized political ~oup anywhere is in favor of a truly free system.

Before businessmen can serve as effective defenders of individual liberty and the free enterprise system, it is first necessary for them to learn precisely what free enterprise is and what it is not. We must do ou:::- homework; we must comprehend "the philosophic foundations of a free society." Only then will we have the necessary resolve to carry out the difficult task ahead.

37635 Armed with understanding, businessmen

can confidently proceed with the new strategy, which is composed of three parts: business/government relations, education, and political action.

1. Business/ Government Relations-The first requirement is to practice what we preach. People see our inconsistencies andquite justifiably-simply don't believe businessmen anymore. How discrediting it is for us to request welfare for ourselves while attacking welfare for the poor. Our critics rightfully claim that we want socia.Usm only for the rich.

Our credibility cannot be regained if we continue to file, hat in hand, to Washington while mouthing empty, insincere platitudes about free enterprise. We cannot continue to have it both ways. Government will not keep granting us favors on the one hand, while allowing us to run our own businesses as we see fit, on the other. We must stop defending interventions and demanding new ones. This might well diminish the impetus for new regulations and win new allies for us among intellectuals, legislators, and the general public.

Then we should advocate the repeal of existing regulations in our industries, as well.

Never ask for tighter regulation of a competitor even if he has the advantage of being less regulated than you are. This starts the suicidal cycle which ends in the destruction of both. Instead we should concentrate on loosenlng our own regulations. We should defend our own right to be free of unjust regula tlons, and not try to shackle competitors. Strategically, the critical point is to fight to eliminate, rather than coninue, all interventions, even those that provide short-term profits. Only by rigidly adhering to this policy can we begin the step-by-step process of freeing ourselves.

Taxes are particularly troublesome, especially since many free market businessmen believe that tax exemptions are equivalent to subsidies. Yet morally and strategically, tax exemptions are the opposite of subsidies. Morally, lowering taxes is simply defending property rights; seeking a subsidy is asking the government to steal someone else's property for your benefit. Strategically, lowering taxes reduces government; subsidies increase government. Nor is it valid to say that reducing your taxes simply shifts your "fair share" of the tax burden to someone else. There is no "fair" share. Our goal is not to reallocate the burden of government; our goal is to roll back government. We should consistently work to reduce all taxes. our own and those of others.

Finally, we should not cave in the moment a regulator sets foot on our doorstep. Put into practice Henry Manne's recommendation that "the business community utlllze available techniques of legal adversary proceedings to announce publicly and vigorously, both as individual companies and through associations, that they wlll not cooperate with the government beyond the legally compelled minimum in developing or complying with any control programs." As he urges, "publicize as widely as possible the inevitable inefficiencies, mistakes, and human miseries that will develop with these controls ... help the public understand that morality, in the case of arrogant, in the case of arrogant, intrusive, totalitarian laws, lies in the barest possible obedience and in refusal to cooperate willingly beyond the letter of the law." Do not cooperate voluntarily; instead, resist wherever and to whatever extent you legally can. And do so in the name of justice.

2. Education-Business's educational strategy has been guided more by concern with short-term "respectablllty" and acceptance

37636 by the establishment than with long-term survival.

We have voluntarily supported universities and foundations who are philosophically dedicated to the destruction of our businesses and of what remains of the tree market. This must stop. We must stop financing our own destruction. Period.

Even when business has supported "free enterprise" education, it has been ineffectual because businessmen have had little understanding of the underlying philosophy or of a meaningful strategy. Businessmen have spent their money on disasters such as buying a "free enterprise" chair at their alma mater and watching in dismay as the holder teaches everything but tree enterprise.

Also largely wasted has been the money contributed to those private colleges who make free enterprise noises, but have failed to produce competent graduates dedicated to establishing the free enterprise system. There are too many of these.

The development of talent is, or should be, the major point of all these efforts. By talent, I mean those rare, exceptionally capable scholars or communicators willing to dedicate their lives to the cause of individual liberty. To be effective, this talent must have the knowledge, sklll, and sophistication to meet statist adversaries and their arguments head on, and to defeat them. They must have the desire and commitment to unceasingly advance the cause of Uberty. Statists have succeeded while we floundered because they've had their talent, their cadre, to develop and sell their programs. During the 15 years I have been actively investing my time and money in reestablishing our free society, our biggest problem has been the shortage of talent. When conscientious, dedicated scholars or communicators worked on a project, we were effective; when they weren't available, we failed.

Thus, business must concentrate its support on those few institutes and university departments that have effective programs for producing a free-market cadre

Our own direct defense of business, particularly our media advertising, has been either bungling and pitifully ineffectual, or else downright destructive. We have substituted intellectual bromides for a principled exposition of a point of view. We have taken a concmatory attitude. Our ads have apologized for profits.

We have accepted the fallacious concept that the corporation has a broad "social responsib111ty'' beyond its duty to its shareholders. We have been made to feel ashamed of private ownership and profits, and have been hoodwinked into characterizing government regulation as "virtuous" and in the "public interest." As a typical example, the Advertising Council, backed by most of the major U.S. corporations, goes so tar as to describe regulation as, "the promotion of fair economir. competition and the protection of public health and safety." What simple-minded nonsense!

Instead of this bankrupt approach, we need to go on the offensive. We need to cast aside our desire to be popular with our colleagues and the establishment intellectuals, to cast aside our fears of reprisals by government. We need to advertise that the market system is not only the most efficient, it is also the only moral system in history. We need to attack government regulation !or wreaking havoc on those it is allegedly designed to help-those least able to fend for themselves. We need to stigmatize interventionism a.s being intrinsically unjust because it deprives individuals of their natural right to use their lives and property as they see fit. We need to defend the right of "capitalist acts between consenting adults," in the words of Robert Nozick.

A recent demonstration of the need for arguments beyond the standard one of em-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ciency is the recent Supreme Court decision upholding a Maryland law (passed at the bidding of a service station dealers' association) barring oil producers and refiners from operating service stations. The Court found that, "regardless of the ultimate E:conomic efficacy of the statute, we have no hesitancy in concluding that it bears a reasonable relation to the state's legitimate purpose in controlling the gasoline retail market .... " The determinative defense of business wlll rest not in arguments from efficiency, but in arguments from justice. To claim that the state has the right to "control the gasoline retail market" is totalitarian nonsense.

We must demand the same principled behavior of our organizations as we do of ourselves and our companies. When, for example, the Committee for Economic Development advocates "that public-private partnerships must be an essential part of any national urban strategy," business should withdraw its support. It should do the same if the Chamber of Commerce continues to promote government intervention under the philosophy espoused by a former president: "It's not possible or desirable to remove all the regulations." New business organizations should be set up which refrain from asking for state protection and subsidies, and which, going further, criticize, expose and lobby against instances of political capitalism, of "the partnership between business and government." Only such organizations can help business regain the respect of the American people. In fact, a group of us is launching just such an organization, The Council for a Competitive Economy.

Such an organization wm help businessmen avoid blunders similar to the Wichita Chamber of Commerce when it heavily promoted a one-blllion-dollar coal gasification plant, which would have been partially owned by Wichita and subsidized by Washington. The people of Wichita rejected Chamber propaganda that the plant would not cost them anything and voted it down. Again, such an organization wlll help prevent blunders such as the business community in California opposing Proposition 13. These blunders create an image of business in cahoots with government to tax and exploit the people. Milton Friedman describes this as business following "its unerring instinct for self-destruction."

Business should also stop shackling the free-market position with ant111bertarian stands such as host111ty to civU liberties and an interventionist foreign policy. What a spectacle it is for the same people who preach freedom in voluntary economic activities to call tor the full force of the law against voluntary sexual or other personal activities! What else can the public conclude but that the free-market rhetoric is a shamthat business only cares about freedom for itself, and doesn't give a damn about freedom for the individual?

The public reacts at least as negatively to business calls tor stlll further foreign adventurism. What other feelings can we expect from people taxed and conscripted to sa.ve our foreign investments or to enlarge our foreign profits? We should take our own risks abroad, and not expect them to be borne by the American people.

Businessmen have been the first to support any sort of foreign adventurism, 1f only it is sold under the rubric of "national secur-ity." If business really wants a free market/ private property system it must resist government's foreign interventions as well as its domestic interventions. Businessmen must realize that the single greatest force behind the growth of government is foreign adventurism and its da.ughter--'W8.r. America. cannot both be policeman to the world and have a free dom~stic economy, they are mutually exclusive. Our classical liberal fore-

December 20, 1979 bears in England who struggled for free trade and laissez-faire realized this--the peace movement and the free trade movement are one and the same.

3. Political Action-Businessmen should be involved in politics and political actionfrom local tax revolts to campaigns tor Congress and the presidency. But we should apply the same standards of understanding and principled behavior as in the other parts of our strategy. We must discard our lesserof-evils approach to politics. This has brought only the continued growth of government.

Our movement should have as its goal the fullfillment of the ideal of the free and independent entrepreneur. To accomplish this, our movement must destroy the prevalent statist paradigm and erect, in its stead, a new paradigm of Uberty for all people. Our movement must avoid the faulty strategy of conservatives, whose acceptance of statist premises has caused their proposals to be simply moderate versions of the original statist schemes. Our movement must struggle tor the realization of the principle of the free market rather than settle for 1mmediately obtainable reforms. For, as Aileen Kraditor writes, "To criticize the (radical) agitator tor not trimming his demands to the immediately realizable-that is, for not acting as a po11tic1an-1s to miss the point ... the more extreme demand of the agitator makes the politician's demand seem acceptable and perhaps desirable 1n the sense that the adversary may prefer to give up halt a loaf rather than the whole. Also, the agitator helps define the value, the principle, tor which the politician bargains. The ethical values placed on various possLble political courses are put there partly by agitators working on the public opinion that creates political possiblllties."

Business can survive, but it cannot survive Without the help of businessmen. By fighting against intervention, however profitable, by advocating a principled, philosophical defense of the tree enterprise system, and by working for freedom tor everyone, businessmen can, with pride, be a vital force in restoring our free society. To date, businessmen have not seen fit to do so. Whether businessmen do so in the future may determine whether business, indeed, has a future. Or deserves to.e

DffiTY FOOD-HOW DANGEROUS?

HON. DON RITTER OF PENNSYLVANIA



• Mr. RITI'ER. Mr. Speaker, the ability of the society to identify and measure substance or matter causing risks has far outstripped our capacity as a Nation to surmount the anxieties raised by the increasingly sensitive instruments of measurement. As a consequence, to avoid potential risks, some would have us turn off the 20th century, technology by technology, perhaps return to the simpler lifestyles of an earlier era. Some favor careful study of every possible risk from sample substances--down to the few parts per trillion.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that society's technological abllity to measure chemicals and radioactivity-not to mention other potentially hazardous substances under scrutiny today-far exceeds our present political ability to manage or regulate them wisely. I would urge the Congress to act to establish a

December ~0, 1979

mechanism for understanding and assessment of comparative risks in the agencies of government where such scientific or technological matters require regulatory action. This mechanism should also inform the general public of "comparative risks" in language understandable to the layman. Only the Congress--not the courts or the regulatory agencies of Government-is able to make the necessary judgments whether an action or failure to act is as dangerous as might be alleged. For Members who may want to read today's Washington Post editorial on the potential impact of the "environmental contamination" of food substances identified in a study by the Congress Office of Technology Assessment, I insert the following:

DmTY FooD Kepone closing Virglnla's James River;

PBBs in animal feed killing thousands o! dairy cows in Michigan; PCBs in animal !ats !rom a single packing plant in Montana finding its way into everything !rom pork products to strawberry cakes in 17 states in a matter o! weeks-each o! these was a case of what Congress' Oftlce of Technology Assessment calls "environmental contamination" of food. In a study released Sunday, OTA describes environmental contaminants as any substance in food that can be injurious to health and that cannot be ellminated by normal manufacturing practices. They can be o! many types: natural or man-made chemicals, metals or chemicals containing metals, and radioactive substances.

Unlike many other countries, the United States has not yet had a tragic case of food contamination such as the one in Japan in which great n~bers o! people were poisoned by mercury in fish. But with growing industrial activity and thousands of new chemicals entering the marketplace each year, the potential is there. OTA !ound 240 cases of food conta.minatlon in this country during the past decade. A very rough estimate of the cost o! the condemned food is about $1 billion; health costs !or medical expenses and lost workdays could not even be guessed at. Though evidence is scarce, it seems that only one of the 240 incidents produced lasting health efrects, though their severity is not yet known.

OT A identified many defects in the present system for preventing food poisoning. Most of them-like the lack of coordination among the many state and federal agenciesare relatively easy to fix. A lead federal agency should be named to deal with these cases and directed to establish formal lines of communication and reporting responslblllties with state governments.

The most importanlt defect, however, is not at all easy to remedy. It is that under the current system animals or people must get sick before a contaminant is identified and they usually have to get very sick before the responsible substance can be regulated or, it necessary, actually banned. To change this, OTA suggests that a nationwide food-monitoring system be set up making use of sophisticated new chemical technology that can measure substances in a sample of air, water, food or soil in miniscule amountsdown to a few parts per trillion. These devices can quickly tell when a new coznponent-possibly a dangerous contaminantbegins to appear.

'llhe cost of such a system would be very large, but that is not its greatest drawback. Its greatest drawback is that it may simply identity dozens of substances about which nothing can then be done. For the reality is that society's technological abillty to measure chemicals and radioactivity far exceeds its current political ab111ties to manage or


regulate them wisely; and the more that federal decision making is opened up to allow full public participation, the harder It gets to set adequate regulatory standards. Everyone wants a safe food supply, but before Congress sets up a system that will produce these vast amoulllts of new information, it ought to take a hard look at the way our regulatory system manages the information it already !haS and be ready with some advice on how to make any new outpouring of measurements a boon to managing dangers in the environment-not just a new source of anxiety and hysterta.e

THE TEAMSTERS' CENTRAL STATES PENSION FUND-PART V

HON. J. J. PICKLE OF TEXAS



• Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, no professional service is more important to the financial 80undness of a pension fund than that provided by the actuary. In recognition of the importance of proper and competent actuarial services, the Congress required that all private pension actuaries be "enrolled" or certified by a special board set up under ERISA.

In essence, the actuary makes "reasonable" assumptions about future factors and events which affect the costs of providing promised pension benefits. Labor force turnover rates, assets investment performance, and rates of early retirement are examples of these future factors.

Because these assumptions are little more than educated guesses determined through the exercise of a great deal of professional judgment, there is an obvious potential for abuse through manipulation of the assumptions. There is also a great temptation: A seemingly minor change of a single key assumption can result in a reduction in annual funding costs of millions of dollars or can allow otherwise unsupportable <and politically attractive> benefit increases to be made by the trustees on behalf of the Union leadership.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that potential for abuse became a reality in the case of the Teamsters' Central States Pension Fund. According to a 1978 memo prepared by the staff of the Oversight Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means:

As o! March 1978, both of the respected actuarial consultants hired by the Central States Pension Fund under then Executive Director Daniel Shannon had been told to suspend their ongoing actuarial evaluations of the funding needs of the FUnd and not to begin any new evaluations.

Dan McGinn of Dan McGinn Associates, Inc., has stated to the OVersight stafr that he believes that he was fired when his work was suspended. McGinn thereafter completed his work, already underway for some eight months, at his firm's own expense and submitted it to the Fund. The other respected actuarial firm, the Wyatt Company of Washington, D.C. was also put on ice, but they don't use the word "fired" since they hope that the trustees wlll once again seek their services. One unconfirmed report is that Wyatt also does the actuarial work for the Teamster A.tnliates Pension Plan, the

37637 exclusive (and generous) plan !or Teamster omcials only.

There is good reason to believe that the trustees have reacted to what they see as bad news-<:ompetent advice that large increases in pension contributions are needed-for reasons o! union politics. They have reacted by shunting aside the bearers of that bad news.

The advice of both Wyatt and McGinn may be very damaging to the Teamster leadership because this advice, it followed, would require that a large chunk of the pay increase to be negotiated in early 1979 be diverted into the pension fund.

It is believed that the trustees have rehired former longtime actuary Ma.x Kunis, fired in 1976 by Daniel Sh81Illlon, who has long maintsJ.ned that the Fund is not in need o! large contribution increase to maintain Lts benefit levels. The appearance, then, is that the trustees are returning to a reliable insider in an efrort to avoid the bad news and evade their fiduciary responsib111ty.

The following additional information was supplied to the Oversight Subcommittee by Robert Windrem, then the research director of the Professional Drivers Council <PROD>, in testimony on June 6, 1978: ·

Wyatt and McGinn have told the trustees that in order to keep the fund actuarlally sound-that is, caipable of continuing to pay benefits at present rates--it must increase employer contributions to the !und by $9 to $11 per man per week. I want to remind the subcommittee that the actuarial firms have stated that this is what is needed to keep the fund sound, not to increase benefits. That would require additional !unddng.

The trustees, all of whom have negotiations experience, know that every dollar that goes into pension !und contributions is a dollar that cannot be used for wages. They know that if the rank and file realize that they are paying a fine, in terms of lost wages, for their union leaders' &nd bosses' corrupt practices, there will be hell to pay during both conrtract negotiations and at the ballot box.

To fqrestall this, the trustees have rejected the findings of Wyatt and McGinn and turned once again to A. Maxwell Kunis, whose actuarial services were repudiated a few years ago when Daniel Shannon, the since-dismissed fund director, turned to Wyatt and McGinn for help.

Kunls, it has been reported, believes the fund can remain sound on $6 more per week per ma.n, a large sum no doubt but a lot easier to swallow than $9 or $11.

Thus, by retaining Kunis, the trustees are showing that they are willing to risk future losses for the fund in return !or an easier time during negotiations and at the ballot box.

The basic fact is that the trustees of the Central States Pension Fund manipulated the bottom-line findings and the underlying actuarial assumptions by shopping for their actuaries. Then, earlier this year, the trustees instituted major pension benefit increases. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that these increases may not be supportable in the long run, even by the recently negotiated employer contribution increases, and that a funding deficiency may result.

It is my view that the rejection ot the advice and reports of the respected actuaries is a violation of the fiduciary responsibility standards under part 4 of title I of ERISA. Apparently the Labor Department and ms disagree, maintaining that the separate ERISA minimum

37638 funding standards govern this issue. Unfortunately, these latter standards do not apply to the Central States Fund until 1981, and the validity of my concern apparently will not be fully evaluated until after the deadline for 1981 contributions which occurs late in 1982.

For the sake of the more than 450,000 Teamsters who depend on the soundness of the Central States Fund, I hope that my concern turns out to be unfounded. Perhaps the improved investment performance which is resulting from the Government-mandated imposition of independent investment managers of the fund assets <who are themselves under attack; see my RECORD statements of December 4, 5, and 11, 1979) will significantly change the picture. Nevertheless, I remain apprehensive about the longterm actuarial soundness of the Central States Fund due to the manipulation which has already occurred and due to the present trustees willingness to engage in this type of manipulation.•

HOW THE WASIDNGTON POST MANAGES THE NEWS

HON. LARRY McDONALD OF GEORGIA



• Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, those of us who have compared news accounts of particular events as reported in the Washington Po.st with reports in our district papers, or with newspapers elsewhere in the country, have seen firsthand the curious bias and distortion of the Post. The following article, "Washington As Censored By the Post," from the November is.sue of American Opinion, provides an incisive analysis and concrete examples of the Post's distortions and biases which I believe my colleagues will find instructive.

The article follows: WASHINGTON AS CENSORED BY THE POST

(By John Rees) Are reporters biased? In 1976 the Washing

ton Post and the Harvard Center for International Affairs conducted a poll. Questionnaires were sent to one hundred fifty reporters working in Washington, D.C., and to one hundred fifty newspaper managing editors and television news directors employed elsewhere in America. Of the Washington reporters, fifty-nine percent described themselves as "liberal" and sixty-one percent said they had voted for George McGovern. Only eighteen percent said they were "conservative" and but twenty-two percent said they had voted for Richard Nixon. The percentages for the editors and television news directors working elsewhere were similar. Of these, forty percent said they were "liberal" and forty-four percent said they had voted for McGovern. Only seventeen percent said they were "conservative," though apparently there were more Republicans among them since thirty-nine percent reported voted for Nixon.

Compare these figures to a Harris poll taken the same year that found forty-three percent of Americans wanted the country to move in a more "conservative" direction while only nineteen percent favored a more "liberal" course. From which we can reasonably conclude that at the working level the mass media in our country, and especially

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS those operating in Washington, are draxnatically more "Liberal" than the American people they serve.

While it is unrealistic to expect that journalists will have no political commitments, whether Conservative or "Liberal," one should expect a combination of fairness, professionalism, and an editorial determination to control bias and distortion. We expect it but we don't get it from our mass media. What we propose to do here is to examine ono of the nation's most powerful newspapers as a model of biased reporting on a national and international scale.

MRS. GRAHAM'S PAPER

The Washington Post has been firmly under the management of a single family since 1933, when it was purchased by the wealthy banker Eugene Meyer, who had been governor of the powerful Federal Reserve Board. In 1936 his youngest daughter Katharine transferred from Vassar to the radical milieu of the University of Chicago where she became active in the American Student Union, a Front created by the Young Communist League that engaged in labor organizing activities and otrered free trips to the Soviet Union. Perhaps because of these activities, Katie Meyer was soon being called by a Russian nickname and was a student supporter of Communist-led strikers in Memorial Day riots at Republic Steel.

Upon graduation, "Katrinka" Meyer went to San Francisco where she became a "labor reporter" for the Scripps-Howard San Francisco News. According to Lynn Rosellini, who wrote a five-part series on Katharine Meyer Graham for the rival Washington Star of November 1978, Katrinka Meyer was assigned to cover a long waterfront strike of the Communist-controlled International Longshoremen's and Warehousmen's Union, led by Communist Harry Bridges, and "spent hours each day" with the Comrades in the offices of the Pacific Coast Labor Bureau at the foot of Market Street. The officials of the Communist union liked her "very objective" writing. And according to Miss Rosellini, "After work she would Join union leaders at a longshoremen's bar along the Embarcadero."

Eugene Meyer had apparently decided by 1939 that enough was enough and called his daughter back to Washington where he gave her a job writing editorials on the family newspaper. She soon married a bright young graduate of Harvard Law School, Ph111p L. Graham, who was clerk to Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. Eugene Meyer made Philip responsible for managing the Post and eventually turned over its ownership to the Grahams. After Ph111p Graham committed suicide in 1963, Katharine assumed full control. She served as president and publisher until 1973, and now is chairman of the board of the Washington Post Company. Her son Donald is the Post's president and publisher.

The Grahams are directly involved in policy-making on the newspaper, hire and fire the management and editors, and have vigorously defended the paper against criticism of its biases.

THE PINSKY PRINCIPLE

Distortion is not always caused by the deliberate etrorts of a reporter or editor to misrepresent the facts. It can also involve something now called the "Pinsky Principle," after a free-lance journalist from North Carolina who wrote an article for the Columbia Journalism Review in 1976 on the press coverage of the Joan Little trial. The defense for Miss Little, who was charged with murdering her white jail guard so that she could escape, was run by the Communist Party, U.S.A., which organized a series of rallies and demonstrations, carried out a major fundraising drive for "defense costs," and used the case to recruit new members. The claim

December 20, 1979 was that Joan killed her guard in self-defense during a rape. Pinsky wrote:

"The great untold (or unreported) story of the Joan Little trial, which I first learned from members of the defense law firm and. the defense committee was the role of the Communist Party, through its National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, in controlling the entire (and considerable) political movement surrounding the case. Angela Davis, a leading figure in both organizations [and a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party), became the most frequently quoted movement figure and constant companion of Joan Little. The party press was consistently favorable in its coverage of the case. Party members were visible and influential on the defense comlnittee, and the party frequently set up rall1es of support around the country."

Having seen and recognized the Communist role in the Joan Little defense and the allied organizing campaign, Mr. Pinsky continued: "The anomaly was that straight reporters did not report this situation, out of a concern that the information might be used in red-baiting anyone associated with the case who did not belong to the party." In other words, Mr. Pinsky a.nd his fellow reporters chose to conceal important information. As Mark Pinsky summed it up: "If my research and journalistic instincts tell me one thing, my political instincts another, . . . I won't fudge it, I won't bend it, but I won't write it."

Two years after Mark Pinsky had written his article for the Columbia Journalism Review, a "must" publication for editors, the Washington Post reported on a demonstration by the same Communist Front to focus attention on its clemency demands for the "Wilmington Ten," a group convicted of arson and riot in the burning during racial disturbances of a grocery store owned by a GreekAmerican in North Carolina. The Post failed to mention that the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression (N.A.A.R.P.R.) is a Communist Party Front, even after the watchdog group Accuracy In Media called Post editor Tom Wilkinson, who was responsible for the story, and reminded him of that fact on the afternoon the story appeared. The next morning's Post editions had no mention of N.A.A.R.P.R.'s Communist affiliation, and A.I.M. asked the Post's "ombudsman," Charles Seib, to explain the blackout. Seib reported that editor Wilkinson had forgotten A.I.M.'s call, but said that a mention of the Communist Party Affiliation would be included in later editions. As A.I.M. reported on this incident:

"In the paper's third edition the story was changed to say that Angela Davis had described the Alliance as having about 150 affiliates, including the Communist Party and the American Civil Liberties Union. Aryeh Neier, executive director of the ACLU, told AIM this was not true and that he would have nothing to do with the Alliance. Rather than telling its readers that the Alliance was a Communist front, the Post used a false statement by a Communist that gave the opposite impression."

Ah Pinsky, where are you when you are needed?

But perhaps the Pinsky Principle was in operation when the Washington Post ignored a January 1978 press conference during which Cambodian refugee Pin Yathay, a civil engineer who had survived two years of hellish torment, described how under the communists he had lost his entire fainily-his mother and father, his brother, two sisters and brother-in-law, his wife and three chtldren, and all the other members of a family of eighteen. Yathay told of starvation so terrible that survivors were driven to eat the bodies of those who died; of suicides, random executions by the Khmer Rouge, and grisly torture.

December 20, 1979 Columnist Patrick Buchanan wrote an ar

ticle for TV Guide in which he told how the Washington Post reporter present, Elizabeth Becker, walked out of the Yathay press conference "asserting she had heard enough of this 'junk.' "

At this point, Accuracy In Media took an interest in the Post's failure to report the Pin Yathay story. According to A.I.M., Miss Becker belatedly said that the decision to kill this dramatic story of horror in Cambodia had been made by national news editor Laurence Stern, who after having his memory refreshed by Miss Becker said he killed it because Miss Becker told him it was similar to the material being reported by Lewds Simon, the Post's Bangkok correspondent. Said Stern, "On that basis, we decided not to do a story."

Accuracy In Media checked to see if similar stories exposing the unprecedented barbarism of the Khmer Rouge had indeed been published by the Post. And, reported the media watchdog, "The shocking fact is that we could not find in all the previous year a single news story dn the Post that provided a detailed eyewitness account of the incredible treatment of the Cambodian people comparable to that provided by Pin Yathay." In fact, in 1977, only six news stories concerned human-rights violations in Cambodia, and A.I.M. had to go back ten months to July 1977 to find a Lewis Simon story about reports of the torments there. Incredibly, noted A.I.M., the theme of his story was "accounts of a bloodbath had been exaggerated, but there were severe problems because of a crop failure and disease.''

When A.I.M. leader Reed Irvine went back to Stern with the evidence, the Post's national news editor said he had been thinking of stories in 1975 ·and 1976 as well. Again Irvine checked. The Post's own tct.bulations showed only four articles on the severe mistreatment of the people of Cambodia during 1976, and nine for the whole of 1975. In fact, A.I.M. found that "the·longest story the Post ran on Cambodia in 1977 was a two-page article making the charge that Cambodia's plight was really the fault of the U.S. for having gotten Cambodia involved in the war. Two articles were devoted to defense of their policies by Communist Cambodian leaders, and even the articles that discussed the agony of the Cambodi·an people tended to be 'balanced' by mention of U.S. culpab111ty or arguments that things were not as bad as some said."

At the Washington Post annual corporate meeting in May 1978, Accuracy In Media brought this example of dishonesty and news distortion directly to the attention of Post owner and publisher Katharine Graham, and suggested she try to find out the real reason Laurence Stern killed the Cambodian story since there was a "pattern or reporting" at the Washington Post that "could reflect the ideological proclivities of some of its personnel." As Mr. Irvine commented in a May newsletter:

". . . the editor gave a factually unsupported reason for having killed the story and then waffled on the question of whether or not be believes that the stories of a holocaust in Cambodia are true. Why this particular editor, Laurence Stern, did these things, I don't pretend to know. I would certainly not suggest that one can prove that an editor is in the pay of foreign intell1gence simply on the basis of the way he handles certain news stories. However, in this age, pay is not the dominant incentive behind service to certain foreign powers. Ideology is far more imoortant than monetary reward in many, perhaos most, cases.

"If an editor refused to run stories ·such as those of Pin Yathay, Frank Emmick, and the expose of the contents of Orlando Leteliers briefcase, therebv avoiding causfn~ damage to the image of communists or those

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS on the left, he serves the communist cause just as surely as he would 1f he were getting paid by them. The proper question, therefore, is not whether such an individual is in the pay of a foreign power or is subject to the discipline of the Communist Party, but do his decisions follow a pattern of harming the forces of freedom and benefiting the enemies of freedom."

Reed Irvine had also asked Mrs. Graham to explain the great disparity between Post stories on human-rights abuses in Cuba or Cambodia or Vietnam, where milllons have been murdered, with its heavy concentration of attacks on such anti-Communist countries as Chile, South Africa, and Iran; its extended campaign against the U.S. intelligence agencies; and, its "despicable editorial" smearing American Frank Emmick, who was brutally treated for fourteen years in Castro's prisons, calling him a "'fl"og-leg salesman' and implying that Emmick really was a C.I.A. agent despite his denials and all evidence to the contrary."

A month later, Post executive editor Ben Bradlee responded with a not full of invective against Reed Irvine; and Mrs. Graham wrote, "Your totally unfounded character assassination of Laurence Stern .. .' is beyond the pale. This kind of· assault by innuendo is reminiscent of the methods of Joe McCarthy."

Backed to the hilt by managing editor Ben Bra.dlee and by the Post's publisher/ owner for whose father and husband he had worked nearly thirty years, Larry Stern continued as national news editor of the Washington Post untll his death on August 11, 1979. A great deal was then revealed about Stern by the circle of his admirers who attended the memorial service in his memory. The following is from Vlllage Voice columnist Alexander Cockburn:

"Larry had worked at the Washington Post for nearly 30 years, and knew everything about the paper, every skeleton in every closet .... "

"When in the Watergate e.fternna.th and slight slump at the paper, he became assistant managing editor of the Post, in charge of national affairs, the change for the better was . . . instantly detectable. Not the least because Larry's heart and head lay on the left side of the political bed. He was not one of those pallidly objective souls who need a route map to get from a gas shortage to Exxon headquarters, or who feel incapa.ble of making up his mind 'untll all the facts are in' and tLll all the evidence has been judiciously assessed.

"A Trotskyist in his hot youth, Larry knew what the facts were going to tell him long before he discovered what they actually were, and the route map he carried with him through his life showed the eterna.l landmarks; the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate."

The Stern memorial service was chaired by Post editor Ben Bradlee, and one of the main eulogies was delivered by radical polemicist I. F. Stone, who praised Larry Stern as a friend of the "Palestinian people" and the "Nicaraguan people," and made it clear that what he was talking about were the terrorists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and of the Communist-led Sa.ndinista National Liberation Front that now rules Nicaragua.

And whom did Stern regard as his enemies? According to I. F. Stone, he hated the "huge mindless institutions that devour our substance and corrupt our fundamental ideals, Uke the Pentagon and the C.I.A."

Also present -to honor the Post's late national news editor was the chief of the OUban secret pollee in Washington, who delivered his own tearful eulogy to his good friend Larry Stern. This was Teofilo Acosta, First Secretary of the Cuban Int~rests Section headqua.rtered in the Czecho-Slovakian Em-

37639 bassy, and an officer of the Cuban Directorate General de Intelllgencia (D.G.I.), a whollyowned subsidiary of the Soviet K.G.B. Acosta has been particularly active in cultivating Capitol Hill staff and political leaders, and here he was fondly recalling intimate relations with one of the most powerful editors in Washington. When Mrs. Acosta was asked, "Was Larry Stern a good friend of Cuba.?" she replied, "Oh yes, he was a very good friend of ours." Indeed he was.e

CHILD-PROOF LIDS

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS



• Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Mary Jane Smith of Houston wrote me a most eloquent letter about one of the many Federal insanities: mandating childproof lids for everyone and everything.

It is great to have these lids available for those who want them, but it is wrong-and so typical-for the Federal Government to force them on all.

I would like to bring this excellent and justifiably angry letter to my colleagues' attention.

The letter follows: THE FEAST OF THE IMMACULATE CoNCEPTION

December 8, 1979. DEAR DR. PAUL: I am madder than hell.

It's Saturday morning, 7 a.m., freezing cold, the baby is crying, my husba.nd is mad at me, I don't feel well, I feel rotten, the baby is sick and here's my story.

Got up early, because the ba.by was crying, she couldn't breathe, too congested. Took care of her, come down stairs, feed the baby, go to give her some of her prescription medicine, can't get the damn lid off, one of those kid-proof lids, also a momma-proof lid! Called my husband, he couldn't believe I was calling him to open a small bottle of medicine, he went to the bathroom instead, mad at me, because I had awakened him.

I used to think when it was cold weather your joints didn't open jars and bottles well, then I used to think when a person had trouble opening a jar or bottle, it was due to arthritis. Now I "know" when a college graduate can't get a lid off a six-ounce bottle with a plastic lid, the government must be involved!

So I called the pharmacist, asked how in the hell was I suppose to save my baby if I can't get the lid off the medicine. He thought it was a "cutesy" question, so he didn't respond. Then the Stupid Fool told me that those lids were to protect babies. I told the S.F. that my medicine cabinet was very high up and that I would take the responsib111ty of protecting my baby from "bad lids." He responded thatr----and I am dead serious about thts--"Lots of ·babies die when they take · medicine which they shouldn't take." At which I responded, "And lots of babies die when they don't take the medicine they should take." I asked the S.F. was there any way in the future I could get medicine from his pharma.cy without those lids. He said I would have to write them a letter stating that I did not want the Uds and each time I had a prescription filled I would have to mention it. He also said that Federal regulation mll.kes his pharmacy put the lids on bottles.

Which is why I am writing to you. Apparently there is no Lid Law, but a Lid Regulation. Could you please work on repealing this matter. It is a stupid law. Next thing you

37640 know the government is going to start telling ua what doctors and drug stores to use l

Sincerely, Mrs. MARY JANJ: SMITH ••

VISITING THE HOSTAGES IN mAN

HON. GEORGE HANSEN OJ' mAHO

IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES


• Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, because of the intense interest in my recent visit to Iran to see the hostages, I would llke to include for the RECORD several reports offered by Mr. Lee Roderick, the Washington bureau chief of the Scripps League Newspapers, who accompanied me on the trip and in related interviews and activities before and since.

The articles follow: ODYSSEY To IRAN-PART I

(By Lee Roderick) TEHRAN.-"Death to Carter! Death to the

shah!" The words, similar to those heard from demonstrating Iranian students inside the United States, take on a. special ferocity when chanted by teeming thousands in the numbing cadence of Farsi outside the captured U.S. embassy compound.

Then, as U.S. Rep. George Hansen (RIda.ho) emerges from the red brick-walled embassy grounds and we are swept along helplessly by an unruly, though not hostlle, mob shouting, "People yes I Carter no I" the thought suddenly comes: what am I doing here?

Friday, Nov. 16, had been an ordinary enough day in Washington. As I was rushing to put the finishing touches on an article for this newspaper in mid-afternoon, the omce phone rang. "George Hansen on the llne."

Those words usually meant something was up. Hansen, fellow Idahoan and a.n acquaintance of 15 years, is known for the unusual. A staunch Republlca.n conservative and one of the true mavericks in Congress, he has, among other things:

Flown to Bollvla. to help secure the release of young Americans jailed on drug charges.

Visited Nicaragua. in the final days of dictator Anastasio Somoza. to offer words of encouragement.

Led remarkably successsful efforts to weaken OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Adm1ntstra.t1on) .

Forced the White House to share with Congress the responsibility of the Panama Ca.na.l treaties.

Hansen had now turned his attention to Iran.

We held similar views on this most intractable of problems--seeing llttle bad tn the shah and little good in Khomeinl. Shah Mohammed Reza. Pa.hla.vi had been deposed ea.rlter thds year in a bloody revolution, whose spiritual leader Ayatollah (an Islamic holy title) Ruholla.h Khomeini now wielded more power than control. Khomeini has used that power capriciously, summarily executing hundreds of former public offl.cla.ls and others.

Those who know him best insist he isn't crazy in a. strict mental sense. But he is mad with hatred and revenge-strange qualities indeed for a. "holy man"-focused on his old enemy the shah, and the shah's chief ally, America.

When the shah was admitted to the United States for medical care Khomeini's shaky hold on Iran was galvanized dnto action. On

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Nov. 4 the U.S. Embassy was captured and its personnel held for ransom. The price: return of the shah for "trial" and certain death.

"Ramsey Clark (President Carter's intended envoy to Iran) wasn't allowed in, and nothing else seems to be happening to get these hostages out," Hansen reminded me. "How would you like to come with me to the Iranian embassy to see if they'll talk about the situation?"

The harried Ira.nda.n charge d'a.ffa.lrs in Washington, All Aga.h, greeted us cordially two hours later and listened carefully as Hansen explained that "We've come here to see if there might be a. common ground for dialogue."

"I welcome any dialogue," said Aga.h, "I don't believe in closed • • •"

He proceeded to detail Iran's grievances against the shah, and said. ''The hostages never would have been taken if the State Department had ldstened to us. As long ago as April I warned the Iran desk at the department that it would be very detrimental to our relations to allow the shah into the United States."

On a. more encouraging note, Aga.h said, "I can assure you about one thing-it is the intention of the students and the ayatollah not to do any physical harm to the hostages. We know this action 1s not in accord wdth international law."

At the same time, he added, Khomelnl is a "very strong man who won't bend; there is a. dellca.te relationship between him and the people."

"Relationships between the United States and Iran are ldke that between a man and wife," Aga.h said. "They might be separated, but they can't forget each other because of many historical reasons, both good and bad."

Taking that as a.n opening, Hansen asked if he would be allowed go to Iran unomcla.lly, to try to open a. d1a.1ogue with Iranian offl.cla.ls aimed a.t defusing the crisis. "I don't know, but I will telex Tehran to find out," sa.dd the embassy chief.

The following Monday, Nov. 19, the answer came back: Hansen would be allowed in the country-but at his own risk. I also received permission to enter a.s a. working journalist. That evening we boarded a. jetliner at Dulles International Airport that took us toward our destination 36 hours later: crisis-tom Iran.

ODYSSEY To IRAN-PART 2 (By Lee Roderick)

TEHRAN.-Da.wn was breaking over a clear, beautiful day as the big Lufthansa. jet settled onto the runway a.t Tehran's international airport.

From the a.lr the city of several milUon inhabitants couldn't have looked more peaceful. But inside it was seething. Thls was the first day of Moharram, a. 10-da.y period of mourning and religious fervor mark-ing the Moslem new year. _

And this commemoration of Moharram had special import: it marked the beginning of Islam's 15th century, dating from the most tragic event in the history of that great rellgion-the martyrdom of Imam Hussain, grandson of its founder Mohammed.

Moharram this year also was the first anniversary of a. slaughter in a. town square by troops belonging to Shah Mohammed Reza. Pa.hla.vl. American newsmen who witnessed it tell how 600 Iranians broke curfew and marched, unarmed, to the site we would later visit. Soldiers opened fire and the marchers were virtually all killed.

Now, a. year later, with over 50 Americans held hostage by the revolutionary government or milltant students, and the shah receiving medical treatment in New York City, Rep. George Hansen (Rr-Ida.ho) and I were sternly warned by Iranians and west-

December 20, 1979 erners alike that thls was no day for an American to be on the street.

But our timetable was short and agenda long, so there was llttle time for squeamishness. That agenda. included opening a. dialogue with Iranian leaders; finding a. middle ground between Iran's demand that the shah be returned to stand trial before the hostages would be released-and Washington's refusal to acquiesce; and, a long shot, returning to the United States with a. few hostages as a. good-faith gesture that Iran wants to defuse the current crisis.

Our arrival caused a. bit of a. stir among airlines and airport personnel accustomed in recent weeks to a. flood of foreigners leaving the country but only a. trickle entering. Young men of high school or college age run many of the functions of the terminal, whose shabby walls are decorated with the stern visage of Ayatollah Ruholla.h Khomeinithe Imam.

Evidences of the shah's ambitious modernization program for his country were abundant during the 20-minute drive to the Inter-Continental Hotel, our home for the next week which also houses most of the foreign press.

Mile upon mUe of ha.lf-flnlshed, high-rise cement buildings stand like great gray ghosts on the skyline, their cranes seemingly imploring them to continue work long since st111ed when the shah fled Iran and construction capital followed him.

After checking in at the Inter-Continental, we hitched a ride with John Hart of NBc-TV to the foreign ministry. Hart bad an interview with Acting Foreign Minister AbolHassa.n Bani Sa.dr; we hoped to set up a.n appointment to see him as well.

OUr first real taste of Tehran tra.mc was jolting. Iranians drive nominally on the right-hand side of the road and occasionally stop a.t red lights. More often, however, they drive with one hand on the horn, merely slow down at red lights, and go anywhereincluding over the curb and along the sidewalk-to avoid a. jam.

"I wish Connie was here for this," said Hansen of his wife. "She'd never be nervous driving with me again."

More disturbing than the drivers, however, were the pedestrians. On this day of Moharram, we were told, some two mllllon Iranians were in the streets, marching, praising Allah and the Imam, and cursing America. and President Carter. As they enveloped our car, I had my first tinge of fright.

At the foreign ministry, a. nondescript cluster of buildings which has increasingly become a. nerve center a.s tensions mount between the U.S. and Iran, we were thoroughly frisked by guards armed with automatic rifles. We proceeded to haggle with a male civil servant for nearly two hours in a.n attempt to get a.n appointment ,with Bani Sadr, finally leaving with a. vague promise he might meet with us the following day.

As we were leaving the foreign ministry, the ambassador from Pakistan was entering. "As a neighbor to Iran, we've been asked by your government to try to intercede and cool things down," he told us. "But I'm afraid I have nothing positive to report."

We didn't know that a.t that moment a. mob was preparing to sack the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, the ambassador's capital, burning it to the ground and kllllng two Americans 1n the process.

Told that it is very diffl.cult to get an audience with the m111ta.nt students holding hostages, Hansen and I decided to take things into our own hands. The next morning we donned street clothes and went shortly after daybreak to the back gate of the embassy.

Two revolutionary guards in camoflauge uniforms patroled outside the huge steel gate as Hansen approached it, accompanied by several of us newsmen. When a. sober-

December 20, 1979 faced young bearded man opened the gate, the congressman asked to talk to the students.

"Is possible, but must have your address," said the student, who refused to give us his name. "I represent the American people, not the American president," said Hansen. "I have some ideas to help you tell your story to the American people. Please talk to me."

Even his best politician's charm wasn't enough that time. But it set the stage for another day.

ODYSSEY TO !RAN~PART 3 {By Lee Roderick)

TEHRAN .-When Rep. George Hansen {RIdaho) and I arrived in Iran, the leading figure in government--next to Ayatollah Khomeini himself-was Abol-Hassen Bani Sadr.

This small-boned man, whose thick mustache and horn-rimmed glasses gave him the look of a young Groucho Marx, was personally close to Khomeini. Though Bani Sadr understands little English, his fluent French had served him well in getting close to the Imam while the latter was exiled in Paris.

Now he found himself with a substantial portfolio in the new revolutionary government--including the positions of Finance Minister and Acting Foreign Minister. He also had the reputation of being the strong man on the 15-member Revolutionary Council. He would have to be reckoned with if we were to succeed in softening Iran's refusal to release the American hostages until and unless the U.S . return the shah to that country.

But the red tape we thought we had left behind in Washington began to entangle us when we sought an audience with Bani Sadr. The new government in Iran, to put it mildly, is not well organized. This has presented immense headaches for President Carter and other u.s. policy makers, who can never be certain who is really speaking for Iran.

When a meeting with Bani Sadr continued to elude us, Hansen, in his customary way, took things into his own hands. Following a press conference with correspondents from 26 countries, held in the Inter-Continental Hotel, the 6-foot-6 congressman approached diminutive Bani Sadr while the cameras and tape recorders were still whirring.

"I would like to meet with you today," said the towering Hansen. "I don't represent the American government but I do represent the American people. And I have some proposals I want to give you that might help ease the problems between our two countries."

Faced by such determination-not to speak of the world's press looking on-Bani Sadr was trapped. "I am busy now, but I will meet you at 7:30 tonight."

Shortly before our meeting that evening, we found a godsend in one Eric Rouleau, who has been chief Middle East correspondent for the liberal French newspaper Le Monde for 25 years. Rouleau, who knew both Bani Sadr and Khomeini personally, agreed to come along as our interpreter.

We were met at the former legislative building where our meeting was to take place by a contingent of well-armed, no-nonsense young guards who frisked us carefully before allowing us up the marble staircase to the second floor.

We were then ushered politely into a spartan room whose walls were devoid even of a picture of Khomeini. Bani Sadr left the regular nightly meeting of the Revolutionary Council down the hall and Joined us.

"Mistakes have been made by both sides," began Hansen, putting Bani Sadr at ease. "We cannot condone your holding of our citizens. But we appreciate your concern regarding the shah. . . . There should be a legal way to get the information out on his activities.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS "The complaints you have against the

shah may be complaints Americans also have. We could find out if there was a chance to review it. I am certain that to benefit the hostages, it would not be difficult to get Congress to listen to your side."

At the same time, Hansen made it clear that under U.S. law there was no way the shah could be forced by Washington to return to Iran at the present time and under the condition of blackmail.

The Foreign Minister, interested but cautious, said "Unless the American government stops making provocations or escalation against Iran, how can all this happen?"

Hansen's answer: immediate congressional investigations. He .explained that "sometime a straight line between two points is not the best way to accomplish an objective." Hansen added that "if the information on the shah was out, in the international community, no one could hide it."

"If I could go home having seen the hostages , and report that they are well and there is room for dialogue, and that the United States will take action to look into this situation, then I think we will have takt-n a long step toward resolving this crisis," said the congressman.

Bani Sadr replied that "I have listened to your suggestion and I think it is a good idea." He also excused himself and went down the hall to put Hansen's proposal immediately to the Revolutionary Council.

Ten minutes later he returned and, obviously pleased by the response, said all members of the council present "have no objections to Congress taking some action." Bani Sadr emphasized that "I agree wJth what you are saying. If Congress opens inquiries, it will ease up the situation for the hostages."

Bani Sadr was under fire even then for being too conciliatory in his views. And on the very day we left Iran be was replaced as Foreign Minister. But this point remains: Others on the Revolutionary Council likewise had agreed with Hansen's approach. And to those elements the United States must now direct its attention. •

ODYSSEY TO IRAN-PART 4 (By Lee Roderick)

TEHRAN.-When the U.S. Embassy was overrun by young toughs on Nov. 4, dozens of Americans and personnel of other nationalities were taken hostage.

Three top-level officers were elsewhere, however-at the Foreign Ministry on "routine business." They included the chief of the U.S. mission, Bruce Laingen, political officer Victor Tomseth and security officer Michael Howland.

The three were forcibly detained at the Forei~n Ministry, which applied the euphemism "protective detention" to their captivity. (When we met with them later, crusty Mike Howland said the label was "pure bull--. We're prisoners just like those at the embassy.")

Rep . George Hansen's main goal when he got to Iran was to visit the hostages andif at all possible-to even take several home as a signal that Iran was ready to begin defusing the crisis.

During his second evening in Tehran, Hansen pressed that point as he met for an hour with acting Foreign Minister Abol-Hassan Bani Sadr-a meeting also attended by interpreter Eric Rouleau, veteran correspondent for the French newspaper Le Monde, and this reporter. The meeting gave the first sign since the crisis began over two weeks earlier that Bani Sadr was indeed ready to find a compromise.

Hansen first suggested that Congress likely would be willing to hold immediate hearings on the U.S. government's historic relationship with the deposed shah if it would

37641 help free the hostages. He proceeded to ask Bani Sadr for a response to that proposal, and for permission to see the hostages.

Bani Sadr left us to consult with the ruling Revolutionary Council, meeting at that evening hour in the same building. He returned to report that council members had no objection to the proposal, adding that if such hearings were held "it will ease up the situation for the hostages."

{In a phone call to Hansen days later, Bani Sadr again emphasized that although he couldn't arrange immediately for some hostages to return to the U.S. with Hansen, "that and much more is possible if Congress begins hearings.")

By the end of the meeting that evening, Bani Sadr, as a gesture of good faith, had agreed to let us visit the three U.S. Embassy officials held at the Foreign Min.Wtry. We shook hands on that note, descended the one flight of stairs to the street level, and piled into a black mercedes. Destination: across town to the Foreign MiniBtry.

We were frisked thoroughly at the Foreign Ministry by young guards wielding automatic rUles, and taken to the office of Ebrahim Mokalla, spokesman for the ministry who said we'd have three minutes with the three captives.

Eric Rouleau, a crafty Frenchman and dean of correspondents in Tehran, immediately protested the time limit. Winking at us, he said, "We can hardly say 'hello' in three minutes." Mokalla finally relented and gave us five minutes instead.

Accompanied by guards, we were then taken down a hallway and up an elevator, along a corridor of a Foreign Ministry annex, stopping before a tall wooden door. A guard leading us gave a secret knock, acknowledged through a peephole by a guard inside who admitted us.

It later became apparent that such elaborate security precautions were intended more to keep militant students out than to keep the three Americans in. Students have several times gone to the Foreign Ministry to demand that the three join the other 50 hostages under their care at the embassy. But so far Bani Sadr's department has succeeded in putting them off, with the explanation that the three already are being held securely as prisoners.

Laingen, who appeared more drawn and nervous than the other two, was incredulous at seeing free Americans for the first time since their captivity. Hansen met with him privately in a nearby drawing room while Rouleau and I talked with Tomseth and Howland.

Howland pooh-poohed the "evidence" allegedly found at the embassy to justify spy trials against the Americans. There was nothing to be found at the embassy, he insisted, beyond normal equipment and information characteristic of embassies all over the world.

Their detention center is obviously a holdover from the glory days of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. It is large, measuring perhaps 175 feet by 75 feet, has thick Persian rugs on the floors, draperies, and huge chandeliers.

At the same time, it is without creature comforts. The three Americans went for two weeks without a bath. Now a tub of water is brought to them periodically, which they take turns using. They wash their socks and underclothes by hand and hang them on the chandeliers to dry.

The three also have had to sleep on mats on the floor, with only sheets between them and the cold night air in Iran. They, as well as the hostages at the embassy, from all indications have suffered from the ch1lling temperatures.

Nonetheless, during our brief five minutes, they exhibited calm and determination. We sat on a couch and small cups of sweet Ira-

37642 nian tea were served. It was Thanksgiving .Oay--one we'd never forget.e

MAJOR DOCUMENT MAKES WAY TO THE WEST

HON. PHILIP M. CRANE OF ILLINOIS



e Mr. PHILIP M. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have recently obtained an English translation of a document of major significance. This document, which made its way out of the Soviet Union by secret channels, came to my attention through the alliance for freedom, a project of the American Conservative Union, and Dr. Igor Glagolev, a former consultant to the Soviet's SALT negotiating team who defected to the West in 1976.

In essence, the document represents the first known instance of an attempt at free elections in the U.S.S.R. Its authors suggest that Soviet voters should create independent social organizations and nominate their own candidates for public office; that is, candidates not automatically selected by the Communist Party.

The document is signed by L. Agapova the chairwoman of the first such organization, "Election-1979," and A. Ivanov, its secretary. The organization nominated Agapova as a candidate for Deputy to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. in March of this year, but the Communist officialdom prevented her from running.

An event of this kind and the fact that it has become known in the West shows that the spirit of liberty and resistance to Communist oppression is alive in the U.S.S.R. I commend this document to the attention of my colleagues and present it herewith for inclusion into the RECORD:

APPEAL TO VOTERS

Comrade voters, the coming elections to the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic is an important event in the life of our people. They will be the first elections to the highest organ of power of the Russian Republic since the adoption of the new constitution of the U.S.S.R., about which the secretary general of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union said: "Our new constitution will show to the whole world how the socialist state develops, establishing socialist democracy more firmly and deeply; it will show visually this socialist democracy, its essence. Our constitution will show different forms and the huge scale of the constantly growing real participation of the large masses of people in the management of the affairs of the state and the society."

Such a form of further perfection and development of socialist democracy as nomination of several candidates for each office of a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Republic seems to be advisableamong these different forms . Comparison of candidates according to their business and human qualities must become a necessary prerequisite of genuine elections, of real choice in the true sense of the word, at the stage of developed socialism, under the conditions of political maturity of the Soviet people. Such a measure will help to raise the level of the leading cadres of the country and their responsibility to the people.

An administrative, business or social post

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS occupied by one or another person should not mechanically open the way to the Supreme Soviet for this person. The examples of Degtyarev and Shaidurov, the former secretaries of the Donetz and Magadan regional committees of the Communist party and deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S .R. , dismissed with scandal from their posts after occupying them for many years, shows how dangerous the substitution of elections with appointment is.

Tireless care about the welfare of the people is the very first duty of a deputy; the ability to think in the terms of the state is one of the main qualities he should possess. One must assess the candidate from these points of view.

According to the official statistics, there are about 50 million religious believers in the U.S.S.R. However, their interests have never been represented by a single candidate, not to speak of any defense of these interests in any parliamentarian institution of the country, during the whole history of the Soviet state. That is why it is necessary to nominate such deputies, who would really represent the interests of the working people.

From this point of view, it is very interesting to note the experience and initiative of the social organization "Elections-1979" of the Moscow city, which nominated its own, and not official , candidates to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. in March 1979. This initiative was taken up by the cities of Vilnius and Sochi.

The social organization "Elections-1979" calls upon the citizens of the Russian Republic to show political activity, which not only does not contradict the policy of our party but supports this policy, to create your own social organizations, to nominate genuine people's representatives at the coming elections to the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.

For genuine democracy and political activity of the working people!

L . G. AGAPOVA, Chairperson.

A . M. IVANOV,

Secretary.e

THE HONORABLE JEROME CAVANAGH .

HON. CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR. OF MICHIGAN



• Mr. DIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I join today with my colleagues from Michigan and around the country in paying homage to the late Jerry Cavanagh, who served as mayor of Detroit from 1962 through 1969.

The city of Detroit truly began the renaissance we see today under the leadership of Mayor Cavanagh. Through his commitment to open government, his sensitivity in dealing with the changing economic, social, and political changes in the community, and his progressive outlook on issues, he guided our city through some of the most turbulent times of recent history.

The 1960's marked a time of unrest throughout the country, but nowhere was it more keenly felt than in the ghettoes and poor neighborhoods of inner-city Detroit. In 1967, those tensions erupted in rioting which threatened the very life of Detroit. Mayor Jerry Cavanagh reached out to the business, religious, labor, and other sectors

December 20, 1979

and forged a new coalition to address the concerns of the community. He helped to reunite our people in a spirit of harmony and hope. He made promises, and he kept them. He made friends, and he treasured them. Most of all, he made a commitment to the quality of life in Detroit, and he did his best to bring about progress.

Mr. Speaker, America has lost a leader, and Detroit has lost a good friend. He will indeed be missed.e

FAITH AND HOPE FOR THE FUTURE

HON. LAMAR GUDGER OF NORTH CAROLINA



• Mr. GUDGER. Mr. Speaker, as we leave the city of Washington for the Christmas holidays, today is one of our last opportunities to register our hopes for the coming year. Such hopes must be expressed as our Nation confronts insults and indignities in Tehran, revolution in Central America, and conflicts in Africa.

The American people can look back upon this year with pride. We have thrown open our homes and our hearts to the oppressed people of the world in the hope that such people will be able to pursue their unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This Nation has reacted with common patriotism, purpose, and resolve to the Iranian crisis. We, as Members of Congress and as a people of a great nation, have joined hands in the endeavor of renewing our moral values, our sense of national pride, our feeling of national and international brotherhood, and our genuine concern for human rights.

As I look back over the last year, I am particularly proud of my district, the 11th Congressional District, where sentiments of patriotism and international responsibility abound. These sentiments find expression by the flying of our American flag at many private doorways-not just over public buildings. I am truly gratified that the "call to colors" was initiated by local leaders and gained the ardent support of all media in western North Carolina.

The words of the late Vice President, Hubert H. Humphrey, seem to be quite appropriate at this time:

We are all children of one God. We live on a very small planet, but insofar as we know it is the only planet that sustains life. Therefore, apparently we have been selected for an unusual and special purpose. I believe that purpose is to try to demonstrate that the power of understanding and reason and love can prevail. It is not easy and there are many times that we want to give up, but you have to have faith.

I am convinced that the people of my district and the people of our Nation have this faith. Surely, as we approach the new year, we do so with the hope, confidence, and sincere conviction which the American people have in themselves. We also approach it with the devout faith our people have in their Creator

December 20, 1979

and that His plan w1ll produce in 1980 a new and happy new year.•

PASSING OF WILLIAM C. HILL

HON. ROBERT E. BAU~..AN OF MARYLAND

IN THE HOUSE OF BEPRESENTATTVES


e Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to report that an outstanding business executive, community leader, and personal friend of mine, William C. Hill of La Plata, Md., died last week.

Mr. Hill was a young man of 55, and his death was a shock a.nd great loss to all who knew him. He was a brilliant attorney, serving as a partner in the Washington law :firm of Steptoe & Johnson for 16 years before his rise in the liquefied petroleum and coal :firm of Pargas, Inc. Mr. Hill was chairman of the board of Pargas, and lived near La Plata, Md.

I include for the RECORD various press accounts of Mr. Hill's demise, taken from Charles County journals as well as Washington newspapers. His presence will be missed by all who knew a.nd admired him and to his wife Rosemary, his sons and family, I extend my sincere condolences on the passing of a great American.

The press acoount:e follow: (From the Washington Star, Dec. 11, 1979]

WILLIAM C. HILL, 55, DIES; OFFICIAL OF PARGAS FIRM

Will1am calvin Hlll, 55, oha4rman of the board of Pargas Inc., a coal and propane firm based in Waldorf, died Sunday of cancer in Holy Cross Hospital. He lived in La Plata.

A lawyer, Mr. Hill was a partner in the District firm of Steptoe & Johnson from 1949 to 1965, when he was elected executive vi(!e president o! Pargas. He became a director of Pargas in 1961.

One of the nation's largest distributors of propane, Pargas is the outgrowth of a bottled gas business started as a sideline in the 1930s by Lawrence Parlett, a Charles County, Md., plumber. Last month, profits of Pargas rose to a record $2.12 million, or 58 cents a. share, in the third quarter ended Bept. 30.

In 1971, Pe.rgas decided to break out o! its dependence on propane distribution by acquiring River Processing Inc., a Hazard, Ky., ooal mining oompany, for cash notes and stock valued at $6.5 milllon. That decision seems farsighted in view of the subsequent pinch of natural gas supplies-from which 70 percent of the propane supply is obtainedand the increased demand for ooal.

In 1976, Empire Gaa Corp. of Missouri attempted to take over Pargas by bidding to purchase 2 million shares of Pargas common at $18.50 a share, but Pargas was successful in blocking the Empire takeover.

Mr. H1ll was a member of the board of directors of the Bank of Southern Maryland, the Preston Trucking Co. and southern Maryland Oil Inc.

Mr. Hlll was born in Fairfax, Ala., and rceived his B.A. degree from Auburn University in 1946. He received his law degree from the University of Virginia in 1949.

While a partner of Steptoe & Johnson, Mr. Hill specialized in federal taxation and corporate reorganization.

He leaves hls wife, Rosemary D., fours sons, WUUam D., MichaelS., John W. and Charles P., at the home; and his mother, Alma, a brother, Charles, and a sister, Barbara McLeod, of Opelika., Ala.

CXXV--2366-Part 28

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Services will be held at 11 a.m. tomorrow

in Sacred Heart Cathollc Church in La Plata, with burial in Trinlty Memorial Gardens, Waldorf.

The family suggests that expressions of sympathy be in the form of contributions to the American Cancer Society--Charles County Unit, 1521 Ritchie Highway, Arnold, Md.

(From the Washington Post, Dec. 12, 1979] WILLIAM C. HILL, CHAIRMAN AT PARGAS

William C. Hill, 55, chairman of the board of Pargas Inc., a Waldorf-based distributor of llqutfied petroleum, died of cancer Sunday in Holy Cross Hospital.

Mr. Hill was a partner in the Washington law firm of Steptoe & Johnson when he was elected executive vice president of Pargas in 1965. He became president of the company two years later and had been board chairman since 1969.

He was a member of the National Liquid Petroleum Gas Association and had served as chairman of the association's committee on propane allocation and price controls. He also had been a member of the publlc affairs committee and had received the association's distinguished Service Award in 1977.

Mr. Hill was a native of Opelika., Ala., and served in the Army during World War II. He earned a bachelor's degree in business administration at Auburn University and was a 1949 graduate of the University of Virgtnla's law school.

He joined Steptoe & Johnson in 1949 and practiced tax and corporate law until joining Pargas. He llved in LaPlata.

He is survived by his wife, Rosemary, and four sons, Wllliam D., Michael s., John w., and Charles P., all of LaPlata, his mother, Alma Hill, a brother, Charles, and a sister Barbara McLeod, all of Alabama.

(From the La Plata (Md.) Times-crescent, Dec. 12, 1979]

PARGAS ExECUTIVE DIEs William C. Hill, 55, Chairman of the Board

of Pargas, Inc., a liquefied petroleum and coal firm, Waldorf, Md., died Sunday, December 9 at Holy Cross Hospital, Washington, D.C.

Hill, a native of Opelika, Alabama, graduated from Auburn University. After serving in the Army Field Artlllery during World War n, he attended the University of Virginia Law School, graduating with a J.D. Degree in 1949.

He was a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Steptoe and Johnson from 1949 to 1965, specializlng in federal taxation, corporate finance and corporate reorganization.

From 1958 to 1961, he served as Special Counsel for Pargas, Inc. and as general counsel and secretary from 1961 to 1965. In 1965 he was elected executive vice president and in 1967 he was elected president. In 1969, he was elected board chairman.

Hill has served on the Board of Directors of Pargas, Inc. since 1961 and was a member of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Southern Maryland, Southern Maryland 011, Inc., Preston Trucking Company and National LP-Gas Association.

He has been active in the National LP-Gas Association, having served as Chairman of the National Committee on Propane Allocation and Price Controls, as a member of the Publlc AJrairs Committee and member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors, and was the recipient of the Association's highest honor, the Distinguished Service Award, in 1977.

Survivors include his wife Rosemary of La Plata, Md. and four sons, Wllliam D., Michael S., John W. and Charles P., and; his mother Alma Hill, his brother, Charles and sister Barbara McLeod, of Opelika, Alabama.

Funeral services will be held at Sacred

37643 Heart Church, La Plata, Wednesday, December 12, at 11 a.m., interment at Trinity Memorial Gardens, Waldorf.

The family requested that expressions of sympathy be in the form of contributions to the American Cancer Society of Charles County, La Pla.ta.

(From the Waldorf (Md.) Independent, Dec.12, 1979)

PABGAS BOARD CHAIIU4AN DIES

William c. Hill, 55, chairman of the board of Pargas, died Dec. 9 at Holy Cross Hospital, Sliver Spring.

Mr. Hill, a native of Opelika, Alabama, graduated from Auburn University. After serving in the Army Field Artillery during World War II, he attended the University of Virginia Law School, graduating with a J.D. degree in 1949.

He was a partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Steptoe and Johnson from 1949 to 1965, specializing in federal taxation, corporate finance, and corporate reorganization.

From 1958 to 1961 he served as special counsel for Pargas, Inc. a llquefied petroleum gas and coal firm headquartered in Waldorf. From 1961 to 1965 he served as Pargas general counsel and secretary. In 1965 he was elected executive vice president, and president Jn 1967. In 1969 he was elected· chairman of the board.

Mr. Hill was characterized as "an extremely valuable man" by c. J. McAlllster, former Pargas president.

Mr. Hill had served on the board of directors of Pargas since 1961 and was also a member of the board of directors of the Bank of Southern Maryla.nd, Southern Maryland 011, Preston Trucking Company and National LPGas Association.

He has been active in the National LP-Gaa Association, having served as chairman of the National Committee on Propane Allocation and Price Controls, as a member of the Public Atrairs Committee and member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors. He was recipient of the a,ssociation's high,est honor, the Distinguished Service Award, in 1977.

Survivors include his wife Rosemary of LaPlata, and four sons, Willlam D., Michael s., John W., and Charles P., and his mother Alma Hill, brother Charles and sister Barbara McLeod of Opelika, Alabama.

Funeral services w111 be held at Sacred Heart Church, La Plata at 11 a.m., Wednes- . day, Dec. 12. Interment will be at Trinity Memorial Gardens, Waldorf.

Funeral arrangements are being handled by Arehart Funeral Home, La Plata.

The family requested that expressions of sympathy be in the form of contributions to the American Cancer Society of Charles County, La Plata.e

GENE McMURTRY AWARD

HON. MARGARET M. HECKLER Or MASSACHUSETl'S


Thursday, December 20, 1979 e Mrs. HECKLER. Mr. Speaker, the Massachusetts Rural Development Committee recently recognized the outstanding leadership abilities of Gene McMurtry by creating an annual award in his honor and making him its first recipient.

Gene is the associate dean a.nd associate director of the College of Food a.nd Natural Resources of the University of Massachusetts. In that capacity he is re-

37644 sponsible for administering the Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service.

The community at large has been the beneficiary of Dr. McMurtry's other activities. He has served on the chancellors committee on continuing education at the University of Massachusetts, is president of the Community Development Society and ha.s served as chairman of the Massachusetts State Rural Development Committee. His paramount interest has been to foster cooperation among Federal, State and community organizations so that all can better serve the people.

One of Gene's most outstandmg successes has been the initiation of the annual Massachusetts farm tour. I have participated in the fann tour activities for several years and must congratulate Gene on his recognition of the important role of agricultural and rural development to Massachusetts. His e1forts have helped bring Massachusetts agriculture concerns to the attention of all BaY Staters.

I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the citation recently awarded to Gene McMurtry the text of which follows:

GENE McMURTRY AwARD An annual award created in 1979 by the

Massachusetts State Rural Development Committee in recognition of Gene McMurtry's outstanding contributions to the Massachusetts State Rural Development Committee and his unique ab111ty to foster partnerships among those working to strengthen rural communities in Massachusetts.

Presented to Gene McMurtry as the first recipient for the year 1980, the award wm be given each year to a person in Massachusetts who exemplifies, as Gene McMurtry does, excellence in leadership in community and rural development in the Commonwealth.

Gene McMurtry's own contributions inspired this award:

Fostering cooperation and close working relationships among agencies and groups without regard for traditional division of responsibilities or for who gets the credit;

Broadening the Cooperative Extension Service's view of its own role in community and rural development and supporting innovative Extension staff programming to meet a broad range of community needs;

Supporting the development CY! the TriState Small Farms Extension program, the Tri-State Small Farm/Rural Development Resource Center and the New England Small Farmer Project, to strengthen the voice of these farmers throughout the region;

Leading the formation of the Energy Conservation Analysis Project, the Solar Utilization, Economic Development :and Energty Project, and incorporating energy education programming in all aspects of Extension;

Enabling citizens to participate in local, state and national policy planning and community development through the Citizen's Involvement Training Project and an expanded Community Resource Development program;

Supporting grass-roots efforts such as the state's first self-help canning center, Women in Agriculture, and the New England Small Farm Institute, Inc.;

Instituting the annual Farm Tour, which continues to expand the general public's appreciation of the importance and contributions of the Massachusetts agriculture industry;

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Supporting efforts to increase direct mar

keting of local produce; Sponsoring research and demonstrations in

the field of organic agriculture, horticulture and integrated pest management;

Leading the way in urban agriculture with urban gardening and community greenhouse programs;

Contributing substantially to the general awareness of the interdependencies of urban and rural people and working to build the broad constituency necessary to pass the Agricultural Preservation Restriction Act of 1977, which addresses pressing issues of agricultural land use;

Exemplifying Extension's motto, "Helping People Help Themselves," supporting the model Hilltown Area Development Assistance Project in Hampshire County;

And leading the development of teamwork bet ween the Rural Development Committee, the State Department of Food and Agriculture and the State legislature in planning a rural policy for Massachusetts.

All of this has been accompllshed with a quiet strength and determination to get things done, and ·by working long hours, often behind the scenes, to help others work well and together.

The Massachusetts State Rural Development Committee is proud to have Gene McMurtry as its leader and chairman, and takes great pleasure in presenting the Gene McMurtry Award for Excellence in Leadership Community and Rural Development to its first recipient, Gene McMurtry.e

TESTIMONIAL OF LINDA HOMMAN

HON. CLARENCE E. MILLER OF OHIO



• Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as Americans we often fall to appreciate the citizenship that is ours, the freedoms, the comforts, the health and prosperity that come with our American way of life. All too often we take the benefits and privileges of that citizenship for granted. Not so with Linda Homman of Lancaster, Ohio. Linda, as part of her candidacy for Miss United Teenager, has put to words an eloquent testimonial to our country which I would like to share with you:

MY COUNTRY

I, Linda Ann Homman take thee, the United States of America, to be my country in which to live, to love, and to honor until death I do part. Why? Because, within you I am free to express my opinion, worship my God, pursue the career of my choice, and earn prosperity without fear of persecution.

I am very thankful that God gave me a birthplace in America and am proud to call this beautiful country my homeland. My pledge is to accept my responsiblllties, to uphold the principles of this nation and to meet its challenges so that future generations wlll be proud to call America their home.

In closing, I would like to thank Linda for sharing these remarks with us. May they be an inspiration to all who read them.e

December 20, 1979

ECONOMY <INFLATION, UNEM-PLOYMENT, COST OF LIVING) GREATEST CONCERN OF THE PEOPLE OF THE EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

HON. ROBERT A. ROE OF NEW JERSI'tt



• Mr. ROE. Mr. Speaker, the people of our great Nation are being faced with new challenges on a daily basis. Every day, we read reports of higher and higher energy costs, skyrocketing interest rates and record food prices. At the same time we learn that the once mighty American dollar has sunk in value to less than 25 cents.

That inflationary spiral is of key concern to the residents of the Eighth Congressional District of New Jersey. Some 48 percent of the respondents to my annual questionnaire named the economy as the matter they were most concerned with.

Mr. Speaker, the American wage earner, particularly those living on fixed incomes and the beleaguered middle class which has been called on to pay for most government programs, has reached the end of the rope in trying to cope with spiraling in~ation rates.

There is no question in my mind that if we are to bring inflation under control, we must find some solid answers to the continuing energy dilemma. The cost of buying 10 gallons of gasoline has risen 178 percent over the pa.st 10 years. Home heating oil has more than tripled in price over the same time period. This winter, many families may have to make the desperate choice of either buying fuel to heat their homes or food to sustain themselves.

I have introduced legislation to establish a strong synthetic fuels production program to help America to once again become an energy self-sufficient Nation. Another bill I have authored would roll back the price of home heating oil to January 1979 levels. The move would eliminate the fat profits being made by our own oil companies on the needed fuel and save the average New Jersey homemaker $500 a year on his heating bills t'his winter.

Mr. Speaker, the people of my congressional district are saying loudly and clearly that the decontrol of oil and ga.s at a time of skyrocketing inflation is not the correct path to take. They are looking to Congress to pass such initiatives a.s the "Bushel for Barrel" plan I have proposed that would utilize badly needed wheat crops as a bargaining tool with the oil producing nations.

At a time when American embassies abroad are being sacked, our citizens taken hostage, and our flag degraded and burned, the residents of the Eighth Congressional District have said "enough is enough" and want the United States to stop being the "patsy" for the rest of the world.

December ZO, 1979

One inflation fighting method favored by 64 percent of the respondents to the questionnaire was to sharply reduce Federal spending. They called for a "proposition 13" type proposal to limit property taxes and to permanently reduce Federal personal income taxes.

Mr. Speaker, the people in the Eighth Congressional District are very upset over the record high social security payments they are being forced to pay. There is a loud call for a rollback in those payments, with either the Federal Government or the major oil companies, in the form of a strong windfall profit tax, paying the increased costs of social security benefits.

It is significant to note the deep concern expressed by my constituents over rising crime rates that have, in some instances, reached epidemic proportions. Some 73 percent of the respondents to the questionnaire supported legislation I have introduced calling for stricter law enforcement measures.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Eighth Congressional District of New Jersey are concerned with the future of the United States and the direction thi.s great Nation will take during this troubled economic period in our history. They are looking to Congress for that guidance and I have no doubt that through our careful deliberations we will reaffirm America's position as the unquestioned leader of the free world.

The congressional legislative questionnaire is a key tool in feeling the pulse beat of the Nation's people. Through it we are able to determine not only what matters are important to our citizens but also how successful we Representatives have been in securmg a better life for all Americans. I would like to congratulate the people of the Eighth Congressional District for the excellent response and interest they have shown in answering the questionnaire. A tabulation of responses I received to my questionnaire is as follows:

DISTRICT VOTING RESULTS ON LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

What is your order of priorities? Please mark the following numerically (1, 2, 3, etc.} in order of their importance to you.

Air, water pollution, environment 11.0 percent.

City and suburban mass transportation 3.0 percent.

Conquering "klller" diseases 10.8 percent. Education 6.0 percent. Welfare and social services 1.9 percent. Foreign economic aid .3 percent. Veterans benefits 3.1 percent. Housing and community development 2.1

percent. Hunger and malnutrition 5.9 percent. Economy (inflation, unemployment, cost

of llving} 47.7 percent. Narcotics traftlc and addiction 4.0 percent. Plight of cities 1.9 percent. Energy 7.9 percent. Science, space and technology 1.5 percent. Law enforcement and justice 12.7 percent. National defense 11.7 percent. Aid to Senior Citizens 7.0 percent.

LEGISLATIVE QUESTIONNAIRE, CoNGRESSMAN ROBERT A. ROE, EIGHTH DISTRICT, NEW JERSEY

DISTRICT VOTING RESULTS IN PERCENTAGE

1. Government performance and accountablllty: To reduce federal spending and pro-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS vide greater emciency and economy in government opera.tions, which one of the following legislative proposals which I have sponsored would you favor most?

a. Federal Agency Control and Review Aot (popularly k/a the Sunset Law} to require periodic termination of federal programs to assure that they are continued only after full evaluation and afllrma.tlve approval by Congress. 29.5 percent.

b. Biennlal Budgeting Act (popularly k/a Zero-Based Budgeting Act} to provide for the el1mln.a.tion of ln.aotive and overlapping federal progra.ms by requirlng authorizations of new budget authority for government programs and activities every two yea.rs. 18.2 percent.

c. Bal,anced Budget Amendment to the Constitution to provide rtha.t federal appropriations shall nort exceed federal revenues, except in time of war or national emergency; and provide for the systematic paying back of the na.tiona.l debt. 42.6 percent.

2. If your "buying power" has decreased during the last year, which two of the following factors contributed most to this situation?

a. Unemployment. 6.3 percent. b. Reduced income. 10.3 percent. c. Higher taxes. 51.1 percent. d. Inflationary costs. 84.6 percent. 3. In attempting to reduce our country's

unemployment rate, which one of the following should receive the greatest emphasis?

a. Jobs created by the Federal Government. 15.1 percent.

b. Tax breaks for business to increase employment. 28.7 percent.

o. Reduction in interest ra.tes to stimulate investment. 18.5 percent.

d. Reduction of present individual tax rates. 30.8 percent.

4. To counter inflationary pressure, would you favor any one of the following actions?

a. Sharply reduced federal spending. 56.7 percent.

b. Controlling prices, wages, proftts, rents, interest rates. 24.2 percent.

c. Increased taxes on temporary basis. 8 percent.

d. More vigorous antitrust actions against concentrated, non-competitive business. 11.4 percent.

5. To encourage the development of alternative energy sources (i.e. geothermal, solar, liquefaction of coal, etc.} which of the followine: incentive measures would you favor?

a. Tax credits to industries that are researching and developing these types of energy. 63.9 percent.

b. Substantial federal financing of alternative energy research and development programs. 29.9 percent.

6. Which features would you support in a National Health Insurance Program?

a. Total federal sponsorship and operation. 30.8 percent.

b. Catastrophic illness protection. 37.7 percent.

c. Private insurance company policies with costs shared by employers. 19.8 percent.

d. None, The present system is adequate. 13.9 percent.

7. Should the U.S. pursue a poltcy of detente with:

a. Russia? 39.7 percent. b. China? 44.9 percent. c. CUba? 21.8 percent. 8. Automobile insurance premiums for all

drivers, but especially those between 18 and 25, continue to increase. To stabiltze these premiums, which of the following would you favor?

a. A national premium structure in which persons with no accidents in their dl1ving records would be charged the lowest actuarial cost rate regardless of their age, sex or where they Uve. 53.3 percent.

b. Abolishment of no-fault insurance regulations. 10.8 percent.

37645 c. Mandated premiums established by the

State. 6.3 percent. d. Uniform statewide rates without penalty

for accident record. 7.5 percent. e. Special discounts for safe drivers. 52.1

percent. 9. Neighborhood crime is increasing to epi

demic proportions. Of the following measures, which two do you believe would increase citizens protection and help reduce neighborhood crime?

a. Increased police car patrols. 25.3 percent. b. Better street lighting. 13.0 percent. c. Greater citizen involvement and partici

pation. 33.1 percent. d. Stricter law enforcement in general. 73.0

percent. 10. Tax proposals: Several tax proposals

have been projected to sustain economic recovery and offset increases in Social security and Energy Taxes. Do you favor any of the following proposals?

a. A permanent reduction Jn federal tax rates on the personal income of the individual. 40.5 percent.

b. A permanent reduction in federal tax rates on the profits of the business or professional man. 9.2 percent.

c. A permanent reduction in federal tax rates on corporate entitles. 8.5 percent.

d. Elimination of all preferential tax treatment and a straight across the board low tax rate (1 percent to 5 percent} on all personal income and business profits as received similar to the levying of the sales tax, e.g., at the time of sale. 34.4 percent.

e. California's Tax Proposition No. 13 which limits the local property tax rate to 1 percent of market value, rolls back property tax assessments to 1975-1976 levels, and otherwise controls and restricts local and state governments on the amount of taxes they may levy. 49.9 percent.

11. Energy: The President's energy proposals have been hung up for months in conference of the House and Senate. How do you feel about these two issues involved?

a. Should there be a ceiling on the price of all natural gas from existing wells? Yes, 64.7 percent; No, 19.0 percent.

b. Should the proposed tax on domestic crude oil be rebated to on companies to offset their cost for exploration and development of new oil fields instead of rebating it to the consumers? Yes, 27.8 percent; No. 46.5 percent.

12. Foreign pollcy: Do you favor the following foreign policy goals of the Administration?

a. Agreement with Russia to reduce arms. Yes, 57.6 percent; No, 25.3 percent.

b. Cut U.S. weapons sales for foreign nations. Yes, 52.9 percent; No. 28.0 percent.

c. Oppose additional Israeli settlements in former Arab land. Yes, 59.9 percent; No, 19.1 percent.

d. Support majority rule (one man-onevote} in African nations. Yes, 53.1 percent; No, 20.2 percent.

13. Should the U.S. continue to provide foreign aid to our allies and developing countries throughout the world? Yes, 45.1 percent; No, 42.7 percent.

14. Should the U.S. impose substantial taritrs on imported goods to protect U.S. jobs and U.S. Corporations? Yes, 63.8 percent; No, 25.6. percent.

15. If laws protecting the environment, like the Clean Air or Clean Water Act, result in the loss of jobs of U.S. citizens, should these laws be relaxed and modified? Yes, 44.8 percent; No. 45.2 percent.

16. When Federal regulations of business including environmental controls cause severe financial hardships and loss of jobs for small business corpora tlons, should the Federal Government compensate these corporations? Yes, 53.9 percent; No, 32.2 percent.

17. Do you support the use of quotas for hiring and entrance to college to prohibit

37646 sexual or racial discrimination? Yes, 14.0 percent; No, 76.2 percent.

18. The Social Security Financing Act recently enacted into law increased the cost of Social Security to the worker, effective January 1, 1979. Do you believe that there should be a rollback of this payroll tax with the Federal Government assuming a. greater share of the cost from the general revenue fund? Yes, 60.4 percent; No, 28.1 percent.

19. Do you favor the death penalty for crimes of violence resulting in the death of another? Yes, 79.8 percent; No, 12.6 percent.

Important Note! Many district voters did not vote on all items in the questionnaire and also those who voted "undecided" are not included in the percentiles of the above answers.e

CHRYSLER

HON. DONALD JOSEPH ALBOSTA OP MICHIGAN



• Mr. ALBOSTA. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House approved of a loan guarantee program that provides a guarantee for loans of $1.5 billion to the Chrysler Corp., provided that corporation meets a number of contingencies. This action was necessary because with the infiux of imports, the issuance of harsh Government regulations, and the problems caused by the energy crisis, Chrysler, as the smallest of the big three auto manufacturers, has serious cash :flow problems, placing them on the verge of bankruptcy, and almost certain liquidation.

I voted for the Moorhead-McKinney substitute measure because I felt it adequately provided for the financial security of Chrysler, while at the same time, requiring sacrifices on the part of all parties concerned. Provided that the Senate acts quickly on this legislation, I am confident that this measure will save our Nation the 500,000 jobs that are directly tied to Chrysler's operations and purchases. In addition, it is clear that the Federal Government will not be denied the $2.75 billion in tax revenues that are generated from Chrysler's wages and those of its subcontractors. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. will also be saved from a potential $1.1 billion deficit that would have occurred upon a Chrysler failure. Additionally, millions of dollars of revenues would have been lost by the various States and localities that house Chrysler facilities or those of its suppliers. They would lose a significant amount from their operation budgets if Chrysler were left unaided.

I need not convey to Members of the House the negative impact a Chrysler failure would have on my State of Michigan, but it goes much beyond my State. I believe it is quite clear from the figures I explained above that in the national interest, it would have been irresponsible for the Congress to turn its back on this problem. While I do not want our vote yesterday to set a precedent for any other corporation in this Nation, I feel we took the correct action, and am hopeful that the Senate will expeditiously follow our lead on this matter.•


STALIN'S LEGACY




• Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, there is voluminous literature on the reign of Adolph Hitler. New books, fiction and nonfiction, about the evils of the Third Reich appear one after the other.

But how much do we know about the life and times of Hitler's model and, eventually, his successor as the most feared dictator on Earth, Josef Stalin? Not very much, I believe, and what we do know now seems to be forgotten very quickly. This is why a recent article in the New York Times is so important. Three Soviet writers, each one having spent his childhood as a victim of Stalin's crimes, tell of their views of what Stalin did and what it means today.

At this point I wish to insert in the RECORD, "On Stalin's Birthday, Three Soviet Writers Speak Memories" in the New York Times, December 16, 1979: ON STALIN'S BmTHDAY, THREE SOVIET WRITERS

SPEAK MEMORIES

(By Craig R. Whitney) Moscow.-stalin, born 100 years ago on

Dec. 21 seems now to belong to another age. More than a quarter century has passed since he died in 1953. More than 20 years have gone by since Nikita S. Khrushchev denounced his crimes in 1956 and briefiy permitted the country to learn that mi111ons of its most loyal citizens had died in two decades of Stalinist terror.

Since then-official silence. But to ask almost any one of the Soviet citizens who grew up in those years about their childhoods, about their parents, about the war is to realize how immensely wide was the swath cut by the terror, how pervasive it was.

How did it affect these people as they came of age? How will the legacy of Stalinism affect their children?

In separate interviews, three Soviet writers, all well known in their own country and abroad, suggested some answers. All are sons of old Bolsheviks. All are "official" writers, none a dissident. Only their eloquence makes them different from millions of their countrymen.

Yurt V. Trifonov, 54 years old, has revived the genre of the Russian novella, with introspective probing of Soviet urban life, sharply critical of hypocrisy, cowardice, and greed, and full of subtle reminders-subtle because otherwise they could not be published here--of the way things were when Stalin ruled.

Bulat Okudzhava, 55, is a celebrated. poet and chansonnier who has now taken to writing historical romances about pre-Revolutionary times, trying to show, despite Marxist teaching, that "there is not always some one person or one group of people who are at fault when others suffer." A native Georgian like Stalin, he writes in Russian and is a member of the Soviet Communist Party.

Vasily Aksyonov, 4.7, led a literary revolt against the system of Soviet literary censorship last winter, demanding publication of a collection of works by 23 Soviet writers called "Metropol." The authorities refused, and, as this winter closes in, he says he may give up and emigrate to the West.

YURI TRIFONOV

My father, Valentin Trifonov, was a comrade of Stalin and of most of the rest of the Bolshevik leadership during the Revolution and the Civil War. He'd been a member of

December 20, 1979 the party since 1904, and before the Revolution he spent his best y-ears, from 17 to 27, in exile in Siberia.. After the Revolution, he fought on the southern and eastern fronts during the Civil War.

Back in 1966, when Stalin's years and his crimes were being openly discussed and criticized here, I wrote in a book called "Refiections from the Campfire" eibout his life. Stalin systematically excluded him from positions of great responsib1llty after the Revolution, and in 1937, he reached the end over a manuscript about the m111tary threat from advanced industrial countries like Germany and Japan. That was before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (with Nazi Germany), and Stalin didn't want to hear of such things.

The men in uniform came to our house on the night of June 23, 1937 and took him away. I was 11 at the time, he was only 45. Eight months later, they came and arrested my mother too. They were charged with espionage but the cases of course never existed; they were invented.

My sister and I went to live with my grandmother on my mother's side, Ta.tyana Slovatinskaya. She too was an old member of the party-met often with Lenin, who used her apartment in St. Petersburg for a secret meeting once in 1906, and had Stalin. as a secret guest in the bouse too in the early days. For some reason he never hurt her, though he had her son e.rrested.

So until the war, we lived with our babushka in a big house for the party elite on the other side of the Moscow river !rom the Kremlin. I wrote about the house in those years in "The House on the Embankment," which has ~ust been published in the United States. I'm working on making it into a play.

I couldn't believe my father was guilty. But as long as the war lasted it was impossible to find out what had happened with him. It wasn't until 1945 that they told me he had died. In fact he had been shot. But they didn't say that until much later.

My mother came back from exile after the war after eight years in Kazakhstan. My grandmother got Kalinin to intercede with Stalin for her. I went to work in an aviation factory, and then I studied literature, for I always wanted to be a writer.

I got a Stalin Prize for my first book, "Students," written in 1948-1949. It wasn't very good, and of course it didn't say anything about the purges. But there were those around Stalin who didn't want me to have the prize because I was the son of "enemies of the people." All Stalin asked was, "is it a good book?" It was part of his hypocrisy.

After Stalin's death-that was a time of great expectations, great hopes. I began writing real novels, about the way people lived in Stalin's days, about how they developed a sense of justice.

I st111 think it's important to write about those years today, though I don't like it when people in the West single out that aspect as the only interesting thing about my work. I stand for my country. I want to write for people here. I'll come back again to 1937, the purge year, and write about that.

The general mass of people nowadays isn't interested in that time. It's cert811nly true that some don't even know what happened then. That's why I want to write about that time. There are things th&t must be said, in books, in books published here.

My son Valentin was born last spring. I don't want Stalin to be a. burning issue for his generation. I want him to be able to forget about Stalin. Then the consequences of Stalinism would be over.

That's my wish. Whether it's possible or not is another thing, but I'm an optimist. The consequences of Stalin and Stalinism w111 be eliminated. I think it's inconceivable there could ever be a return to that sort at

December 20, 19 79 thing in this country. Because nobody wants that.

BULAT OKUDZHAVA

My pa.renta were professionaJ. revolutionaries. They worked in the underground in Georgia. before 1917, and they took part in the Civil Wa.r there afterward. In 1923 my father oa.me to study at the Communist Academy in Moscow, and we lived in the Arba.t, the oldest section of the city. Khrushchev half tore it down later to make room for some ugly skyscra.pters. Unfortunately . .

In 1937, my pa.rents were "repressed," as the phrase went then. Why? No reason. When Stalin took 1p0wer, he just got rid of all his friends, he didn't need them any more. Like Hitler, Like Me.o Zedong. Stalin was a. bandit.

That was a. time--e. terrible time--when we created in the Soviet Union a. new type of human being. I was one of them. I was ra.ised in the religion of the party. When the party said my father was a spy for the Germ.a.ns and the Japanese, I believed he must be guilty.

They took my mother away too, so my brother and I went to live with my grandmother. She ha.d only 30 rubles a month pension. All I ha.d to wee.r, no matter how cold it was outside, was a thJn raincoat.

As I was finishing the ninth grade, the war b~. so as the age of 17, I volunteered for the front. I was wounded, and I came back early. I studied philology ·as the university in Moscow, but e.s a. son of "enemies of the people," I couldn't get .a, job here. I ha.d to go to a. small village nea.r Ke.luga., and I found work there teaching Russian.

I knew my mother had been sent to excne, and after the war I kept trying to find out what had happened to my father, trying to get in touch with him. Finally in 1946 .• ,they sent me a card saying he had been sentenced without the right to correspondence." That was the euphemism used for people who ha.d been executed. But I didn't realize it until years later.

My father was rehabilitated posthumously, after 1953. There was a little ceremony at the military procurator-general's office.

The general gave me a piece of paper, with my father's name and the notation that he had been "physically liquidated." I asked whether in the file on my father's case there were some family pictures that had been seized, and whether I could have them back. The man told me, very full of sympathy and sadness, "my poor man, there were no files. Just lists of names."

My mother came back to Moscow. They gave her a small apartment, "as compensation for suffering."

My generation was naive. We talked too much. We knew too little.

The new generation doesn't know about Stalin at all. What they know, they heard from their parents, from films, from television. But only the positive side. The negative aspects are suppressed, unfortunately. I think this is harmful. Stalin was a sickness. To cure it we have to talk it out. Suppressing the discussion violates the spirit of earlier party decisions. It's as though the 20th party congress in 1956 had never taken place. We need now to raise a new generation of people who think for themselves, independently. This won't hinder genuine patriotism. On the contrary. My two sons are 26 and 15. They don't want to know very much about Stalinism now. Maybe they'll get more interested when they're 30.

I don't think history will repeat itself. We in Russia today are very much more closely linked with the rest of the world than we were in my time. History binds up its own wounds. Will we, will the younger generation repeat Stalin's methods? I hope not. I hope not.

VASILY AKSYONOV

My rather and mother were both Communists. My father was a party member in 1917,

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS a veteran of the Civll War, later Mayor of Kazan. He worshipped Lenin. He stm does; he is critical of a lot of things, but he can't hear a bad word about Lenin.

My mother was strongly against religion. We had a nurse, a real Russian peasant lady with a. face like an leon. She tried to baptize me, my mother told me when I was little, but she always said she found out, and forbade it. A few weeks ago, I found out that lt had actually happened-it was done in secret, in a priva.te home and not in a church, and my father's chauffeur, a party member himself, had helped the nurse get it done.

Years later, when the N.K.V.D. came to arrest them they took me away too. I was placed in a special home for children of "enemies of the people." I had an uncle who must have been a. very courageous man. He tried to find me and get me out, and finally he did. I can remember the home vaguely. It was like a normal kindergarten, with beds and meals-not a terrible place.

I grew up with my uncle '8.nd aunt in Kazan, during the war. My parents were not kllled, but they were sent to separate labor camps, with no news of each other. My father spent 18 years in the camps in Pechora. My mother .spent 10 in Kolyma, and when she got out of the camps slie was sent to exile in the Magadan district, in the Far East. In 1947 I joined her out there. But she assumed my father had died, and she married a doctor, a devout Catholic, with a Volga German background.

She became very religious too, not under the influence of the church, but of the camps.

(Mr. Aksyonov's mother, the late Yevgenia Ginzburg, wrote about the camps in a book called "Into the Whirlwind," published in 1967.)

My father was released after Stalin died, and was ofilcially rehab111tated. My parents found out about each other eventually, and we did get them together once, on a boat trip down the Volga. But they had grown apart. They had become very different people, they were no longer what they had been before.

I studied to become a doctor. My mother told me medical skills would come in handy in the camps.

But I wanted to write. And I did, starting with some terrible stuff. After Stalin died, it seemed that so much might become possible. But after the "thaw" there was a "freeze." In 1963, I was there when Khrushc:t>ev had that famous fight with young artists in the Kremlin. There's a famous picture of him shaking his first at Andrei Voznesensky, the poet. Then Krushchev turned to me." 'You're trying to avenge your father. I know you,'" he told me. But he was mistaken. My father was alive. And it was Khrushchev who had rehabilitated him.

But now. what is to be done here? I have fought it out now for many years. Last January we tried to make a change, to stir up the swamp, with the "Metropol" collection. We didn't completely succeed.

One solution is to keep silent. Another is to become a political fighter. All I want is to be left alone to write in a quiet atmosphere. I'm already 47. I have ideas for other books, and it's my duty to write them. The only choice I see open to me is to leave, to go abroad, but I haven't made the final decision yet.

My son is 19. He's a. student of art, and a. very good one. He has his friends, his life here. He doesn't want to leave, and he won't. My son and his friends are not plagued by these "cursed questions." They know their grandparents went through hard times. They hope for better times. They hope that finally Russians will become part of mankind.

Ten years ago, we couldn't have imagined that some people would actually be allowed to emigrate, to leave this country. Ten years

37647 from now maybe some people will be allowed to come back.e

CONGRATULATIONS TO FDA FOR NOT STAMPEDING

HON. WILLIAM C. WAMPLER OF VIRGINiA



• Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Speaker, when a Federal agency does something right, I believe they ought to be congratulated. For this reason, I want to congratulate the Food and Drug Administration for the prudent manner in which they have handled the issue of nitrosamines in beer.

The agency to date has followed a wise course of ascertaining and analyzing all the facts and has not stampeded on this issue under pressure. This approach is a much better one than that adopted last year when FDA, jointly with the Department of Agriculture, allowed the premature release of an invalidated report on nitrites in processed meats to scare the wits out of the American public.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the RECORD at this point a recent letter I received from the United States Brewers Association, Inc., on this issue attesting to the sensible and cooperative manner in which FDA handled the nitrosamines in beer issue.

The letter follows: UNITED STATES BREWERS ASSOCIA

TION, INC. washington, D.C., December 14, 1979.

Hon. WILLIAM C. WAMPLER, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN WAMPLER: There haS

been considerable media and public interest recently about the presence of low levels of dimethylnitrosamine (DMNA) in malt beverage products. We are writing to provide you background information on this situation and the status of measures taken by the United States brewing industry, through the United States Brewers Association, Inc. (USBA), in response to it.

The USBA first learned of the potential presence of DMNA in malt beverage products in August of 1978, as a result of informal conversations between an industry scientist and Dr. Rolf Preussmann of the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg, both of whom were attending a conference in Aspen, Colorado. In response to a question at this meeting, Dr. Preussmann indicated that in the course of a market basket survey of foods in West German diet, he had tested a variety of European beers and found most contained DMNA.

On learning of this information, the USBA promptly convened a group of industry scientists to determine what steps should be taken to investigate the question in the United States, and called upon its standing Medical Advisory Group, chaired by Dean Emeritus Thomas B. Turner of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine for its advice.

samples of domestic beer were promptly collected and forwarded to Dr. David Fine of the Thermo Electron Corporation (the inventor of the Thermal Energy Analyzer (TEA) ut111zed in the German studies) !or analysis. In addition, a group of scientists was dispatched to Heidelberg to review Dr. Preussman's findings.

When the results received from Dr. Fine's

37648 laboratory proved positive for DMNA 1n domestic beer samples, the USBA immediately informed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 1n the Department of the Treasury and the Food and Drug Administration in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Dr. Preussmann gave our scientific team his work confidentially since it was not scheduled for publication until February of 1979. Our findings were also communicated to the public through a national news release issued on August 30, 1978.

There ensued an Intensive program to identify the source of the DMNA and to determine methods by which It could be eliminated. This was a worldwide effort as the USBA informed brewing groups around the world of the situation and of its research to date. Indeed, at the recent Sixth International Conference on the Analysis and the Formation of N-Nltroso Compounds held 1n Budapest in October, 1979, papers were presented on the subject by representatives of Japan, Germany, the United States, oanada, and the Soviet Union. We have, in addition, coordinated our efforts with the British, the Australians, and the French, among others.

When it became evident that DMNA was not formed in the brewing process itself, we Investigated all brewing ingredients, and focused on malt as the apparent host of the DMNA we were finding in beer. Additional research indicated that the DMNA was apparently formed during the kilning or drying of malt.

The focus of our research then shifted to pesticide applications on malt, since the published literature showed these frequently to be a source of nitrosamines and nitrosamine precursors. Extensive investigation in this area showed a possible involvement of pesticides, but it gradually became apparent that elimination of the precursors potentially present from pesticide applications was not sumcient to eliminate DMNA from malt, or, consequently. from beer.

We expedited efforts to specifically identify and control the nitrous oxide precursor, the nitrosating agent. This was found largely to be present as a result of combustion in socalled direct fired kilns, where the drying barley was exposed to air that had come directly in contact with the combustion source. Indirect fired kilns, which represent only about twenty percent of domestic malting C81pac1ty, where a heat transfer occurs which prevents exposure of the drying malt to air exposed to combustion process, showed little DMNA formation. Where it was found, it was concluded to result from nitrosation by th9 nitrous oxides which are naturally present in air.

It was soon found that sulfur, whether as a natural constituent of fuel sources, or deliberately employed, would inhibit or prevent nitrosation. In addition, specially designed burners, developed to minimize nitrous oxide formation, were found to help reduce nitrosation, up to fifty percent. Sulfur alone, or in conjunction with these burners; has been found to reduce DMNA up to ninety-four percent.

As early as June of 1979, brewers and thelJ malsters began to implement on a commercial scale the steps which had been shown experimentally to inhibit and prevent nltrosation during malting.

Throughout this period of research and experimentation, the USBA had reported on its progress to the FDA and the BATF and had shared the information It was developing with other brewing nations throughout the world.

In October, we were able to report to the FDA that fifty percent of the malt being used for brewing had been prepared by one of the methods suggested to inhibit nitrosation, and that by November that figure would have risen to eighty percent. We were also able to report that all brewers respond-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS lng to our survey, which now includes every brewer 1n the United States, had indicated that measures had been taken to ensure that the malt being purchased had been so prepared.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced that it will be continuing to monitor DMNA levels in beer and that, where their presence can be confirmed, the products may be subject to regulatory action. We are confident, based on the information provided to us by individual brewers and malsters, that no such action will be warranted.

In summary, the situation we face is one shared by all beer producing nations of the world. There has developed during our investigations a significant international exchange of information, and we have widely disseminated the data we have developed. Based on the information available to us, we have taken all prudent measures to resolve the situation, and we are not aware of any steps taken 1n any other beer producing countries that are d11Ierent from or more effective than those we have pursued. We will make subsequent reports to you as we progress toward our ultimate goal of eliminating DMNA from domestic malt beverages.

We shall be pleased to provide any additional details that you may desire, and to respond to any questions that you may have.

Cordially, HENRY B. KING,

President, U.S. Brewers Association, Inc. JAMES W. RIDDELL,

Counsel to U.S. Brewers Association, Inc.e

ANOTHER ASININE EPA VENTURE

HON·. ADAM BENJAMIN, JR. OF INDIANA



e Mr. BENJAMIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of my fellow colleagues a study of which we should all take note. It will be conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the School of Marine Science at the College of William & Mary. The study, sponsored by the city of Danville, Va.., will research the sex lives of loggerhead turtles.

Some may wonder what motivated the city of Danville to sponsor a $10,000 study on the sex lives of ~oggerhead turtles. It seems that Danville's city council has a.greed to finance this research rather than pay a fine for polluting the air from its coal-burning steamplant as suggested by the Environmental Protection Agency. In exchange for the fine, EPA stated that the city must finance an "environmentally sign.liicant • * • study of general relevance and not be specific to Danville."

The phrases "environmentally significant" and "general relevance" are ones that obviously have different meanings for different individuals. Although some may question whether the sex lives o! loggerhead turtles is environmentally significant or of any relevance at all. who are they to doubt the word of EPA? Why discriminate against loggerhead turtles? They have as much right as any other species to have their sex lives private.

In closing, I would like to leave you with a statement by Mayor Robert Clarke of Danville. In referring to the recent vote of the city council on EPA's

De.cember 20, 1979

dictate, Mayor Clarke was quoted as saying, "this is the most asinine thing ever to come before this city." Ainen.~fayor,amen.e

ONE Mlld..ION TO ONE

HON. HAMILTON FISH, JR. OF NEW YORK


Thursday, December 20, 197d

• Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, our former colleague, Martin McKneally of New York, himself a past national commander of the American Legion, has written on the significance of the election of my father, Hamilton Fish, as an honorary national commander. He writes knowledgeably and graciously of both my family's military service to their country, and of their dedication to the cause of veterans of all wars.

The article follows: ONE Mn.LtoN TO ONE

(By Martin McKneally) [Former National Commander of the

American Legion) This is the story of one of the most un

usual and interesting events in the 60 year old history of the American Legion, the largest veteran organization in the world. It is also one of the most infiuentlal groups in the United States.

The election of Hon. Hamilton Fish, a distinguished former Member of Congress for 25 years, as the only living honorary national commander of the American Legion at the age of 90, was in Itself unique and unprecedented. It originated from Kingston Post No. 150 in Ulster County, New York, actually without his knowledge or consent, but for which he is very grateful. He was also made a past national commander of the Legion with the right to participate in its executive committee. At the Houston convention in Texas on August 22nd, Mr. Fish's acceptance speech was received by long and loud applause. The New York delegates gave the only living honorary national commander a reception afterwards, attended by 600 or 700 delegates, twice as many as expected. Mr. Fish spoke at the Founder's luncheon on the origin of the Legion Preamble of which he was chairman of the committee of three, before the Americanism Committee where he upheld the Legion denunciation of Jane Fonda and before the Joint Foreign Relations and Security Committee, urging the Senate to strengthen our nuclear defense so no nation would dare attack the United States. He received standing ovations.

The extraordinary part of Mr. Fish's election, both as honorary national commander and as a former national commander is that for years, Legionnaire Fish was a member of the Judson Galloway Post at Newburgh, New York along with the author, Martin McKneally who also became a national commander.

The chances of having two past national commanders of the Legion from the comparatively small post, is more than a million to one. In 60 years, New York State has had only three other national commanders-all passed on to greener pastures.

Ham Fish and I are the only two past national commanders alive today-both or us served in Congress. When Mr. Fish was asked to comment about the American Legion, he said, "the American Legion is one of the most powerful and patriotic organizations 1n America with 3 million paid up members and 1 million women's aux111ary members,

December 20, 1979 and Is financially very strong. It is well organized In every state and its headquarters at Indianapolis and Washington are the centers of Its numerous activities. It has always stood for the best interest of the community, state and nation, based on Its Preamble ... For God, country, the constitution, peace, freedom and democracy which its members upheld and fought for In four wars, and for the hospitalization and rehab111tatlon of our sick and disabled veterans.

It might be of interest to the readers to know that Col. Nicholas Fish, his great grandfather, was commissioned a Major in the Continental Army by John Hancock, President of the Congress in 1776, at the age of 18 and 3 months. He is stlll the youngest Major in the annals of our regular army.

The following extract from a book on Theodore Roosevelt tells the story of the death of his first cousin, Hamilton Fish, Jr., a graduate of Columbia who was the first man killed in the Spanish War in Roosevelt's Rough ~lders, and six Spanish War posts were n&med atfer him.

Frc..u: Theodore Roosevelt: The Boy and the Man by James Morgan (Grosset and Dunlap 1907). "The day (Las Quaslmas, Cuba, June 24, 1898) has cost the regiment eight kllled and thirty-four wounded. Captali: "'pron, descended from generations of sold.~Af!'met a soldier's death.

Sergeant Hamilton Fish, Jr., the heir to a great name, was another of the Rough Riders also burled In the ground which they all!' .. their comrades had won. The chaplain realli the burial service while the brothers sto6d about with bowed heads, and the jungle e.choed with "Rock of Ages". They were fighting side by side when they fell, and they were not separated In their burial. All In a common grave they were lald-'Indlan and Cowboy'. Their Lieutenant-Colonel has written: 'miner, packer and college athlete the man of unknown ancestry from the lonely western plains and the man who carried on his watch the crests of the Stuyvesanis and the Fishes. One In the way they had met death just as during life they had been one In their daring and their loyalty.

When the fighting was over, the Rough Riders, although largely southerners, were ready to accept the negro troops as comrades with hearty good will as they said, they were willing to 'drink out of the same canteen' with soldiers who had shown themselves brave men."

In conclusion, it might interest Legionnaires and many others to know that Mr. Fish, now the proud wearer of the red hat of a former national commander of the American Legion, served overseas with the 369th regiment, composed of volunteer blacks with mostly white omcers that fought in the French army. It suffered heavy casualties and Its flag was decorated with the French Croix de Guerre.

Captain Fish, later Major was decorated with the Croix de Guerre and the Silver Star. When he went to Congress in 1920 the first resolution he introduced was to bring back the body of the unknown soldier from the battlefields of France. This b111 was the last one signed by Woodrow Wilson, a sick and dying President on March 4, 1921. The entombment of the unknown took place at the National Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington on November 11, 19211n the presence of 75,000 people including both President Wilson who made a special effort to attend. President Harding, the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, the Senate and the House, and top generals from all the allied nations. At the request of the War Department, Mr. Fish placed the only wreath on the grave of the unknown in behalf of all of our armed forces during World War I and at that time said: "On behalf of the ex-servicemen of the Republic, I reverently place this wreath on the tomb of our unknown comrade in

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS arms who paid the supreme sacrifice that we might live at peace with all the world." .

Congressman Fish was chairman of the committee of five, appointed by President Coolidge to establish veteran preference and the recommendation of his committee, that disabled veterans be granted 10 percent preference and other veterans five percent In civil service examinations. This was put Into effect immediately by an executive order of President Coolidge and over the years has helped to provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of veterans. He was also chairman of the first Congressional Committee to investigate communist activities, plans, policies, and knows more ·regarding communist objectives than any other American.

Mr. Fish's son, Congressman Hamilton Fish, Jr., himself a Navy Veteran of World War II, has continued the family record of service to America's veterans.e

ECONOMIC CLIMATE

HON·. JOHN J. RHODES OF ARIZONA



• Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to receive a speech by Alexander B. Trowbridge, vice chainnan of the Allied Chemical Corp. regarding the economy. Mr. Trowbridge points to some recent trends that indicate the economic climate could be changing for the better, and he sets forth clearly, concisely and succinctly, what needs to be done to strengthen the private sector. I commend his remarks to my colleagues at this point in the RECORD: GEARING NATIONAL POLICY FOR A PRODUCTIVE

EcONOMY

American Industry, especially its capital intensive components, has had some cause for despair in recent years as it contended with escalating costs, intensified government regulations, public criticism from many vocal sectors, and a general economic climate that stressed consumer satisfaction without equal attention to the productive side of the economy.

We've heard of the manager who never allowed his associates to use the word "problem", always insisting on the use of "opportunity" Instead. He continued this until one of his staff asked for assistance in solving "an insurmountable opportunity".

Without being excessively optimistic, nor mired in gloom, we should take note of some recent trends indicating that the economic climate in America may be changing for the better. The proof Is not conclusive, but enough evidence exists to suggest an opportunity that all American industry should encourage and strive to fulfill. There Is a perceptible swing away from the Keynesian economic theory that government, by manipulating overall economic demand, can "fine tune" the economy. Receptivity to new economic thinking is seen in the media, among academics and economists, and in polltlcal leadership circles, who appear to be reaching a consensus that the time has arrived for greater support of the productive sector. Time Magazine, in an August 27th cover story, summed It up this way: " ... tax tinkering and government spending to prop up demand, wage and price guidelines to hold down inflation .. . have been as helpful as snake oil ... A revisionist group of economists ... Is on the rise ... who are bringing fresh air, and fresh hope, to the dismal science .... They assert that Government has motivated Americans to spend too much and save too little. They charge that Federal tax,

37649 budget and monetary policies have promoted immediate consumption instead of investment for the future .... "

For years the Keynesian economists have assumed that supply would take care of Itself once demand was stimul81ted. For a while tba.t appeared to be a valid proposition, but no longer. The problems o:t the 1970's and 1980 s revol'Ve '8.round our ability to etHcieilltly produce the goods and services to satisfy overa.ll demand at sta.ble prices. The problem Is not the nation's ab111ty to consume, but our oa.pacity to produce.

What Is really mea.nt, in solid policy terms, by this conclusion? First, we are primarily talking about manufacturing, construction, mining, ut111ties, transportation a.nd communications-which constitute over one half of our private sector GNP a.nd consist of roughly 200 distinct Industries. But the ever growing and vital service sector Is equally involved. Secondly, It suggests we are recognizing that a primary responsibiUJty of government is the enhancement, not the Inhibition, of business development. Thirdly, It envisages ooNootions on a broad front against the multJ..ple road blocks which Inhibit innovation, resource usage, capital formation, productivity improvement, energy Independence 'and intern.altiona.I OODllpetitiveness.

U.S. industria.l innovatlveness, When compared to Japan and West Germany, has lost its technological edge in the world. Problems of regulatory diversion of oa.pitaJ. that should go toR. & D. projects, taxation penalties and a.ntt.trust policies that Inhibit research collabor81tion, plus patent policies that prohibit exclusi'Ve licensing of federally sponsored research results-all blunt our entrepreneurial genius. We need a policy of encouragement for the oommercla.lization of government owned patents coming from R. & D. as well as cooperative agreements among small, innovative COIDJpa.nles. The proposal of Senators Bentsen and Danforth to extend the 10 percent Investment Ta.x Credit to corporate R. & D. expenditures also deserves widespread industry support.

Resource utilization is dependent upon the continued ab111ty of the extre.ctive industries to supply mlnemls, timber, oil, gas and other raw materials. Encouragement of multiple use concepts, with prompt issua.nce of public lands which contain approximately 50 percent o! all known U.S. energy sources. Restrictive laws, such as the Alaskan lands legislation, are not going to enhance development of new supplies.

Capital formation is cruc1a.l to the productive sector, a fact recognized by the original Investment Tax Credit 1n the early 60's, which has been tortured by suspension and restoration twice since orlgina.I passage. It should be retained, permanently, a.t Its current 10 percent level. In addition, no current leg1sla1Aon is riper for fast approval, if industry maintains strong support, than the so-ca.Med "10-5-3" blll of Congressmen CoilBible and Jones, which would establish general depreciation schedules of 10 years for structures, 5 years for pla.tllt a.nd equipment, and 3 years for cars and trucks-replacing .the present cumbersome a.nd unrealistic system based on the "useful life" concept. Data Resources Inc. estlma.tes that the "10-5-3" bill would ultima.tely create 1.2 mllrlion jobs and cut inflation a.nnua!lly by some 2 percent. In addition, a number of bills have been introduced in .the House to tax dividend income at lower rates, or to provide tax incentives for savings above average rates, or to exempt from taxes the first $100 to $200 of savings interest receipts. While the Treasury worries about the immediate revenue effect of such bills, Secretary G. W1111a.m Miller has genera.lly agreed with the principle that "For too long we have focused on consumption a.nd have not invested enough in productive capacity." He, and other leaders, have been Impressed. by

37650 the oompe.ratively low 5 percent person& savings rate in the U.S. as com.pa.red to 13-17 percent in Western Europe a.nd 2o-25 percent in Ja.pa.n. The Congressional Joint Economic Committee, equa.lly impreseed, has recently issued its first una.nimous report in 20 yea.rs, a.rguing strongly for supply side solutions to the nation's economic problems. Among the signers: Senators Kennedy a.nd McGovern, a.nd Congressman Bolling.

Productivity improvement ca.n only come if we stimulate ca.pita.l investment and put some ra.tiona.l lumts on the regulatory overload so prev81lent today. Positive steps ca.n be envisa.ged by passa.ge of "Sunset" legislation requiring periodic review of a.ll regulatory spending, a.nd "Sunrise" requirements for economic impact a.na.lysis of regulatory a.nd spending progra.ms. we should bs.ck th.e "Regulatory Ca.lenda.r" concept of publishing the a.rea.s being considered for future regulation. This reform of the regulatory process, plus ta.x incentives for new investment, if matched by lower government spending 'BID.d serious moves toward balance in .the federa.l budget, ca.n reverse the serious deollne in American productivity growth that is now averaging less than 1 percent per year.

Energy independence wm not come easily, as recent history has amply proven. on price decontrol, to the extent it enhances domestic exploration and development of petroleum, as well as encourages conservation, is a primary step to be taken. Development of Canadian and Mexican supply sources, while still involving imports, wm strengthen the rel1-ab111ty of our supplies. We must strongly encourage use of the two great alternative domestic energy sources we have-coal and nuclear power. To bog these energy sources down in regulatory chains will be to commit national suicide.

International competitiveness of the U.S. export sector will need policies that assist and stimulate exf>orts rather than export control policies that impede. Foreign markets must be made more open to 'U.S. goods by successful implementation of the new international trade rules adopted in the recently concluded Multi-lateral Trade Agreements. Such aids as DISC and promotional programs should be retained to help U.S. companies fight for foreign markets.

As the TIME story concluded, "The U.S. is by no means paralyzed, but is in a significant turning point. From Congress to the state houses, the tax reforming, investment boosting, regulation cutting, supply expanding recommendations of incentive economics are gaining more support every day and are increasingly translated into policies. If those beneficial trends continue, the 1980's may yet become the beginning of the good new days."

The millenium has not arrived, and let no one be misled into over optimism. But we may well be witnessing a real opportunity, unique in recent U.S. economic policy making, which deserves the encouragement and support of every American business leader. We can't afford to let it slip through our fingers.

ALEXANDER B . TROWBRIDGE, Vice Chairman of the Board,

Allied Chemical Corporation .•

REV. GEORGE A. O'GORMAN

HON. PETER W. RODINO, JR. OF NEW JERSEY



• Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Rev. George A. O'Gorman who is pastor of Our Lady of Fatima Church in North Bergen, N.J. Father O'Gorman


will retire in May 1980 after 44 active years in the priesthood.

Father O'Gorman has been pastor of Our Lady of Fatima Church since 1963. Archbishop Thomas A. · Boland directed Father O'Gorman to found the parish and build the church in North Bergen. He was successful in both tasks.

Before 1963, Father O'Gorman served in the parishes of St. Brigid's, North Bergen, and All Saints, Jersey City. He is a retired colonel in the Army Reserves, having served as chaplain of the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II, and as chaplain in the Reserves from the end of World War II until his retirement from the service a few years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the parishioners of Our Lady of Fatima Church greatly appreciate Father O'Gorman's dedicated work and wish him well in the future.•

SOVIET ROLE IN mAN

HON'. ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO OF CALIFORNIA



e Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Speaker, the role of the Soviet Union in Iran is most interesting. On the one hand they support the United States openly, as in the U.N. debates. On the other hand their role has been one of stirring up trouble.

I recommend the following editorial by William Randolph Hearst, Jr., to the attention of my colleagues:

THE KREMLIN HAND IN TEHERAN

(By William Randolph Hearst, Jr.) NEW YoaK.-As soon as I heard how coop

erative the Russians were in the United Nations, by making unanimous the Security Council's vote of disapproval of Iran's actions in holding our embassy people hostage, I smelled something fishy.

My reasoning was that the Communists in the Kremlin are famous for stirring up trouble for the United States in any and all countries throughout the globe.

I recalled reading that they had a. radio station which beamed propaganda. into Iran in their language, so I asked J. KingsburySmith, our national editor, if he could get his hands on some transcripts of what they've been saying. I knew some branch of our State Department monitored all foreign broadcasts and sure enough, Joe ca.me up with the following memo to me.

WASHINGTON.

"DEAR Bn.L: You were so right. mstory may record that Russia. was as responsible as the Ayatollah Khomeini, if not more so, for the toppUng of the shah and for promoting the anti-American fanaticism that led to the conquest of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the kidnaping of its diplomatic personnel.

"Evidence a.t hand shows that after President Nixon decided in 1971 that rather than send American troops to the Persian Gulf he would rely on the shah to fill the vacuum created by the withdrawal of Britain's forces from the area, the Soviet government pursued a persistent policy of undermining popular support for the shah, encouraging revolution and fomenting anti-Americanism among the Iranian people.

"When President Nixon moved to make Iran the strongest mtlitary power in the

December 20, 1979 region, the Soviets intensified the campaign against the shah a.nd the U.S.

"There seems little doubt Soviet propaganda. attacks on the Iranian ruler and the United States served to condition the people for revolution and hatred of the American government.

"A report by the reputable British Institute for the Study of Conflict states that a.s early as 1973, Iran's Soviet directed communist organization, the Tuda.h Party, issued a program entitled "The Creation of a. Monolithic Front Against the Iranian Regime." The program called for formation of a broad-based coalition of communist, Moslem, and radical forces to overthrow the shah.

"When the shah outlawed the Tudah Party, its leadership fled to Russia and Eastern Europe. According to Western intelligence sources, Nureddin Kainuri, secretary general of the pa.rty, which was originally founded by German Ma.rxists, was still directing the party's activities from Eastern Europe at the tLme of the shah's overthrow.

"The Kremlin established in the Soviet city of Baku a powerful radio station for the Tudah Party-the Voice of Iran. It bea.med, and continues to do so, daily broadcasts to Iran. First caLling for the overthrow of the shah, denounced as an America.n puppet. Now demanding his return for trial, supporting the holding of the American hostages and assa111ng the U.S. for allegedly planning to restore the shah to power.

"Since the end of World War 2, the Soviet Intelligence agency, KGB, has had hundreds of agents operating in Iran not only a.s spies but fomenting revolution and anti-American hatred.

"Penetrating the Iranian a.rmed forces, the KGB blackmatled a Major General Ahmad Mogharrabi, who became deputy a.rmy chief, into spying for Russia for 11 years before he was caught. It also had an agent in the prime minister's omce. Western intelligence discovered that the second floor of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran was a powerhouse of electronic monitoring equipment, targeted on Iranian military headquarters, Western embassies and the omces and homes of Iranian government officials.

"By the time Khomeini was completing plans for the revolution at his exile home near Paris, Western intelligence estimated there were over 4,000 Soviet "technicians," KGB agents and diplomats in Iran.

"When it became apparent the U.S. was not going to do anything to save the shah, the Soviet campaign against him moved into high hear. The British Study of Conflict report said 'Iran's internal unrest was preceded and accompanied by a stepping-up of international efforts to isolate the regime from Western sympathy.'

"American intelligence monitoring of Moscow radio and Voice of Iran broadcasts clearly indicate the anti-American hatred campaign helped to incite the Moslem mobs to invade the embassy in Tehran and hold our men and women there as hostages.

"On Oct. 24th, two days after the shah was admitted to a New York hospital and 11 days before the embassy was seized, Moscow radio broadcast in the Iranian language: 'Collaboration between the shah and the U.S. will threaten the Republic of Iran.'

"Five days before the attack on the embassy, a Moscow radio commentator, Vera Lebedeva broadcast in the Iranian language a 'dear !~lends' message alleging that 'U.S. imperalists are continuing their intrigues against your country.' Asserting the admis• sion of the shah into the U .S. for medical treatment will 'result in the concentration of counter-revolutionary forces and will lead to renewed danger of plots a.ga.inst the Iranian republic.' ·

"In a virtual summons to the mob to attack Americans, the broadcast added: 'The people of Iran, who are experienced in revolutionary struggles, and have successfully

December 20, 1979 coped with several tests, are well able to stop the intrigues of imperialism and reaction and to defend what they have gained from their revolution. Death to U.S. imperialism.'

"One day after the seizure of the hostages, the Voice of Iran declared the American Embassy was a 'center of corruption and antiIranian conspiracies' and said its occupation 'reflected the anti-imperialist feelings of our homeland's people.'

"Despite repeated protests from the White House and the State Department, Moscow radio and the Soviet press continued to incite Khomeini's mobs against the United States. President Carter sent National Security Director Brzezinski to protest directly to Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin in Washington, and to warn him that the Soviet antiAmerican campaign in Iran was endangering ratification of the SALT treaty. The warning was ignored.

"In its double-standard diplomacy, the Soviet government voted for the Americansponsored U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the occupation of the embassy and calling for the immediate release of the hostages. On the same day, the Soviet Communist Party newspaper Pravda accused the United States of employing "crude m111tary and political blackmail" against Iran and implied that President Carter had taken the hostage case to the United Nations and the World Court only as a cover for a military attack on Iran. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance actually labeled this canard as "deplorable."

"This anti-American Soviet duplicity is threatening to create a grave deterioration in Soviet-AmerJ.can relations. It has already blocked Senate action on thp. SALT trP,aty this year, and may lead to its rejection next year. It has aroused demands in Congress for a curtailment, if not complete cut-off. of technological and economic aid to the Soviet Union.

"Russia's rulers may not, of course, care very much. The geopolitical stakes in Iran are too high. If a Soviet-oriented communist regime eventually gains control of that country, the prize for the Soviets will be of far greater importance than the SALT treaty, detente, and cooperative relations with the United States.

"Domination of Iran would, in effect, mean domination of the Persian Gulf oil supplies to the West and Japan."

I don't think any of the foregoing will come as a surprise to you regular readers of this weekly effort of mine. First my father and, since his death, I have been exposing the Russians as enemies of our country going back to the '30s. However, should you know anybody who is still not convinced of this fact, I hope you'll pass this piece along.e

FREDERICK SONTAG ELECTED HUSSON COLLEGE TRUSTEE

HON. JOSEPH G. MINISH OF NEW JERSEY



• Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, my congressional district is particularly fortunate in having a large number of colleges and universities located in it. Each of them have boards of trustees composed of men and women who serve the public interest by the hours they devote to the education of the future leaders of our country.

Being a college trustee these days is hard work and requires a lot of stamina and persistence. Some of my leading constituents are members of local college


boards of trustees, and now some are being asked to serve at out-of-State inStitutions of higher learning.

Frederick H. Sontag, who has served with distinction as a staff consultant on the Hill and is one of the Nation's outstanding public affairs and research consultants, has just been elected a trustee of Husson College, Bangor, Maine, after many years on the board of advisers of that growing liberal arts and business college. He was asked to serve because of the abundance of his creative, useful ideas and the well-known energy and dedication with which he applies himself to everything he undertakes.

Frederick Sontag's weekly commentary on "Suburban Dateline," which is carried Wednesday through Saturday on Suburban Cablevision's flagship station, TV-3, servicing most of my Essex County district, is very highly regarded. Mr. Sontag also again this year handled the election analysis for northern New Jersey, the State and the Nation.

Frederick Sontag's regular columns in the Worrall chain of weekly newspapers also add to the intellectual life of our district. I congratulate my friend and constituent and feel confident he will bring the best of the Garden State to the Pine Tree State.

I ask that the releases announcing Mr. Sontag's election as a Husson College trustee and his coanchoring of TV-3's election analysis as covered by the Maplewood-South Orange News Record and other Worrall chain papers follow my remarks: FREDERICK SoNTAG ELECTED HussoN CoLLEGE

TRUSTEE

Frederick H. Sontag has been elected a trustee of Husson College, Bangor, Maine, for a three-year term. Husson is a four-year liberal arts college, with a heavy emphasis on business administration studies.

The national public affairs and research consultant is the senior member of the Husson Board of Advisers, havings been chosen originally by the college's founder, Chesley Husson. The promotion of advisers upon successful service to become trustees was one of the aims of the college' founder.

Sontag was one of five prominent businesspersons and educators elected to the Board of Trustees. He will serve on the Public Affairs, Stewardship and Alumni Relations Committee.

Sontag is a graduate of Colby College, Waterville, Maine, and has taught courses in government and polltics as well as media relations seminars there.

The South Orange and Seal Harbor resident is the co-author of "PARTIES: The Real Opportunity for Effective Citizen Politics" (Alfred A. Knopf, hardback; VintageRandom House, softcover), which is widely used as a college textbook in political science and government classes.

TV-3 ELECTION NIGHT COVERAGE FEATURING FREDERICK SONTAG ANALYSIS AND REPORTING Suburban Cablevision TV-3's election

coverage November 6 will again feature the news analysis and reporting of national public affairs and research consultant Frederick H. Sontag as he combines with anchorperson Bruce Beck of Livingston and a group of TV-3 local reporters in Essex, Union and Hudson counties in handllng Assembly and other New Jersey and key national races.

Beck succeeds Bob Ley, formerly of Maplewood, who is now working with cable television in Bristol, Conn.

Sontag does a weekly commentary on Sub-

37651 urban Cablevision's "Suburban Dateline" program, which is aired each Wednesday, Friday and Saturday evenings. He has covered New Jersey public events and personallties for over 30 years.

Previous TV-3 Sontag-Ley public affairs programs have won national cable television awards for excellence in regional and local programming .•

KISSINGER'S FAILURES

HON. ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN OF NEW YORK



e Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, in light of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's role in the decision to allow the Shah of Iran to enter this country, his record as Secretary deserves close scrutiny. In this regard I commend to my colleagues' attention an article by William Pfaff that appeared in the December 9, 1979, edition of the New York Times.

The text of the article follows: KISSINGER'S FAILURES

(By William Pfaff) PARIS.-In the controversy that has fol

lowed publication of Henry A. Kissinger's memoirs, perhaps no one has said what one might think obvious: that Mr. Kissinger was ultimately a failure as Secretary of State. He left Washington with the United States weakened, its prestige and authority diminished. The Vietnam War was lost while he was Secretary of State, as the outcome of policies he conceived or carried out. There were no balancing successes. There were curiously few successes at all. Yes, Mr. Kissinger 1S thought a success. He is an intelligent man who knows history and has ideas. He is ambitious. Clearly, he wanted to be a great Secretary of State. In many respects he was a good one. He has wit and personal charm. These qualities made him a great favorite of the press. They won him the respect of foreign leaders who found him free of that moralism and parochialism that too often characterizes American policy makers. The problem is simply that his policies did not work.

The case for Mr. Kissinger rests primarily upon the settlement he negotiated for the Vietnam War (for which he was offered, along with Le Due Tho, North Vietnam's negotiator, the Nobel Peace Prize; Mr. Kissinger accepted the prize, Mr. Tho did not). his attempt to negotiate a Middle East settlement after the 1973 war, the start of normalization of relations with China, and relations with the Soviet Union. The last of these unquestionably improved during his years in omce. Arms and detente negotiations (the SALT and Helsinki treaty talks) were successful. They began under another Administration and no doubt would have gone forward under another Secretary of State; in fact, they did so under Mr. Kissinger. He was also right in warning that Soviet and Cuban interventions in Africa were a dangerous new development. But in Europe, Mr. Kissinger grossly overestimated the importance of Eurocommunism and dangerously mis.1udged post-revolutionary developments in Portugal. He supported the Greek colonels to no useful purpose-and to America's and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's ultimate disadvantage. American involvement in the overthrow of President Salvador Allende Gossens in Chile worsened relations with the third world and laid the ground for current United States dtmculties in Central America. Binding United States interests and prestige to the Shah of Iran, a policy Mr.

37652 Kissinger did not invent but continued, was a grave error for which the United States now pays the cost. In the Middle East, his dramatic shuttle diplomacy produced no settlement. That awaited the courage of Anwar el-Sadat and the persistence of Jimmy Carter. The changed American pollcy toward China was overdue and constructive. The real credit, however, must go to Zhou Enlal and Mao Zedong: It was in fact China that "recognized" the United States aa a means to offset the threat from the Soviet Union. The policy was a venerable one for China: that one foreign "barbarian" be induced to confront another.

The biggest tssue during Mr. Kissinger's time in Washington was, of course, the Vietnam War. There 1s currently a Justlfted controversy over the Nixon-Klssinger pol1cy toward Cambodia. But even 1! that 1s put aside, and Vietnam alone is considered, it is necessary to conclude that the pol1cy falled. When Mr. Kissinger became national security adviser in 1969, the war had been going on for four years and more than 30,000 Americans had died. Publlc opinion, troubled from the start about the wisdom of a land war In Asia, had shifted against the war. Richard M. Nixon had campaigned for the Presidency with the promise to end America's role in the war. Hubert H. Humphrey also said that he would end the war but he was blocked from disavowing the past policy of the Johnson Administration that, as Vice President, had been his own as well. Mr. Nixon, jaute de mieux, was the peace candidate, and he was elected. What Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger did during the next four years was enlarge the war geographically and hand it over to the Vietnamese (and Cambodians, after 1970) to win or lose. Since South Vietnam's inab111ty to deal with the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese had caused America to enter the war in the first place, it could only end as it did, in defeat. America withdrew its forces. The South Vietnamese weakened and eventually collapsed under renewed Communist attacks. The remaining Americans scrambled for their lives to rooftop hellcopters. It was a fiasco. It was also the inevitable, predictable outcome of the Nixon Administration's pollcy on Vietnam.

Mr. Kissinger argues that it all would have been different had the liberals not attacked him and rallied American opinion to block reprisals against the North Vietnamese--the threat of reintervention or of renewed bombing. But the fact that American public opinion was bitterly spllt over the war was the condition upon which Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger had to base their policy from the start. It was a fundamental part of the problem. For America itself, it was the most important part. Polley that Ignored this was irresponsible policy. The task was not to lose the war in a way that would allow the domestic enemies of the Nixon Administration to be blamed. Rather It was to rally American opinion behind a policy able to salvage something from the affair better than a squalid defeat for America and its allles. The actual Kissinger policy, to abandon South Vietnam to its enemies, could have been carried out four years earlier, with Cambodia st111 intact, and with perhaps a m1llion people allve, including some 20,000 Americans, who were dead when Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Nixon left omce. The result for Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos could not possibly have been worse than what actually happened.

Henry Kissinger does not otier his memoirs these days with dimdence. He presents himself as a success. He projects success. He ts taken as a success. He Is talked about for high omce once again. It is a striking case of style over substance. It is an American success story.e


AMERICANS WRITE TO THE AYATOLLAH

HON. S. WILLIAM GREEN' OF NEW YORK



• Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, during this holiday season, our thoughts and prayers are with the 50 hostages held at the American Embassy in Iran. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, there has been a massive outpouring of concern and support among Americans across the Nation for their fellow countrymen, who will not be with their families and loved ones during thts season.

I believe that the Iranian Governmeht must understand that all Americans support the earliest possible release of the hostages and are behind our Government in its efforts to bring about their release. The longer the Ayatollah Khomeini labors under the misconception that he can pit the American citizen against the U.S. Government in his attempt at blackmail and his cruel violation of human dignity and international law, the more difficult it will be to convince h !m that his only course of action is to release the hostages.

Over the past few weeks, I have called upon my constituents, by circulating a letter within the 18th Congressional District, to write to the ayatollah to demonstrate that despite the great variety of opinions we hold in our country on most issues, on this we stand together.

Among the mail which I have received from my constituents about this terrible situation was a copy of a letter sent by one of my constituents, Mr. Alfred Gross, to the ayatollah. I would like to share Mr. Gross' communication with my colleagues and their constituents, for I know that his letter expresses the sent!ments of all Americans.

DECEMBER 11, 1979. H. E. THE AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI. The Iranian Embassy Washington, D .C.

ExcELLENCY : With numberless of my fellow countrymen, like you a man of great age, being eighty-four years old, I write you both as the chief of a great state and its spiritual head. Every chapter of the Koran begins with an invocation of Allah, the Compassionating, the Merciful. In the name of the Compassionating and the Merciful, I appeal to your compassion and mercy for the release of the members of the American· Embassy staff who are undergoing imprisonment at the hands of students who demand the delivery of the former ruler of the Persian Empire in exchange for their freedom.

Holding members of a foreign mission in custody is a grave violation of time honoured diplomatic usage and of international law. I am sure Your Holiness must be aware of the unanimous sentiment expressed. at the meetings of the United Nations Security Council deploring this unlawful detention. I have grave doubts that this Government would employ any of the Embassy personnel for purposes of espionage. If such were the case, although this I gravely doubt, it is the custom to notify the home government that men so detected in unlawful enterprises were persona non grata, to be immediately recalled. It is the hope of virtually all Americans that you wlll prevail upon those who hold the Embassy people in cap1tlv1ty to re-

December 20, 1979 lease them forthwith, reuniting them with famlly and friends, thereby earning the gratitude of our people and the restoration of an era of good wlll between your country and ours.

I have the honor to be, Sir, Your excellency's obedient servant,

ALFRED A. GROSS ..

FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL STEEL CAUCUS: QUARTERLY STATEMENT OF EXPENSES AND FUND BALANCE STATEMENT FOR PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1979

HON. BARBARA A. MIKULSKI OF MARYLAND



• Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Executive Committee Order No.1, I am respectfully submitting herewith the quarterly financial report of the Congressional Steel Caucus for insertion into the REcORD.

The report is as follows: QUARTERLY REPORT-FuND BALANCE

STATEMENT (U.S. House of Representatives, Congrea

sional Steel Ca'UC'Us) Balance remaining (as of June 30,

1979) -------- - -------- ------ $5,435.94 Total revenues (clerk hire, mem-

bership dues and stationery adjustment) ------- - -------- 10,913.24

Less expenses: July 1979------- - ---------- - August 1979----------- -----September 1979--------------

Plus interest deposit __________ _

Total unexpended revenues (as of September 30, 1979) -----------------

16,349.18

9,624.78 1,244.26 5,039.27

15,908.31

440.87

116.43

557.30

QUARTERLY REPORT--8TATEMENT OF EXPENSES

(U .S. liouse of Representatives, Congressional Steel Caucus)

Salaries - ----------------------Travel --------- - --------------Stationery -------------------Postage - - --------------------Telephone - ------------------Publications -----------------Equipment -------------------Printing - --------------------Miscellaneous -----------------

Total expenses as of

$23,356.55 0

276.37 47.00

502.61 624.75

1,597. 62 215. 95

9,616. 42

September 30, 1979 _____ 36,237.27

CONGRESSIONAL STEEL CAUCUS MEMBERS WHO HAVE PAID DUES As OF DECEMBER 1, 1979 Joseph Addabbo, Douglas Applegate, John

Ashbrook, Eugene Atkinson, Donald Bailey, Adam Benjamin, Jr., Tom Bevm, Clarence Brown, George Brown, John Buchanan, John Cavanaugh, Don Clausen, William Clay, William Clinger, E. Thomas Coleman, Lawrence Coughlin, W. C. "Dan" Daniel, Robert Davis, John Dlngell , Christopher Dodd, and Robert Duncan.

Robert Edgar, Allen Ertel, Dave Evans, Vic Fazio, Floyd Fithian, Daniel Flood, Wllliam

December 20, 1979 Ford, L. H. Fountain, Joseph Gaydos, Robert Giaimo, Benjamin Gilman, William Goodling, Tennyson Guyer, Sam Hall, Jr., James Hanley, Elwood Hillis, Kenneth Holland, Richard !chord, John Jenrette, James Jones, Tom Kindness, Ray Kogovsek, and Peter Kostmayer.

Raymond Lederer, Gary Lee, Jerry Lewis, Jim Lloyd, Clarence Long, Thomas Luken, Stanley Lundlne, Robert McClory, Joseph McDade, Robert McEwen, Gunn McKay, Marc Marks, Dan Marriott, James Martin, Dawson Mathis, Robert Michel, Barbara Mikulski, Clarence Miller, John Mitchell, Robert Mollohan, G. V. Montgomery, Wllliam Moorhead, Ronald Mottl, Austin Murphy, John Murphy, Morgan Murphy, John Murtha, and Michael Myers.

Wllliam Natcher, Blll Nichols, Richard Nolan, Henry Nowak, Mary Rose Oakar, James Oberstar, George O'Brien, Thomas P. O'Neill, Edward Patten, Donald Pease, Carl Perkins, Melvin Price, Carl Pursell, James Qulllen, Nick Joe Rahall, Ralph Regula, Don Ritter, Robert Roe, Dan Rostenkowskl, and Martin Russo.

Richard Schulze, John Seiberling, Richard Shelby, Bud Shuster, Paul Simon, John Slack, J. Wllliam Stanton, Louis Stokes, Samuel Stratton, Gene Taylor, Morris Udall, Bruce Vento, Douglas Walgren, Robert Walker, Richard White, Lyle Williams, Charles Wilson, Gus Yatron, Clement Zablocki, and Leo Zeferettt.

MONTHLY REPoRT--STATEMENT OF ExPENSES AND FuND BALANCE STATEMENT

(U.S. House of Representatives, Congressional Steel Caucus)

Statement of Expenses, July 1979

Salaries------------------------ $3,026.67 Travel ------------------------- --------Stationery --------------------- ---------Postage------------------------ 16.00 Telephone ---------------------- 45. 74 Publications -------------------- 190. 00 Equipment--------------------- 175.00 Printing ----------------------- 198. 45 Miscellaneous:

P. M. Ola (donuts)-----------Ken Strawberry---------------Jack Morton Productions _____ _ House Restaurant ____________ _

5.00 235.42 265.00

5,468.50

Total expenses for July 1979_ 9, 624. 78

Fund Balance Statement, July 1979

Balance remaining (as of June SO, 1979) ------------------------ $5,435.94

Total revenues (clerk hire, mem-bership dues and stationery ad.-

just~ent) -------------------- 4,769.90

10,205.84

Less expenses: July 1979--------- 9, 624.78

681.06


Printing ----------------------- --------Miscellaneous ------------------ ---------

Total expenses for August 1979 ------------------- 1,244.26

Fund Balance Statement, August 1979

Balance remainlng (as of July 31, 1979 ------------------------- $697.49

Total revenues (clerk hire and membership dues)------------ 1, 316. 67

2,014.16

Less expenses: August 1979_______ 1, 244. 26

Total unexpended revenues (as of Aug. 31, 1979) ----- 769.90

MoNTHLY REPORT--STATEMENT OJ' ExPENSES AND FuND BALANCE STATEMENT

(U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CONGRESSIONAL STEEL CAUCUS)

Statement of Expenses, September 1979

Salaries------------------------ $4,826.67 Travel ------------------------- 0 Stationery --------------------- 0 Postage ------------------------ 0 Telephone ---------~------------ 37. 60 Publications ------------------- 0 Equipment--------------------- 175.00 Printing ----------------------- 0 Miscellaneous ------------------ 0

Total expenses for Sept. 1979___________ 5, 039. 27

Fund Balance Statement, September 1979 Balance remaining (as of

August 31, 1979) -------------- 769. 90 Total revenues (clerk hire

and membership dues)-------- 4, 826. 67

5,596. 57 Less expenses : September 1979____ 5, 039.27

Total unexpended revenues (as of September 30, 1979) 557. 30

MONTHLY REPORT-LISTING OF STAFF

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CONGRESSIONAL STEEL CAUCUS

Name

JULY 1979

CAUCUS STAFF

Clerk hire contributor Title

P.M. Ola ••. •••• Hon. Joseph M. Staff Gaydos. director.

Hon. Marc Marks ••••••••••• S. E. Bollen _____ Hon. John Murtha ___ Secreta·~).~~=

AUGUST 1979

S. E. Bollen ••••• Hon. Robert McEwen_ Secretary __ _

SEPTEMBER 1979

Gross monthly

salary

$1,696.40

413.60 916.67

916.67

Plus Interest deposit ____________ _ 116. 48 P.M. Ola ••••••• Hon. John Buchanan. Staff 2, 110.00 director.

Total unexpended revenues (as of July 31, 1979) ----- 697.49

MONTHLY REPORT--STATEMENT OF EXPENSES AND FuND BALANCE STATEMENT

(U.S. House of Representatives, Congressional Steel Caucus)

Statement of Expenses, August 1979

Salaries ------------------------ $911!: 67 Travel ------------------------- ---------Stationery ---------------------- 32. 78

Hon. Adam ------------ 1, 800.00 Benjamin.

S. E. Bollen ••••. Hon. Marc Marks ____ Secretary... 916.67

• ROLLCALL VOTES

HON. ROBERT E. BADHAM OF CALIFORNIA


Thursday, December 20, 1979 Postage ------------------------ ---------Telephone ---------------------- 58. 86 • Mr. BADHAM. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Publications-------------------- 60. 95 I was unavoidably detained and missed Equipment· --------------------- 175. oo two roll~all votes. I was away from Capi-

37653 tol Hill at the Justice Department involved in the matter of the contested election of Mr. CLAUDE (BUDDY) LEACH.

Had I been present I would have voted as follows:

Conference report on S. 673, national security programs, rollcall No. 747, "yea."

Conference report on H.R. 3875, Housing and Community Development Act amendments, roll call No. 748, "yea." •

SALENA GREGORY IS HONORED

HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. OF CALIFORNIA

JN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, December 20, 1979

e Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit for the RECORD a tribute to Salena Gregory, who has been an outstanding public employee and community leader for many years in my congressional district. I want to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to Salena Gregory, who just last month completed 30 years of Federal service, and who was the recipient of the U.S. Air Force Distinguished Equal Employment Award on March 2, 1979, in ceremonies at Norton Air Force Base, Calif. The award she received states: "For 1977 In Recognition of Your Outstanding Achievement in Affirmative Action in the United States Air Force Equal Employment Opportunity Program." Mrs. Gregory's greatest contribution was in the development of the annual affirmative action plans that were recognized by the Air Force and the Civil Service Commission, as outstanding, comprehensive, and innovative. She solicitated participation by community groups, employee groups, and EEO leaders. She provided outstanding EEO assistance to top level managers and supervisors. The base is recognized for highly effective EEO program coordinators, due largely to Mrs. Gregory's program efforts. On November 29, 1979, she received both her 30-year service certificate and a letter of commendation from Gen. Robert E. Huyser, commander in chief, Military Airlift Command.

Currently, Mrs. Gregory is the Assistant Equal Employment Opportunity Offleer at Norton Air Force Base, Calif., and has been in this position since 1972. She is the only full-time principal EEO officer responsible for the total affirmative action program. It includes the "special emphasis programs" related to women and ethnic minorities' equal employment opportunities. Throughout her Federal service, she has progressed through various training programs and occupational positions.

The mayor of the city of San Bernardino, Calif., appointed Mrs. Gregory to serve on the city's Comprehensive Employment and Training Board and the mayor's Private Industry Council. She also serves on the San Bernardino Equal Employment Opportunity Committee, the International Council for Friendship and Goodwill, and is a member of the San Bernardino Mexicali-Villahermosa Sister City Committee. A resolution of the mayor and common council of the city of San Bernardino has commended

37654 her for her "invaluable assistance to the legislative review committee of the common council in preparing the initial city of San Bernardino's equal opportunity employment program."

Mrs. Gregory attended high school and college in Topeka, Kans., majoring in business and the social sciences. She is a native of Greenville, Miss. Her husband, Norris P. Gregory, former San Bernardino city councilman, was the first black to occupy a city councilman position in the history of San Bernardino, Calif. Their son, Norris P. Gregory m, is a Harvard graduate, and she has a granddaughter named Jessica Lyn Gregory.•

DEFENSE FLIP-FLOP

HON. JAMES P. (JIM) JOHNSON OF COLORADO



e Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on December 19, 1979, the Washington Star published an article by Carl Rowan entitled "A Flip-Flop On Defense." It is an article tha.t should be read and considered by all. The justi:fications being bandied about for increased military spending and/or rejection of SALT II are specious and fallacious. Jingoism and the form of militant patriotism Samuel Johnson called "the last refuge of a scoundrel" is on the ascendency in the United States now. As Mr. Rowan says:

To use Iran as an excuse to spend another $14 b1llion on arms in fiscal year 1981 is pure flim-flammery. If Iran has proven anything, it is that there are stark limitations on the uses of military power .. .. Pumping vast btllions more into mUitary hardware will do little to strengthen America's posture abroad, but it can do a lot to weaken the sinews of this country's internal strength.

General MacArthur said, when opposing a large Pentagon budget in 1957:

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear-kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic furor-with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil . .. to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, In retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.

That statement 22 years ago is a.s timely now as it was then.

The Rowan article follows : A FLIP-FLOP ON DEFENSE

(By Carl W. Rowan) For a generation and more, the conven

tional criticism of the Soviet Union has been that a dictatorial elite in the Kremlin sets spending priorities without regard for the housing, food, medical or other needs of the Soviet masses.

The argument is that the Soviets could outspend us militarily for a decade and build Backfire bombers, S&-20 missiles and more because their leaders had a cold and cruel unconcern for the domestic well-being of their people.

President Carter has done a sudden 1llpfiop and decided, in effect, to emulate the Russians. This president, who in September was arguing that there was no need to increase defense spending in 1981 and 1982 by

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS more than 3 per cent a year, has suddenly decided to ask Congress for $142 b1llion for defense spending in fiscal 1981. That would be an increase of $14.6 b1llion over the current year, and a rise of 3.5 per cent after adjustment for inflation. That is arms spending that we can finance only by cutting and bleeding vital domestic programs.

Even Sen. Henry M. Jackson, a hawkish advocate of higher defense spending calls the Carter proposal "a tremendous increase." Jackson, with justification, thinks it is a Carter administration ploy to win over enough votes to gain Senate ratification of SALT II, the new U.S.-Soviet agreement to limit strategic arms.

The Carter administration has seized upon the crisis in Iran as an excuse for sharply higher military spending over the next several years. The rationale, which many confused, angry, humiliated Americans probably wUl swallow, is that if we give the Pentagon billions more, we can have giant cargo planes to haul our "quick-reaction troops" to places like Iran where they wlll find new fleets of ships waiting to provide them with the arms and gear needed to deal not only with the next Ayatollah Khomeini, but with what Defense Secretary Harold Brown foresees as "a long pull of adversary relationships" with the Soviet Union.

To use Iran as an excuse to spend another $14 b1llion on arms in fiscal 198115 pure fiimtiammery. If Iran has proven anything, it is that there are stark limitations on the uses of m111tary power. OUr failure to attack Iran m111tarily has nothing to do with our lack of a quick-reaction mUitary unit, a giant cargo plane or fancy ships permanently stationed in the Persian Gulf. We have made political decisions to give priority to saving the lives of the hostages, and we have restrained ourselves not to provoke a billion Moslems, or to give the Soviet Union an excuse for m111-tary intervention in Iran.

I share the suspicion of many members of Congress that this defense-spending fiip-fiop is designed to win enough votes to get SALT n approved.

Mr. Carter has decided to mortgage Amer~a·s future programs of health care, education, housing and more to the proposition that by spending more money on arms we can somehow create a situation where both we and the Soviets wlll spend less. I had doubts long before Soviet behavior in the Iranian crisis convinced me that I ought to have doubts.

I wonder if it has occurred to Mr. Carter that currently we may need aircraft carriers and cargo planes less than we need the will to stand tough against our foes-and especially our friends. It is ridiculous that at this stage of history West Germany anCI. Japan should be bearing so little of the cost of defending ·the Western World. It is galllng that when we scold Japan for undermining U.S. e1l'orts to squeeze Iran and secure the release of American hostages, Japan replies: "That's your problem." It is ludicrous that at the same time this occurs, our government purchasers of trucks would still be writing specifications so that our Navy, Army, Air Force and other agencies can only buy trucks made in Japan.

One of America's greatest "security" weaknesses is that we have too many young people whom we have failed to educate, feed, clothe or give a sense of really belonging to this society. Fearing that they are 111-prepared to defend us, many in Congress clamor for a return to the draft so tha. t the military can get more of the young men who have had favored existences.

Pumping vast blllions more into military hardware will do little to strengthen America's posture abroad, but it could do a lot to weaken the sinews of this country's internal strength.

President Carter has made a. mlsta.ke.e

December 20, 1979

HOLDING CAMBODIA HOSTAGE


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVEB


e Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, the situation in Cambodia is very .grave. I am sure my colleagues share my concern about it, and I commend to their attention an article on the subject by Frances FitzGerald that appeared in the December 14, 1979, edition of the New York Times.

The text of the article follows: HOLDING CAMBODIA HOSTAGE

(By Frances FitzGerald) The dimensions of the tragedy in Cam

bodia are now well known in the United States. Individual Americans-along with people of many other countries--have shown their concern by contributing generously to the international agencies involved in the relief e1l'ort. Such giving is important, but it is not enough. For the Khmers are not the victims of a natural disaster. They are the hostages in a regional power struggle involving not only Vietnam and Thalland but also China and, indirectly, the Soviet Union. That struggle is now impeding the relief efforts; it could end them completely ifas could easlly happen-it . breaks into a wider war. The survival of the Khmer people thus depends first and foremost on a political solution.

cambodia 1s now a battleground for a war that cannot be won. Vietnamese troops entered Cambodia a year ago after repeated attacks on their territory by the Pol Pot Gov~ ernment and the movement of tens of thousands of refugees across their border. (It's a fact little appreciated in the West that the first wave of Cambodian refugees went to Vietnam.) The Vietnamese may have the same imperial designs on Cambodia that they had in the 19th century. But whether or not this is the case, they had reason to feel threatened by the mmtary alliance between the Pol Pot Government and Peking. Now, having beaten back the Pol Pot forces and installed the Heng Samrin admin1stration in Phnom Penh, they are stuck with their conquest. Even if Hanoi wanted an independent Cambodia, it could not withdraw its troops, for to do so under present circumstances would be to leave the country in anarchy without any logistical system and without any defense against the remnants of the genocidal Pol Pot regime. At the same time Hanoi cannot end the fighting and impose order.

Above and beyond the traditional antagonisms between Cambodians and Vietnamese there is the m111tary fact that the Pol Pot guerrlllas and three non-Communist warlords control the half million and more Cambodians who have fled to refugee camps along the Thai border. By supplying these refugee camps with food and medicine the international relief agencies are-unavoidably--supplying the guerrillas as well. ( Simllarly the agencies bringing food into Phnom Penh are unavoidably supplying at least some Vietnamese troops and the regime they created.) The Thai authorities cannot or will not disarm these guerrillas, whose weapons probably continue to come from Peking.

The con.fiict ls thus at stalemate. The Thais do not want the Vietnamese to domi-nate cambodia; the Vietnamese do not want a hostile Cambodia allied with Peking; and the Chinese do not want Hanoi in alliance with Moscow controlling all Indochina. The confilct is a eat's cradle, for while it is dangerous to all parties no government can withdraw from it unilaterally.

December 20, 1979 Without international medlation the stale

mate could last indefi.nltely. worse stlll, the con1lict could escalate into regional warfare. The Vietnamese could attack the Pol Pot guerrlllas in and around the refugee camps, thereby driving hundreds of thousands of refugees into Thailand and threatening the Thai regime. Equally the Chinese could intervene, attacking either by proxy through the hill tribes of Laos or directly in a new invasion of Vietnam's northern provinces. In any case the continuation of the con1l1ct wm surely mean the death of countless more Cambodian civllians by famine and disease, the reductions of the other two Indochinese economies to near-famine level and an unceasing flow of refugees out of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.

At the mom~t Presiden~ Carter and the United Nations Secretary General, Kurt Waldhelm, bear a heavy responsibllity toward the Cambodians, for they are in the best positions to call an international conference and to urge the combatants to a negotiated settlement on the basis of a neutral, independent Cambodia.

Those Americans concerned about the relief efforts can· put pressure on the United States Government and Mr. Waldheim to take such diplomatic action. They must do so, for the survival of the Khmer people 1s at stake.

OUR SHRINKING FARMLAND




e Mr. DANIEL B. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, it is well known that America feeds the world. We enjoy the strongest agricultural production on the planet. But this is changing.

No longer do you hear of the necessity of conserving farmland as a national goal. Yet our prime farmland is disappearing at an alarming rate.

The November 20, 1979, issue of the Champaign <Ill.> News-Gazette contains an editorial on this important subject that should be read by all concerned with our source of food.

The editorial follows: OUR ACRES ARE OUR ACES

The word conservation has taken on a whole new meaning in the last 10 years. It used to mean the idea of conserving land for farming and ranching.

But since Americans have proved we can't limit our gasoline fix and since the Arabsand others-have said we're going to be forced to do it, conservation has taken on a broader meaning.

Lost, at least on a national scope, is the preservation of farmland as a major goal. Three m1llion acres of agricultural land were lost to development every year between 1967 and 1977, according to the National Agricultural Lands Study. A third of this land was considered prime farmland.

Another two million was lost annually because of leap-frog development that isolated patches of farmland, making it impossible to use for agricultural purposes.

The nation now has about 345 mill1on acres of prime farmland. About 230 million acres is used as cropland. nunois leads the nation with about 19 million acres of crop land, much of it the best in the world.

But even here in Central nunois--where our appreciation for farmland supposedly is high-we have been mortgaging our future in exchange for more questionable residential development.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Within the last three months both the

Champaign City Council and the Champaign County Board gave their approval to plans to rezone 70 acres of prime farmland in Southwest Champaign so that more housing could be built.

That's right. More housing at a time when the county's growth rate is below five percent a decade and when the llst of unsold or vacant homes gets longer every week.

Last year, American agriculture exported $27 m1111on worth of agricultural goods, helping to keep our world trade deficit lower than it would have been in these days of massive oil importing. American farm products not only feed our pwn population but mean the difference between life and death for mllllons of others in countries llke Cambodia, India, Chad and Nicaragua.

Earlier this year, George Anthan, a. reporter for the Des Moines Register, calculated that every time a baby is born in the United States, "agriculture loses one and one-third acres of cropland."

"The connection isn't direct-it's a. mathematical comparison of population and landloss trends-but it dramatizes a. problem: Our population is growing, our available farmland is shrinking and our per-acre crop yields are leveling off."

If farmland losses continue at their present rate until the year 2000, Antha.n predicts :

All food produced in the U.S. wm be consumed here.

Consumer prices wm rise sharply, well above the infiation rate.

Food exports won't be able to offset trade deficits and that would contribute to even higher inflation.

World hunger would become even greater. "Soil is the raw material of agriculture,"

said Gus Speth, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. "We can pave it or we can save it, knowing that whatever choice we make will profoundly infiuence the lives of unborn generations."

The National Agriculture Land Study-an interagency committee composed of otncia.ls from the USDA and the Councll on Environmental Quality-is hoping to analyze the problems associated with the increased competition for farmland, the costs and benefits of preventing farmland conversion and other factors, such as tax deferments that could help farmers hold onto their land that becomes so valuable as urban development encroaches.

We hope the study can provide useful recommendations on reversing this frightening trend that, according to Charles Little of the American Land Forum, "threatens permanently to reduce the productive capacity of American agriculture."

"Acres are aces," said Hugh Bennett, the first administrator of the USDA Soil Conservation Service. "A richer prize, by far, than the on lands of the Caucasus, the iron deposits of the Urals and the gold veins of South Africa, they are the most important of man's earthly possessions.''•

MORE ON THE WASHINGTON POST'S NEWS MANAGEMENT

HON. LARRY McDONALD OF GEORGIA



• Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we examined the highly partisan reporting career of Post owner Katharine Graham, and several instances of the Post's use of the "Pinsky principle" of not reporting news that does not fit one's preconceived bias. In a further report in American Opinion, author John Rees

37655 outlines the long suppression of news of the genocide by the Communists in Cambodia, the suppression of two major news stories on KGB activities in the United States and at the United Nations, and its campaign against the American intelligence agencies:

The article follows: WASHINGTON AS CENSORED BY THE POST:

PART II (By John Rees)

SOME MORE EXAMPLES

Certainly the radical bias at the Post has extended beyond the late Mr. Stern. For example, consider its coverage of the death of Mao Tse-tung, ea.slly the worst mass murderer in human history. The Washington Post published a. virtual eulogy of three full newspaper pages on Mao's career. Although Congressional committees have estimated that more than sixty milllon Chinese lost their lives under Mao from terrorism, murder, forced labor, and planned starvation, only one small paragraph near the end of the Post's eulogy made any reference to the unprecedented slaughter. Linking the deaths to the Korean War, the Post said some three milllon "counter-revolutionaries" were killed. Here it used the Communists' own propaganda. rhetoric to dismiss the kUling of siXty mill1on human beings, concluding: "Mao, the warrior, philosopher and ruler, was the closest the modern world has seen to the godheroes of antiquity."

After all, such modern "god-heroes" as Hitler and Pol Pot were pikers at killing by comparison to the philosopher Mao.

In its reporting on the war in Southeast Asia., the Post's editorial and reportorial bias against South Vietnam, and U.S. support for its Government, was harnessed with friendly treatment of the Vietcong and North Vietnam as well as favorable publicity for demonstrations organized at the request of the Vietnamese Communists to manipulate U.S. public oplnion. And the pro-Communist bias continued even after South Vietnam was conquered by the tank and infantry columns of North Vietnam.

On August 5, 1975, the Washington Post ra.n a front-page story under a four-column headline declaring "No Vietnamese 'Bloodbath' Is Found," and reporting little to complain about in the merciful rule of the North Vietnamese Communists. That was in sharp contrast to a U.P .I. story reporting a. Hanoi radio broadcast that announced the Reds had prepared a. program for retribution against persons who had incurred "blood debts" by their opposition to the Communists; persons who had supported the nonCommunist Government; persons who had quit the Communist side; and, persons who had resisted brainwashing in the concentration camps. United Press International took the story from a translation of the broadcast prepared by the Department of Commerce and distributed to the press at the St&te Department. The Post burled that story back on page eighteen, and neglected to report the announcement by Hanoi a. week earller that special tribunals had been set up by the Vietnamese Reds to "try" merchants for crimes of which they were already presumed guilty.

But circumstances soon arose in which the Post could have corrected its misleading treatment of Communist rule in Vietnam. The l6St three American civ111a.ns held in captured South Vietnam were released by Hanoi in the flrst week of August 1976. The three were Chicago arc hi teet Frederick GUlden, Gerald Posner of New York, and powerplant engineer Ford Thomasson. They promptly held a press conference outllnlng their personal knowledge of the monstrous conditions under the Communims in South Vietnam. Frederick Gulden told how "the authorities are sending people out to the

37656 countryside with no support, no food. There's malarLa. everywhere. They're dying like files, and there's practically no Western medicines."

The Post kllled the statement about the people dying like flies and being deprived of food and medicine. Rather than let its readers on Capitol Hill know that, like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Vietnamese Communists were sending people into the countryside to die horribly without food, tools, or housing, the Post version was that the Americans said the Vietnamese administrators were withholding food "in an attempt to tempt people into the countryside."

In fact, while the three Americans said at the press conference that the food shortage resulted · when Communist authorities shipped everything they could get their hands on to Hanoi, the Post reported that the evacuees had no trouble getting food or medicine and that most consumer items were ava.llable "for the right price." It did not mention th81t the "right price" for meat was fl ve dollars per pound-far above . the means of the starving Vietnamese families. An analysis of the story found that rather than telling what the three Americans said, it contained eight items of "information," seven of which had been edited to be favorable to a Hanoi regime engaged in mass murder.

Then, of course, there was Watergate. For its reporting of the attemped coverup by the Nixon Administration of the involvement of the Committee for the Re-election of the President in the bugging of the offices of the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate, the Washingon Post was internationally lauded as the best newspaper in the United States. Its two chief Watergate reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, were royally honored and received the annual award of the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, an officially cited propaganda Front of the Communist Party, U.S.A.

But the Post was quite uninterested in developing the story that the Watergate arrests were a "set-up" and that the leaders of the Democratic National Committee and columnist Jack Anderson bad all been tipped off about the bugging operation in April 1972, two months before the burglary team was flushed out from under the desks at Watergate by a special plainclothes pollee unit operating on unprecedented "voluntary overtime" outside its usual area. The fact that Anderson and the Democratic National Committe knew two months in advance about the planned break-in was revealed in At That Point In Time, a 1975 book by Fred J. Thompson, the former Minority counsel on Senator Sam Ervin's Select Committee to Investigate Watergate. Although other U.S. newspapers noted Thompson's book and this startling new information, there was not one line about it in the Post. When Accuracy In Media called the Post to ask if it planned to carry the story later, its managing editor said the story had been turned over to Watergate ace Bob Woodward.

What a chance to start another investigation into poll tical manipulation and scandal! Was President Nixon forced to resign as a result of a "set-up"? Was the bugging plan the result of the machinations of an agent or agents provocateur; and, if so, for whom were they working? Why did the break-in and bugging operation take place; what did the "plumbers" expect to find? Readers of the Washington Post have been waiting nearly four years for Bob Woodward to file his story on this and the Post editors to print it.

Then there is the disinclination of the Washington Post to embarrass the K.G.B. or the United Nations. This was brought into sharp focus in September by a taped B.B.C. interview with Arkady N. Shevchenko. He was the highest-ranking Soviet employee at the U.N. Secretariat and defected to the

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS United States last year. Mr. Shevchenko's revelations were given front-page, fourcolumn headlines and fifteen columns inches of space by even such prominent "Liberal" newspapers as the New York Times and Baltimore Sun. But the Post used three onesentence paragraphs from the Reuters wire service and buried it as a filler on page nine.

What did the Post decide not to print? The following was included in both the Times and Sun accounts: "Because of the presence of the United Nations, New York has become 'the most important base of all Soviet intelligence operations in the world,' with perhaps 300 professional KGB officers working there .... 'Soviet intelllgence officers have become a Trojan horse behind the wall of the United Nations,' Mr. Shevchenko said . ... Mr. Shevchenko did not identify the alleged agent (who is special assistant to U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim). But the narrator of the television program said there was only one Russian with the title of special assistant to the secretary-general Viktor Lessiovsky."

The Washington Post's careful selection of three sentences from Reuters also denied its Capitol Hill readers information carried in the Times and Sun reports which said:

"Another well-placed spy ... is GeU Dneprovsky, the chief of personnel at the United Nations in Geneva, whom be described as 'a high-level KGB officer.' Mr. Shevchenko said that although all U.N. staff members are required to pledge to be loyal to the organization, and not to take instruction from their home governments, the ones who come from the Soviet Union 'totally disregard' that pledge.

"The Soviet government, he said, has its own 'rule of conduct' for Soviet nationals working at the U.N. Secretariat. 'They ask them to come almost daily to the Soviet Mission,' Mr. Shevchenko said. 'They give them instructions to pursue some of the goals of Soviet foreign policy, not U.N. or something.' ..

THE LETELIER CASE

In September 1976 a bomb exploded in an automobile on a Washington street and killed Orlando Leteller, co-director of the Institute of Policy Studies' Transnational Institute (I.P.S./T.N.I.) and one of his aides. Police examined Letelier's briefcase at the scene and found that it contained documents showing Letelier and some of his associates were engaged in conspir·acy with leaders of the Cuban Communist Party and the Cuban secret pollee, (the Directorate General de Intell1gencia) (D.G.I.), which is run by the Soviet K.G.B. from Moscow.

The documents included a letter from the Chilean wife of the Number Two man in the D.G.I., herself an official of the Communistcontrolled Unidad Popular coalition and daughter of deposed Chilean President Salvador Allende. The letter, dated some eighteen months earlier, promised Leteller a thousand dollars a month for expenses in addition to the five thousand dollars he had already received from Cuba. The pollee also found a letter from a colleague of Leteller at I.P.S., Juan Gabriel Valdez, to Emilio Breito. It conveyed material personally requested from Letelier by Breito, an official of the Americas Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of CUba. And it thanked Breito for the "scholarly material" from Hanava that Valdez received from Julian Torres Rizo, the First Secretary of the Cuban United Nations Mission in New York and the chief of the D.G.I. in North America.

Yet another document in Letelier's briefcase was a letter he was hand carrying to CUba from his co-director of the I.P.S./T.N.I., one Saul Landau, in which Landau wrote: "I think that at age 40, the time has come to dedicate myself to narrower pursuits, namely, making propaganda for American socialism. We cannot any longer just help

December 20, 1979 out third world movements and revolutiona, although obviously we shouldn't turn our backs on them, but get down to the more difficult job of bringing the message home."

The documents included Leteller's expense sheets listing his payment of travel expenses for then Congressman Michael Harrington (D.-Massachusetts) to a Soviet Front demonstration against Chile 1n Mexico City. And there was Leteller's contact book. It contained the names of members of the sta1f of the Senate Intell1gence Committee, then conductin~ a witchhunt against the C.I.A. for activities in Chile; the names of militants, activists, and high U.S. Government officials; officials of the Soviet and East German diplomatic missions in Washington and at the U.N.; and, many journalists and reporters, including Laurence Stern, the national news editor of the Washington Post.

By December 1976. copies of the Letelier documents had been leaked to the press. Jack Anderson used them in a story on December 20, 1976. The Post ran a column by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak containing still more ex-plosive Leteller material on February 16, 1977, but it "killed" their follow-up column on Leteller and tried to smother the story. It even refused to accept a paid advertisement from Accuracy In Media outlining the Letelier exposes and the Post's role in the coverup. Then, when A.I.M. took its cash and ad to rival papers, including the Washington Star ancl. the New York Times, they all stood soJldly with the Post in rejecting A.I.M.'s expose of the Letelier case.

But the Washington Post went much further in actively working to suppress the facts that quickly came to light. Among these facts were Orlando Letelier's work in economic espionage for the Soviet K.G.B. during the 1960s at the Inter-Alllerican Development Bank, and his role as the central organizer of a campaign to manipulate U.S. public opinion and both the U.S. Congress and Carter Administration to undermine the anti-Communist Government of Chile.

Letelier's comrades at I.P.S., headed by Saul Landau, organized a media campaign to whitewash Letelier and cover up the damaging evidence, not merely to "save" Leteller's anti-Chile projects from disgrace, but also to forestall any reopening of the F.B.I.'s investigation into I.P.S.'s subversive activities. Mrs. Leteller's lawyer, a well-known actl.jvist of the Communist Front National Lawyers Guild named Michael Tigar, showed the damning documents from the briefcase to Lee Adrien Lescaze, a Post reporter who does not speak or read Spanish. Landau told Lescaze that Leteller's money had not come from Cuba, but from funds raised in Western Europe by the Unidad Popular Marxist coalition. Lescaze never asked why funds raised in Western Europe had to be smuggled into the U.S. from Cuba instead of being transferred through normal banking channels.

The day after this planted story was published, the Washington Post printed on its op-ed page a seven-hundred-word piece from the self-style "propagandist" Saul Landau, who added nothing to the statements of the Lescaze story for which he was most likely the chief source. And the Post went so far as to publish a self-serving letter from Beatriz Allende, the wife of the D.G.I. official in Havana, which also said the money for Leteller was Unidad Popubr money, but thanked 'revolutionary Cuba" for all its aid to the Chilean Marxist coalition.

The Washington Post has since carried out a consistent campaign to "protect" its readers from any knowledge of Letelier's role as a top K.G.B. agent of influence in Washington. In fact, the Post even published an editorial on April 14, 1977, denouncing the leak of the Leteller documents. It was a fantastically hypocritical pro~lamation for a newspaper that has been a voracious con-

December fJO, 1979 sumer of "leaks" whenever they might damage the U.S. defense or intelligence agencies.

The Post used the investigation of Leteller's murder to smear Cuban-American anti-Castro groups not involved in violence, and to keep the fires hot under the campaign by the Carter Justice Department, the State Department, and the I.P.S. to force Chile to extradite the former head of its intelligence agency and several of his subordinates who were allegedly involved in killing the K.G.B. agent. Their etrort has been to smear an entire country and Government !or the alleged crime of three men. Certainly we have never seen the Post demand the extradition of Fidel Castro's D.G.I. chief for the murder of antiCastro activists in the United States, or the extradition of Tito's killers for the butchery in Chicago of an anti-Tito newspaper editor and his ten-year-old stepdaughter.

One can speculate about the reason for all of this, of course. While t ~ Leteller coverup was getting underway early in 1977, Post executive editor Ben Bradlee was living openly with journalist Sally Quinn, whom he has since married. Before taking her job with the Post Miss Quinn was an employee of the Institute for Polley Studies, where she aided the former U.S. Ambassador of the Algerian terrorist F.L.N. regime, Cheri! Guella.l. In !act Ben and Sally made a. trip to Havana. !or one of the best-paying guided tours the Cuban Communists ever gave a. pair of foreign reporters. The loving couple was given a. seven-hour interview with the Cuban dictator, which became the subject of a long article by Bra.dlee in the Post of March 6, 1977, and a. long series of gushing reports in the Post's "Style" section by Miss Quinn.

Bra.dlee's report was so unrestrainedly friendly toward Castro and his desire to "normalize" relations with the U.S. that one must assume he expected the new Carter Administration policy makers to begin a U.S.-Cuba.n rea.pproa.chment. Miss Quinn produced such pearls as, "Part of Castro's charm, exasperating as it is at times, is that he can convince someone, at least for the moment, of something they do not believe ln. In !act, he can actually make it sound logical when he says that the press should be a tool of the state and party."

AH, CONSISTENCY

The bias is consistent. For instance, as reviewers of books relating to intelligence, the Post most often draws on the anti-intelligence stable put together by the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies at the Center !or National Security Studies. Among these pale horses are John Marks, Victor Marchetti, and Morton Halperin. The anti-C.I.A. exposes by C.I.A. turncoat Ph111p Agee, expelled !rom Britain and Holland for his continued association with Cuban intelligence officers, received kidglove treatment !rom the Post. And it is a. regular forum for antlC.I.A. and F.B.I. "exposes" by the Center for National Security Studies, which obtains masses of files under the Freedom of Information Act and then carefully selects and exerpts material for releases designed to discredit U.S. intell1gence agencies.

Like the New York Times and other "Liberal" newspapers, the Post has strongly denounced the occasional practice in the past of having C.I.A. or O.S.S. operatives use a journalistic "cover" while working in foreign countries. But it has had nothing to say about the widespread practice by Communist spy agencies of sending their agents here as correspondents for Tass, Pravda, Neues Deutchla.nd, or the official Cuban news agency Prensa Latina.

In fact, since June 1977, the Washington Post has employed as its Havana "stringer" an American named Lionel Martin, who moved to CUba. in 1961; has been employed as an advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Education; and, served as the Havana correspondent for the Guardian, a U.S. Communist newspaper that until the end of 1978 also had K.G.B. agent and P.O.W. torturer

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Wilfred Burchett on its payroll. Martin's polemics are so completely in tune with the party line that they have even been distributed by Prensa. Latina..

One of Lionel Martin's "subtle" propaganda etrorts ran in the Post on December 3, 1977, under the headline, "Will Infiux of Ca.pita.llst Tourists Bring Back the Vices of the Old Regime?" It suggested that there was a. higher morality under Communist rule which had a.bollshed vices such as gambling and prostitution that are inevitable companions of the Free Enterprise system. When Accuracy In Media called this to the attention of the Post, the editor of the editorial page, Phll1p Geylin, defended the Martin article, declaring: "He was merely saying that the Castro regime had pretty well stamped out not just prostitution and gambling but the operations of the mob and organized vice in general, and that he was afraid that the return of tourism to Cuba. would mean a return to the bad old days of the Batista. dictatorship. Nothing exceptional about that, in my view."

Oh,indeed. Any more than there was anything "excep

tional" about the Washington Post's coverage of the takeover of Nicaragua. by MarxistLeninist revolutionaries armed and trained by the Cuban Communists, aided by CUban troops, and supported by heavy Soviet K.G.B. activity in Central America. Post reporter Karen deYoung told us all about the "repressive Somoza dictatorship" and the "democratic" opposition forces. But Post readers saw nothing at all about a certain memorandum in the spring of 1979. Consider:

A C.I.A. memorandum outlining cuban involvement in providing weapons, tra1n1ng, and political support for the Sa.ndinista. National Liberation Front (F.S.L.N.) was published by the Chicago Tribune on June 27, 1979. The Washington Post never even mentioned the existence of this memo, wbich said tha.t in February• 1979 Castro mobllized all the Communist pru-ties of Latin America. to provide support for the F.SL.N.; tha.t Castro and these Comrades discussed methods for maintaining the momentum of the Nicaraguan Marxist insurgency and spreading it to El Salvador, Hondur·as, and Guatemala.; tha.t, in March 1979, Castro met personally with the leaders of the three P.S.L.N. factions and, by promising them guns, money, and ammunition, got them to set up a. unified leadership; and, tha.t Castro directed the F.SL.N. leaders to conceal or heavily downplay their Marxist-Leninist ideology for the present in order to attract nonMarxist support. That sensational C.I.A. memo ignored by the Post was dated May 2, 1979. The Post's editors knew that giving it a. play in Washington would all but finish their etrorts to destroy the Somooa. Government. They simply ignored it.

Then on July 20, 1979, Ramon Sanchez, an otnclel of the CUban Interests Section that operates from the Czecho-Slovak Embassy in Washington, held a. press conference with a group of reporters. Asked about the Cuban role in toppling Somoza., Sanchez candidly replied that Cuba. had been supporting the Nicaraguan revolutionaries "for many years" with "all the assistance we are able to and we are in a. capacity to (give)." What k.ind of assistance, he was asked. "You mean arms and things like tha.t? All sorts of assistance." And did this assistance intensify over the last few months? "Of course the e.ssistance intensified. Our support for Nicaragua. has intensified as the struggle ha.s intensified."

Asked at the same press conference why Cuba did not publicly deplore the treatment of the "boat people" by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. the CUban agent said they were "only the result of U.S. intervention" and absolved Hanoi of any responsibility. "And you have no sympathy for them?" he was asked. "No, not at all. Only as victims of U.S. Intervention.''

37657 TWo Washington Post reporters, Don Ober

dorfer and Stephen Rosenfeld, were present. But not one word of any of this appeared in the Post, although the Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, and columnist Georgia. Ann Guyer all wrote it up. Readers of the Washington Post only found owt about it on August first, when irate columnists Evans and Novak discussed Seftor Sanchez's "exposition of chilling candor that has received too little attention."

iAnd, as we have shown, that is all too typical.

Our Congressmen and Senators who read the Washington Post a.re well aware that freedom of the press in the United States of America. is a. part of our heritage. Unfortunately, at the Post, freedom of the press appears to mean the freedom of editors and reporters to conceal or distort important news in order to support pollcies that benefit the enemies of freedom and do harm to its friends.e

MUFFLING NOISY JETS

HON. ROBERT W. EDGAR OF PENNSYLVANIA



• Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I came across an interesting and timely editorial on the issue of airport noise control. This editorial from the Bulletin reflects my belief that two-engine planes must not be excluded from Federal noise control regulations. I urge my colleagues to read this editorial and oppose the conference report on H.R. 2440.

The article follows: MUFFLING NOISY JETS

Every day 136 of Philadelphia. International Airport's fiights are by two-engine planes. These fiights amount to fully 37 percent of the airport's total traffic and they produce a. lot of the noise that bugs people near the airport.

Yet a. bill agreed upon by Senate and House conferees in Congress would totally exempt two-engine planes from Federal Government noise control regulations, which were to take etrect January 1, 1983. The b111 also would push back the effective date of those regulations for three-engine aircraft until 1985.

We hope the membership of the House says "no" to the conference committee reporta. report that follows the Senate approach on the issue--and lets the regulations stand. South Jersey's Congressman James Florio, one of the members of the House-Senate conference committee, refused to sign the report-and with good reason, we believe. If the House passes it, we think a. presidential veto is advisable.

The airline industry argues that the regulations would not make a noticeable difference in noise reduction around airports and would be too costly at a time when jet fuel prices have increased 74 percent in a. year. The net result, says the industry, is that airlines would drop smaller communities otr their schedules.

The Environmental Protection Agency effectively refutes those arguments, we believe. "Retrofitting," or putting noise suppressing equipment on an existing plane's engines, says EPA, can reduce noise by seven or eight decibels.

That may not sound like a. lot, compared with a. jet's 110-decibel up-close shriek. But, says EPA, 1f all the planes exceeding noise regulations that use Phlladelphia International were cut by 7 decibels, the land area. being bombarded with a. given amount of

37658 decibels-say 90--would be reduced by 17 percent. That would be significant.

As to cost, EPA officials say retrofitting all two-engine jets would cost $100 million to $150 million, no more than the industry spends in periodic refinishing o! plane cabin interiors.

There is reason, too, to cast a skeptical eye on threats o! canceling flights to smaller communities 1! noise regulations proceed on schedule. With airline deregulation, the airlines have been eyeing cuts in uneconomical service and have been looking !or a politically acceptable hook on which to hang the cuts.

We hope they wl11 not be tempted to use noise control as a convenient excuse !or dropping service.e -------

CORRECTING THE MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX

HON. JOSEPH L. FISHER OP VJBGINXA



e Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to caii to the attention of my colleagues a biii that I have recently introduced which is designed to mitigate the adverse effects of what has commonly become known as the maniage penalty tax.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Simply put, under the current tax law,

in most cases, a married couple in which both spouses are working will pay more in taxes than will two single individuals who are living together and who have the same combined income as does the manied couple. This feature of the tax code arose out of legislation passed in 1969 which was designed to treat single individuals more fairly as compared with married couples. In attempting to solve one inequity, the Congress created another. In the revenue acts of the past several years, there have been modest attempts to lessen the maniage penalty tax. However, with the increase in the percentage of married couples in which both spouses work, and with a rate of infiation which has pushed all taxpayers into higher tax brackets, the need for more substantial progress in reducing the marriage penalty tax has become essential.

Several proposals have already been introduced to deal with this issue in a dramatic fashion. I agree in principle that the removal of tax inequities is a worthy goal which must be pursued vigorously. However, the immediate solutions which are represented by these bills are only solutions in theory because the revenue loss estimates of up to $17 btllion which are associated with them are so substantial as to greatly dim, if not

Tax savings Single's tax

liability

Married couple's tax

liability Marriage under the

Percentage of penalty

reduced Income penalty Fisher bill Income

December !!0, 19 79

entirely extinguish, any :flicker of hope that they can be enacted.

I have, therefore, chosen a moderate approach which will represent significant progress over past attempts by the Congress to lessen the maniage penalty tax, but which will not be so drastic as to involve unacceptably large revenue losses. It will provide a base upon which the Congress can build in the future so that eventually the tax code will be blind to marital status.

My proposal is not complex. It would allow for a deduction from the married couple's gross income of 10 percent of the income of the lesser earning spouse with a limit on the deduction of $1,000. If both spouses make exactly the same income, then the deduction can be based on either spouse's earnings.

The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that in calendar year 1980 this legislation would result in a revenue loss of between $4.5 and $5 billion. This is a substantial amount, but I believe that it is manageable, and legislation embodying it stands a reasonable chance of being enacted into law.·

On an individual basis, this legislation would significantly reduce the marriage penalty tax as the following table indicates:

Sinale's tax

liability

Married couple's tax

liability

Tax savings Marriage under the penalty Fisher bill

Percentage of penalty

reduced

IndividuaL___ $10,000 $~; g~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~n~!v!~ual----- ~g.~ ~· ~ --------------------------------------------------lndividua1__ ____ 1_o_, 000-------------------- n lVI Ua - --- -_ _;_' ----•----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tota1_ ______ =2=0;,' 000===2,;'=344====$2::::,, 7=39===$=39=5==::::::$2=40====61 TotaL _____ =30~, 000===5,;'=01=1====:=5,;,, 60=1 ===584====3=36====58

~~~~~~~~:1::::: ~g: ggg ~: ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~~~~~~~:1::::: ~g: ggg ~: ~ =====·============================================= ----------------------Total_______ 25,000 3, 511 4, 050 539 280 52 TotaL_____ 40,000

This is a df.ftlcult tssue to deal with ing place to Americans, and as obsessed because it involves an inequity which persons within our society come ever should be corrected. At the same time, closer to their strange goal of placing corrective action, by reducing revenue, American women in combat situations, would increase the Federal deficit. Con- a few voices are able to break into print gress should be wary of legislation which with contrary 'Views. would consign the goal of a balanced This in itself is newsworthy, for we budget to a pale hope, but stiii must have become accustomed by now to the try to whittle away at tax inequities. A "social revolutions" of small groups of favorable time to enact this bill would people being foisted upon the entire Nabe in connection with other tax measures tion with the aid of the mass media. made necessary by general economic That is, the mass-circulation publicaconditions. tions and television networks are the si-

All of this reminds me of something lent partners of these small groups of which Lawrence O'Brian once wrote in people, by silencing the voice of the rnareflecting on his work as legislative jority. As evidence, I merely ask anyone liaison for President Kennedy: to refiect upon how many times--if

There are no final victories on Capitol ever-they have noted any public discusHill. Only steps forward and steps backward, sion in the media of the pros and cons one step at a time. of placing women in combat.

So, as a practical step forward, I urge Be that as it may, I would like to in-my colleagues to support this biii. The sert in the RECORD one of the rare exCongress and the Nation can no longer pressions of dissent which has been percountenance a tax system which offers mitted to see print. Author James Webb,

·-·sUch a financial advantage to a couple a Marine platoon commander who saw ~ying together without being married as service in Vietnam and who subsequently

cOmpared to a married couple.• wrote the novel, "Fields of Fire," ex

WOMEN CANNOT FIGHT-PART I

HON. LARRY McDONALD OJ' GEORGIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPR:ESENTATIVES

Thursday, December 20, 1979 • Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, as the world becomes an ever more threaten-

pressed his beliefs in Washingtonian magazine for November 1979, and those views need to be placed before a larger audience.

The material follows: WoMEN CAN'T FIGHT

(By James Webb) We would go months without bathing, ex

cept when we could stand naked among each other next to a vlllage well or in a

7,658 9,355 1,697 408 24

stream or in the muddy water o! a bomb crater. It was nothing to begin walking at midnight, laden with packs and weapons and ammunition and supplies, seventy pounds or more o! gear, and still be walkd.ng when the sun broke over mud-slick paddles that had sucked our boots all night. We carried our own gear and when we took casualties we carried the weapons o! those who had been hit.

When we stopped moving we started digging, furiously throwing out the heavy soil until we had made chest-deep fighting holes. When we needed to make a call o! nature we squatted o1f a trail or straddled a slit trench that had been dug between fight4ng holes, always by necessity in public view. We slept in makeshift hooches made out o! ponchos, or simply wrapped up in a poncho, sometimes so exhausted that we did not !eel the rain !all on our own !aces. Most o! us caught hookworm, dysentery, malaria, or yaws, and some o! us had all o! them.

We became vicious and aggressive and debased, and reveled in it, because combat is all o! those thif.ngs and we were surviving. I once woke up in the middle o! the night to the sounds of one of my machinegunners stabbing a.n a.lrea.dy-dea.d enemy soldier, emptying his !ear and frustrations into the corpse's chest. I watched another of my men, a. wholesome Midwest boy, yank the trousers off a. dead woman while under fire, just to see 1! he really remembered what it looked like.

we killed and bled and suffered and died in a way that Wasbdngton society, which seems to view service in the combat arms as something akin to a commute to the Pentagon, will never comprehend. And our mission, once all the rhetoric was stripped away, was organized mayhem, with emphasis on both words. For it is organization and lead-

December ZO, 1979 ershdp, as well as the interdependence sometimes called comaraderie, that sustain a person through such a scarring experience as fighting a war.

This is the only country in the world where women are being pushed toward the battlefield. The United States also has one of the most alarming rates of male-to-female violence in the world: Rapes increased by 230 percent from 1967 to 1977, and the muchpublicized wife-beating problem cuts across socioeconomic lines.

These are not separate issues, either politically or philosophically. They are visible peaks in what has become a vast bog. They are telling us something about the price we are paydng, in folly on the one hand and in tragedy on the other, for the reallgnment of sexual roles.

Lest I be understood too quickly, I should say that I believe most of what has happened over the past decade in the name of sexual equality has been good. It is good to see women doctors and lawyers and executives. I can visualize a woman President. I:f I were British, I would have supported Margaret Thatcher. But no benefit to anyone can come from women serving in combat.

The function of combat 1s not merely to perpetrate violence, but to perpetrate violence on command, instantaneously, reflexively. The function of the service academies is to prepare men for leadership positions where they may someday exercise that command. All of the other accomplishments that Naval Academy or West Point or Air Force Academy graduates may claim in government or business or diplomacy are Incidental to that clearly defined combat mission.

American taxpayers dip into their pockets to pay $100,000 for every Naval Academy graduate. They are buying combat leaders, men with a sense of country who have developed such intangibles as force, clarity of thought, command presence, and the ab111ty to lead by example, who have lived under stress for four years and are capable of functioning under intense pressure. When war comes and the troops move out, our citizens can assume that the academies have provided a nucleus of combat leaders who can carry this country on their backs.

Other omcers programs are capable of producing combat leaders, but the academies have traditionally guaranteed it, made tt their reason for existence. FOrty percent of West Point's class of 1943 died In World War n. and ten percent of the class of 1966 died In Vietnam. The POW camps of North Vietnam were packed with Air Force and Naval Academy graduates. The six midshipmen In my Naval Academy class of 1968 who served as liaisons between the Marine Corps and the Brigade of Midshipmen later sutfered nine Purple Hearts in Vietnam, and one man k1lled In action. As Douglas MacArthur said In his "Long Gray Line" speech to the West Point graduating class of 1962, "Your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable-It is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career Is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other publlc purposes ... will find others for their accomplishment; but you are the ones who are trained to fight; yours Is the profession of arms."

So It had been at the m111tary academies since they were established-West Point 1n 1802, the Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1845, the Air Force Academy In 1954-and so !t would have continued to be had not Public Law 94-106, passed In 1975, decreed that women be brought Into this quintessentially male world.

There is a place for women in our military, but not in combat. And their presence at institutions dedicated to the preparation of

CXXV--2367-Part 28

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS men for combat command 1s poisoning that preparation. By attempting to sexually ster111ze the Naval Academy environment in the name of equality, this country has sterUlzed the whole process of combat leadership training, and our military forces are doomed to sutfer the consequences.

CivUlan political control over the military is a good principle, but too many people, especially those involved In the political process, have lost their understanding of what that principle means. The classic example of a miUtary force beyond control of its country's political system occurred during World War ll in the Japanese Imperial Army, which took over Manchuria on its own 1nltiative. and informed the Japanese government after it had done so. The Japanese military machine was exercising i'ts own judgment, not tha.t of its nation. In attempting to avoid this extreme, the United States is dangerously near falling Into the World War II German pratfall: a military system so paralyzed in every detail by the political process that it ceases ·to be able to control even its Internal pollcies.

Civ1llan arrogance permeates our government, and during iny two years on Capitol Hill was particularly strong on the stafl's of the "consistent dissenters" of the Armed Services Committee. It was bad enough when the Vietnam war was being fought from Washington, D.C. It was worse when McNamara and his whiz kids began social experimentation by instituting "Project 100,-000," whereupon 100,000 borderline intellects were dumped Into the milltary, and the military was then faulted for having failed to make them good soldiers (Harvard and Yale at that time having decided to sit out the war, and Johnson choosing to go after the mental rejects rather than the draft-deferred leaders of tomorrow). But tt has become absolutely intolerable during the 1970s. The milltary has become a polltlcian's toy, a way to accommodate interest groups without losing polltlcal support 1n the home district, a test tube for social experimentation.

Nowhere is this more of a problem than in the area of women's polltlcal issues. Equalopportunity speclallsts. women's rigthts advocates, and certain members of Congress have prided themselves on the number of areas of the military they have "opened up" to women. The Carter administration has come out in favor of "allowing" women to go into combat. These advocates march under the banner of equal opportunity.

Equal opportunity for what? They should first understand that they would not be "opening up" the combat arms for those few women who might now want to serve in them, but rather would be forcing American womanhood into those areas, en masse, should a future mobilization occur.

The United States is the only country of any size on earth where the prospect of women serving in combat ts being seriously considered. Even Israel, which continually operates under near-total mob111zation requirements, does not subject Its women to combat or combat-related duty. Although some 55 percent of Israell women-as opposed to 95 percent of the men-serve 1n the Israeli Defense Forces, the women have administrative and technical jobs that require little or no training. Their m111tary function ts to free the men to fight. According to a recent article by Cecile Landrum, a U.S. Air Force manpower analyst, Israeli women conscripts train for three and a half weeks, with only a minimal amount of that time dedicated to the handling of weapons. Israel has terminated fiight training for women, reversing an earller policy. When three Israell women soldiers were killed during the 1973 Yom Kippur war, the nation went into

37659 shock. As Congressman Sonny Montgomery noted after a visit to Israeli military units, "When they go Into combat, the women move to the rear."

Why? Because men fight better. We can try to Intellectualize that reality away, and layer it with debates on role conditioning versus natural traits, but it manifests itself in so many ways that it becomes foolish to deny it. When the layerings of centuries of societal development are stripped away, a baste human truth remains: Man must be more aggressive in order to perpetuate the human race. Women don't rape men, and it has nothing to do, obviously, with socially induced dltferences. AS Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin observe in The Psychology of Sex Differences, man's greater aggressiveness "is one of the best established, and most pervasive, of all psychological sex dltferences."

Man is more naturally violent than woman. Four times as many men are involved 1n homicides as women. You might not pick this up in K Street law omces or in the halls of Congress, but once you enter the areas of this country where more typical Americans dwell, the areas that provide the men who make up our combat units, it becomes obvious. Inside the truck stops and in the honky tonks, down on the street and 1n the coal towns, American men are tough and violent. When they are lured or drafted from their homes and put through the dehumanization of boot camp, then thrown into an operating combat unit, they don't get any nicer, either. And I have never met a woman, including the dozens of female midshipmen I encountered during my recent semester as a professor at the Naval Academy, whom I would trust to provide those men with combat leadership.

Furthermore, men fight better without women around . Men treat women ditferemly than they do men, and vice versa. Part of this is induced by society (for example, tlie tendency to want to help women who are, more often than not, physically weaker) • and part is innate (the desire to pair oft' and have sexual relations). These tendencies can be controlled in an eight-hour workday, but cannot be suppressed in a 24-hour, sevendays-a-week combat situation. Introducing women into combat units would greatly confuse an already confusing environment, and would lessen the aggressive tendencies of the units, as many aggressions would be directed inward, toward sex, rather than outward, toward violence. A close look at what has happened at the Na·val Academy itself during the three years women have attended that institution is testimony to this.

What are the advantages to us, as a society, of having women in combat units? I don't know of any. Some say that coming manpower shortages might mandate it, but this country has never come close to full mobilization, and we are nowhere near that now. During World War n. 16 m1llion men wore the uniform. Today, the active-duty strength of the US mllltary is only 2 million people, out of a much larger group of ellgible citizens. Furthermore, bringing women Into the mllitary does not mandate bringing them into combat.

Some say men and women have a duty to share our country's burdens equally, that it is sex discrimination to require only men to fight. But history has shown the wisdom of this distinction, and the Israells, who must do more than merely intellectualize about such possibilities, demonstrate its currency. Equal does not mean the same. Any logical proposition-sexual equality-can be carried to a ridiculous extreme-women should fight alongside men.e

37660 UNION OF "C6NFUSED" SCIENTISTS

PROPOSED ENERGY PLAN

HON. JOHN W. WYDLER OF NEW YORK



• Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Speaker, recently the Union of Concerned Scientists released an "Easy Path Energy Plan." This group which purports to represent 85,000 interested citizens suggested that we can fulfill our Federal energy supply needs simply through conservation through 1985 and until solar energy solves our supply problem. I believe that the approach taken in the Easy Path Energy Plan and the questionable basis upon which this group of purported ex· perts project our energy supply and demand future require some critical comments.

This report is a terribly naive document, and that is why I have chosen to refer to this soft-technology advocacy group in a manner which more appropriately describes their contribution on important energy issues. Curiously enough, although the group claims by their title to have a scientific orientation, the summary of the document does not refiect great care or technical precision.

For example, the main findings and conclusions of the plan state misleadingly that "domestic oil and gas production declined by 4.4 quads per year or 10 percent from 1973 to 1978." What the "confused" scientists meant is that the annual production computed in quads per year decreased by a net of 4.4 quads per year over the entire period from 1973 to 1978.

The following maior defects are symptomatic of just how badly fiawed this plan really is, and why it can only serve to confuse the energy supply issue:

1. One of the most critical and irrational asSumptions that the EPP makes is that we could reduce nuclear-supolled electricitv bv half by 1985, This means that the uttiities would not oniy lose their investment tn the 95 plants under construction which is clearly tens of b1llions of :lollars but they would additionally shutdown nearly 40 nlants whose book value must be in the neighborhood of $30-40 ~huon. This absurd su~gestion must be Viewed in U~rht of the recent investment profections made •by the financial community wtt.h respect to the energy industry. The financial community has indicated that the percenta~re of available capital !or oil and gas production must jump from 9 percent to 21 percent fust to satisfy caoital requirements for retainin~ production of oil and gas at . today's level through 1990. The figure mentioned is on the order ot well over $100 b11Uofl !or that activity.

The Union of "Confused" Scientists are telling us that the utllitles wlll turn their backs on something in the neighborhood of $80 billion in investment capital when the marketplace is already squeezed to provide sustaining financing for oil and ~as production. I think this 1s clearly the weakest point in the entire argument which has no real consideration of economics in terms of available capital and the climate in the ihvestment community for energy ventures.

2. The Easy Path Plan is very o1f-ba.Se on

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS · synthetic fuels and suggests costs of at least $50 or more per barrel which I believe could be as much as a factor of 2 too high for oll shale today. They also Ignore the Indirect savings of synthetic fuels which are accomplished by reducing Inflation through a lower level of Imports which makes synthetic fuels really attractive up to anywhere from $40 to $50 a "barrel right now.

3. The report concludes that growth in coal has been slow from 1973 to 1978 simply because nuclear energy provides a large portion of increases in electricity thus concluding that coal and nuclear are substitutes for one another but not for oil. This Is some of the most curious logic I have ever seen and gets back to the specious arguments that no new oil-fired plants w1ll be built, therefore, nuclear power plants coming on-line will not save us oil. The fact Is, if new nuclear plants are delayed, oil-fired electricity wlll not be displaced and a 1000-megawatt plant saves roughly 10 million barrels of oil per year.

4. The report assumes a contradictory position on conventional gas resources suggesting that the present "gas bubble" will last easily through 1985 and at the same time saying that encouraging the production of gas wlll speed the exhaustion of that resource. A major Item missing is discussion of enhanced gas recovery which probably would begin making significant contributions by the mid to late 80s.

5. In the residential and commercial sector where there has been the smallest increase in energy efficiency, It is difficult to see electricity use per building unit falling, particularly since the Easy Path Plan calls for a modification of electrical rate structure to accomplish this. This modification would require that the Increments of electricity provided from new plants be costed strictly at the cost of the new capital equipment without rolling it In to the rate structure. This seems to me an unusual restriction on the way In which any utility would do business based on the strange premise that one simply wants to discourage utUlties from supplying new electricity while still running old plants at lower costs and passing on an average cost to consumers.

6. The EPP projects only a 15 percent increase in aviation fuel consumption between 1973-85, with a doubling of traffic. Unofficial American Transportation Association figures show a fuel increase on the order of 85 percent from 1978-1990 (from about 10.6 billion gallons to over 19 blllion gallons) with a 7 percent average annual passenger increase. The reason tor the large discrepancy between the Easy Path figures. and" the A.n).erJ~ap. Transportation Association figures 1s si:rnply that industry figures are more accurate since they are based o.n realistic fuel savings. .r.e. suits possible in the future vs. those achieved in the past. Improved aircraft load factors and new operating procedures have been milked dry and that's how recent savings were accomplished.

7. One of the major .assumptions is that the industrial sector will continue to contribute a major amount of energy efficiency savings from 1978 through 1985, that is, at a rate of 4.5 perce-nt per year. This 1s not an accepted or realistic view since a lot of people feel that industry wlll have to get clearer signals from the federal government to continue at anywhere near their energy savl.ngs pace of 1973-1978 when they increased emciency by a net 15 percent. Also it wlll require considerable additional capital investment which must be obtained in competition with the utmty and oil and gas sectors in the financial market.

8. The Easy Path Plan states, "so long as dom~stic production is stretcheg to th~ lill);~t ... of oil any curtailment of imports wlll cause

December ~0, 1979 "shortages of an equal magnitude." What they ignore here is the fact that the world crude oil market supply vs. world demand 1s the critical relationship and when those two are nearly equal "spot prices" wlll reach high levels and the OPEC Cartel wlll be Inclined to raise the word price even further. The critical element here is non-OPEC oll production and this Is the only way to alleviate our problem with OPEC imports. That 1s the rea! path to national security in the near-term as synthetic fuels capacity wlll be 1n the long term. The Hudson Institute has made the following estimates of future non-OPEC oil production by 1985:

Minimum

~exico --------------- .30 United Kingdom ------ . 35 Norway -------------- . 10 United States --------- . 10 Canada --------------- . 10 A!rlca 2

-------------- • 05 South America ------- . 05 Asia 3

---------------- • 10

1.15

1 M1llion Barrels per day 2 Includes Egypt 3 Includes Malaysia

Maximum

. 50 mbpdl .45mbod .20mbpd .35mbpd .15mbpd .10mbpd .10mbpd .15mbpd

2.00mbpd

Reference: Wllliam M. Brown; "Living With the Energy Crisis"; The Energy Daily; Washington, D.C.; September 25, 1979.

I think most of my colleagues will agree that this study which purports to be useful is extremely misleading and totally invalid. It is not responsible for any -group to apply simple mathematical extrapolations and ·wishful thinking to the recent energy trends and developing technologies. This ignores completely the finan('ial requirements to support production from existing and new energy technologies, and the complex trade-oifs to be made in choosing between new investment and supporting operating plants.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to pursue this critical evalu':ition of the Union of Con·cerned Scientists through future entries in the RECORD.e

MORE SUPPORT FOR REINSTATING THE PAULEY GROUP OIL LEASES

HON. JERRY M. PATTERSON OF CALIFORNIA

IN TIJE HQUSE OF REPRESENT~TIVES

Thursday, December 20. 1979

• Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to commend my colleagues for showing their support for H.R. 5769, a bill to .reinstate and validate certain oil and gas leases in the Santa Barbara Channel. Congressmen MARRIOTT, SHUMWAY, CHENEY, KOGOVSEK, and MCKAY have expressed their support for this legislation which is designed to speed up the development of the on_ and gas on those two tracts which are located in the oil-rich ocs lands off the Santa Barbara coast.

Mr. Speaker, the recent events in Iran have underscored J;pe need .to -incre~, domestic production of oil and gas as

December ~0, 1979

quickly as possible. Since this legislation will allow these oil and gas resources to be developed at a more rapid pace, the speedy passage of this bill is necessary to help us attain our national goal of energy self -sufficiency .e

ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVILETTI'S ARGUMENT TO THE WORLD COURT




• Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, on December 10, U.S. Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti presented a stirring, extremely well-reasoned oral argument in the U.S. law suit against Iran before the International Court of Justice.

Addressing the court "with awe but with restrained anger," Attorney General Civiletti forcefully argued for provisional measures of protection from the Iranian kidnapping of Americans in Tehran.

Outlining not only applicable international law, but four treaties which are in point, Mr. Civiletti and his colleagues presented their argument with such force of reason that the World Court decided in their favor-unanimously-only a few days later.

As President Carter and our diplomatic personnel at the United Nations begin the arduous task of bringing the full force of United Nations economic sanctions to enforce the World Court's holding against Iran, a reading of Mr. Civiletti's argument is advisable.

The American case against Iran is not one based on emotion and passion; as Mr. Civiletti demonstrates, Iran has violated both the spirit and the letter of recognized international codes. "For the first time in modern diplomatic history," Mr. Civiletti noted, "a state has not only acquiesced in, but participated in and is seeking political advantage from the illegal seizure and imprisonment of the diplomatic personnel of another state."

I commend Mr. Civiletti's oral argument to my colleagues and the world's attention:

ORAL ARGUMENT ON !RAN PRESENTED TO WORLD CoURT

(By Attorney General Civiletti) Mr. President [Sir Humphrey Waldock of

the United Kingdom), and distinguished members of the Court, my name is Benjamin R. Civiletti. I appear today as Attorney General of the United States of America and advocate in support of its request for provisional measures of protection from illegal acts of the Government of Ira.n. I feel privileged to appear on behalf of my government. I should also say that the United States is grateful to the Court for providing a hearing at this time.

If I may be permitted a personal introduction. I have spent my working life as a trial lawyer in the United States. I have been an advocate both for the government and for those who oppose the government, in both civil and criminal suits. Anyone who has been a trial advocate in any country would

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS approach this Court with respect and awe. In a real sense this Court represents the highest legal aspiration of civilized man.

Yet I find myself addressing this Court with awe but with restrained anger. More than 50 of my countrymen are held prisoners, in peril of their lives and su1Iering even as I speak. This imprisonment and this suffering are 1llegal and inhuman. It takes no advocate to bring this cause to you. The facts are known worldwide, and every citizen of the world-trained in the law or not--knows the conduct to be criminal.

I come to this Court, my government comes to this Court, not so that yet another body wm reiterate the obvious fact that what we are witnessing in Iran is 1llegal. The United states comes here so that this tribunal may demonstrate that international law may not be tossed aside, that the international fabric of civ111ty may not be rent with impunity.

My government asks this Court to take the most vigorous and the speediest action it can, not to settle a minor boundary dispute, not to give to one national treasury from another, but to save lives and set human beings free. This is what people everywhere--not just monarchs and presidents, not just lawyers and jurists---expect of what a judge m my nation called the "omnipresence" that we know to be the law.

If I come to you with anger, I also come to you with urgency. We who speak the sober language of jurisprudence say the U.S. Government is seeking the "indication of provisional measures." What we are asking this Court for is the quickest possible action to end a barbaric captivity and to save human lives.

For the first time in modern diplomatic history, a state has not only acquiesced in, but participated in and is seeking political advantage from the 1llegal seizure and imprisonment of the diplomatic personnel of another state. It even threatens to put these diplomatic personnel on trial. If our international institutions, including this Court, should even appear to condone or tolerate the flagrant violations of customary international law, state practice, and explicit treaty commitments that are involved here, theresult wm be a serious blow not only to the safety of the American diplomatic persons now in captivity 1n Tehran, but to the rule of law within the international community.

To allow the 1llegal detention and trial of U.S. diplomatic personnel and other citizens to go forward during the pendency of this case would be to encourage other governments and individuals to believe that they may, with impunity, seize any Embassy and any diplomatic agent, or indeed any other hostage, anywhere in the world. Such conduct cannot be tolerated; every civllized government recognizes that. We therefore submit that this Court has a clear obligation to take every action to bring this conduct to an immediate end.

We shall discuss the simple, clear issues presented in the following order. I shall review the applicable basic principles of interna tiona I Ia w which bind both Iran and the United States, not only under customary international law but also under four treaties to which both states are parties. These treaties are directly in point. Mr. Owen will then briefly summarize the facts to demonstrate to the Court that the Government of Iran has committed, is committing--and is proposing to commit--dear, flagrant violations of these principles of international law.

We will next demonstrate that the Court has jurisdiction over this dispute and the authority to indicate the provisional measures requested by the United States. Finally, we shall explain why, on the basis of article 41 of the Court's statute, an 1ndicat1_Qn of

37661 interim measures is urgently needed and amply justified.

The international legal standards involved here are of ancient origin. They have evolved over centuries of state practice, and in recent years have been codified in a series of international agreements. It is on four of those agreements that the Government of the United States relies here. VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

Since the subject of this proceeding is focused largely on the status and immunities of diplomatic agents, I shall refer at the outset to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The purpose of that convention, to which both the United States and Iran are parties, was to codify a fundamental, firmly established rule of international law-that the immunity and inviolab111ty of Embassies and diplomats must be absolutely respected and that in no circumstances may a state engage in the type of conduct that is involved here.

The first relevant provision of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is article 22, relating to the physical premises of an Embassy or mission. The words of article 22 are clear:

"1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. ·

"2. The receiving State 1s under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

"3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search. requisition, attachment or execution."

As to the personnel of such a diplomatic mission, article 29 of the convention goes on to provide that every diplomatic agent "shall be inviolable" and that he shall be free from "any form of arrest and detention." The language is unqualified: It prohibits any form of arrest or detention, regardless of any grievance which the host state may suppose that it has against a particular diplomat. There is a remedy available against a diplomat who a state believes has engaged in improper conduct--to require him to leave the country. But the Vienna convention excludes any form of physical arrest or detention for the purpose of prosecution or for any other reason.

The convention reemphasizes the principle of diplomatic inviolab111ty in several di1Ierent ways. Article 29 requires the receiving state to present any attack upon the person, freedom, or dignity of a diplomatic agent. Article 31 requires that each such agent enjoy unquallfied "immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State." There is no exception; no matter what the cause, thereceiving state is precluded from allowing the criminal prosecution of a diplomatic agent. In the last few days, as we wm explain later in our argument, this absolute immunity from criminal prosecution has taken on an overwhelming importance.

Article 37 of the convention extends the same absolute inviolab111ty and absolute immunity from assault and from criminal trial to the administrative and technical staff of an Embassy. All but two of the more than 50 Americans currently being held hostage in Tehran are either diplomatic agents or Embassy administrative and technical sta1I, some of whom also perform consular functions.

Other immunities and privileges pertinent to this case are round in articles 24, 25, 26, 27,

37662 44, 45, and 47 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Among these are the inviolablllty of the archives and documents of the mission, the right of diplomatic agem;s and staff to communicate freely for omcial purposes, and the right to depart from the receiving state at any tlme they wish.

Over the hundreds of years that these principles have been recogn1zed and honored throughout the international community, there have been occasions when a particular state has felt dlssatlsfled or aggrieved by the conduct of a diplomatic agent of another state or hls government; and Iran ls clalmlng some such grievances now. For hundreds of years, however, states have uniformly recognized that the only lawful course open to them ls to declare the diplomatic agent perlema non grata. When a state declares a diplomatic agent per1ona non grata, hls government must withdraw hlm or suffer the eventual termination of hls diplomatic status.

These uniformly recognized principles have been codified in article 9 of the VIenna convention. Under that treaty, a receiving state can ln effect expel an objectionable diplomat--but under no circumstances may a state Imprison an emissary or put h1m on trial. In diplomatic history and practice there ls no precedent or justification for the seizure of a diplomat, let alone an entire diplomatic mission. There is also no precedent or justlflcatlon of the Imprisonment and trial of such persons ln an attempt to coerce capitulation to certain demands. It ls dlmcult to think of a more obvious, more flagrant violation of intematlonallaw. VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAB ULATIONS

Both Iran and the United States are also parties to the second International convention on which the United States relies in thls proceeding-the 1963 VIenna Convention on Consular Relations. Thls con-vention reflects many of the same principles I have just described. Under the consular convention every state party, Including Iran, haa an International legal obligation to protect the consular facUlties and members of the consular posts of every other state party.

Of course, when personnel of a diplomatic mlsslon are providing consular services, they are entitled to the full protection afforded by the VIenna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The convention on consular relations also requires the receiving state to permit another state party's consular omcers to communicate with and have access to their nationals. Thls right 11 manifestiy vtolated when the consular omcers are themselves held Incommunicado by force. ARTICLE 22, VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC

RELATIONS

"1. The premises of the mtsslon shall be inviolable. The agents of the recelvlng State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

"2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mlsslon against any Intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mtsslon or Impairment of its dignity.

"3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requlsltlon, attachment or execution."

~ YORK CO~ON

Apart from these two Vienna Conventions, the United States and Iran also are parties to the New York Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents. One of the essential premises of the New York convention 1s stated ln Its preamble. It is that crimes against such internationally protected per-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS sons, Including diplomatic agents, are "a serious threat to the maintenance of normal international relations" and "a matter of grave concern to the International community."

The convention defines a number of types of conduct as constituting crimes within Its scope. Under article 2 it is a criminal act to participate as an accomplice ln an attack on the person or liberty of an Internationally protected person or ln a violent attack on omcial premises. Under article 4 of the convention, every state party, including Iran, is required to cooperate to prevent such crimes. Under article 7, every state party must take steps to see that those responsible for such crimes are prosecuted. The Go,vernment of Iran has violated every one of these provisions in the plainest way.

All three of the treaties I have discussed were drafted by the U.N. International Law Commission. They were adopted by conferences of plenipotentiaries or by the U.N. General Assembly-and thus by the vast majority of the states of the world. They have been so widely ratified as to demonstrate that they reflect universally recognized rules of International law.

Bn.ATERAL TREATY OF AMITY

Finally, the United States relies in this case upon a bilateral treaty-the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran. This treaty is in a sense even broader than the three multllateral conventions to which I have previously referred. Under article 2, paragraph 4, of the treaty of amity, each party has a legal obligation to insure that within Its territory the nationals of the other party shall receive "the most constant protection and security."

In addition, article 2 provides that, lf any U.S. national is in custody in Iran, Iran must in every respect accord him "reasonable and humane treatment." Under articles 2 and 19 any such national ls entitled to communicate with his own government and avail himself of the set4vices of his consular omcials. Article 13 requires that the consular omcers and employees themselves be accorded the privlleges and immunities accorded by general international usage and that they be treated in a fashion no less favorable than similar omcer and employees of any third country.

That completes my brief summary of the principles of international law that underlie the application of the United States. I could go on to discuss the provisions of Article 2, Paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Charter of the United Nations, under whlch Iran and all other U.N. members are obligated to settle their disputes by peaceful means and to refrain ln thelr international relations from the threat or use of force. But the United States believes that the three multilateral conventions and the 1955 bllateral treaty provide as clear a legal predicate as can be rationally required for lts request for an indication of provisional measures.e

THE REVITALIZED UGANDA

HON. RICHARD L. OTTINGER OJ' NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATTVES Thursday, December 20, 1979

• Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Speaker, one of my district staff members who has served my constituents in Mount Vernon and Yonkers with great distinction during botlr of my periods of service in the House of Representatives since 1964,

December 20, 1979

Dorothy Crozier, recently returned from a visit to Uganda. This trip was at the invitation of President Binasia who Mrs. Crozier originally met while the Binasia family was living in exile in Mount Vernon, N.Y.-one of the cities in my district.

President Binasia has received the praise and admiration of the world in bringing Uganda back into the family of civilized nations following the reign of Idi Amin. I had asked Mrs. Crozier to report on her visit and am pleased to share her observations with my colleagues at this time:

GREETINGS TO PBESmENT BINASIA

Every year about thls tlme, as the holiday season approaches, we see and hear everywhere messages of peace and good will. We thlnk of all the reasons we have to rejoice.

In view the sentiment of the season, I wish to call attention to a specific instance, Involving a country in Africa-Uganda--and its President, where at the present tlme, this message of rebirth of peace ls very evident.

You all know the story of Uganda-a beautlful country called the P~arl of Africa to whlch came untold horror and destruction under the dictatorship of the man-monster, Idl Amln. This nation was ruled by thls evll man for over eight horrible years and just recently new leadership is providing the means by which human nature can rebuild a society which is based on respect of each person and his or her dignity.

The struggle for the right to be a free nation by the people of Uganda and the eventual ouster of a madman is a tale which history will relate in the years to come as an episode of unbelievable accomplishment. This victory was achieved because people trusted in brotherhood and the knowledge that right must triumph over might.

It has been read in the newspapers and related by radio announcers and TV broadcasts of the tortures and horrors inflicted on the people of Uganda but never is it -more important than at this very moment when the basic human rights of every individual ls at stake in the world.

Today Uganda is recovering under the dynamic leadership of its President----.President Godfrey L. Binasla. President Binasia is a man who lived as a political exile in the City of Mount Vernon, New York which is part of the 24th Congressional District. The community ls proud to know hlm and to recall that when he lived in Mount Vernon he became actively Involved in the civic, community and rellgtous life of the clty. During the time he remained here, he became well known to many people in West<:hester County and also in the New York City area where he practiced law. His friendly manner and intelllgent mind endeared him to all he met.

Even though it was a surprise-and a wonderful surprise-to leam that he 'became President of Uganda, it was a surpHse that terminated with the reallzatlon that, 1f anyone could bring swift recovery to Uganda, it would be this unusual man, Godfrey L. Binasia.

President Binasia has not forgotten his American friends. Some have journeyed to Uganda to visit him and his family. They have returned excited over the upward motion of the nation and the graciousness of the people.

They have told me of the remains of great destruction which is stlll visible and the needs of the people which are evident everywhere but they have also told me that the people are encouraged and Inspired by their President to carry on a.nd develop a. democratic society once again.

President Blnasla recently told his people

December ~0, 19 79 that he is enjoying the job but he needs their prayers. All leaders need the prayers of their people. We, as a great democratic nation, should aJ.so pray for this slll8iller nation who is step by step, piece by piece, reassembling its culture, and its economy. The world has an obligation to Uganda for it was their courage that rid the world of a terrible, terrible evil-the demented Idi Amln.

Out of the spilling of their blood, the cause of human rights triumphed.

Just think how awful it would be if at this holy season these people were still suffering under the yoke of a monster. It is going to be such a wonderful day for them this year, as they gather in their houses or worship and tn their homes with family and friends to make merry together for the first time in over eight years.

A release from tyranny is cause for celebration and as the day of peace approaches, let us all hope that wherever tyranny prevans in this world, that these forces be overcome and that hope and faith prevail as in Uganda.

May we also send our greetings to the President of Uganda, a man of vision and action, who Uved among us for a little whlle and round a haven on our shores.e

A PERSONAL VIEW: WHY SALT TI SHOULD BE APPROVED

HON. DONALD J. PEASE 01' OHIO



• Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Members of Congress for Peace Through Law Task Force on SALT n, I ask that Congressman BEILENSON's December issue of his newsletter on the proposed treaty be placed in the RECORD for public review.

My colleague has done an excellent job of analyzing his reasons for supporting ratification of SALT n without further delay. I commend it to you wholeheartedly.

The text of the newsletter follows : A PERSONAL VIEW: WHY SALT II SHOULD BE

APPROVED

FACING THE CHALLENGE OF A NUCLEAR WORLD

Twenty-five minutes from now the United States can destroy Russia as a nation and a society-and the Russians can do the same to us .... The United States has enough nuclear warheads to strike the 450 largest Soviet cities 20 times each, and the Soviets have enough warheads to hit an equal number of American cities 10 times each .... Just one of our nuclear submarines carries enough warheads to destroy every large and medium-size city in the Soviet Union .... The global stockplle of nuclear arms now equals one mlllion Hiroshima-size bombs, with a combined explosive power equal to 12 tons of TNT for every person on earth.

These facts are so overwhelming that we become numbed by them. But we cannot lose sight of the insanity of tt all, of the horror that would be visited on humankind if only a fraction of these thousands of weapons were ever exploded-we would certainly lose our country and our society as we know them, and our own and our chlldren's futures.

There is absolutely no defense on either side against this existing ability to destroy each other, and I think that any sane and thoughtful person would support sensible and rational means to decrease the poss1-b111ty of nuclear war.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty

(SALT II) represents seven years of effort by the two superpowers to slow the nuclear arms race. The Treaty, for the first time, mandates limitations in the nuclear weapons systems of the United States and the Soviet Union. It thus constitutes a substantial achievement and a major step in a necessary process that must be confirmed and continued if we are ever to lirnlt the threat of nuclear weapons.

After exh&ustive investigation and many weeks of testimony on SALT II in the Senate, not a single weakness or loophole has been found in the Treaty. And that is why those who e.re seeking to defeat SALT II, and cannot do so on the merits, have resorted to raising other issues such as the presence of Russian troops in Cuba, and demands for greatly increased U.s. defense budgets.

But the greater our concerns about aggressive and unfriendly Soviet intentions, the more we need to restrain their ab111ty to build up their strategic nuclear forces; the more one distrusts the Soviets, the more one should support the SALT agreement.

The Treaty should be judged on its merits alone-we should support it only if it is good !or us. It must not be considered as a favor to be given to the Russians as a reward for good ,behavior or withheld as a punishment !or bad behavior.

The only standard by which we should judge the Treaty remains: will our national security be better served by its approval or by its defeat? If it is in our country's interest, it should be approved; if it is not in our own interests, it ought to be rejected.

THE TRUTH ABOUT SALT n While the provisions of the Treaty are

complicated and lengthy, and the arguments surrounding it are complex and confusing, the simple truth of the matter is tha.t the provisions of the SALT II agreement are overwhelmingly favorable to the present and future security interests of the United States.

The Treaty will preserve the mUitary balance between the U.S. and the Soviet Union by restraining the Soviet rnilitary build-up while permitting the modernization of our own strategic forces at the same time.

Limit on strategic delivery. vehicles. The Treaty places a llinit of 2250 on the number of strategic delivery vehicles--i.e., longrange bombers, land-·based Inissiles of intercontinental range (ICBM's), and missiles fired by submarine~ach side may have. The Russians have 2500 delivery systems now; to comply with the Treaty, they Wlll have to destroy or dismantle about 10 percent of their systems. This will be the first agreed upon reduction in the history of nuclear arms.

Without this SALT-imposed restriction, the Russians are expected to have 3000 delivery systems built by 1985. Thus, without SALT, they would have 750 more Inisslle systems aimed at the United States. On the other hand, the U.S. has only 2000 delivery systems-so we can build up to the 2250 figure if we want to.

Lirnlt on nuclear warheads. The Treaty places a llrnlt on the number of warheads that can be deployed by each country-which would result in lliniting the Soviets to about 9500 warheads, compared with as many as 18,000 they would be able to deploy if they followed present production schedules in the absence of the SALT agreement.

This limitation on warheads is critically important because it is in this area that the Soviet Union had the greatest potential !or dramatically expanding its forces in the near future. Without SALT, for example, the 300 big Soviet "heavy missiles" could carry up to 30 warheads apiece--a total of 9000 nuclear bombs; with SALT, they are Um1ted to

37663 10 warheads apiece-a total of 3000. Thus, under SALT, there will be 6000 !ewer nuclear warheads aimed at the U.s. from this one Soviet Inissile system alone.

Llinit on new land-based Inissile systems (ICBM's). SALT II wlll lirnlt each side to one new type of ICBM, thereby controlling the pace of modernization for the first time. The Soviets are currently planning !our or five new types of land-based missiles; the u.s. is planning only one-the MX mobile missile. This provision of the Treaty allows us to develop the MX missile and to deploy it on whatever type of mobile launcher system we decide is best, while it prevents the Russians !rom going ahead with all but one of their proposed new missile systems.

There are many other important provisions of the Treaty which impose additional significant restraints on the ablllty of both superpowers to deploy more nuclear weapons. But, equally significant !rom our own point of view are the areas which the Treaty does not touch:

It does nothing to curb our "forwardbased" forces in Europe-the 700 American missiles and planes equipped with nuclear bombs that are within striking range of the Soviet Union (the SOviets have no such weapons close to the U.S.). We have more nuclear warheads in Europe than the Russians have in the entire world, and they are all excluded from the provisions of the Treaty.

The Treaty does nothing to change the current imbalance, favorable to us, in which 70 percent of Russia's nuclear power is concentrated in exposed and increasingly vulnerable land-based Inissiles, while nearly 75 percent of ours is on almost totally invulnerable submarines and bombers.

It also does nothing to restrain the nuclear capablllties of the three other nuclear weapons states (Britain, France and China), all potential adversaries of the Soviet Union.

SALT II prohibits none of the programs which our own Inilitary leaders believe are · necessary for improving our own strategic nuclear capab111ties. Throughout the negotiations, care was taken to preserve the options that those responsib111ties for our military planning have defined as necessary to our security. In fact, the agreement allows the United States to go forward with every single strategic nuclear program now on our drawing boards-all of our Inilitary options are open. We can arm our heavy bombers with thousands of new, accurate cruise missiles of unlimited range. We can go ahead with our new Trident submarines and our new longer-range, more accurate Trident Inissiles. We can go torward with our new warhead and guidance system for our ICBM'S, and develop and deploy our MX . mobile Inisslle. The Treaty wm not inwrtere with any of these programs but will, in !act, aid our planning by giving us a much clearer picture of the Inilltary threat we will race in the 1980's, and by setting limits on what the Soviets can do. · WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF SALT n IS NOT APPROVED?

SALT II deserves support because the provisions o! the Treaty itself are clearly In our own interests. In addition to that, however, · rejection of the Treaty by the U.S. Senate would have profoundly damaging consequences to this nation.

Rejection of the Treaty would damage the United States' leadership position among our allies and throughout the entire world. There would 1be a global perception that America had chosen confrontation rather than cooperation and peace, and that the Soviet Union is more committed than is the United States to lliniting the threat ot nuclear war.

Our allies would lose faith in our ab111ty to conduct international affairs. It would indicate to them tha.t we cannot generate a

37664 stable national consensus on even this moat crucial or foreign policy issues. It would also tell them that a relaxation o! East-West tensions is not likely to come about ·from l)Uateral U.s.-u.s.s.R. negotiations and that, l! they wish to pursue detente, they wlll have to do so on their own.

And, here at home, rejection o! the SALT agreement would leave our national security poUcy in disarray, with no clear support in the country or in Congress !or any spec11lc approach to national defense issues or the Umitation o! nuclear armaments.

Our relations with the Soviet Union would worsen and tensions would increase. The SALT process would be stopped dead in its tracks, and the prospects !or achieving sign11lcant reductions in nuclear armaments at any time in the near future would become extremely remote. The Russians have been involved in these bUateral negotiations with us now for more than seven years, they have engaged in this process with the utmost seriousness, they have made most of the major concession.s-a.nd it would be incomprehensible to them 1! we were now to abruptly discard the results o! all our mutual efforts. They would be led to conclude that the U.S. had changed its policy, and they would move to further bulld up their own military forces.

We would thus be sending the wrong signals to Moscow-signals which few thinking Americans would want to send. At a time when Soviet leadership will surely be 1n transition, we will be strengthening the hand and validating the position of the militarists and hardliners in the Kremlin who want an escalation o! tensions and dangers in the world.

Finally, and most importantly, we will greatly jeopardize our own national security. Unrestrained by the terms of the Treaty, and angered and frightened by the abrupt reversal of an Americ!Ul nuclear policy pursued by recent Democratic and Republican administrations altke, the Soviets would be encouraged to go ahead with development, deployment, and expansion of nuclear weapons systems that would otherwise have been prohibited by SALT ll.

Without SALT, the Russians would have twice the number o! nuclear warheads, hundreds more mlsslles and heavy bombers, and several new types of ICBM's than they would be allowed under the Treaty. There would be no 11m1 t on the size of these new misslles and, most importantly, no limit on the number of individual nuclear bombs with which each m1ss11e could be equipped-thus greatly endangering the survivablllty of our own nuclear forces .

Without SALT, there would be no restriction on concealment and encoding practices, and no requirement that the U.S.S.R. give us data on their nuclear systems (as required by SALT). thereby making our verification of Soviet misslle testing, development and deployment much more d11Hcult.

Thus, without SALT n, we would have a renewed and destablllz1ng nuclear arms rac~nd all we would end up with would be greater mil1tary and polttical uncertainty, many additional billions of dollars in defense costs-and less security for our nation.

THE CHOICE BEFORE US

It 1s important to remind ourselves what we are talking about-an issue totally unlike anything we have ever had to deal with before. Even a single nuclear explosion over any major city would result in a catastrophe greater than any mankind has ever known. We are talking, in brief, about the survival of the human race.

As I said at the outset, there is only one standard against which to measure the provisions of SALT II: does the Treaty serve the security interests of the United States by lessening the possib111ty of a nuclear exchange? I think the answer is clearly in the

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS amrmativ~nd I suggest that the burden is on those who feel differently to show us how rejecting SALT II would reduce the Soviet threat in any way or lead to a safer, saner, or more secure future for any of us.

We have negotiated a Treaty that is favorable to our side and that protects our own security interests-and we must be wise enough to seize this opportunity and ensure its success.e

MARYLAND, THE PRESS, AND THE LAW OF THE LAND

HON·. CLARENCE D. LONG OF MARYLAND



• Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise to insert into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an article by two Maryland attorneys, Bruce and Laurie Bortz, entitled "Maryland, the Press, and the Law of the Land."

Mr. and Ms. Bortz trace the origins of the "press shield law," which gives reporters the right not to disclose the identities of their sources, and they examine recent Juristic developments which affect reporters in gathering and disclosing information. As noted by the authors, Maryland enacted the Nation's first press shield law. This is a timely and incisive analysis and I urge my colleagues to read it.

The article, which appeared in the April 22, 1979, Sunday Sun, was condensed from a piece in the University of Baltimore Law Review entitled "Pressing Out the Wrtnkles in Maryland's s:r.Jeld Law for Journallsts."

The article follows: MARYLAND, THE PREss, AND THE LAW OJ' THE

LAND (By Bruce and Laurie Bortz)

JournaJ1sts were handed a maJor defeat Wednesday. In a case called Herbert v. CBS, the Supreme Court ruled, 6 to 3, that publtc ;figures who sue for ltbel oa.n pry into the editorial process. Journalists all over the country responded in eloquent outrage. But Maryland journaltsts might yet tum. this defeat into victory by urging passage of a state la.w to provide those protections that are withheld by Wednesday's decision. They can start by revising a la.w their predecessors put on the books 83 years ago this month.

In the first few weeks of 1896, John T. Morris, a ~porter for The Sun, stumbled upon Information strongly suggesting tha.t some of Baltimore's elected omcials and policemen were on the payrolls of some lllegal gambling establ1shments. SUspecting that SOIDleone had leaked the story to Morris, a Baltimore grand Jury lnvestlga.ttng that very subject demanded to know his source. When the reporter Tefused to divulge it, he was sent to the City Jail.

In response to their colleague's imprisonment, members of the Journalists Club, an organtzation of newspapermen, had a blll introduced providing reporters with a shield against such sanctions in certain circUmstances. On April 2, 1896, Maryland's legislature changed the common law then a.ppltca.ble to journalists by enacting the nation's :ftrst "press shield law."

For a.lmost 30 ye&rs not a single state followed Maryland's example. That did not mea.n that the press and law enforeement did not clash during thoae years. Th.e press,

December 20, 1979 though, usually had the prestige or polltie&l muscle to reach an out-of-court accommodation with the local prosecutor. In a number of states, however, especially after World War II, such confrontations did not end ln compromise, but in the passage of state shield laws; most did Uttle more than give reporters the right not to disclose identities of their sources.

In 1959 Macy'land took another step a.head at its sister states: It gave radio and television the statutory protection it had earlter granted the print media.

At the federal level there seemed less cause for alarm than at the state level. In 1969, though, the picture began to change drastically. Federal authorities investigaing radical groups tried to coerce the media to cooperate. They demanded not only the names of sources, but also notes, tapes, 111m, photographs, 1lnancial records and personal testimony from reporters serving newspapers, magazines and broadcasters.

All the whlle it was taken for granted 1n American politics, as Theodore White has noted, that a reporter's protection of his sources could not be violated. Also, many thoughtful journalists believed that the Supreme Court viewed state shield laws as largely unnecessary because of the broad language of the First Amendment. The nation's highest court was soon to disappoint those trusting journalists by handing down its 5-to-4 decision ln the landmark case of Branzburg v. Hayes.

Newsmen from around the country submitted amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs and amdavits, hoping to persuade the court to recognize a constitutional privilege for new&men. A representative comment was by J. Anthony Lucas, then a reporter for the New York Times, who said, "Violate one man's confidence and sources start drying up all over the place." Apparently unpersuaded by the affidavit of Mr. Lucas and other respected press members, the court held that a federal or state grand jury could compel a newsman to testify before it concerning information that sources had revealed ln confidence.

An e.roslon of the press's freedom and the publlc's right to know, said John Finnegan, chairman of the Associated Press Managing Editors' Freedom of Information Committee, commenting on the Branzburg opinion. Those who shared Mr. Finnegan's opinion took some solace from the court's concession that Congress and t!le state legislatures had the latitude to establ1sh such a privilege, even though the Constitution had not created it.

Following the court's suggestion, Congress intens11led efforts begun in 1970 to pass a federal shield law, but it was unable to reach a consensus. Many in the media who sensed the impact Branzburg was beginning to have on them were not content to fiddle whtle Congress burned one draft after another. The then-president of the CBS television network, Arthur Taylor, said, for example, that the decision had triggered a "devastating proUferation of subpoenas and jai~ings." One newsman noted that the Justice Department issued more subpoenas during the flrst 18 weeks of 1975 than lt had dlll'ing the previous 3% years.

Reporters and columnists pointed to the muckraker tradition ln American journa.Hsm and the recent disclosures of Watergate and the Pentagon papers. A press unable to assure confidentiallty to its sources would be unable to relate such important events to the publlc, the New York Times said, and could become increasingly dependent on the selfserving press releases of government and business.

While the Congress failed to enact a federal law to counter the effect of Branzburg, advocates persuaded 26 state legislatures to grant the press a privilege in ita news-gathering activities. However, it was not Branzburg

December 20, 1979 that caused Maryland and its General Assembly to reconsider the state's shield law tor journalists. The action came in response to state court decisions in 1972 in Llghtman v. State.

The Llghtman case began in July, 1971, when reporter David Lightman wrote an article which The Evening Sun printed under the banner headline, "Ocea.n City-Where the Drugs Are." At the time, drug tra.ftlcking in Ocean City was also the subject of a Worcester county grand jury investigation. When the grand jury subpoenaed Mr. Lightman, asking for the name of the unidentified shopkeeper Wlho allegedly offered him marijuana to insure the sale of a pdpe, Mr. Lightman's i'esponse wa.s simply to cite the state's shield la.w for reporters.

He wa.s oited for contempt and given a jail sentence. A Worcester judge said the shield law did not apply to Mr. Lightman in that case because he had obtained his information throug-h ordinary observation not from a source to whom he had promised oonfidentlallty. Maryland's courts of appeal agreed.

Shortly after these decisions, several Maryland delegates proposed corrective legislation, which, after much debate, died a quiet death on the House floor in 1973. So today Maryland reporters continue to practice their calllng protected only by a law that, at age 83, is a relic, and a flawed one at tha.t. As the I.Aghtma.n case amply illustrated, for example, areporter citing Maryland's shield law can refuse to identify a confidential news source, but he can be forced to divulge the information his source gave him, even though this will often reveal the identity of the informant.

The law is also deficdent in fa1Ung to protect a newsman who writes about occurrences he personally observes. A truly effective shield law would protect information. whether its source is the reporter himself or someone else.

While Maryland led the way in applying shields to the electronic media, it has failed to protect a host of other professionals who gather and disseminate the news and who, a.s the Supreme Court ha.s long recognized, also serve the public. Excluded are writers for news services, newsletters, news syndicates and press a.ssoclations, as well as free-lance writers and writers or producers ot documentary films.

Equally lacking in logic is the distinction Maryland's law makes between published information, the source of which a reporter cannot be compelled to reveal, and unpublished information, for which a reporter can claim no protection. A reporter who has spent a lot of time and effort obtaining information for a news story may have to reveal both his information and his informant simply because his story has not been published or broadcast yet. To force disclosure of aU unpublished information and sources, regardless of how far along the reporter's investigation has progressed, is to do serious damage to the media's ablllty to gather information. Nowhere does the Maryland law require that the press actually promise confidentiality to a source before it can claim the shield-law privilege. Likewise. the statute falls to discuss whether a newsman may waive or relinquish his statutory privilege (courts in other jurisdictions have held that once a reporter discloses some of his confidential information, he has given up the privilege) . Also absent from Maryland's shield law is any assurance that omcial bodies wm summon newsmen only after they have failed to obtain essential information from all other avatlable sources.

Despite these shortcomings, Maryland's shield law represents in many respects a relatively enlightened approach to protecting the flow of information to the public. Unlike the laws of some other states, it pro-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS tects m.ore than newspapers alone; it imposes no minimum circulation requirement on the newspapers it protects, it allows newsmen to plead the privilege before a comparatively large number of governmental bodies.

Such strengths may make Maryland's law better than those of some of other states; without question, however, it 18 worse than those of several other states, notably New Jersey and California, whose shield laws journalists believe to be the most liberal in the nation. Both states protect information as well as sources of information. Both shield unpubl18hed as well as published information. New Jersey's law, the more recent of the two, grants a privilege to those "on whose behalf news 18 gathered," thereby giving standing to members of the public at large to oppose a compelled disclosure. California's law, on the other hand, broadly defines a "newsgathert-r" as one "who 1s or has been connected with or employed by a publication,'' including within its ambit even newsmen who are unemployed.

Good as they are, however, even these statutes may not be good enough to protect a newsman's interests. The recent muchpublicized New Jersey case of Farber v. State made this point plain.

In 1968, thirteen people died mysteriously at a New Jersey hospital. Ten years later, Myron A. Farber, a New York Times reporter, continued the investigation a grand Jury had abandoned, quoting unnamed sources who said the person responsible for the deaths was a certain "Doctor X ." Upon being indicted for murder in connection with these cases, Dr. Marlo E. Jascalevich demanded !rom Mr. Farber all notes, tapes and names of anonymous sources, as well as the contents of interviews Mr. Farber had conducted with people he freely identified. Rather than accede to the demand, Mr. Farber cited the New Jersey shield law.

Held in contempt, jailed 139 days and fined $1,000, Mr. Farber held fast to h18 convictions, but to no avail ; the New Jersey Supreme Court aftlrmed the lower court's contempt citations against him and the Times, holding that the strongly worded New Jersey shield law had to bow to the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial.

In the Farber case the court's approach nlustrated that even a virtually unqualified shield law such as New Jersey's cannot protect the press from compulsory disclosure when constitutionally protected rights are threatened. Yet even an absolute evidentiary privilege strictly applied can provide no more than minimal protection it the government, through means other than subpoena, can force journalists to furnish the information they have gathered.

An absolute shield law might be useless, for example, if pollee could obtain a warrant and search a newsroom for evidence of wrongdoing by persons other than the newsroom staff. In May, 1978, the United States Supreme Court held that the pollee can do exactly that. The court's 5-to-3 decision in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily came as a blow to those in the media who had been watching the case's eight-year odyssey to the high court.

Within weeks after the court acted, Congress began hearings on several bills drafted to cope with problems the Stanford Dally had raised. President Carter even entered the fray by proposing legislation of his own a few weeks ago. While Maryland and other states await congressional action on the Carter b111, the media claim to have already felt the impact of the case. Even Robert Leonard, president of the National District Attorneys Association and himself a prosecutor, has been quick to admit that some news sources have dried up because of it.

Wednesday's Supreme Court decision 1n

37665 Herbert v. CBS will further help to dry up sources, since they inevitably will be disclosed now that public figures can find out the who's, what's, why's and how's of an allegedly libelous statement about them.

Yet, even if the proposed congressional b1lls are approved, the Farber and Herbert cases make it abundantly clear that the Maryland shield law should be given the closest scrutiny. By pressing out the wrinkles in it, Maryland can once again set an important example to the natlon.e

THE POPE'S VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES

HON. MATTHEW J. RINALDO OF NEW JERSEY



• Mr. RINALDO. Mr. Speaker, several months ago, the American people were honored with a visit from His Holiness Pope John Paul ll. Pope John Paul ll touched the hearts of millions during his trip to this conntry. Not only is he the spiritual leader of hnndreds of millions of Roman Catholics, he is also an influential world leader whose message of peace, hope, and humanity can be shared by persons of all faiths in all lands.

Mr. Anthony Nardiello, a former intern in my congressional omce, has written a very touching "Open Letter to the People of the United States of American" concerning the Pope's visit to the United States. I am honored to have the opportunity to share his remarks and reactions to this important event with you: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA DEAR FELLOW AMERICANS: As Americans Of

e very denomination we can be supremely proud that our great Republic served as the host country to His Holiness Pope John Paul II. The Pope spoke out strongly and forthrightly on issues of concern to every individual of every race of every nation on earth. His seven-day journey brought much gladness and joy to America's urban areas and restored new vistas of hope and promise to all those fortunate to see him, in person or via the media. This occupant of the Chair of St. Peter made an unprecedented visit to the White House and had a meeting with our president; this Pope has gone many miles to eradicate superstition and negative attitudes t hat have plagued America's 50 m1111on Cathollcs for many years. . His address before the United Nations revealed a Pope not afraid to speak with absolute candor and historical accuracy before that World Body. John Paul ll has gone so far to remark on that terrible place, Auschwit z. in his native Poland, to inculcate to all how precious and valuable our personal and individual freedoms are and how fragile there existence is. By these remarks His Holiness spoke out to the great sea. of humanity and pointed out how fortunate we a.re in America that we all can enjoy these basic freedoms to the fullest extent possible. I think the Pope said it best when he remarked:

"When the moral fiber of a nation is weakened, when the sense of personal responslblllty is diminished, then the door is open tor the justiflcaton of lnjustces, for violence in all its forms and for the manipulation of the many by the few. The challenge that is already wi1ih us is the temptation to accept as true freedom what in reality is only a new form of slavery."

By these very profound words it is my view

37666 that His Holiness may well be the greatest moral leader of the 20th century as he refurbishes a doubting, cynical world. The Pontiff spoke highly, and rightly so, of the incredible and amazing job our farmers do in feeding world's populace. The Mass at Living History Farms in Iowa. was the most emotional and loving scene I have ever witnessed in my llfe. H1s Holiness spoke boldly when he said:

"The farmer prepares the soil, plants the seed and cultivates the crop. But God makes it grow; He alone 1s the source of life."

As a college student, however, the words of the Pope directed at young people had a special, significant meaning for me and for my many thousands of peers around the world. So many young people faced with hardships, disappointments and the like will attempt to shirk their responsibUlties by escaping into promiscuity, violence, drugs and other dangerous ills. Yet, His Hollness showed us, all of us, the meaning of life and that 1s love. In describing love the Pontiff spoke thusly:

"Love demands effort and a personal commitment to the wlll of God. It means discipline and sacrifice, but it also means joy and human fulfillment. Dear young people: Do not be afraid of honest effort and honest work; do not be afraid of the truth."

I cannot think of a more refreshing or. pleasant thought than that. Many people may wonder what John Paul II thinks of our Republic, of what he wishes our future to be. His thoughts, I believe can be summed up by his remarks before boarding "Shepard I" bound for the Vatican: "God Bless America."

ANTHONY NARDIELLO

Senior Student, Florida Atlantic Untversity.

BOCA RATON, F'LA.e

TAX INCENTIVES FOR SAVING


lNTHE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


• Mr. PA'ITERSON. Mr. Speaker, as the House Ways and Means Committee prepares for hearings next month concerning tax incentives for saving, one proposal which has received overwhelming support in this Congress and which, therefore, deserves serious consideration by the committee is the deduction from Federal income taxes of a certain amount of interest income earned on savings accounts. Such an incentive system to improve the U.S. savings rate is embodied in 41 bills pending in the House of Representatives, sponsored by more than 100 Members of Congress.

Without objection, inserted into the RECORD at this point is a December 16 New York Times article examining the benefits and the costs of allowing taxpayers a break on a portion of interest Income earned. I hope that it will be helpful to my colleagues: THE CASE FOR DEDUCTING SAVINGS INTEREST

(By W. David Robbins) The American housing industry is in deep

trouble, largely as a resUlt of the shrinking supply of mortgage funds .

This Is a problem that should concern the entire country, for housing is one of the most important segments of our economy.

Its dollar volume is greater than that of the automotive industry-$90 billion versus

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS $82.7 bill1on in 1978-and residential mortgage loans total more than the Federal debt.

More than 20,000 small, local housing contractors may either be forced out of the industry or into bankruptcy. Yet the need for new houses is strong enough to keep all of them in business. Some 30 million people born in the 1940's and 50's are reaching the home-buying age, creating a potential demand for two million new housing units a year well into the 1980's.

But there 1s not enough money to finance their purchase. Soaring interest rates and uncertainties about the financial atmosphere in this country are chasing investors out of financial institutions that normally make housing loans, such as savings and loans associations, and into the more fiexible and more lucrative money markets.

As a result, savings and loan institutions and mutual savings banks all over the country are closing their loan windows.

There is an uncomplicated way to stem this outfiow of money, a way that would neither exacerbate infiation nor Ultimately cost the Government a single tax dollar. It is simply to give the small investor a better tax break on his interest income.

An individual can now deduct a total of $100 in stock-dividend income from his Federal taxable income, but he is required to pay taxes on all of his interest income. Why not permit each taxpayer to deduct up to $100 of interest income (married couples $200) earned In savings and loan Institutions and mutual banks?

Thts would increase the investor's net income. encouraging him to put money into Institutions that provide most of the mortgage money that keeps the housing industry moving. If only 15 percent of the nation's work force was encouraged to become savers in these institutions by thts exemption-and our survey indicates the percentage could well be higher-there would be approximately 16 million new depositors.

Ask yourself, given an 8, 9 or 10 percent after-tax return, where funds are insured, would you invest? Assuming a 9 percent interest ra.te, it would take $1,111 deposited for a year for one saver to earn the $100 interest e:remption. Over a.ll, our study indicates the plan woUld produce some $18 blllion in new deposits. How much would the interest exemption pla.n cost the United States Treasury?

If we assume that the new plan would bring the total number of savings accounts to 90 mlllion and that each depositor would exempt $100 a year from taxation (a distortion, as many of the accounts would be too small to produce $100 in interest), this would result in a total interest exemption o! $9 billion. Assuming an average hderal tax rate of 29 percent, there would be a Federal tax loss of $2.6 billion.

But consider the consequences of a major housing industry slump:

A 40 percent drop in new housing, which is today probable, would remove some $30 billion from the economy; and the Federal Government would stand to lose approximately $2 billion in taxes.

Unemployment in the housing industry would cost the Federal Government an additional $600 million in lost income taxes. Moreover, a housing-industry slump would have a major multiplier effect on related industries, and Federal revenues would suffer as a result.

If Congress were to authorize a $100 interest exemption for each personal savings account In savings and loans 1nst1tutl.ons a.nd mutual savings banks, the Federal Government would lose less than it would lose by allowing the housing industry to go down the drain.

To be sure, a $250 interest exemption

December 20, 1979 rather than a $100 exemption would be more beneficial. However, the same 1s true for stock dividends.

As desperately as housing needs investment, our nation equally needs savings a.nd investments in new plant and machinery. The reason only a $100 interest exemption is recommended is more probability of fast Congressional action. When we learn the positive results, the exemptions can be increased.

This year, as during the past two years, the rate of personal savings has continued to decline. What our country cannot seem to appreciate is the relationship between savings and investment.

Today largely because o! a. lack of savings--and thereby a lack of investment-our nation faces reduced productivity, continued high infiation, a weak dollar and shrinking growth. Refiecting the Keynesian anti-saving bias of most economists, Washington has passed many programs to discourage savingtaxation of interest income being the prime example. Indeed, every time our economy takes a downturn, Washington rushes to cut taxes to encourage consumption, not to encourage savings.

The time for the savings-incentive is now. During this past week, Senator Russell B. Long, Democrat of Louisiana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, agreed to call the panel into session next week to consider proposals to expand an existing income ta.x exemption on dividends and extend it to interest earned on savings. The House Ways and Means Committee is also considering an exemption on interest.

It is an economic axiom that any money taken from the income stream and placed in savings is defiationary. If the exemption pla.n were implemented, the bigger savings it would stimulate would mean reduced consumer spending.

And more funds for the savings and loan industry would likely mean easier money for the borrower, at lower rates, further reducing Infiation. Increased mortgage money would, at the same time, counter a depression in the homebullding industry.

While many believe we need a recession to bring infiation under control, what is actually needed is a moderation of demand and some economic stability.

Do we actually want, or need, a disaster tn one of our largest a.nd most basic Industries to break the back of lnfia tion? e

AYATOLLAHVISION




e Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, Art Buchwald of the Washington Post is the Nation's, if not the world's, most talented political humorist.

Those who study comedy say that something is most humorous if it parallels reality and comes as close as possible to being serious, but retains sufficient absurdity to cause laughter instead of tears or anger or pathos. And Buchwald has learned this secret far better than most.

His column in today's Washington Post, entitled "Ayatollahvision and the Ratings: 0 Qom All Ye Faithful," is one of his finest. He satirizes the Iranian officialdom and yet, at the same time, points out the heavy responsibilities

December ~0, 1979

placed on American journalists covering the crisis in Iran. We all know-or at least we hope-that Khomeini and his henchmen do not really care what their arbitron ratings are. But Buchwald makes us wonder. Consider these ominous words, put into the mouths of two members of Iran's "Secret Revolutionary Council":

Why don't we let the hostages go? They would preempt the Super Bowl for that one.

The Ayatollah won't go for it, and neither will the students at the U.S. Emb-assy. Once the hostages are released the networks will pack up their cameras a.nd go home.

Mr. Speaker, no one can do anything about the motivations or the actions of those who would seek to exploit or manipulate the media. All we can do is hope that our free press, in doing its job, exercises restraint and careful judgment reflecting the gravity of its responsibilities in circumstances of this kind.

At this time I would like to insert Mr. Buchwald's column in the RECORD and commend it to the attention of all our colleagues: AYATOLLAHVISION AND THE RATINGS: 0 QOM

ALL YE FAITHFUL

(By Art Buchwald) "The Secret Revolutionary Council of Iran

will come to order. We will now hear a report from our Secret Minister of Information Mullah Plack."

"I just received the overnight Arbitron ratings from our embassy in Washington. We got a. 32 share of the audience on Walter Cronkite, a. 30 on NBC and a. 30 on ABC.

"That's not too bad. Are our student demstra.tions getting a. play?"

"No. The American TV audiences are bored with the demonstrations. We're going to have to come up with something different soon or all three networks may cancel us for the new season."

"How is Ayatollah Kohmeinl doing?" "He's sinking in the Nielsen ratings. The

networks are complaining that he doesn't do anything but sit on his rug and stare at the ground."

"What can we do about that?" "I think he should stand up for a change

and look into the camera.. It would really jazz up things in Qom."

"Has anyone suggested it to him?" "I did and he got very mad. He said 1f

he wasn't sitting down and staring into the ground nobody would know who he was, he claims it's his trademark."

"What else did he say?" "He's blaming us because his interview

with Pakistani television didn't get on prime time in the United States."

"Did you tell him it was on the ABC wrap-up a.t 11:30 a.t night?"

"Yes, but he complained bitterly that they put him against Johnny Carson. He said 1! it happened again he was going to find himself a. new Secret Revolutionary Council."

"It looks like our show is in trouble. This week's Variety says it isn't even playing in Peoria.."

"How is Foreign Mlnlster Ghotbzadeh doing?"

"Sadegh's overexposed. Every time he sees a. TV camera. he steps in front of it. Also people are now wise to the fact he doesn't know what's going on."

"Can't we keep him o1f the air for a. while?" "Are you kidding? He eats it up. He's even

offered to go on 'The Dating Game.' " "If the show gets canceled we're all going

to face an Isla.mic court. Maybe we ought to get some new writers."

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS "Why don't we let the hostages go? They

would preempt the Super Bowl for that one." "The Ayatollah won't go for it, and neither

will the students a.t the U.S. Embassy. Once the hostages are released the networks w1ll pack up their cameras and go home."

"111 tell you why we've been slipping. It's all the fault of Ayatollah Sha.ria.tma.darl. His people are putting on a.nti-K.homeini demstra.tions in Ta.briz and the American audiences are eating it up. They had one show last week where 300,000 people went into the street screaming 'Down with Khome1n1' and we didn't even get on the air."

"That's bad. Before we know it every ayatollah in the country will want to be on American television and we'll have a. civil war on our hands.''

"We have already. Mullahs, unless we come up with a. gimmick Tehran will no longer be the show biz capital of the world."

"And all of us will be pounding the streets looking for jobs." - "All right, we know the problem. Let's run

some new ideas up Ayatollah Khomelnl's fia.gpole and see who salutes." e

HOMER L. HUNT

HON. JERRY LEWIS OF CALIFORNIA



• Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, on January 5, 1980, Homer L. Hunt, police chief of Indio, Calif., will be retiring after 33 years in law enforcement. I wish to take this opportunity to commend Chief Hunt to the House of Representatives.

Homer Hunt was born December 6, 1919, in Wichita Falls, Tex., and moved to the Coachella Valley at a very early age, attending local schools and graduating from Coachella Valley Union High School.

Hunt established his own trucking business prior to being called into military service in 1942. He served in the U.S. Army, Corps of Military Police and Army Criminal Investigation Division. Upon discharge in 1946, Chief Hunt decided to pursue a career in law enforcement, and on October 23, 1946, was appointed a police officer for the city of Indio.

Chief Hunt very quickly built a reputation for being an exceptional police o:tncer, and rose swiftly through the ranks, being promoted to sergeant on July 1, 1951; to lieutenant on November 15, 1953; to captain on September 16, 1956; to assistant chief on April27, 1959; and finally to chief of police on October 1, 1961. Throughout his career, Chief Hunt has always been progressive and mindful of the need for change and improvement in the field of law enforcement. Under his direction, the Indio Police Department has had the distinction of initiating many new, innovative programs and procedures, and has gained recognition at the State and Federal levels.

Even though Chief Hunt wholeheartedly dedicated himself to his chosen profession, he did not close his eyes to the needs of the community he served, and has been deeply involved in many community projects, particularly where the youth of Indio and the Coachella Valley

37667 were concerned. Chief Hunt is one of the founding board members of the Coachella Valley Boys' Club; has sponsored several baseball teams throughout the police department; organized and sponsored youth clubs, car clubs and other constructive activities for yotmg people. Also, Chief Hunt was instrumental in organizing the Indio Mounted Posse, and obtaining the land that is presently occupied by the posse.

In 1976, Chief Hunt was presented the Santa Fe Savings Bicentennial Award in recognition of his service to the citizens of the Coachella Valley. Chief Hunt is a life member of the California Peace Officers Association, and a charter member of the California Police Chiefs Association. He is a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police; past president and founder of the Indio Police Association; a member of the Riverside County Peace Officers Association, Peace Officers Research Association of California, Coachella Masonic Lodge No. 476, the American Legion, National Exchange Club, Indio Chamber of Commerce, Riverside City College Law Enforcement Advisory Council, College of the Desert Advisory Council; a charter member of Desert Beautiful; member of the Coachella Valley Coordinating Council; and a charter member of the Riverside County Law Enforcement Administrators Association.

His accomplishments have been many and far reaching, and on behalf of all my colleagues I extend to Chief Hunt my heartfelt congratulations and wish him the best of luck in the future.•

THE REFUGEE ACT

HON. ROMANO L. MAZZOLI OF KENTUCKY



e Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, the poignant and haunting press accounts from Indochina during recent months have made us painfully aware of the plight of Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian refugees.

The United States has resettled more than 39,000 Indochinese refugees since the end of summer. Our goal-which we are quickly approaching-is 14,000 per month.

This country's experience with refugee resettlement has underscored the importance of demonstrating sensitivity and compassion for the refugees. The adjustments they must make are many. These tragic people often arrive in the United States alone or the families are missing members. They need health care, shelter, and clothing. They usually do not have an English language facility, and are largely unfamiliar with our culture and our mores.

Despite these tremendous obstacles, Indochinese refugees already have made enormous contributions to their new country. They are productive -e.iid diligent workers. The children· are doing

37668 well in school. The future is bright for the refugees.

However, it is incumbent upon Congress to insure that a responsive network of social services is available to each refugee seeking asylum in this country.

Mr. Speaker, at present a "patchwork" of Federal programs provide different types and "levels of assistance to refugees. Consequently, a great deal of confusion has hampered the resettlement process. So, there are refugees who are not receiving the benefits of the many services to which they are entitled, and for which they are in need.

The Refugee Act, H.R. 2816, will help correct the inequities and loopholes which today impede efficient delivery of social service programs. H.R. 2816 offers a systematic and permanent set of procedures for the administration and resettlement of refugees. It establishes an Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to insure that proper attention and resources are focused on the refugees' needs.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement, starting in fiscal year 1981, has authority to contract for resettlement services with public and private nonprofit agencies. This approach is designed to:

Involve State and local governments in the resettlement process;

Insure that essential services are made available to refugees;

Develop better Federal and State coordination in the disposition of resettlement funds;

Improve medical screening procedures; and

Expand and intensify language, job training, and other programs which promote adjustment and economic selfsufficiency.

H.R. 2816, further, requires detailed reports to the Congress on the effectiveness of the programs, the geographic and employment statistics of refugees, and the activities of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

I urge my colleagues to consider the condition of refugees who turn to this country in desperation. I urge them to support this necessary legislation.•

ENERGY STATEMENT

HON. ROBERT W. EDGAR OF PENNSYLVANIA



• Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Speaker, as the first session of the 96th Congress draws to a close, I would like to clarify my position on some energy issues, decontrol in particular. We are all aware of the need to establish a comprehensive and effective national energy policy and this need has generated a wide variety of difficult, complex legislative choices.

I am deeply concerned about our Nation's dependence on fossil fuels. In 1970 domestic petroleum production peaked, but demand has continued to escalate.


To meet this demand, we have imported more and more oil. The 1973 OPEC oil embargo showed us how serious our dependence had become, but instead of heeding this warning we nearly doubled our imports of crude oil in the next 4 years. Today, almost half the petroleum we use to heat our homes and power our cars and machines comes from abroad.

The revolution in Iran-a country previously considered a strong Middle East ally-has been another shock to our petroleum-based economy. The ensuing scramble of the international oil industry to make up the loss of Iranian oil created gasoline lines and public anger here. Once Iran recommended oil production and export, the U.S. Government felt compelled to bend over backward to establish good relations with the new government in Iran so that further disruptions could be avoided. The price of this policy founded on dependence is the current crisis in Iran, Where militant students do not hesitate to hold Americans hostage.

Aside from its effect on our world stature, dependence on foreign oil makes us constantly subject to supply interruptions and major price increases. The gasoline lines of last summer clearly indicated how unprepared we are for the former; the latter has a more insidious effect. The OPEC price increases we are forced to accept seriously undermine our economy by exacerbating inflation, and reducing national and personal income.

Our country must make a transition to an economy based on renewable energy sources. This transition will take decades, and it wiN require wide-scale private initiatives coupled with responsive Government action. There will be no single or simple substitute for petroleum; our economy will be based on a variety of energy sources, including coal, synthetic fuels, natural gas, solar and nuclear power, and biomass. The private sector is best equipped to make this vital transition. It has the flexibility, the innovative qualities, and the support of the American people. The Government role is one of support and oversight. The Government must set guidelines to protect our environment and health, and assist those who are hurt during the difficult transition period.

In the immediate future, we must maximize our domestic production of petroleum, and minimize our imports. Two commitments will help us do this. We must conserve the petroleum we have now. And, although no one welcomes higher consumer prices, we must allow the price of petroleum to rise to reflect the escalating cost of reolacement.

I have come to believe that the decontrol of domestic oil prices is necessary. This is a departure from my previous opposition to decontrol. Moot advocates of decontrol argue that it will provide financial incentive for the oil industry to produce more oil domestically. This may be true to some degree-in particular the industry may be more inclined to produce oil that is now considered too expensive to recover-but we must face the fact that our additions to reserves are not keeping pace with our increases

December 20, 1979

in demand. Domestic crude oil production averaged 8.5 million barrels per day in September 1979, 3.2 percent lower than in September 1978, and supply will continue to decline. Increasing domestic production was not a motive behind my decision to support decontrol.

On the demand side, however, decontrol will reduce our consumption of petroleum, through the substitution of alternate fuels, and outright conservation. Increased oil prices will encourage investment in new forms of energy such as solar, bioma.ss, and synthetic fuels. As the price of oil rises, these other sources will become cost competitive and we will no longer be encouraged to use petroleum rendered "cheap" by price controls.

I believe that as the price of crude and refined petroleum products increases and events in the world continue to point out the cost of our dependence on foreign oil, Americans will begin to conserve energy seriously. A variety of authoritative studies have concluded that we can cut our oil consumption by 25 to 40 percent with little or no change in lifestyle. These studies-done by the Harvard Business School, the Ford Foundation, and other organizations-have dismantled the traditional tenet that continued GNP growth is necessarily linked to continued energy growth. The Executive Council on Environmental Quality reaches the same conclusion. The Council, preferring the term "energy productivity," states that, "we can fuel the growth of the economy in years ahead in large part by increasing the productivity of the energy we now use rather than by greatly increasing our energy inputs." Energy productivity means getting more from the energy we use. It means more miles to every gallon of gasoline, better insulation of homes, improved mass transit systems, and cogeneration in industry. The Office of Technology Assessment estimates that really available technologies for conserving energy in home heating and cooling alone can generate cumulative savings of at least 13 billion barrels of oil by the year 2000, in addition to helping homeowners hold down their energy bills. Conserving energy is the easiest, most effective way of easing our energy problems. It provides an essential link in the inevitable transition toward an economy based on renewable energy sources.

In spite of the probable gains in conservaJtion and alterna;te energy development, I was not ready to support decontrol until I was reasonably certain that two conditions would be met. First, that the low-income population would not be forced to bear the brunt of decontrolled prices without assistance, and second. that a strong windfall profit tax would be levied against the oil companies.

It is a well-documented fact that lowincome households use less energy than higher income families. It is difficult for these households to cut their energy consumption when faced with higher prices; they have already cut consumption to a rare minimum. Households in the northeast region of the country are particularly burdened by higher energy costs because their houses are statistically older and less energy efficient. Further-

December 20, 1979 more, the Northeast predominently uses heating oil, a petroleum distillate which has nearly doubled in price since last year.

Congress has moved with perhaps rare foresight and speed to provide financial assistance for these low-income households. As representative of the 7th Congressional District in Pennsylvania, and as chairman of the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition, I was actively involved in promoting this legislation. At the district level, I convened a series of meetings to define the nature and scope of the fuel problem anticipated for this winter. Representatives from the State and. local governments, private groups, social agencies, and heating oil dealers, worked on coordinating the Federalassistance programs.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ergy projects while safeguarding State rights and our environment and health;

The Government should provide financial backing for private-sector development of synfuels, solar power, biomass conversion, and other initiatives in the energy field;

The Government and private sector must work together to reduce our consumption of, and dependence on, fossil fuels; a.nd

Price and allocation controls on petroleum products should be phased out in a predictable manner except where the market does not allocate the product equitably throughout the Nation.•

WINDFALL PROFIT TAX BILLS

HON. CHARLES A. VANIK OF OHIO

37669 a strong windfall tax and urge the President to delay or suspend the further decontrol of oil scheduled in January until Congress determines its policy on windfall taxes.

The study follows: CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 0FnCE,

Washington, D.C., December 19, 1979. Hon. CHARLES VANIK, Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade, Com

mittee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washtngton, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Attached is the analysis of the House and Senate "windfall profits" tax bills, which you requested on November 29. Given the short time a.va.lla.ble for this analysis, all the estimates are preliminary and subject to revlsion. If you have further questions, please contact Ray Scheppa.ch, Assistant Director tor Natural Resources and Commerce (225-1494).

Sincerely, ALICE M. RlvLIN,

Director. The $1.6 billion in emergency energy

assistance funds passed by Congress will ultimately be reimbursed from revenue from the windfall profit tax. I have IN THE HOUSE OF REPRE.SENTATIVES A PRELIMINARY COMPARISON OF THE HOUSE

strongly endorsed this excise tax on Thursday, December 20, 1979 AND SENATE WINDFALL PRoFITs TAx BILLs windfall revenue the oil companies will 8 Mr. VANIK. Mr. Speaker, the Con- This paper compares the revenue and sup-reap as a result of the decontro.l of do- gressional Budget O:m.ce <CBO) prepared ply effects of the windfall profits tax bills mestic crude oil prices. The price in- passed by the Senate and the House. It up-

b t ti 1 in at my request a study which compares dates the a.na.Iysis 1n CBO's "The Windfall

creases--which may be su s an a the revenue and supply effects of the Profits Tax: A Comparative Analysis of Two light of OPEC intention to keep raising windfall profit tax bills passed by the Bills" (November 1979), which considered prices while maintaining or reducing senate and House. Domestic oil pro- the House bill and the bill reported by the production-will generate large new rev- ducers will receirve a tremendous wind- senate Finance Committee. enues for the companies, with much of fall under decontrol, much higher in OVERVIEw

the gain attributable to oil that would the Senate bill than the House bill. It Both the House and Senate bills reflect have been produced even if price con- appears that the American people re- tra.de-offs between increasing tax 11a.b111ty trois had been continued. The windfall ceive no assurances of new supplies for and minimizing production losses resulting profit tax will capture for public use a this great exchange of wealth. The CBO from reduced incentives. In general, the larger portion of these revenues than study shows that, under the Senate bill, House bill assigns greater weight to raising would be collected by the existing cor- domestic producers would receive as a revenues, while the senate blll emphasizes

Porate income tax. It will provide the stimulating additional production. The Senresult of decontrol a straight windfall of ate bill is oriented toward taxing existing oll

means for developing alternative energy $633 billion over the next decade. The {lower-tier and upper-tier) a.t higher rates, sources and improving mass transit study uses the perilous assumption that and oil from newer reserves or processes throughout the country. oil prices will rise at inflation plus 2 (such a.s newly discovered, tertiary, and

I will remain actively involved with percent per year. Producers would re- heavy oil) a.t lower rates. The House bill, on efforts to help our Nation make it ceive an additional $144.5 billion as a the other hand, provides a. fairly uniform

rate of taxation across all types of oil. By through this difficult transition to an result of new production for a total take assigning a. lower rate of taxation to newly energy-secure future. My votes in Con- of $777.5 billion. discovered, tertiary, and heavy oil, and by gress will continue to reflect the fol- Producers would pay, under the Sen- exempting the first 1,000 barrels per dlry of lowing goals: ate bill, new net Federal tax liabilities output of each nonma.jor producer, the Sen-

Low-income energy assistance ·must be of $159.1 billion over the same period. ate bill results in more production, but in coupled with intensified efforts to Table 2 shows that taxes paid to all levels significantly reduced tax 11ab111ty. Finally,

Weatherize Our housing Stock ·, of government, local state and Federal, the Senate bill phases out after a. revenue target of $210 billion is achieved in the

Tax incentives are needed to encour- would only amount to 59 percent of the 1990s, while the House bill continues Inage conservation in homes and busi- $777·5 billion the domestic oil industry definitely. This means that the revenue and nesses; will receive under decontrol. supply differences between the two bills will

While there are large differences in continue after 1990, the last year for which Mass transit improvements and ex- the amount of revenue raised in the two estimates are made. The specific provisions

pansion are necessary; bills, there is virtually no difference in of the House and Senate bllls are presented Efforts must continue to improve our the production of oil under the Senate in Table 1.

urban centers, recognizing the energy and House tax. This analysis uses a. price assumption of m i in 1 d in b livin

$30 per barrel for decontrolled domestic oil e c ency vo ve ur an g; I urge my colleagues to support a as of the fourth quarter of 1979, rising a.t a

An energy mobilization board should speedy resolution of the crude oil wind- rate 2 percent greater than the rate of Inbe created to expedite nonnuclear en- fall profit tax conference by passage of fiatlon 1n that year.

TABLE I.-COMPARISON OF HOUSE AND SENATE WINDFALL PROFITS TAX BILLS

Category House bill Senate bill

Old oil. _______________ Rate: 60 percent rate ____________ Rate: 75 percent rate. Base: $6/bbl base price, plus in- Base: $6/bbl base price, plus in-

flation. flation. Marginal oiL __________ Rate: 60 percent rate ____________ Rate: 75 percent rate.

Base: $13/bbl base price, plus in- Base: $12.75/bbl base price, plus flation. inflation.

New oiL ______________ Rate: 60 percent rate ____________ Rate: 75 percent rate. Base: $13/bbl base price, plus in- Base: $12.75/bbl base price, plus

flation. inflation. New discoveries ________ Rate: 50-percent rate on 1st $9/bbl Rate: 10 percent.

over base price; 60 percent on higher amounts.

Base: $17 /bbl base price, plus inflation plus 2 percenyyear.

Incremental tertiary ____ Rate: Same as for new discoveries_ Base: Same base as new discover

ies on oil above a level determined by decline curve of 1 percent per month until project starts; 2.5 percent per month once begun.

Base: $20/bbl base price, plus inflation, plus 2 percent/year.

Rate: 20 percent rate. Base: $17/bbl base price, plus in

flation plus 2 percent/year.

Category House bill Senate bill

Stripper _______________ Rate: 60 percent rate __ ---------- Rate 60 percent. Base: $16/bbl base price, plus in- Base: Same base as House bill;

flation and quality and location exempts 1st 1,000 bbl per day of differentials. stripper oil produced by inde

pendent producers. Alaskan North Slope ____ Rate: 50 percent rate ____________ Rate: 75 percent rate.

Base: $7.50/bbl base price, plus Base: Same as new oil base; ex-inflation; exempts newly dis- empts newly discovered North cove~ed. North S)ope oil. Slope oil.

Heavy oiL ____________ Taxed 1n t1er of ongm ____ ________ ~~;e/f1~i~~yn~;:~eprice, plus in-

flation plus 2 percentjyear. Independents exemption None ___________________________ 1st 1,000 bbl of all oil exempt.

37670 COMPABISON OF EFFECTS

Producer Revenues. Under the Senate bill, domestic producers will receive a revenue gain of $633.0 billion from higher prices for oil that would have been produced even under continued price controls over the 1980-1990 period. In addition, new supplies valued at $144.5 billion are anticipated under this blll, leading to total new producer revenues of $777.5 blllion over the 1980-1990 period. Under the House bill, producers will receive $631.2 billion in the form of higher prices for oil that would have been produced under continued controls, and $91.7 blllion for new supplies induced by decontrol, totaling $722.9""

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS blllion in new industry revenues over the 1980-1990 period. These estimates are summarized in Table 2.

Tax liab111ties. Compared with the tax liab111ties created by decontrol with corporate income taxation only, the Senate blll will create new net federal tax liabilities of $159.1 blllion over the 1980-1990 period. Under the Senate bill, total gross windfall tax liabilities will be $273.6 billion and corporate income tax lia.b111ties will be $82.9 billion over the 11-year period. In addition, state and local taxes, severance taxes, and royalties will total $108.7 billion over this period. Thus, as shown in Table 2, taxes paid to all levels of government under the Senate bill will

December 20, 1979 amount to 59 percent of the $777.5 billion in new revenue received by the domestic industry due to decontrol.

The House bill will create new net federal tax 11ab111ties of $245.3 blllion over the same period. Under the House bill, gross windfall tax lla.b111ties will total $399.6 billion and corporate income tax liab111ty will total $43.3 billion from 1980 to 1990. In addition, liabilities of $99.0 blllion will be incurred through state and local taxes, revenue taxes, and royalties. As shown in Table 2, total tax llab111ty to all levels of government under the House bill will amount to 75 percent of new industry revenues from 1980 to 1990.

TABLE 2.-COMPARISON OF THE AGGREGATE EFFECTS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE WINDFALL TAX BILLS, 1980-90

Tax liabilities Production (millions of

barrels per day) Total new P,roducer revenues (billions of

current dollars)

Total Federalt Total State and local Total taxes ' as percent of total

new revenues (billions of (billions of

current dollars) current dollars) 1985 1990

House bill_---- _____ ----- __ ---- ________ ---- ________________________________ _ Senate bilL ____________________________________ -------- ___ --------- ________ _

No windfall profits taX-------------------------------------------------------

722.9 n7.5 831.8

442.8 356.5 197.5

99.1 108.7 115.1

75 59 38

7.9 8.1 8.3

7.1 7.5 7.9

1 Includes windfall profits tax liabilities and additional corporate income tax liabilities. production and tax receipt figures. To perform this calculation accurately, however, it is necessary ' Includes Federal, State, and local taxes. to use the cumulative production over the entire productive life of the oil wells; to use estimates

only through 1990 would be misleading. Note: Attempts have sometimes been made to calculate the price per barrel implicit in the

Production. The Senate bill will result in production of 8.1 million barrels per day in 1985, and 7.5 mnuon in 1990. Under the House bill, total production will be 7.9 million barrels per day in 1985, and 7.1 million in 1990. The production in each on category under the two bills is compared in Table 3. REVENUE EFFECTS OF SPECIFIC TAX PROVISIONS

REGULATION Q REFORM




e Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Consumer Savings Account Equity Act which attempts to deal with the well-recognized and recently much publicized problem of passbook savings account interest rates which are substantially lower than market rates offered on other financial investment tools. It is my hope that the House will consider this legislation and other proposals on regulation Q in a comprehensive fashion early in the next session of the 96th Congress.

GENERAL BACKGROUND

In the aftermath of the Great Depression, the Banking Act of 1933 contained provisions designed to lessen the probability of bank failures. One provi-

Both the House and Senate bills are a series of excise taxes based on the categories of on defined by the current regulatory procedure. The provisions that each bill applies to each category are summarized in Table 1. The major tra.de-offs between additional tax revenues and on production by category of on are summarized in Table 3. Most of the difference between the House and Senate bills is in their treatment of newly discovered oil, and in whether they exempt independent oil producers, which affects stripper on more than other categories. Essentially the House bill has a. much higher tax rate on new on and does not allow any exceptions for independents. The House bill also raises more revenue in the tertiary oil category because it applies a. higher tax rate in this category. In addition, the House blll taxes heavy oil in its tier of origin, whereas the Senate blll taxes it a.t a low rate on a. tier-three base. sion imposed interest rate ceilings on TABLE 3.-GROSS WINDFALL PROFITS TAX LIABILITY AND bank time and savings deposits. Years

SUPPLY RESPONSE UNDER THE HOUSE AND SENATE later in the 1960's as the Federal Reserve BILLS FOR EACH CATEGORY OF OIL increased this interest rate ceiling and

a period of tight money and high-inter

Category

Lower-tier oiJt ___________ Upper-tier oilt ___________ Newly discovered oiL •••• Incremental tertiary oiL __ Stripper oilt __ -----------Alaskan North Slope oiL_

Revenues (1980- 1990 production est rates prevailed, the Nation's thrift 90 billions of (thousands of institutions found themselves unable to

current dollars) barrels per day) meet commercial bank competition for House Senate House Senate deposits. The net out:fiow of savings and

50. 1 53.3 64.9 66.9

106.9 12. 9 17.0 6.4 55.7 34. 3 72.6 81.2 19.8 6.0

125 360

3, 245 625 880

1, 350 290

loan deposits, referred to as disinter-215 mediation, caused panic within the hous-

3 ~~"" ing industry since the availability of '670 funds for housing-related purposes be-920 came scarce.

1' ~~ As a result of this phenomenon, in 1966

30 the Interest Rate Adjustment Act-Pub-170 lie Law 89-597-was enacted establishing

---------- time and savings account interest rate _________________

7·,

5_00 ceilings for federally insured savings and

loan associations and mutual savings banks. The extension of regular Q cov-

Heavy oiL _______________ Margmal oilt _____________ 12.4 12.6 30 Naval petroleum reserve

oiL_------------------ (') (2) 170

TotaL _________ ----- 399.4 273.6 7, 075

1 Excludes heavy oil now in these categories. , Exempte

erage to thrifts was temporary and periodic extensions of this authority, in general, have been limited to 1 year.

As the regulatory established rate ceilings for thrifts in 1966, they also gave the thrifts an advantage over commercial banks by granting thrifts an interest rate differential equal to three-fourths percent. Thus, in 1966 the commercial bank interest ceiling for savings deposits was 4 percent, whereas, for thrifts it was 4.75 percent.

According to the provisions of Public Law 89-597, the regulators-Federal Reserve Board, Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board-would from time to time meet to agree upon new ceilings. Eventually, the interest rate differential for savings and loan associations settled at one-fourth percent. Then in 1975 by enactment of Public Law 94-200 the elimination of this differential was prohibited unless t.he Federal Reserve Board notifies the Congress in writing recommending elimination and the House and Senate approve such a proposal by joint resolution. RECENT DEVELOPMENT FOCUSING ON THE NEED

FOR REGULATION Q REFORM

During the first session of the 96th Congress, many factors have once again in:fluenced public sector policymakers to reevaluate the existing rate ceiling structure. It cannot be overlooked that the deposit interest rate ceilings of 5.25 percent and 5.5 percent effective July 1, 1979, for banks and savings and loans, respectively, represent only a miniscule increase from the 1966 rates. Without question. the Nation's small savers have gained little during that time in terms of an adequate return on savings deposits left in financial institutions. This has served as a further disincentive to savings. Furthermore, all the Nation's financial institutions have e~rienced intense

December 20, 19 79 competition from nondepository institutions. Money market mutual funds offered by brokerage firms and cash management accounts generated by nonbanking organizations offer consumers alternative means by which to increase earnings potential of their savings.

From the beginning of 1979 through the month of August, the assets of approximately 70 money market mutual funds in existence expanded at an average rate of 15 percent per month. During the same period, regular passbook savings experienced a weak inflow pattern and money market certificates offered by the depository institutions grew at an average monthly rate of 12 percent.

The savings alternatives generated by the market have put all forms of depository institutions on notice that changes to improve their competitive posture, rather than to shield them from market forces, are essential. These changes. however, must be allowed to take place gradually so as not to imperil financial and economic stabllity.

CONSUMER SAVINGS ACCOUNT EQUITY ACT

The legislation I am introducing today recognizes as a major problem of our depository institutions the discrepancy between passbook savings account interest rates and those interest rates offered on various other financial investment tools. A prolonged continuation of this trend will not and cannot be endured. Therefore, I propose that beginning 5 years after the date of enactment of the Consumer Savings Account Equity Act that the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board be required to increase passbook savings account rates as ·soon as possible to the market rate of interest. Each of their annual reports to Congress after 1985 will:

First. Specify the market rate of interest for the period covered by the report;

Second. Specify the rate of interest on passbook savings accounts during such period; and

Third. If the passbook savings rate was less than the market rate, specify the economic conditions which the Board or Boa~d of Directors, as the case may be. considered in establishing the passbook savings rate below the market rate.

~ believe that while remaining flexible, th1s approaches states in no uncertain terms the public policy that Congress intends the regulators to follow and for which to be accountable. This flexibility also recognizes the need to gradually improve the ability of savings and loan associations to pay higher passbook savings account interest rates, as well as for the re~ulators. to determine what the periodic rate mcreases should be according t~ the position of all depository institutiOns and prevailing economic conditions.

As the provisions of my proposal are reviewed, I would welcome comments and recommendations on ways to either strengthen or otherwise improve my approach. Above all, we will need to work cooperatively for this type of reform for the benefit of all financial institutions.•


SUMMARY OF 1979 ACTIVITIES: SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL OVERSIGHT AND MINORITY ENTERPRISE, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

HON. JOHN J.. LaFALCE OF NEW YORK


Thursday, December 20, 1979 • Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, as this session is rapidly drawing to a close it is an appropriate time to review the ~ccomplishments of the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Minority Enterprise, Committee on Small Business. The year has been highly productive for us. While we have held 29 hearings this session, this number does not begin to tell the full story.

Our accomplishments include preserving the small and minority business setaside programs, which faced oblivion as a result of the multilateral trade agreement. Through our efforts, Ambassador Strauss was able to negotiate with our Nation's trading partners the preservation and continuation of these programs.

Similarly, we have been able to focus attention on the Executive's failure to comply with the provisions of the Small Business Act requiring subcontracting opportunities for small and minority businesses .. In our most recent hearing, the agencies promised that not only would they adhere to the program in the future, but they would go back and review the contracts that had previously been awarded to provide for appropriate subcontracting opportunities. We will continue to oversee their progress in this area during the coming session.

In a similar vein, we were able to reverse a decision by the SBA which threatened to diminish funds available for the neighborhood business district revitalization program. Prior to our hearings, the agency had indicated that the direct loans available for this program would be merely $25 million. Through our efforts, the program was restored to its former level of $45 million an SO-percent increase over the threat~ ened reduction.

While these achievements come readily to mind, useful to review in full our activities for the year 1979. A full summary of these concludes these remarks:

SuMMARY

I. SUllf.MARY OF SBA OVERSIGHT HEARINGS

A. Generally February 28 and March 13: These initial

hearings were held with the Aclm1n1strator of the Small Business Administration, Mr. A. Vernon Weaver, who was accompanied by Mr. Wllliam Mauk, Jr., Deputy Administrator. At the February 28 hearing (which was adjourned to, and continued on March 13) the Small Business Administration's performance over the last year was reviewed, as were planned initiatives during the coming two years. As it was apparent from these hearings that the top level SBA personnel were unable to respond adequately to many technical questions concerning the programs and procedures of the agency, it was felt appropriate to follow these hearings with testimony from key agency personnel who would

37671 be tn a better position to answer the Subcommittee's questions.

April 14: Harold Thelste, Associate Deputy Administrator for Programs reviewed his responsibillties on this date. His office, newly created in an internal SBA reorganization, 1s for most purposes similar to the predecessor office-Associate Administrator for Operations. He has direct line responsibility over the Associate Administrator for Finance and Investment, the Associate Administrator for Procurement Assistance, and the Associate Administrator for Management Assistance.

Aprll30: Richard Heckmann, Associate Administrator for Finance and Investment, testified on this date. His duties include responsibllity for all SBA's :financial assistance programs to small businesses, the small business investment company program, and the state and local development company programs.

May 7: Robert McDermott, Acting Associate Admlnlstrator for Procurement Assistance testified on this date. His responsibilities include oversight of SBA's procurement assistance programs for small business, which are principally found in Section 15 of the Small Business Act. Responsibility for the minority business procurement assistance program, previously in his jurisdictional domain, was transferred by P.L. 95-507 to the Associate Administrator for Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development.

May 16: William Clement, Jr., Associate Administrator for Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development together with Dr. Patricia Burr, Associate Aclm1n1strator for Management Assistance testified on thls date. Mr. Clement, who has responsibillty for the entire SBA minority small business effort reviewed the various programs. Dr. Burr reviewed the educational and management assistance efforts being undertaken by her office.

May 21: Paul Sullivan, Associate Deputy Administrator for Support Services testified on this date. He was accompanied by Roger Jones, Assistant Administrator for Administration, Jean Lewis, Assistant Administrator for Congressional and Admlnistrative Affairs, Joe Maas, Assistant Administrator for Personnel Management, and Charles Searcy, Assistant Administrator for Public Communications. Mr. Sullivan has the responsibility for coordinating all support services. Each of the other four assistant administrators testl:fled as to the composition and responsibilities of their respective offices.

May 30: Milton Stewart, Chief Counsel for Advocacy testified on this date. He reviewed the duties and responsibilities of this officewhich are mandated by P .L. 94-305, a freestanding statute.

June 4: WiUi.am Gennettl, General Counsel, and Roger Rosenlberger, Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy, Planning and Budgeting testified on this date. Mr. Gennett! reviewed the composition of the General Counsel's office, and related how it interfaces with other agency personnel. Mr. Rosenberger reviewed the respoilB'ibllities of his offi.ce, newly created in the SBA internal reorganization.

June 13: Howard J. Samuels, Thomas s. Kleppe, and Mitchell P. Kobelinski, all former Administrators of the Small Business Acl!ministration, testified as to their V'l.ews and opinions on the role that SBA and the federal government should play in assisting small business.

B. SBA size standards July 10: The hearing reviewed SBA's pro

cedure used in determining size standards for eligib111ty in small business preferential programs. The GAO, also a witness, had reported that SBA's practice in making such determinations failed to accord with SBA's

37672 published procedures. GAO's findings were acknowledged by SBA to be correct, with a revised procedure and new size standards being promised by SBA to the Subcommittee by early 1980.

Septem'ber 25: The hearing considered the suitab1Uty of the size S'tandard for timber set-aside program (presently 500 employees) with representatives from all segments of the timber industry. Several congressional members a.lso expressed their views at this time. n. SUMMARY OF MISCELLANEOUS OVERSIGHT

HEARINGS

A. NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS REVrrALIZATION

March 13: Representatives from SBA, HUD, and EDA reviewed the implementation of the Neighborhood Business Revitalization Program effectuated under a tripartite interagency agreement. The hearings focused on developments within the program since the Comxnittee's previous consideration (September 27, 1978), and reviewed the potential effect of the proposed EDA reorganization on the program's future.

December 11: Reviewed the progress of the NBR Program since March 13 in light of the abandonment of the proposed EDA reorgandzation. The hearing focused on the reported SBA cut in direct 502 monies available for program, a position which SBA reversed. at the hearing. B. Small business problems wtth insurance

October 11: The hearing reviewed with various private sector groups and the Federal Trade Comxnission, problem areas that small businesses encounter with insurance. The hearings specifically focused on the problems that small businesses encounter in purchasing health insurance and life insurance, as well as the special problem.<~ of srn.s.ll businesses located in urban areas. The hearing also considered the problems that insurance agencies qua small businesses encounter in their dealings with insurance companies.

October 2·2: The General Accounting Offlee testified with respect to their survey of the effectiveness of state regulation of the insurance business. Their findings were critical of the present level of state regulation, and contained concrete suggestions as to much-needed reform in that area.

C. Procurement March 20: Ambassador Robert Strauss,

Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, testified as to the effect of the proposed. procuremen,t code resulting from the multilateral trade negotiations on small business, minority business, and labor surplus setaside programs. Additionally, representatives from small business and Inlnority groups testified expressing the potentially devastating effects the proposed procurement <:Ode would have.

April 4: Lester Fettig, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OMB, testified as to the effect that the proposed procurement code would have on, the labor surplus set-aside program, as well as the general implementation of that program, and the general operations Of the Omce of Federal Procurement Policy.

December 4: Thirteen federal agencies testified as to their progress in implementing Public Law 95-507, which contains provisions to fac111tate the participation of small and minority business in subcontracting on federal prime contracts. As of the date of the hearing, agency performance since the law's enactment in October 1978 had been, with the exception of the Veteran's Adinlnlstration and the Department of the Interior, virtually nonexistent. The agencies indicated that not only wlll they prevent such derelictions in the future, but that contracts already awarded will be reviewed and either amended or terinlnated and resolldted so as to provide for maximum subcontracting opportunities. Additional hearings are contemplated in January to ascertain what

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS actions have, in fact, been taken since this hearing.

D. Productivity March 14: Representatives f,rom OMB and

the Council on Wage and Price Sta.blllty reviewed the actions the federal government is taking to improve the productivity of this Nation. Representatives from the American Pro<hlgtivity Center also appeared.

October 17: ' The hearing considered the impact of small business on America's productivity, and how the role of small business might be enhanced. In addition to ,representatives from the Department of Commerce, the Small Business Adinlnistra.tion, the Council on Wage and Price Stab111ty, and OMB, private sector participants from the American Productivity Center and from the School of Management, State University of New York at Buffalo also provided their input.

E. MiscellaneO".LS oversight hearings February 27: Representatives !rom the

Task Force on Product Lia.b111ty, Department of Commerce, reviewed its proposed Uniform Product Lla.blllty Law.

July 5: At a. field hearing in Buffalo, New York, the subcommittee reviewed the effects of the gas shortage on small businesses in the Western New York area. In addition to small businesses participating at the hearing, representatives from fuel distributors, major oil companies, and the Department of Energy were in attendance. m. SUMMARY OF OVERSIGHT HEARINGS BY SUB

COMMITTEE'S TASK FORCE ON MINORITY ENTERPRISE

A. Implementation of Public Law 95-507 April 10: Representatives from the Small

Business Administration and the omce of Federal Procurement Policy reviewed their progress in implementing Public Law 95-507. Representatives of Inlnority businesses also testified with respect to problems they observed with the law's implementation.

April 18: Representatives from the Department of Commerce and from its Interagency Council, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Department of the Army testified with respect to their implementation of Public Law 95-507.

June 14: Representatives from the Department of Transportation testified with respect to that agency's implementation of Public Law 95-507.

June 28: Representatives from the Department of Interior testified with respect to that agency's implementation of Public Law 95-507.

B. Capital formation August 17: Various private sector wit

nesses, including representatives from venture capital associations, brokerage concerns, and high-technology small businesses, testified with respect to the lack of ava.lla.b111ty of venture and investment capital for the minority business community, and how best to remedy this situation.

August 21: Representatives from the banking industry and the insurance industry, as well as representatives from the Community Services Administration, continued consideration on the dlmculties encountered by minority businesses in obtaining venture and investment capital.e

THE KRE:MLIN HAND IN TEHRAN

HON. ROBERT E. BAUMAN' OF MARYLAND


Thursday, December 20, 1979 • Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished editor-in-chief of the Hearst newspapers, William Randolph Hearst,

December 20, 1979

recently addressed himself to the role being played by the Soviet Union in fomenting and supporting the policies of the so-called government of Iran which is holding our citizens as hostages. The bulk of Mr. Hearst's column is a carefully researched memorandum by Joseph Kingsbury-Smith who is national editor of the Hearst papers.

I commend reading this detailed evidence of the total duplicity of the Soviets who have never changed their stated goal of destroying freedom everywhere and the United States of America as well.

The article follows: THE KREMLIN HAND IN TEHRAN

(By Wllliam Randolph Hearst, Jr.) NEw YoRK.-As soon as I heard how coop

erative the Russians were in the United Nations, by making unanimous the Security Council's vote of disapproval of Iran's actions in holding our embassy people hostage, I smelled something fishy.

My reasoning was that the Communists in the Kremlin are famous for stirring up trouble for the United States in any and all countries throughout the globe.

I recalled reading that they had a. radio station which beamed propaganda into Iran in their language, so I asked J. KingsburySmith, our national editor, if he could get his hands on some transcripts of what they've been saying. I knew some branch of o•.rr State Department monitored all foreign broadcasts and sure enough, Joe came up with the following memo to me:

WASHINGTON.

DEAR BILL: You were so right. History may record that Russia was as responsible as the Ayaltollah Khomeini, if not more so, for the toppling of the shah and for promoting the anti-American fanaticism that led to the conquest of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the kidnaping of its diplomatic personnel.

Evidence at hand shows that after President Nixon decided in 1971 that rather than send American troops to the Persian Gulf he would rely on the shah to fill the vacuum created by. the withdrawa! of Britain's forces from the area, the Soviet government pursued a. pe.rsistent policy of undermining popular support for the shah, encouraging revolution and fomenting anti-Americanism among the Iranian people.

When President Nixon moved to make Iran the strongest miUtary power ln the region, the Soviets intensified the campaign against the shah an,d the U.S.

There seems little doubt Soviet propaganda. attacks on the Iranian ruler and the United States served to condition the people for revolution and hatred of the American government.

A report by the reputable British Institute for the Study of Conflict states that as early as 1973, Iran's Soviet dlrectedr communist organization, the Tudah Party, issued a. program en,titled "The Creation of a. Monolithic Front Against the Iranian Regime." The program called for :r~rma.tion of a broad-based coalition of communist, Moslem, and radical forces to overthrow the shah.

When the shah outlawed the Tudah Party, its leadership fled to Russia. and Eastern Europe. According to Western intelligence sources, Nureddin Kainurl, secretary general of the party, which was originally founded by German Marxists, was stlll directing the party's activities from Eastern Europe at the time of the shah's overthrow.

The Kremlin established in the Soviet city of Baku a. powerful radio station for the Tudah Party-the Voice of Iran. It beamed, and continues to do so, dally broadcasts to Iran. First .calling for the overthrow of the shah, denounced as an American puppet. Now demanding his return for trial, supporting the holding of the American hostages and

December 20, 1979 assa111ng the U.S. for allegedly planning to restore the shah to power.

Siru:e the end of World War 2, the Soviet intelligence agency, KGB , has had hundreds of agents operating in Ira~ not only as spies but fomenting revolution and anti-American hatred.

Penetrating the Iranian armed forces, the KGB blackmailed a Major General Ahmad· Mogharrabi, who became deputy army chief, into spying for Russia for 11 years before he was caught. It also had: a.n agent in the prime minister's office. Western intelligence discovered 'that the second floor of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran was a powerhouse of electronic monitoring equipment, targeted on Iranian military headquarters, Western embassies and the offices and homes of Iranian gove·rnment officials.

By the time Khomeini was completing pla~ for the revolution at hls exile home near Paris, Western intelligeru:e estimated there were over 4,000 Soviet "technicians," KGB agents and diplomats in Iran.

When it became apparent the U.S. was not going to do anything to save the shah, the Soviet campaign against him moved into high gear. The British Study of Conflict report said "Iran's internal unrest was preceded and accompanied by a stepping-up of international efforts to isolate the regime from Western sympathy."

American intelligeru:e monitoring of Moscow radio and Voice of Ir~ broadcasts clearly indicate the anti-American hatred campaign helped to incite the Moslem mobs to invade the embassy in Tehran and hold our men and women there as hostages.

On Oct. 24th, two days after the shah was admitted to a New York hospit&.il and 11 days before .the embassy was seized, Moscow radio broadcast in the Iranian language: "Collaboration between the shah and the U.S. wlll threaten the Republic of Iran."

Five days before the attack on the embassy, a Moscow raaio commentator, Vera Lebedeva, broadcast in the Iranian language a "dear friends" message alleging that "U.S. imperialists are continuing their intrigues against your country." Asserting the admission of the shah into the U.S. for medical treatment will "result in the concentration of counter-revolutionary forces and will lead to renewed danger o! pJots a.gaJ.nst the Iranian republic."

In a virtual summons to the mob to attack Americans, the broadcast added: "The people of Iran, who are experienced in revolutionary struggles, and have successfully coped with several tests, are well able to stop the intrigues of imperialism and reaction and to defend what they have gained from theuo revolution. Death to U.S. imperialism."

One day after the seizure of the hostages, the Voice of Iran declared the Americau Embassy was a 'center of corruption and anti-Iranian conspiracies' a.nd said its ocoupation "reflected the anti-imperialist feelings of our homeland's people."

Despite repeated protests from the White House and the State Depart.ment, Moscow radio and the Soviet press continued to incite Khomedni's mobs against the United States. President Carter sent National Security Director Brzezinski to protest directly to Soviet Ambassador Dobrynln in Washington, and to warn him .that the Soviet anti-American campaign in Iran was endangering ratification of the SALT treaty. The warning was ignored.

In its double-standard diplomacy, the Soviet government voted for the Americansponsored U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the occupation ar the embassy and calling for the immediate release of the hostages. On the same day, the Soviet Communist Party newspaper Pravda accused the United States of employing "crude military

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS and political blackmail against Iran and implied that President Carter lhad taken the hostage case to the United Nations and the World Court only as a cover for a military attack on Iran. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance actually labeled this canard as "deplorable."

This anti-American Soviet duplicity is threatening to create a grave deterioration in Soviet-American relations. It has already blocked Senate action on the SALT treaty this year, and may lead to its rejection next year. It has aroused demands in Congress for a curtailment, if not complete cut-off, of technological a.nd economic aid to the Soviet Union.

Russia's rulers may not, of course, care very much. The geopolitical stakes in Iran are too high. If a Soviet-oriented communist regime eventually gains control of that country, the prize for the Soviets will be of far greater importance than the SALT treaty, detente, and cooperative relations with the United States.

"Domination of Iran would, in effect, mean domination of the Persian Gulf oil supplies to the West and Japan."

I don't think any af the foregoing will come as a surprise to you regular readers of this weekly effort of mine. First my father and, sinoe his death, I have been exposing the Russians as enemies Of our country going back to the '30's. However. should you know anybody who is still not convinced of this fact, I hope you'll pass this piece along.e

THE THINGS THAT ARE NOT CAESAR'S

HON. RICHARD BRUCE CHENEY OF WYOMING



• Mr. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, knowledgeable Americans who have written and spoken in recent tnnes about the perils of big government have frequently warned that if we do not take steps to curb the power and expansion of our Federal Government, we will soon find ourselves in the same predicament as Great Britain, where government influence over the lives of citizens is pervasive and oppressive.

I recently had the privilege of hearing an excellent speech by a distinguished British journalist and author, Mr. Paul Johnson, who said the United States has, in his opinion, caught up with and passed Great Britain "in the nurturing of the Frankenstein state."

To support his contention, Mr. Johnson mentioned, among other facts, that welfare programs in this country expanded at a rate 2% times the growth rate of the gross national product between 1971 and 1976; that Federal expenditures ·for paperwork doubled between 1955 and 1966, and then nearly duobled again by 1973; and that America's recent productivity record has been far worse than Britain's, due in part to excessive Government regulation.

I found Mr. Johnson's remarks provocative and enlightening, and I have asked that they be printed here for the benefit of my colleagues:

THE THINGS THAT ARE NoT CAESAR'S (By Paul Johnson)

Tonight I am to spend 30 minutes dls· cussing what is, perhaps, the most important,

37673 and certainly the most complex, public issue which faces us today. What is the correct relationship between the State and society as a whole? Or, more precisely how big should government be? And what should it do? Let me plunge straight into the problem by listing the three essential activities of government, with which no one but an anarchist would quarrel. First, the state has an absolute obligation to protect the nation's territorial and political integrity. Second, it must maintain internal order and administ er justice impartially among its citizens. Third, it must issue and maintain a legal currency.

It is at this point that the argument begins: what, in addition to these three basics, should the state do? Now here immediately we come to a widely-held and profoundly mistaken belief. This is that the state, from its first inception to the present day, has slowly and systematically added to its functionst hat the expansion of the scope of government is itself a reflection of intellectual sdvance and moral progress. Nothing could be further from the historical truth. The earliest states were totalitarian. In the first of them, Egypt, the theocratic Monarchy controlled all long-distance commerce and large-scale manufacturers. 3,000 years before Christ. it already had a bureacuracy. fiercely defending its entrenched interests.

An apprentice bureaucrat was taught to copy: 'Put writing in thy heart, so that thou mayest protect thine own person from any kind of labour, and be a respected official.' The Code of Hammurabi, the earliest lawcode from 2,100 BC, has no less than 17 provisions fixing wages and prices. Now that the decyphering of the Linear-B scrip allows us to examine the copious state archives of the Mycenaen-age cities of Greece, we wonder how such a slender agricultural and trading base could support such a prodigious bureaucratic superstructure. But the answer, of course, is that it eventually falled to do so. The societies of antiquity were frequently destroyed by the growth of the state and its parasites. The successive empires of Greece and Rome were the creation of a new spirit of individual enterprise, and it was the extinction of this spirit by bureaucratic growth which brought about their decline. That decline was already well under way by the time that the Em.erpor Diocletian issued his famous edict to control wages and prices. Rome's successor, Byzantium, was the bureaucratic state par excellence, in which the government h&d a monopoly of all industry and trade: and Byzantium was essentially destroyed, not by the guns of the Ottoman Turks, but by the competition of free-enterprise Venice.

At all periods, the monster-state is associated with archaic notions, and is ultimately the progenitor of economic decline and military ruin. I know of no historical exception to this rule. Conversely, the growth of possessive individualism, at the expense of the state. is always associated with economic advance. It is no accident that the Industrial Revolution, which began in England in the 1760s, took place against the background of the Minimum State, when government confined itself very largely to discharging its three basic functions. The coming of industrial capitalism, not only the most important event in secular history but the most beneficial, took place not because of the state but despite it; and its worldwide spread was made possible largely by the withdrawal CYf government from economic affairs. During the 19th century in every country which was industrialising itself, public expenditure, as a proportion of Gross National Product, fell steadily. In Britain, for instance, during the 60 years 1830-189Q-the longest sustained period of rising living standards in British history-public expenditure a.s a proportion of GNP !ell from 15 percent to 8 percent. In the United States, the figures are even more

37674 striking. Up to 1914, America's GNP was expanding at about four times the speed of government . The state performed merely a nightwatchman's role. In the age of Lincoln and Gladstone, the Minimum State was seen as a vital element in the stream of progress, because it was associated-and rightly associated-not only with the economic betterment of the indiivdual, but with his growing Uberty.

Indeed, no student of history can doubt that, in the long run, the direction of mankind is towards greater individual freedom . We have moved progressively from the collectivist communities of antiquity to societies in which the uniqueness of the individual is conceded, theoretically at least, and the universality of human rights is given formal recognition. Few now officially deny the rights of man; virtually all agree, as selfevident truth, that freedom is a public good. Just as hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, so constitutions, endorsing human rights, are the homage which the most obdurate and enduring tyranny feels obltged to lay at freedom's feet. Even the most depraved African despot sports some Utopian certificate to give his regime a spurious legitimacy; while the Soviet Union, the most authoritarian and restrictive system of government ever devised, flaunts a constitution of exemplary benevolence.

Of course such documents are fraudulent. Who can honestly claim that the total of human freedom has been enlarged in our century? Two horrifying world wars, in which the high liberal civ111zation of Europe and the Western World came close to commiting suicide, have dulled our sensib111ties and debauched our instinct for justice. Worst of all, these wars gave birth to that historical throwback, the modern Frankenstein State. Governments have developed not only unprecedented new means to destroy, but new instruments of oppression and new ways to lie. All over the world, the state has gorged itself on the evil novelties human ingenuity constantly makes available. It is the state which has been the principal beneficiary of our 2oth century horrors. True, all but one of the old empires has been dismantled: but the states which replaced them have eagerly embraced and zealously fostered all the imperiallst vices, especially doning such virtues, above all respect for the rule of law, which imperialism sometimes possessed. In all these states, government has become ubiquitous and menacing, mendacious and corrupt, and in consequence arbitrary and destructive of private happiness and property, As for the last and least liberal of the Empires, Russia, it is in rude and brutal health, has enormously enlarged its boundaries, constantly expands its sphere of infiuence, arms without cease and, within its totalitarian entrails, furtively breeds the ever-expanding organism of police terror.

What is stm more disturbing is that, even in the liberal democracies of the Western tradition, the Frankenstein State has contrived to establish itself. It is alive, well, living amongst us and flexing its muscles; looking forward with bondless confidence and insatiable appetite to an indefinite career of growth and consumption. The monster is at large all over Western Europe; and in the United States it is the last, boldest and most insolent of all the immigrants to clamber onto her shores.

If I spend a little time on the British experience, it is partly that in Britain the Frankenstein State has done the most extensive and obvious damage, but stlll more because I detect unmistakable signs that almost every aspect of the British disease Is spreading to the United States. I can assure you, that wherever you are now heading, we have been there before. Take warning from our bitter experience. We ourselves were

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS warned, in vain. In 1861, when Mr. Gladstone established the Public Accounts Committee, as a parliamentary watchdog on the growth of government, he warned: "An excess in the public expenditure, beyond the legitimate wants of the country, is not only a pecuniary waste but a great political and, above all, .a great moral evil. And it is characteristic of the mischiefs that arise from financial prodigality that they creep onwards with a noiseless and stealthy step, that they commonly remain unseen and unfelt until they have reached a magnitude absolutely overwhelming."

This unheeded warning has been proved justified in every particular. Year after year we in Britain have handed over more and more responsib111ties to the state. The Bible has a phrase for it: We have given to Caesar the things that are not Caesar's. In Mr. Gladstone's day, the British government employed only 75,000 people, most of them in the Customs and Excise and Post Office. In the central departments of civil government there were only 1,628 officials. By 1974 there were nearly a million of them, and over 8,000,000 employees in the public sector as a whole-27 per cent of the entire working population. By the time public opinion woke up to the magnitude in the rise of public expenditure, in the last two years, it might well be called "absolutely overwhelming." In Mr. Gladstone's day we spent 8 per cent of the GNP on government. By 1974 it had reached nearly 50 percent, and on a rising curve.

By this point, all rational sense had been lost as to what the government should or should not do. It was-is--doing a bit of everything. One middle-ranking civil servant, taking over new responsib111ties, found that in his area alone, government employees were running a gravel pit, a saw-mm, a sign-writing center, a road-sweeping service, nurseries producing shrubs and trees, a domestic water-supply plant and a machine-maintenance business. The elements of this little empire had only one thing in common: All were "totally uneconomic." In every case, he wrote, "we could buy the same services or the same products for a fraction of the cost elsewhere, even without making allowance for the concealed capital investment which was nearly always involved."

This pattern 1s repeated, on a gigantic scale, at the national level. By the middle of last year, the Bri-tish government found itself owning, wholly or in part, 1,104 businessesthe great majority of them running at a loss. Apart from that, they seem to have nothing in common. They include businesses making concrete, asbestos, electrical equipment, chemicals, ships, aircraft, marine equipment, engaged in printing, publishing, construction, civil engineering, cold storage, furniture-removals, nuclear power, oil, gas, rolling mills, quarries, canals, harbours, every conceivable kind of transport, hotels, motels, safari lodges, catering, communications of all kinds, textiles, cotton, sugar, tea, cocoa and coffee estates, waste-incineration, laboratories, tanneries, finance companies, movie studios-everything including a chain of bars, a string of race horses and a football team. You name it; we own it, and it runs at a loss.

As for government agencies-in addition to the main government departments-we have expanded them from less than 10 in 1900 to (at the latest count) 3,068. Among other things, they tell us how to grow apples and pears, market milk, cure alcoholism, make movies, organise supporting activities, dig china clay, train mid-wives, fix dentistry rates, preserve the Welsh language, make hearing-aids, run the herring industry, control detergents and grow hops. They give advice and enforce laws concerned with horseracing, beer, meat, metrication, medical supplies, pigs, potatoes, red deer, theatres, libraries and water sports--and a thousand

December 20, 1979 other activities. They include a Consultative Council on Badgers, a Commission for Motor Rallies, and a Working Group on Back Pain. In 1975--the last date for which I have full figures-these agencies, Quangos as we call them~mployed 184,000 people and cost the taxpayer nearly 5 billion dollars.

The spread of government activities has brought into existence whole new categories of workpeople, whose very existence was undreamed of even 15 or 20 years ago. Here, in the field of social welfare alone, are some of the new officials, using the standard government nomenclature: "Intake Social Workers, Home Help Organisers, Juvenile Delinquency Project Coordinators, Senior Social Workers, Residential Child Care Officers, Deputy Community Education and Recreation Officers, Social Workers for Alcoholics Recovery Projects, Locum Development Workers, Youth Project Leaders, Day-care Advisers, Senior Playleaders, Houseparents, Group Controllers of Domic111ary Services, Supervisng Wardens for Traveller's Sites, Team Leaders, Adventure Playground Leaders, Area Coordinators for Self-help Projects, Long Term Play Leaders, Care Co-ordinators and Play Specialists." All these people, I may say, are full-time employees, entitled to life tenure and comprehensive civil service benefits, including non-contributory index-linked pensions. And I should add that, when all the social workers in the east London area went on strike in 1978-9, and were absent from duty for nearly a whole year, it appears to have made no perceptible difference, and led to no recorded complaints among the people they were paid to serve.

However, this is not just a case of Ye Olde Englishe customs. The Frankenstein State is America's most recent immigrant; but I have the impression that it is growing even more rapidly over here than in Britain. Between 1971 and 1976, welfare programs in the United States expanded at the annual rate of more than 25 per cent-two and one half times the growth of the Gross National Product. Estimated welfare expenditures in 1977 were 210 billion dollars and in 1979 were 250 billion dollars, so that growth-rate is being well-maintained, despite President Carter's so-called 'reform' programme.

Indeed, I detect areas in which the US 1s already outstripping Britain in the nurturing of the Frankenstein State. One excellent index of bureaucracy is the level of paperwork generated by central government. I see that Federal expenditure on paperwork doubled between 1955 and 1966, nearly doubled again by 1973, and that in the four years 1973-7, it leapt by a further 186 per cent, to reach a total of 45 billion dollars a year. A great part of this terrifying increase springs from new or greatly-expanded Utopian programmes, such as Basic Educational Opportunity, Equal Employment Opportunity, Environmental Protection, Occupational Health and Safety, Food Stamps, Student Loans, Price Controls, Supplemental Security Income, and so on. The paperwork involved in licensing a nuclear power plant, for instance, now frequently exceeds 15,000 pages-the size of the Encyclopaedia Britannica-and may cost 15 million dollars to the utility which makes the application. Last year the US Comptroller General calculated that US businesses in fulfilling over 2,100 Federal reporting requirements, have to spend nearly 70 million hours a year on government paperwork at a cost of over one billion dollars.

This rapid growth of the public sector is not only an evil in itself: it breeds further evns. It corrupts the political system. We calculated that at Britain's last General Election in May, considerably more than half of all Labour voters were either government workers or in receipt of government assistance. It is now not only technically possible,

December 2'0, 1979 but even likely, that Labour may be able to win an election entirely by the votes of nonproductive workers and welfare recipients. In the United States the position 18 different but only in degree, not in kind. You already have a welfare industry composed of 5 mlllion public and private welfare workers, distributing government payments and services to 50 mUUon people.

However, by far the most important consequence, though it 1s little discussed, 1s that when the state begins to do the things that are not Caesar's, it inevitably begins to neglect caesar's primary duties. It 18 not a question of the state taking on additional roles; beyond a certain point, it is a question of alternatives--of either/or. Let us take the government's basic duties in turn. First, the stabllity of the currency. As long ago as 1945, Keynes, in almost his last warning before he died, argued that a democratic state in peacetime could not take more than 25 per cent out of the GNP without generating increasingly rapid in1lation. In the 1970s, the British state was not only grabbing hal! of the GNP, but in one year, la76, its borrowing requirements alone were 11 per cent of GNP. The result was hyperinfiatlon. The state reneged on its basic obllga tlon to maintain an honest currency. The United States is now undergoing exactlY! the same experience, and for exactly the same reasons.

Of course the value of the currency 1s the index of the health of the economy-in my opinion, the only true index in the long run. If the state plunders the nation's resources, the wealth-generating sector must suffer. And it suffers in a fundamental way, by being starved of investment. The studies of Robert Bacon and Walter Eltis in Britain had proved beyond any rational doubt that the growth of the state sector is the primary reason why investment in British industry is so low, and therefore productivity so stagnant. With the growth of the Frankenstein State here, Almerica's recent productivity record has been worse even than Britain's; and as last month's OECD report made plain, this is due to reduced private invest-: ment, a lower ratio of research as a proportion of GNP, and increased government regulation.

But why do we need to be told these obvious truths? They were spelt out with admirable clarity by Adam Smith 200 years ago. One of the central themes of his Wealth of Nations is that private individuals create wealth, and government consumes it. The more the government consumes, the less the private sector has to invest. So wealth accumulates more slowly; or not at all, or even declines. Of course Smith was thinking in terms of the court of Versames, the largest, most ostentatious and prodigal of the governments of his day. But in economic terms, there is no difference between an 18thcentury court government and a modern welfare bureaucracy. Whether Louis XV gives the cash to Madame du Barry or President Carter spends it on Equal Opportunity programmes, the damaging effects on productive investment are exactly the same. Near where I live, our local government burea..ucrats have, in fact, just bullt themselves a palace, even larger than Versallles, at a cost of 50 million dollars. Of course it is not called a palace, but a "Community Centre." It does not have a Hall of Mirrors, but it has airconditioning and an ultra-modern 'communications system'. Our bureaucrats do not see themselves as parasites. Nor did the Versailles courtiers, who also argued that they performed indispensable !unctions. And the courtiers at least did not have unions, to protect and swell their numbers, and increase their stipends and privileges. The old-style court, as a vested interest, was a fairly fragile corporation. The modern welfare bu-

CXXV--2368-Pa.rt 28

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS reaucracy, by contrast, has powerful institutional defences and a noisy moral ideology.

Which brings me to the second of the state's obligations-the dispensing of justice. Here again, the Frankenstein State makes it increasingly difficult for the primary duty to be discharged. In the United States and Britain, the ideology of the hyperactive state is the promotion of Social Justice. But there is no such thing as social justice; or rather, it is a contradiction in terms. What is meant, of course, is social engineering, for the only form of justice is individual justice. The sole e.spect of equality which the state ha.s a right, indeed an overwhelming duty, to promote is equality before the law. The pursuit of social and economic equallty is, and must be, the enemy of justice. Positive discrimination, for instance, does and must mean injustice to individuals, and in almost every case underprivileged individuals. Social engineering in education must mean injustice to individuals; indeed it is deliberately designed to produce it. In that model welfare state, Denmark, the notorious state plan, called U-90, produced by the ministry of Education, states explicitly that particularly bright and well-motivated children should be discouraged from learning, and taught that tlheir individual success and the pursuit of their personal interests is unfair to others e.nd should be suppressed. These methods ha..ve been practiced for some years in Sweden and are already refiected in the lamentable economic decline of that bureaucratic country·; they are impllcit in much educational theory already a..pplied in British and American state schools.

There are other ways in which the Monster State actually impedes its own primary functions of enfor<:ing the law. In Britain, and indeed in America too, it is now commonplace for social workers to spend much ot their time locked in battle with the pollee and other law-enforcement agencies. In Britain, the state-financed Community Law Centres-an institution we borrowed from America..-regard.s the police and other government bodies as their natural and inveterate enemies, to be fought with every taxpayer's penny they can command. Two of our newest and most active state agencies, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Race Relations Commission, spend a great and growing proportion of their time "investigating" and suing government departments. We have in Britain, and you wlll shortly be getting in America, a Frankenstein State so big that it fights internal pitched battles and civil wars, and in which government officials incite and assist citizens to break laws which other government officials are pe.id to enforce.

The monster state, indeed, is taking us along a road towards a divided and querulous society in which everyone pursues rights and no one accepts duties. In both our countries, government agencies encourage a maximist attitude to rights-that they must be exacted always, to the limit, and regardless of the oost to the oommunity. In Brita.ln, the legal luminaries of the Labour Party now demand a comprehensive and free state legal service, on the grounds that, if rights are guaranteed by law, 'effective means of enforcing them should also be provided'. They define such rights as 'security in home and employment, minimum income, right to liberty and freedom from physical attack and injury'. I would argue that these are rights that no state ean truthfully guarantee and no legal system effectively enforce. Similar demands are made here. It is a formula for a Lltigational Society. Such a society cannot produce an extension of rights. It can only end in producing a confilct of rights, since the sum of all our national rights is greater than the amount of freedom available to accommodate them. And a conflict of rights which society is powerless to resolve

37675 is bound to end in violence. The final paradox of the democratic monster state is not only that it destroys its own currency, not only that it undermines its own framework of law and order, but that it cannot even defend its vital interests and the lives of its citizens from external outrage and murder. In Britain and America, while the proportion of the GNP the state takes has been rising steadily, the proportion of that income it spends on defence has been falling. The results are becoming painfully and visibly apparent. You cannot relieve a beleaguered American embassy of airlifting a regiment of welfare workers. You cannot frighten Mr. Brezhnev with Food Stamps. The more the state attempts to invest its citizen with the lllusory rights of Utopia., the less able it becomes to guarantee him the ones that really ma.tter-llfe, liberty and the enjoyment of what he has earned. The more the state expands, the more it loses its credib111ty as a benevolent and paternal protector. When Caesar becomes a nursemaid, he ceases to be a soldier. The monster state, with its prodigal waste, its promotion of injustice in the name of equality, and its muscle-bound impotence, cannot inspire respect, let alone love: in the last resort the only emotional response it evokes is fear. The citizen becomes a mere subject. Patriotism is replaced by indifference-or even hatred.

I once regarded· the state as a means whereby the less fortunate among us could be enabled to achieve the self-expression and moral fulfillment which is their aspiration as creatures made in God's image. While continuing to desire the end, I no longer have any confidence in the state as the means. On the contrary, I have come to see it as the biggest single obstacle to the individual selfexpression and moral maturity of all of us, and not least the poor, the weak, the humble and the passive.

My change of view has been brought about by experience, notably the grim record of the last decade in Britain, where the cumulative evlls fed by the growth of collective power and state expansion have become overwhelmingly manifest. But it has also been brought about by historical study. History is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us so novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human oost, wtholly false. It is sobering, too, to find huge and frightening errors constantly repeated; lessons painfully learned, forgotten in the space of a generation; and the accumulated wisdom of the past heedlessly ignored, in every society, and at all times.

Of all those lessons, the one which history most earnestly presses upon us, and which we most persistently brush aside, is: 'Beware the state'. Man, as history shows only too clearly, has that element of the divine in him, the element which causes him ceaselessly to strive for the ideal. It is his glory and his ruin. For in his Utopian quest he embraces the political process as the road to perfection. But the political process is itself a delusion, more likely to lead to hell than heaven. I! a society is unlucky, the political process, pursued relentlessly enough, will carry it straight to Auschwitz or the Gulag Archipelago. But even the most fortunate societies, such as ours, will find nothing at the end of that dusty track but the same man-made monster, the state, as greedy and unfeeling as it was when man first invented it in the 3rd millenium before Christ, with its cavernous mouth, its lungs of brass, its implacable appetite and unappeasable stomach, but with no heart, no brain and no soul.

I belleve it is possible to detect, on both sides of the Atlantic, hopeful signs that we are learning this lesson. The cla.lms of the

37676 monster state are being exposed, one by one, as fraudulent, and the evil consequences of its expansion are being examined and publicized. In those parts of the world where debate is still free, the advocates of collectivism are already on the defensive. We are winning the battle of the intellect, and in time we shall win the battle of government too. By the end of this century, if western civilization exists at all, it will have resumed its progress towards the liberation (liberalization?) of human spirit and genius. When we look back from the year 2000, I think we shall see the end of the 1970s as the turning point, when the civ111zed world, not without pain and grief, returned to its senses, and the democratic state ceased to be our master and beca.me aga.in the servant of the people.e

THE THINGS THAT ARE NOT CAESAR'S

HON. ROBERT S. WALKER OF PENNSYLVANIA



• Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I know that many of my colleagues in this House share my concern over the growth of Government and its everbroadening role in our society. On December 13, 1979, I had the distinct privilege of attending the Third Annual Public Policy Dinner sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. The speech for the evening, presented by Dr. Paul Johnson, scholar, author, and former editor of the the Statesman, addressed this issue in a most enlightening way and I commend it to my colleagues for their reading.

THE THINGS THAT ARE NOT CAESAR'S Tonight I am to spend 30 minutes discuss

ing what is, perhaps, the most important, and certainly the most complex, public issue which faces us today. What is the correct relationship between the State and society as a whole? Or, more precisely, how big should government be? And what should It do? Let me plunge straight Into the problem by listing the three essential activities of government, with which no one but an anarchist would quarrel. First, the state has an absolute obligation to protect the nation's territorial and political integrity. Second, It must maintain internal order and adminlster justice impartially among its citizens. Third, it must issue and maintain a legal currency.

It is at this point that the argument begins: what, in addition to these three basics, should the state do? Now here immediately we come to a widely-held and profoundly mistaken belief. This is that the state, from its first inception to the present day, has slowly and systematically added to its functions-that the expansion of the scope of government is itself a refiectlon of intellectual advance and moral progress. Nothing could be further from the historical truth. The earliest states were totalitarian. In the first of them, Egypt, the theocratic Monarchy controlled all long-distance commerce and large-scale manufacturers. 3,000 years before Christ, it already had a bureaucracy, fiercely defending its entrenched interests.

An apprentice bureaucrat was taught to copy: 'Put writing in thy heart, so that thou mayest protect thine own person from any kind of labour, and be a respected official. The Code of Hammurabi, the earliest lawcode from 2,100 BC, has no less than 17 pro-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS visions fixing wages and prices. Now that the decyphering of the Linear-B scrip allows us to examine the copious state archives of the Mycenaen-age cities of Greece, we wonder how such a slender agricultural and trading base could support such a prodigious bureaucratic superstructure. But the answer, of course, is that it eventually failed to do so.

The societies of antiquity were frequently destroyed by the growth of the state and its parasites. The successive empires of Greece and Rome were the creation of a new spirit of individual enterprise, and it was the extinction of this spirit by bureaucratic growth which brought about their decline. That decline was already well under way by the time that the Emperor Diocletian issued his famous edict to control wages and prices. Rome's successor, Byzantium, was the bureaucratic state par excellence, in which the government had a monopoly of all industry and trade: and Byzantium was essentially destroyed, not by the guns of the Ottoman Turks, but by the competition of free-enterprise Venice.

At all periods, the monster-state is associated with archaic notions, and is ultimately the progenitor of economic decline and military ruin. I know of no historical exception to this rule. Conversely, the growth of possessive inividualism, at the expense of the state, is always associated with economic advance. It is no accident that the Industrial Revolution, which began in England in the 1760s, took place against the background of the Minimum State, when government confined itself very largely to discharging its three basic functions. The coming of industrial capitalism, not only the most important event in secular history but the most beneficial, took place not because of the state but despite it; and its worldwide spread was made possible largely by the withdrawal of government from economic affairs.

During the 19th century in every country which was industrialising itself, public expenditure, as a proportion of Gross National Product, fell steadily. In Britain, for instance, during the 60 years 1830-189o--the longest sustained period of rising living standards in British history-public expenditure as a proportion of GNP fell from 15 per cent to 8 per cent. In the United States, the figures are even more striking. Up to 1914, America's GNP was expanding at about four times the speed of government. The state performed merely a nightwatchman's role. In the age of Lincoln and Gladstone, the Minimum State was seen as a vital element in the stream of progress, because it was associated-and rightly associated-not only with the economic betterment of the individual, but with his growing liberty.

Indeed, no student of history can doubt that, in the long run, the direction of mankind is towards greater individual freedom. We have moved progressively from the collectivist communities of antiquity to societies in which the uniqueness of the individual is conceded, theoretically at least, and the universality of human rights is given formal recognition. Few now officially deny the rights of man; virtually all agree, as selfevident truth, that freedom is a public good. Just as hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, so constitutions, endorsing human rights, are the homage which the most obdurate and enduring tyranny feels obliged to lay at freedom's feet. Even the most depraved African despot sports some Utopian certificate to give his regime a spurious legitimacy; while the Soviet Union, the most authoritarian and restrictive system of government ever devised, fiaunts a constitution of exemplary benevolence.

Of course such documents are fraudulent. Who can honestly claim that the total of human freedom has been enlarged in our century? Two horrifying world wars, in which

December 20, 1979 the high liberal civilisation of Europe and the Western World came close to committing suicide, have dulled our sensib1lities and debauched our instinct for justice. Worst of all, these wars gave birth to that historical throwback, the modern Frankenstein State. Governments have developed not only unprecedented new means to destroy, but new instruments of oppression and new ways to lie. All over the world, the state has gorged itself on the evil novelties human ingenuity constantly makes available. It is the state which has been the principal beneficiary of our 20th century horrors. True, all but one of the old empires has been dismantled: but the states which replaced them have eagerly embraced and zealously fostered all the imperialist vices, especially militarism and bureaucracy, while abandoning such virtues, above all respect for the rule of law, which imperialism sometimes possessed. In all these states, government has become ubiquitous and menacing, mendacious and corrupt, and in consequence arbitrary and destructive of private happiness and property. As for the last and least liberal of the Empires, Russia, it is in rude and brutal health, has enormously enl&rged its boundaries, constantly expands its sphere of infiuence, arins without cease and, within its totalltarian entrails, furtively breeds the ever-expanding organism of police terror.

What is still more disturbing is that, even in the liberal democracies of the Western tradition, the Frankenstein State has contrived to establish itself. It is alive, well, living amongst us and fiexing its muscles; looking forward with boundless confidence and insatiable appetite to an indefinite career of growth and consumption. The monster is at large all over Western Europe; and in the United States it is the last, boldest and most insolent of all the immigrants to clamber onto her shores.

If I spend a little time on the British experience, it is partly that in Britain the Frankenstein State has done the most extensive and obvious damage, but still more because I detect unmistakable signs that almost every aspect of the British disease is spreading to the United States. I can assure you, that wherever you are now heading, we have been there before. Take warning from our bitter experience. We ourselves were warned, in vain. In 1861, when Mr. Gladstone esta.blished the Public Accounts Committee, as a parliamentary watchdog on the growth of government, he warned: "An excess in the public expenditure, beyond the legitimate wants of the country, is not only a pecuniary waste but a great political and, above all, a great moral evil. And it is characteristic of the mischiefs that arise from financial prodigality that they creep onwards with a noiseless and stealthy step, that they commonly remain unseen and unfelt until they have reached a magnitude absolutely overwhelming."

This unheeded warning has been proved justified in every particular. Year after year we in Britain have handed over more and more responsibllities to the state. The Bible has a phrase for it: we have given to Caesar the things that we are not Caesar's. In Mr. Gladstone's day, the British government employed only 75,000 people, most of them in the Custoins & Excise and the Post Office. In the central departments of civil government there were only 1,628 otHcials. By 1974 :here were nearly a million of them, and over 8,000,000 employees in the public sector as a whole-27 per cent of the entire working population. By the time public opinion woke up to the magnitude in the rise of public expenditure, in the last two years, it might well be called "absolutely overwhelming." In Mr. Gladstone's day we spent 8 per cent of the GNP on government. By 1974 it had reached nearly 50 per cent, and on a rising curve.

December 2'0, 1979

By this point, all rational sense had been lost as to what the government should or should not do. It was-is-doing a. bit ot everything. One middle-ranking civil servant, taking over new responsib111ties, found that in his area. alone, government employees were running a. gravel pit, a. saw-mill, a. signwriting centre, a. load-sweeping service, nurseries producing shrubG and trees, a. domestic water-supply plant and a. machine-maintenance business. The elements of this little empire had only one thing in common: all were "totally uneconomic". In every case, he wrote, "we could buy the same services or the same products for a. fraction of the cost elsewhere, even without making allowance for the concealed capital investment which was nearly always involved."

This pattern is repeated, on a. gigantic scale, at the national level. By the middle of last year, the British government found itself owning, wholly or in part, 1,104 businesses-the great majority of them running at a. loss. Apart from that, they seem to have nothing in common. They include businesses making concrete, asbestos, electrical equipment, chemicals, ships, aircraft, marine equipment, engaged in printing, publishing, construction, civil engineering, cold storage, furniture-removals, nuclear power, oil, gas, rolling mills, quarries, canals, harbours, every conceivable kind of transport, hotels, motels, safari lodges, catering, communications of all kinds, textiles, cotton, sugar, tea., cocoa and coffee estates, waste-incineration, laboratories, tanneries, finance companies, movie studios--everything including a chain of bars, a string of race horses and a football team. You name it; we own it, and. it runs at a. loss.

As for government agencies-in addition to the main government departments-we have expanded them from less than 10 in 1900 to (at the latest count) 3,068. Among other things, they tell us how to grow apples and pears, market milk, cure alcoholism, make movies, organise supporting activities, dig china. clay, train mid-wives, fix dentistry rates, preserve the Welsh language, make hearing-aids, run the herring industry, control detergents and grow hops. They give advice and enforce laws concerned with horseracing, beer, meat, metrication, medical supplies, pigs, potatoes, red deer, theatres, libraries and water sports-and a thousand other activities. They include a Consultative Council on Badgers, a Commission for Motor Rallles, and a Working Group on Back Pain. In 1975-the last date for which 1 have full figures-these agencies, Quangos as we call them--employed 184,000 people and cost the taxpayer nearly 5 b1llion dollars.

The spread of government activities has brought into existence whole new categories of workpeople, whose very existence was undreamed of even 15 or 20 years ago. Here, in the field of social welfare alone, are some of the new otncials, using the standard government nomenclature: "Intake Social Workers, Home Help Organisers, Juvenile Delinquency Project Coordinators, Senior Social Workers, Residential Child Care Otncers, Deputy Community Education and Recreation Officers, Social Workers for Alcoholics Recovery Projects, Locum Development Workers, Youth Project Leaders, Day-Care Advisers , Senior Playleaders, Houseparents, Group Controllers of Domic111ary Services, Supervising Wardens for Traveller's Sites, Team Leaders, Adventure Playground Leaders, Area Coordinators for Self-help Projects, Long Term Play Leaders, Care Co-ordinators and Play Specialists.' ' All these people, I may say, are full-time employees, entitled to life tenure and comprehensive civil service benefits , including non-contributory index-linked pensions. And I should add that, when all the social workers in the east London area. went on strike in 1978- 9, and were absent !rom duty for nearly a whole year, it appears

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS to have made no perceptible difference, and led to no recorded complaints among the people they were paid to serve.

However, this is not just a case of Ye Olde Englishe customs. The Frankenstein State is America's most recent immigrant; but I have the impression that it is growing even more rapidly over here than in Britain. Between 1971 and 1976, welfare programmes in the United States expanded at the annual rate of more than 25 per cent--two and one half times the growth of the Gross National Product. Estimated welfare expenditures 1n 1977 were 210 billion dollars and in 1979 were 250 bill1on dollars, so that growth-rate is being W6ll-malntained, despite President Carter's so-called 'reform' programme.

[ndeed, I detect areas 1n which the U.S. is already outstripping Britain in the nurturing of the Frankenstein State. One excellent index of bureaucracy is the level of paperwork generated by central government. I see that Federal expenditure on paperwork doubled between 1955 and 1966, nearly doubled again by 1973, and that in the four years 1973-77, it leapt by a further 186 per cent, to reach a. total of 45 billion dollars a year. A great part of this terrifying increase springs from new or greatly-expanded Utopian programmes, such as Basic Educational Opportunity, Equal Employment Opportunity, Environmental Protection. Occupational Health and Safety, Food Stamps, Student Loans, Price Controls, Supplemental Security Income, and so on. The paperwork involved 1n licensing a. nuclear power plant, for instance, now frequently exceeds 15,000 pa.ges-tthe size of the Encyclopaedia. Britannica-and may cost 15 mill1on dollars to the ut111ty which makes the application. Last year the U.S. Comptroller General calculated that U.S. businesses in fulflll1ng over 2,100 Federal reporting requirements, have to spend nearly 70 mill1on hours a. year on government paperwork at a cost of over one billion dollars.

ri'his rapid growth of the public sector is not only an evll in itself: it breeds further evils. It corrupts the political system. We calculated that at Britain's last General Election in May, considerably more than half of all Labour voters were either government workers or in receipt of government assistance. It is now not only technically possible, but even likely, that Labour may be able to win an election entirely by the votes ot nonproductive workers and welfare recipients. In the United States the position is different but only in degree, not in kind. You already have a. welfare industry composed of 5 million public and private welfare workers distributing government payments and services to 50 million people.

However, by far the most important consequence, though it 1a little d1scussed, is that when the state begins to do the things that are not Caesar's, it inevitably begins to neglect Caesar's primary duties. It is not a question of the state taking on additional roles; beyond a certain point, it is a. question of alternatives-of either/or. Let us take the government's basic duties in turn. First, the stab111ty of the currency. As long ago as 1945, Keynes, 1n almost his last warning before he died, argued that a demoomtic state in peacetime could not take more than 25 per cent out of the GNP without generating · increas!ngly rapid inflation. Everything that has happened in the last decade shows how right he was. In the 1970s, the British state was not only grabbing half of the GNP, but in one year, 1976, its borrowing requirements alone were 11 per cent of GNP. The result was hyperinflation. The state reneged on its basic obligation to maintain an honest currency. The United States is now undergoing exactly the same experience, and for exactly the same reasons.

Of course the value of the currency is the index of the health of the economy-in my opinion, the only true index in the long run. If the state plunders the nation's resources,

37677 the wealth-generating sector must suffer. And it suffers in a fundamental way, by being starved of investment. The studies of Robert Bacon and Walter Eltis in Britain had proved beyond any rational doubt that the growth of the state sector is the primary reason why investment in British industry is so low, and therefore productivity so stagnant. With the growth of the Frankenstein State here, America's recent productivity record has been worse even than Britain's; and as last month's OECD report made plain, this is due to reduced private investment, a lower ratio of research as a proportion of GNP, and increased government regulation.

But why do we need to be told these obvious truths? They were spelt out with admirable clarity by Adam Smith 200 years ago. One of the central themes of his Wealth of Nations is that private individuals create wealth, and government consumes it. The more the government consumes, the less the private sector has to invest. So wealth accumulates more slowly; or not at all, or even declines. Of course Smith was thinking in terms of the court of Versailles, the largest, most osteni;a.tious and prodigal of the governments of his day. But in economic terms, there is no difference betwe~n an 18thcentury court government and a. modern welfare bureaucracy. Whether Louis XV gives the cash to Madame du Barry or President Carter spends it on Equal Opportunity programmes, the damaging effects on productive investment are exactly t he same. Near where I live, our local government bureaucrats have, in fact, just built themselves a palace, even larger than Versa1lles, at a cost of 50 milllon dollars. Of course it is not called a palace, but a "Community Centre." It does not have a Hall of 'Mirrors, but it has airconditioning and an ultra-modern "communications system". Our bureaucrats do not see themselves as parasites. Nor did the Versailles courtiers, who also argued that they performed indispensable functions. And the courtiers at least did not have unions, to protect and swell their numbers, and increase their stipends and privileges. The old-style court, as a vested interest, was a fairly fragile corporation. The modern welfare bureaucracy, by contrast, has powerful institutional defences and a noisy moral ideology.

Which brings me to the second of the state's obligations-the dispensing of justice. Here again, the Frankenstein State makes it increasingly ditncult for the primary duty to be discharged. In the United States and Britain, the ideology of the hyperactive state is the promotion of Social Justice. But there is no such thing as social justice; or rather, it is a contradiction in terms. What is meant, of course, is social engineering, for the only form of justice is individual justice. The sole aspect of equality which the state has a. right, indeed an overwhelming duty, to promote is equality before the law. The pursuit of social and economic equality is, and must be, the enemy of justice. Positive discr1rnlnat1on, for instance, does and must mean injustice to individuals, and in almost every case underprivileged individuals.

Social engineering in education must mean injustice to individuals; indeed it is deliberately designed to produce it. In that model welfare state, Denmark, the notorious state plan, called U-90, produced by the ministry of Education, states explicitly that particularly bright and well-motivated children should be discouraged from learning, and taught that their individual success and the pursuit of their personal interests is unfair to others and should be suppressed. These methods have been practiced for scme years in Sweden and are already refiected 1n the lamentable economic decline of that bureaucratic country; they are implicit in much educational theory already applied in British and American state schools.

There are other ways in which the Mon-

37678 ster State actually impedes its own primary functions of enforcing the law. In Britain, and indeed in America too, it is now a commonplace for social workers to spend much of their time locked in battle with the police and other law-enforcement agencies. In Britain, the state-financed Community Law Centres-an institution we borrowed from America--regards the police and other government bodies as their natural and inveterate enemies, to be fought with every taxpayer's penny they can command. Two of our newest and most active state agencies, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Race Relations Commission, spend a great and growing proportion of their time 'investigating' and suing government departments. We have in Britain, and you w111 shortly be getting in America, a Frankenstein State so big that it fights internal pitched battles and civil wars, and in which government otncia.ls incite and assist citizens to break laws which other government officials are paid to enforce.

The monster state, indeed, is taking us along a road towards a divided and querulous society in which everyone pursues rights and no one accepts duties. In both our countries, government agencies encourage a maximist attitude to rights-that they must be exacted always, to the limit, and regardless of the cost to the community. In Britain, the legal luminaries of the Labour Party now demand a comprehensive and free state legal service, on the grounds that, 1f rights are guaranteed by law, 'effective means of enforcing them should also be provided.' They define such rights as 'security in home and employment, minimum income, right to Uberty and freedom from physical attack and injury'. I would argue that these are rights that no state can truthfully guarantee and no legal system effectively enforce. Similar demands are made here. It is a formula for a Litigational Society. Such a society cannot produce an extension of rights. It can only end in producing a conflict of rights, since the sum of all our national rights is greater than the amount of freedom available to accommodate them. And a confiict of rights which society is powerless to resolve is bound to end in violence. The final paradox of the democratic monster state is not only that it destroys its own currency, not only that it undermines its own framework of law and order, but that it cannot even defend its vital interests and the lives of its citizens from external outrage and murder.

In Britain and America, while the proportion of the GNP the state takes has been rising steadily, the proportion of that income it spends on defence has been falling. The results are becoming painfully and visibly apparent. You cannot relieve a beleaguered American embassy of airlifting a regiment of welfare workers. You cannot frighten Mr. Brezhnev with Food St&mps. The more the state attempts to invest its citizens with the musory rights of Utopia, the less able it becomes to guarantee him the ones that really matter-life, Uberty and the enjoyment of what he has earned. The more the state expands, the more it loses its crediblllty as a benevolent and paternal protector. When Ceasar becomes a nursemaid, he ceases to be a soldier. The monster state, with its prodigal waste, its promotion of injustice in the name of equality, and its muscle-bound impotence, cannot inspire respect, let alone love: in the last resort the only emotional response it evokes is fear. The citizen becomes a mere subject. Patriotism is replaced by indifference--or even hatred.

I once regarded the state as a means whereby the less fortunate among us could be enabled to achieve the self-expression and moral fulfillment which ls their aspiration as creatures made in God's image. While continuing to desire the end, I no longer

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS have any confidence in the state as the means. On the contrary, I have come to see it as the biggest single obstacle to the individual self-expression and moral maturity of all of us, and not least the poor, the weak, the humble and the passive.

My change of view has been brought about by experience, notably the grim record of the last decade in Britain, where the cumulative evils fed by the growth of collective power and state expansion have become overwhelmingly manifest. But it has also been brought about by historical study. History is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us so novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost. wholly false. It is sobering, too, to find huge and frightening errors constantly repeated; lessons painfully learned, forgotten in the space of a generation; and the accumulated wisdom of the past heedlessly ignored, in every society, and at all times.

Of all those lessons, the one whiCh history most ea.rnestly presses upon us, and which we most persistently brush aside is: "Beware the state." Man, as history shows only too clearly, has that element of the divine in him, the element which causes him ceaselessly to strive for the ideail. It is his glory and his ruin. For in his U.topia.n quest he embraces the political process as the rood to perfection. But the political process 1s itself a delusion, more likely to lead to hell than heaven. If a society is unlucky, the politica.I process, pursued relentlessly enough, w1ll ca..rry it straight to Auschwitz or the Gulag Archipelago. But even the most fortunate societies, such as ours, wlll find nothing at the end of that dusty track but the same man-made monster, the state, as greedy and unfeeling as it was when man first invented it in the Srd millenium before Christ, with its cavernous mouth, its lungs of brass, its implacable appetite and una.ppeasable stomach, but with no hearl, no brain and no soul.

I believe it 1s possible to detect, on both sides of the Atlantic, hopefUil. signs that we are lea.rning this lesson. The cla.lms of the monster state are being exposed, one by one, as fraudulent, and the evtl consequences of its expansion are being examined and publicized. In those parts of the world where debate is still free, the advocates of collectivism are already on the defensive. We are winning the battle of the intelloot, and in time we shall win the battle of government too. By the end of this century, if western civilization exists at a.ll, lit will ha.ve resumed its progress towards the llberation (UbeTaJ.ization?) of human spirit and genius. When we look back from the yeM 2000, I think we shall see the end of the 1970s as the turning point, when the civilized world, not without pain and grief, returned to its senses, and the democratic state ceased to be our master and became again the servant of the people.e

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

HON. JOSEPH M. GAYDOS OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, December 20, 1979

• Mr. GAYDOS. Mr. Speaker, 1 out of every 10 workers in private industry each year suffers the effects of an accident or disease incurred while working. Furthermore, it should be noted that in many instances the concentration of industries

December 20, 1979

with hazardous conditions in certain geographic areas, or their presence as the only industry in a community, gives workers, in effect, no opportunity to choose a safer job. Thus these workers are at the mercy of the safety measures provided by their employer.

Another related problem is the vulnerability to hazards of new or seasonal employees, such as high school or college students who are earning money for school during their vacation time. Many of these employees simply do not receive adequate safety training and fall prey to a variety of hazards, many of which prove to be fatal.

Among the various industries throughout this Nation, logging operations are among the most hazardous. Injury incidence rates provided by the National Safety Council indicate that in 1979, as in other years, the injury rate for logging operations is among the highest of all industries in this Nation.

At this time J would like to provide for my colleagues information on some recent tragedies which have occurred in the logging industry:

On October 3, 1979, a 23-year-old Pendleton, W.Va., man died following a logging accident. The victim was loading a logging truck when he was fatally injured by a log falling from the vehicle.

On October 3, 1979, a 23-year-old logger was fatally injured in a logging operation in Walla Walla, Oreg. The victim died from injuries resulting from a log hitting him on the head.

On October 4, 1979, a 47-year-old Marietta, Ill., man was crushed to death when a log rolled off the truck he was unloading at a sawmill.

On October 10, 1979, a 35-year-old employee received fatal head injuries as the result of a logging accident in Shoshone County, Idaho. The victim was struck on the head by a log while attempting to have it towed from the area.

On October 23, 1979, a Monroe County, Ala., man was killed in a logging accident. The victim was struck by a falling tree. Another employee of the same company had previously been injured in another job-related accident on October 18, 1979.

In conclusion, the above examples are intended to demonstrate the serious consequences which can result from hazardous work environments. However, it must be stressed that occupational hazards can be controlled by modifying the work environment. For success prevention strategies must rely heavily on employer efforts and support from employees, unions, and government regulatory bodies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration which has responsibility for mandating and enforcing health and safety standards for the workplace and for educating workers about potential hazards. Scientific support for the administration's work is provided by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health <NIOSH) . Clearly, enforcement of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act deserves high national priority .e

December 20, 19 79

HE WATCHED THE WATCHDOG




• Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, about 1 month ago Charles B. Seib left the employ of the Washington Post after serving for 5 years as that great newspaper's "ombudsman." Mr. Seib has served the Post and the profession of journalism well. He and the small band of "ombudsmen" at other newspapers <there are but 20 in the United States, out of over 1,700 daily papers) have begun a movement within the profession of journalism that can only strengthen our free press and the quality of service it delivers to the public.

Last month, on November 9, Mr. Seib wrote one of his final columns in the Post. Entitled "Having Watched the Watchdog," it summarizes the experiences-the successes and the failureshe had faced during his tenure. I was particularly taken by his analysis of what the people-the readers-think about their newspapers:

There are few among them who would say that it should not be free. They want a better, more responsible press, but not a fettered one.

The 20 newspapers around the country who have hired Charles Seib and his counterparts are to be commended for having the foresight to know that their institutions, like any institutions, can not only survive by having internal critics but are almost always strengthened and improved by it. It is my hope that more and more organs of our mass media will try this or other approaches to take a hard look at themselves and, having done so, to consider ways in which their method of dealing with their large responsibilities can or should be changed and improved. I would especially commend such action to our television networks.

Mr. Speaker, Charles Seib's shoes will be difficult to fill at the Post. He has set a standard, however, not only for "ombudsmen" within the journalism profession, but also for the institutions which convey our news to us. I hope they recognize his challenge and rise to it as they do daily to the difficult and often frustrating job of :finding out what is happening in the world and presenting it to the American people.

At this time I would like to insert MT. Seib's entire column in the RECORD and to say, to Charles Seib, that his voice will be missed.

The column follows: HAVING WATCHED THE WATCHDOG

(By Charles B. Seib) Way back in 1947, the Hutchins Commis

sion on Freedom of the Press urged the news business to adopt "a resolute policy of criticism. of the press by the press." In 1967, A. H. Raskin of The New York Tim.es proposed that newspapers set up "departments of internal criticism" that would represent the interests of their readers.

Out of those suggestions ca.m.e the newspaper ombudsman, a modest attempt by the press to deal with the paradox of the un-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS watched watchdog: the press, which monitors and, in effect, disciplines the other institutions of sooiety, is not itself monitored or disciplined.

About 20 American newspapers now have ombudsmen on their staffs. Since there are about 1,750 dally newspapers, this is not a landslide movement. It is growing, but very slowly.

Five years ago I joined this tiny band (then even tinier) under a five-year contract with The Washington Post. The contract will expire next week, and The Post and I will part company, as was agreed at the start.

There is no set job description for the newspaper ombudsman; each brings different qualifications to the job and each works under a uifferent set of rules. What follows represents the findings of one ombudsman only-this one.

First, what have I learned about the customers-4he readers whose interests I have tried to represent? I learned early on that newspaper readers are more perceptive than most editors realize. I say that as a. former editor.

Readers are quick to notice the flaws that crop up in every newspaper-the headline that goes beyond what follows, the distortions caused by what we in the business call the "hype" and the "needle" or the biases of the reporter, the unjustified implications of overdisplay or underdisplay.

While quick to detect these flaws, readers tend to ascribe the wrong reasons. Too often they see errors of judgment and mistakes caused by deadline pressure and outright stupidities as evidences of a. deliberate slanting of the news.

We of the press are to blame for this conspiracy theory of journalism. We have a. tradition of aloofness from our customers and a. totally unjustified posture of infall1b111ty that encourages such suspicions.

I have also learned that readers care about their newspaper. They admit it to their homes as they would a. friend and they want it to behave honestly and honorably, as they would expect a. friend to behave.

They may not think deeply about the implications of the First Amendment or rush to the defense of the press when the courts slap it down. But, I am convinced, they recognize that the free press is important to them as citizens in a democracy.

Although they may be disappointed in the press and even distrustful of it, there are few among them who would say that it should not be free. They want a better, more responsible press, but not a fettered one.

And what have I learned about the reporters and editors who put out our newspapers?

My reactions may be distorted by my own journalistic background, but here they are: I believe that news people are, as a. group, deeply dedicated to their mission of informing the public. I have known good journalists and bad ones; I have never known a dishonest one.

Having said that, I must also say that elitism is an occupational disease in newsrooms and editorial offices, and humility is in very short supply. Publish and be damned is the mood today and compassion is synonymous with softness.

Finally, the bottom line. Have the last five years been worth The Post's money and my time?

I think the answer is yes, followed by a quick acknowledgment that an ombudsman's triumphs are few and his frustrations are many.

The effectiveness of the ombudsman is lim.lted by one essentie.l fact: he is always dealing after the fact. Since he does not-and should not--ta.ke part in the operation of the newspaper, by the tim.e he registers readers' complaints or his own, the paper has been printed, read and used to wrap the garbage.

37679 While he can promote the publication of

corrections, they have a limited ve.lue. They can rectify errors of fact, but we haven't found a. way to make amends for the story that should never have been printed, or for the story correct in its facts but wrong in its im.plications. Or the one that should have been printed but wasn't and now won't be because it is "old news."

To be at all effective, the ombudsman must have the right of publication-that is, his paper must be willing to print what he writes about it, however critical. Sometimes he can use that right to repair damages or redress a. balance.

But all too often, the most he can offer the irate reader or the injured party is an explanation and e.n apology. That is when he tells himself that his efforts have a cumulative value that transcends the daily score.e

THOMAS P. DOLAN OFFERS INSPffiATION AND CHALLENGE TO AMERICAN YOUTH

HON. NORMAN F. LENT OF NEW YORK



• Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, in an era when many glib cynics attract great attention by decrying the worth of our Nation, it is tremendously encouraging to know that there are those in our land who understand and appreciate the benefits and the challenges it offers. Particularly is this true when this understanding and appreciation is found among the youth of our Nation.

With this thought in mind, Mr. Speaker, I want to direct the attention of my colleagues to a recent address by Thomas P. Dolan, the son of Thomas E. Dolan, of Baldwin, in my Fourth Congressional District. The younger Mr. Dolan is a social studies teacher at the Canastota, N.Y., high school. In speaking to a recent national honor society induction at his high school Mr. Dolan directed his remarks to the role of the educated citizen in this great country of ours. I found his ·address tremendously inspiring and challenging, as, I am sure, did the young people to whom he was speaking.

Mr. Dolan, a 1978 graduate of Hamilton College in New York, deserves the commendation of every one of us in the u.s. Congress for his most thoughtful and provocative exposition. I found it heartening that a member of our younger generation was expressin~ so eloquently and so urgently the obligation of the educated citizen in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read most carefully the full text of the remarks of Thomas P. Dolan, and to bring them to the attention of the young people in their congressional districts.

The address follows: AnDRESS DELIVERED BY THOMAS P. DOLAN

AT NATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY INDUCTIONS,

CANASTOTA H1GH SCHOOL, 0crOBER 15, 1979 I come here tonight very pleased to address

you. Pleased first of all that I have been so

honored as to be asked to be your speaker this evening. The graciousness of your invitation was not lost on me and I am very grateful for having been invited.

37680 Secondly, I am pleased because I have

something to say. It may well be a little while before I have so thoroughly captive an audience of bright receptive minds; and so I plan to make full use of it by saying something worthwhile. I have a statement to make which is a powerful one. In fact it is so powerful that it may well change the lives of a few tonight, in fact it may even change things far more important than just a few lives.

Now I may sound like some traveling medicine man out of the last century offering Dr. Primrose's Perfect Panacea to cure everything from pimples to palpitations, but this is not the case.

The statement I come to make is soundly based on an accepted, if not well known, premise.

That premise is that the single most powerful force ln human affairs is the educated mind.

Part of the proof of that premise lies in our presence at this ceremony. We are honoring you for having succeeded, for having excelled, for having done so very well at your academic endeavors. For this you are to be congratulated; however, you are also to be reminded of a few things.

John Locke spoke of a Social Contract in his work, two treatises on government. This contract was an unwritten, unspoken, yet well understood agreement between King and subject. I would llke to propose a similar contract to you that we can call The Educational Contract. The party of the first part in this contract is you, the successful student. The party of the second part is our society. The contract in this case is similar. It is this-If a society does a superior job of educating you, then you are duty bound to serve that society in the manner that best suits your mutual needs and talents. In other words, America, having educated you so well, can now expect you to aid in preserving the accomplishments of our union.

This is the public duty of educated young people.

Now I am not proposing mandatory military service, for there are other ways to serve your country. Some of these are very concrete ways, others more ephemeral. They are all important.

There are a number of ways you can ably serve your community. I wm enumerate three of them and ask you to think about each.

One, you should consider your opinions; second, support your opinions and third, represent your opinions.

Consider your opinions by making careful choices based on fact, logic, and the beliefs of others you respect.

Support your opinions first by voting. Millions of people every year elect not to vote. By doing so they shirk a respons1b111ty that Is so baste I will not dwell on it. You also support your opinions by voicing them when you are asked and when you believe they are needed. Don't deal in generalities, deal with issues. The world does not need any more of what I call "Propounders of the obvious"; that Is, those people Wfho never discuss Important things, only those things that everyone can discuss without fear of displaying their ignorance.

Represent your opinions by ut111z1ng whatever skills you may have to be a person associated with those beliefs you hold to be important. If this includes serving in elected omce, then this too is part of your respons1b111ty.

Obviously, all of these duties are antithetical to apathy. You have to care, you have to force yourself to care. You must assume responsib111ty to place squarely on your shoulders not only your own concerns but also

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS those concerns that you as llberal humane adults discern to really matter.

Don't just complain, don't just gripe, don't just accuse, don't just argue. Do somethingact, or at the very least complain to those ears that may be able to act in your behalf.

A topic I dwell on in class when I hear people aimlessly complain is the fact that life is not fair.

Each one of you here tonight can inspect your birth certificate to your hearts content, check every square inch of it, top, bottom and all four sides. You w111 not find on that slip of paper a warranty on the fairness of life. Ralph Nader will never take on a lawsuit because someone's life is not fair, because no one ever said it was.

However, I challenge you to go forth and make llfe fair. The reason why I challenge you is because you have been well equipped with the weapons to fight inequity and injustice. With your arsenal of reasoning, logic, compassion, foresight and responsib111ty there is no foe you wm find easy to overcome-but you should be confident that those silent enemies can be beaten.

In closing I remind you of the logic imbedded in my address:

The first premise is that educated people are best prepared to improve the condition of the world and they have a. responsib111ty to do so.

The second premise is that you are educated people who have well proven your ability.

Finally, then, it 1s your respons1b111ty to maintain 1f not improve the world you wlll be inheriting. I am confident, knowing most of you as I do, that the world can only benefit in your capable hands. I am certain you will not let down any of us who are so proud of you.e

AN ANGRY GEORGE WILL

HON. ROBERT H. MICHEL OF INDIANA



• Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I believe that if a poll were taken among Congressmen, administration officials, and members of the national media concerning the most respected r.ationally syndicated columnist, I would not at all be surprised to see the name of George Will at the top, or very near the top, of such a list.

Will is admired not only for his writing skill, but because he is one of those rare political columnists who thinks before he writes. You can expe~t no reflex action from Will. He will not give the same ideological answer time after time. He thinks for himself, and the result is a column that is respected across the political spectrum.

I say all this to point out that Will has recently written what might be called an untypical column. It is an angry column, because Will appears to be disgusted with the idea that the United States, when confronted with a crisis, can do nothing but make sounds and complain about how mean other nations are. Coming from someone else such thoughts might be dismissed; coming from George Will these thoughts in all probability reflect those of millions of Americans who are

December 20, 1979

neither bomb-throwing jingoists nor America-last radical leftists.

At this point I wish to insert in the RECORD "How To Deal With Iran," by George Will, Newsweek, December 24, 1979:

How To DEAL WITH IRAN

(By George F. Wlll) Russia certainly is ungrateful, supporting

Iran's seizure of the U.S. Embassy. In August, when Soviet agents hustled a ballerina aboard a Soviet plane on U.S. soU, the U.S. treated the plane as an embassy, inviolable. Instead of kicking off the agents and freeing the balleri-na to think in peace about her future, U.S. policy condemned the hosta.ge-th81t's what she was-to the uninterrupted custody of the agents. Today, as then, the U.S. has chosen "restraint" rather than other, better options. Even if the crisis ends tomorrow. "favorably" in that the hostages are safe, the U.S. will have hurt itself by advertising its reluctance to act unilaterally.

The U.S. should immediately have jammed radio and television transmissions in Iran, and from Iran. Khomeinl, a seventh-century man dependent on twentieth-century technology, fought for power with telephone calls and tapes from Parts. Jamming broadcasts (and perhaps sabotaging the telephone system) would sever the ligaments of his regime, and would make impossible what otherwise is impossible to stop: Iranian manipulation of the international media.

An Immediate blockade of Iran, keeping food out and oil in, would have had the secondary benefit of discomfiting our a111es. They should be reminded with pain, not rhetoric, that our fates are linked. The U.S. could have bombed the dam that supplies much of Teheran's electricity. If Iranians want the Dark Ages, we can provide the dark. The Abadan kerosene refinery could have been put out of commission. Iran has cold winters. Shivering in the dark would concentrate Iranian minds on the cost of Khomelnl. Iran is mountainous. Railroads can be cut easily by bombing tunnels and bridges. And don't forget the pipeline that sends natural gas to the Soviet Union.

MANY CHOICES

The U.S. should seek to leaSE: the Sinal air bases, and the former British base on Oman's island of Maslrah. The U.S. could occupy the three islands off :iran's coast that the Shah seized in order to settle a sovereignty dispute. The U.S. should ready the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean for B-52s, aircraft carriers and missile-carrying submarines.

From the start, many Americans felt a vague relief that "there is nothing we can do." In fact, there are many choices the U.S. chose not to make. Instead, it spent weeks emitting chaotic signals about avoiding bloodshed, force, even pressure. Carter waited 39 days before even expe111ng most Iranian diplomats. If the U.S. had wanted this crisis prolonged, would it have acted otherwise? Washington is not wholly unhappy when immersed in a crisis that enlivens conversation without actually compelllng hard actions. I detect something like enjoyment of this crisis, with its vigils, public praying and telegenic gestures.

But while Washington is dimming the national Christmas tree, the Soviet Union is forging an iron ring around the Middle East-in South Yemen, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Libya, and with its Mediterranean fleet. Soviet radio spreads instability, as in Iran. Soviet milltary maneuvers are honing a quick-reaction capability to exploit tnstabllity. Within the closing ring, Arab leaders are not reassured by U.S. "restraint."

At the U.N., U.S. "restraint" was rewarded with a resolution of awful "evenhandedness."

December 20, 19 79 It did not condemn Iran; instead lt asked the aggressor and the aggressed-against equally for "restraint." The U.S. should have replied: "You won't condemn Iran, we won't subsidize this travesty. Henceforth, we pay 1/151, not a fourth , of the U.N.'s budget." Instead, the U.S. hailed the U.N. resolution as a victory. As John Jay Chapman said, "One need not mind stealing, but one must cry out at people whose minds are so befuddled that they do not know theft when they see it.'' The U.N. "victory" was a call for the criminal and the victim "to resolve peacefully" the "Issues between them." Issues, shmlssues, they've stolen our citizens. That's not an "issue," that's an e.ct of wa.r.

The U.N. debacle, the effort at the World Court and Secretary Vance's travels ln search of supportive allies were attempts to cultivate world opinion. But what the world needs is a demonstration that, at times, the U.S. doesn't give a da.mn about "opinion.'' There is, as Jefferson wrote, such a thing as "decent respect for the opinion of mankind." But he wrote that in a declaration of independence. The U.S. needs a declaration of independence from the ideal of restraint in the face of government-sponsored terrorism.

!When Pravda supported Iran, many staff members at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow complained that the U.S. was too mild in dealing with the Soviets. Only the State Department could contrive to find Soviet policy on Iran ambiguous. Vance called Pravda "deplorable" (is deplorable worse than "unacceptable," as in the "unacceptable status quo" in Cuba) . Earlier, in Moscow, some Soviet officials were disinvlted from an embassy screening of "G<>odbye Girl." Thus did the American eagle show Its talons.

VIETNAM COMPLEX

Last week, the Wall Street Journal noted that when, last August, Aleksandr Godunov defected, "a contingent of burly Soviets" fiew ln from Moscow. Then "a carload of husky Soviet •tourists' paid a sudden visit to the Tolstoy Foundation estate in Valley Cottage, N.Y., a frequent stopping place for Russian refugees. The 'tourists' clumsily but effectively searched the premises, in the apparent hope of finding the defected star before he received asylum." Have you heard the eagle scream about that? Or about Soviet violations of the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty? Or of the Threshold Test Ban Treaty? Or of the SALT I ABM treaty?

The Administration is decorous with the Soviets, in part because of its paralyzing obsession with SALT II ratification. Last week, Carter yielded to Senate pressure and endorsed increased defense spending. An aide said this marked the end of "the Vietnam complex." Nonsense. Carter wants the increase because he wants SALT II, which embodies a complacent world view that is part of "the Vietnam complex." Were SALT II ratified, Carter probably would no longer want the increases. He has a record of watching quietly as Congressional ames trim his paper proposals.

Three months ago he opposed what he now proposes. And three months from now? If his sudden, Saint Paul-like conversion is real, he is too plastic for comfort. But his rebirth o.s a realist is too convenient for comfort, coinciding as it does with the imperatives of the SALT debate and the mood of the moment, both of which will end.

Soviet troops have entered the Afghan civil war; another Soviet inhibition is being shed. When told that the Soviet Union is helping starve Csmbod1ans, impeding the delivery of relief and diverting supplies to its proxy soldiers, Carter exclaimed, "Is there no pity?" No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus, no pity and no one listening to White House appeals to "the responsible leaders in both Hanoi and Moscow." e


MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE EIGHTIES

HON. RICHARD BRUCE CHENEY OF WYOMING



• Mr. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, at the recent annual meeting of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation in Jackson, Wyo., the organization's president, Mr. Dave Flitner, gave a most informative and inspiring speech about the challenges of the 1980's.

Mr. Flitner, who was just elected to his lOth term as the president of Wyoming's largest agricultural organization, is an articulate and persuasive advocate of the free-enterprise system as a positive and effective force in meeting America's challenges. I ask that his speech be printed in the REcORD for the benefit of my colleagues.

The speech follows: REMARKS OF DAVID FLrrNER

Fellow Americans and Farm Bureau members, Meeting the Challenges of the '80s. The question is, "Can we do it?" And the answer is, "Of course; with hard work, and luck, and divine guidance." The question is, "What are the challenges?" The answer, "They are too numerous to mention." The question is. "Who will speak for agriculture?" The answer is uncertain. Will lt be the universities, will it be the churches, will it be federal and state agencies, will it be politicians, or will it be farmers and ranchers? The question is, "What do you mean?" The answer is, "Many people, as evidence demonstrates, actually feel the federal government of the United States of America, is the producer of wealth, not the productive people of this great land."

The result is what we are all witnessing in America today-nearly unprecedented infiation, a very questionable moral environment, an environment where some of our spiritual institutions are not involving themselves full time in the spiritual realm, but in the social activist arena. We are seeing the threat at this moment on the horizon of the economic system in America, and we are now, ln my view, on the threshold of deciding as a great nation, and as a phllosophical and hopefully the spirit•tal leaders in America and the entire world, as to whether or not this system that our forefathers put together, shall prevall.

I don't think I overstate that, because I have been, this past year, in most regions, if not all , of the United States, and some abroad, where the most really terrifying attacks on our system affects those of us in agriculture who happen to use about 3 to 5 percent of the energy that ls ut111zed in America; and that is in the form of the windfall profits tax. And I don't think there is anybody in this room who is under the musion that that is not a windfall profits tax at all, it is a severance tax. It is a transfer of wealth unprecedented in the history of this republic; from you, the working people of America, to a federal government establishment that will probably continue to use those resources for the furtherance of a society that is so top heavy now with government that the question is , "Can we afford the additional regulation?"

When you add it all up , you 're probably talking in terms of 700 billion dollars in transfer of funds from productive peoplefrom people who have oil rights, from people who own land , from states, basically in the West , to a government that has become extremely remote to many of us , and espe-

37681 cially those of us who happen to reside in our newly designated colonial status of the, Western United States.

Ladies and gentlemen, the choice facing America is simply, "Are we going to eat the seed, or risk it in the field?'' Historically, America has been a land of opportunity, but the direction today is one with a national economy that has been choked by taxes imd regulations that are pressing dowri on the enterprise system and are nearly preventing it from functioning in the marketplace.

The woods are full of examples of this phenomenon, and it would not be really material for me to attempt to enumerate them all, or even part of them, but one is the minimum wage law concept; the very well intentioned philosophical concept that says, "If we elevate the wages of the working man by federal decree, or state decree, that will result in an increase in wealth for working Americans." If that were true, you and I would vote tomorrow, or today, to raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour, so that we could all share in this Utopian type environment that would result from this type of regulation.

But we know the reverse is true. We know what has happened when these type of decrees have come down-it's actually increased unemployment-and statistically I'm not going to bore you with the statistics that I have, but this has been proven time and time again and every time there is an increase, a well-intentioned increase by people who would like to enhance the life style of all Americans, the results on the other side of the spectrum-it actually increases unemployment.

The tax policies need immediate revision ln order to enhance the productive sector of America--the backbone, the foundation, the wherewithal that made this life that we she.re in this great land possible. But they are presently structured in a fashion that is detriment al to anybody that is producing, whether it be timber, agricultural products, energy, agricultural chemicals, industrial products, or you name it, it's the same ball game.

And in the board rooms that I have been in, the conversations that I have talked to, leading business people all over America are so perplexed about this--they are so confused as to why they should be required to have a consumer interest on their board of directors knowing nothing about business, and why should they be injected to this type of consumeristic type of thinking tha.t is absolutely foreign to the business decision making process that has made this nation the envy of the world.

On the other hand we ha.ve seen a phenomenon in Washington, and t hat is not only Washington, within the bureaucracy, within the philosophical thinking of people in the government of the United States in various levels , that says the way to elevate the status of people in this country, Which is all of our dreams, certainly. is to increase the tax load on business, e.nd to reallocate it to those less fortunate. But the law of diminishing returns has been proven, in the last three attempts and efforts where there were actually tax reductions-you know what actually happened-where there were tax reductions, there were actually increases in the coffers into the federal government, which proves the theory that we have held, that if you provide incentives to the productive sector in the form of tax relief, they will produce more, and if it's revenue that 1s the end product, and the end desire of the federal establishment or the state est ablishment, if they want that , give the private sector the opportunity and the incentive and we will fiood them with dollars.

It was my privilege to serve as the American Farm Bureau representative-there were three of us, I believe, in Washington this past

37682 summer, on the National Tax and Spending Limitation Committee, in which time we met with the National Association of Manufacturers, and a. number of other groups, business people, and so on, that would come in one a.t a. time and make their presentations.

And one of the gentlemen that was there, two of them, one was the Counsel of the House Ways and Means Committee; the other, the Counsel for the Senate Finance Committee.

And I don't have their names recorded at this moment, but as we entered into this very interesting philosophical discussion, one gentleman said, and I'm sure he was a lawyer, .he· said, "If we would go so far as to increase the personal exemption by $100, we would decrease federal revenues to the United States of America, the treasury, by 2 billion, and we can't afford it." And I sat there for a. minute, as a committee member, and I thought to myself, "My God, I have got to say something."

And I said, "Sir, would you please entertain a question, and a little discussion at this point, would you mind if I interrupted?" And he said, "Not at all," and in fact I think he was relieved. And I said, "You know, you represent an institution that has probably more financial backing, has the opportunity to develop more technical expertise, more resources whether they be computer, whether they be the business resource, the business people of America, or whatever you would so desire to research to make a. point." And I said, "You have just told us that if you gave relief to certain Americans it would cost the federal government."

And I said, "It seems to me that that is taking a. very negative approach to a. very essential issue if we really desire to get the economy of America. moving again." And I said, "Have you ever considered the possib111ty of taking more pains and efforts and directing more of your research into the stimulations that might accrue resulting from tax relief in various sectors of the economy." I said, "I think it will work, and a lot of people think it will work, and a lot of people feel that the load that they are carrying through both taxes and regulation is so counterproductive to the things that all of us would like to achieve as American citizens." Th5\t frankly stopped him for a few minutes, and he nodded, and he said, "You know, Mr. Flltner, that is an interesting concept, but I want you to know that it isn't very popular in Washington today."

And later we went out, and among all the people sitting around that table, he came over to me, and he shook my hand, and he said, "I happen to agree, really, with your basic premise; but," he said, "again, we've ~ot a lot of convincing to do, on the philosophy or any approach like that." And I said, "I reallze that, but, you know, that is immaterial to me, whether it is unpopular or not. I happen to represent agricultural people that work every day, most of them in the fields; and they're not really too concerned about whether it's popular or not.

They are concerned about the preservation of our society; and many of them feel as I do that unless we get this burden, this unproductive burden off their backs, our children and their children will not have the same opportunities that we have." He grabbed my hand again, squeezed it hard, and said, "I agree with you," and he left.

We are gaining. We are gaining I think because we're right. And there are more people coming to our camp in economics all the time. Hopefully we have the time to turn the corner. We are packing such a horrendous load, and we have got to shout this to the mountain tops at every opportunity, which I intend to do.

Let me give you one example, one example that is so offensive to me, and certainly to you, that you should know it, from a statis-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS tical base. And this happens to be from a former head of the HEW, Health, Education, and Welfare, Mr. Calla.fano that's right out of his speech, and I have a copy of his speech right here, and I want to read this one paragraph to you. And he's talking about HEW. He said, "The department directly employs 150,000 people; but it pays the salaries of more than 1 million additional employees on state and local government rolls, and the private sector.

''Its budget is now 38 percent of the entire federal budget; more than double the 18 percent it was in 1964. In fiscal 1980," and listen to this, "it wlll exceed 200 billion dollars. And if you took the budgets," and I'm quoting, "of all 50 states in the union, they'd fall at least, at least 50 b1111on dollars short of the HEW budget.

"HEW has the third largest budget in the world-behind the budgets of the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union. Most of that money, 75 percent, constitutes transfer of payments to poor people, old people, and to pay medical b1lls."

Ladles and gentleman, as well intentioned as every one of us in this room is, no one of us wants to see anybody suffer, or be without food or clothing; we now entertain a 7 trillion dollar obligation as American citizens to the treasury of the United States of America. Seven trillion; and to the best of my knowledge that comes down to $66,000 for every tax paying American citizen.

The question is, "Is this serious, or is it not?" I say it's serious. I say we have to some way put a Constitutional spending 11mitation on apparently governments at all levelsstart by the concept in California of Proposition 13. And that is one area, and a very high priority area, of the American Farm Bureau, of which I happen to be privileged to be a member of that committee at this time. I think it's paramount to the survival of the future of our economic system, to put it very, very simply. We could go on on lnfia.tion-there are so many statistics that are so shattering, and the statistical increase of federal spending and national debt--a. national debt of over 800 billion-which the interest on that, in one week, is one billion dollars a. week.

From an economic standpoint, realistically, to those of us who are in business for ourselves, it's frankly terrifying. And it's not only terrifying to us, as I found out as I traveled abroad, it's terrifying to those who hold this country up as an example of freedom and economic strength in the entire world. They are as concerned about the survival of America, and our economic system, as we are; but the difference is many of them, and I repeat, many of them overseas are better informed about the consequences of the present direction of our economic system than we as citizens of this great land.

I hate to be gloom and doom, but I am one that does not like to give up the fight, nor will I, but I was very critical of some of my good friends in the oil business, here some time ago, in the recent past P.nd I said at the time that the windfall profits ta.x concept came out, "Why on earth don't you expend some of your resources on prime time to provide a counter proposal to tell the story to the American public and to the world; what the alternatives to the energy situation are with respect to the windfall profits tax, as some people say, the profits therefrom are supposed to be obscene." Do you know what the answer was? A pleading answer, he said, "Dave, we would, but the major oil companies in the United States of America. cannot buy prime time to answer; to provide an alternative to the windfall profits tax concept." But the business sector in America has fallen into disrepute, apparently, with the media. And the reason I point this out so firmly, I hope, is that this is an wtta.ck on the system. It isn't energy; it very well might be us trying

December 20, 1979 to get a platform to present our view on wilderness or predation or whatever. It is an attack on the system and if we stand by as business people and allow another vital segment of the economy to go under, the question we should be asking ourselves is not if it is going to be us next, but when.

Did you know that the Department of Energy, one department of the federal establishment, in 1978 expended of your dollars, 11 billion. That exceeded more than the total revenues of tJhe eight largest oil companies in the United States of America.. And it was an amount larger than the importation of the value of the oil from Saudi Arabia.. That one concept, if I were to be quoted-and I wrote this d:Jwn so that I could get it straight--the windfall profits tax eoncept is the most outrageous and colossal miscarriage of justice ever proposed to the American people. And we are next if we allow this to happen.

We have seen Great Britain and what happened to them when they nationalized their energy resources, and I don't think any of us want to follow them down th&lt chute.

We are already in agriculture under attack, and I had the opportunity to be exposed to this, and I guess I'm getting kind of conditioned to it, because I'm getting to the point where I almost enjoy these frontal as3aults on agriculture, because normally they're made by people that don't have their homework done, and thank God Farm Bureau has done a good job, I think, of educating their leadership and their members.

But we are attacked In a number of arenas, and I just want to recount some of them, so that, without going Into detail-the Water Quality area-there's not a Farm Bureau member here that needs an explanation as to what I'm talking about--208, the EPA, and so on-their legislative desires, and this type of thing, under the various water quality concepts that are proposed, already on line. Ag Land Assessment-there's a big discussion going on nationwide as to the problem of dwindling agricultural lands in America.

Certainly all of us should be extremely concerned about this, and I attended a meeting in Denver-! think maybe one or two of you were there-in the past couple of weeks where we had a chance to address this issue; and it was rather interesting what people gave as the cause; and it was simply economics. And there was a cress section there. I think economics was number one and survival was number two, of the concerns that people said related if agricultural lands were going to stay in agricultural production.

Well that gets it right down to where the calves can eat it, doesn't it--down to where if you have a farm, and it's 160 acres, if you can make a profit on that, and somebody comes long and wants to su'bdivide that, if you are ln a profit making mode, because of the return on your investment, and labor is returning you a fair profit, and I come along and want to buy It, for subdivision you're probably going to tell me no, that you'd prefer to pass that along to the next generation. But if that was not the case, as has been the case across America, as the result of a cheap food policy, overtaxation, unrealistic inheritance tax laws and these types of things, do I blame you for caving in, or do you blame yourselves for caving in, or do you have a choice?

The disappearance of agricultural lands from the face of America is a. direct result of the fact that the economic system has been basically a cheap food policy, and people cannot survive this type of continued stress, so obviously, if there is an opportunity to get some relief, they take that course. Can you blame them?

Some other concerns, certainly, the public lands issue, and I call it basically as far as

December 20, 1979 the recent history is concerned, the mismanagement of the federal land establishment, or the federal land resources of America, mainly located in the Western part of the United States. And here we are, indeed, mere colonies. We are mere colonies; we were not given equal status under which the other states came into the Union.

It is unfair; it's being presently challenged legislatively and in the courts, under the concept of the Sagebrush Rebel11on. We'll not belabor that point except to say that the mismanagement has been so colossal in so many areas-112 EIS environmental impact statements at a cost of over a million dollars apiece plus, meanwhile stymieing soil conservation practices in America, stymieing 'reservoir developments, stymieing cross fencing to enhance grazing resources, stymieing grass planting and developments, stymieing sagebrush spraying, stymieing all sound conservation practices that would enhance the resource in the name of conservation, mind you. It is a colossal shame. And we are paid and are paying as a society for our sport.

Timber-the resource management of timber. I had the opportunity to fly across from Cody in a super cub this summer to a meeting in Idaho from east to west and then back the other way and flying across Yellowstone National Park was quite a revelation to me. I've seen this on a national forest--but the number of downed trees that are actually dead and dying or diseased-to me it's a. national shame in our national forest when you see the resources and the fact that the constraints upon management--the fact that even if a stand of trees is so diseased that the only solution is to clear cut, the regulation will prevent this.

And yet on the other hand Weyerhauser and those that hold private timbers are doing an immaculate job in enhancing theresource and improving the productive capab111ty of that resource and the economy of the entire area and the United States. Here again the regulations coming down, as well meaning as I'm sure they must be, in actual practice are an absolute disaster.

We're seeing that in every area. We're seeing that in grazing regulations; we're seeing that with the hit list on the water reclamation storage, and so on; so essential to the West, with our remote establishment in Washington that does not truly understand that this is vital not only in the economy, but to the future, and that we could, if we have the benefit of the taxes of the resources, from this state alone, develop the water base so that this would be a garden of Eden, on a very high elevation.

But no, they want us held in a colonial status, basically, I guess, so that this wlll be a plan to come and visit, but wlll not be developed. I don't think that this is compatible with the interest to the people of the state of Wyoming. There again, thus the Sagebrush Rebell!on concept.

People have had enough; they're trying to send them a message, as George Wallace once said-they are trying to send them the message without being violent--without having vigilantes' committees, and this type of thing, but believe me, they're thinking about it. They're thinking about taking a stand, and this may be the last one, and if this doesn't work, we're going to take whatever methods are appropriate.

I am not suggesting that but I am telling you the sincerity of the depth of the frustrations people are feeling in America. And it's based on the fact that we have such an unrealistic interpretation of the intent of many of the laws of Congress at the present time.

You heard that people say in high places that it's time we Americans learned to do with less. And I'd like to be very unsophisticated and give you a two word description of how I feel about that, but I'll be very polite and say "Hogwash." It ls hogwash.


The reason we're in the position we are in today is because of the fact that we are not using the resource base that we have in developing them, conserving them, providing the incentive for people to develop them, and enhance them for the future.

This goes right back to our tax policy and so on, and to the productivity and this type of thing. And that gets me to the thought that Joe Reed on our board once told me, he said, "You know, the name of the game is productivity in agriculture. My dad told me there's no substitute for a good crop." And that is true. There is no substitute !or a good crop.

But we're being pressed down by so many constraints, whether they be in the tax or unrealistic economic policies that all of us are suffering and a lot of people feel that we are going to have to resign ·ourselves to an economic policy that will give us less. And I don't feel that that's true. I know that we have the capab111ty to develop a resource base that will provide sufficient energy to fill our needs. Yes, it may be more expensive. but if it's available, we can function, and if we can't function on that, we people in agriculture will make our own. We will find a way, if we can get the weight otf our shoulders to prove that the enterprls3 system st111 works, and believe me, it dces.

This goes on, and of course we talked about inheritance tax, and so on. Why should you build up an estate, really, to have it taken from you by unrealistic inheritance tax, and the American Farm Bureau and others are working on and hopefully w111 be able, in concert with some other dedicated people, to attempt to get this structured so that people can pass their heritage on somewhat intact, and not sell it out to subdivision as is occurring today.

Can we meet the challenge? Of course we can-if we meet the opportunities. And there are many. And I think our focus has to be en them, arid the fact that we are gaining. I think the basis of it, and I hope this is not too philosophical for your taste, but there has to be a restoration in this country to some of the old fashioned basic ethics-of honesty, integrity, and hard work. And if we can be a part of revitalizing that, we've just enhanced our chances 1000 percent. In this effort, we need spiritual help from our churches to help each and every one of us, make us individually, a more active apostle of Christ, so we in turn can then decide, as you are doing here tcday, what is right.

Ladles and gentlemen, we need to think American. By that I mean, we must continue to think and act positively. That's the only way our forefathers conquered the frontier. We need to approach problems witfh one perspective-not can we do it, rather, this is the kind of country we want--this is the kind of economic system we want-this is the kind of overall environmental freedom we want-for our families, and our grandchildren, and we should rededicate ourselves to getting it done. We cannot be content with stopping at the 38th parallel.

We must forge on to the end, regardless of the price, because our goal is freedom. We must insist that with the help Of God, freedom will not be lost here; it wlll be reaffirmed, and reconsecrated. We must also rededicate our efforts to helping otfhers whose economic freedoms are being plundered now, such as in the energy area; and recognize that a successful assault on them is in fact an attack on the entire system. And we will be the next victims.

As farmers and ranchers, we are few in number, but mighty in purpose. We should thank God for the perseverance of our courageous forefathers, who conquered this land, one plodding, windblown, snow driven, frozen, sweltering, and back breakin~ step at

37683 a time. We must realize that whatever the odds, we have an easy task compared to those fearless people who preceded us.

We lha.ve now conquered the land! we have now conquered the sea; we have now landed on the moon. But in part, we've lost some of what made it possible-swallowed up by a government too large, too remote, and out of touch with what made America the envy of the world, the people who work and the people who produce.

Our goal in the '80s is to get America living again. We will not give in, because we are absolutely right in our beliefs, and the only way to successfully succeed is to reinstate the environment and incentives that are an essential part of the market system and that is the reward to producers.

We in agriculture can do our Share. We exported 33 b111ion dollars worth o! agricultural produce last year. If necessary, we can produce our own fuel to do it, and we will produce it. Our need is to save the seed, rather than consume it. You can be assured that Farm Bureau will be in the forefront of the struggle-in the counties, in the schoolhouses, in the legislatures, and in the courts, because we are going to preserve the seed of productivity and private incentive that has made our country, our lives, and our system the economic and spiritual ideal of the entire world. Thank you.e

H.R. 5010

HON-. JOHN J. RHODES OF ARIZONA



e Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker, today the House passed and sent to the President H.R. 5010, a bill which will encourage more grassroots political participation by volunteers, and by local political parties. The bill had been slightly modified by the Senate.

Last Fall, after the House passed the original H.R. 5010 by voice vote, David Broder wrote the following piece which appeared in the Washington Post of September 29, 1979. Like Mr. Broder, I believe passage of H.R. 5010 is ''a step toward sanity in rules regulating the conduct of American elections."

The article follows: BUMPER STICKERS, WITHOUT LIMIT

(By David S. Broder) It took barely 15 minutes !or the House

to pass HR 5010 earlier this month, and no one even asked for a roll-call vote. In the rush of events, few people have bothered to note what has happened.

To be honest, it hardly rates up there with the pope's visit to the United States or the Soviet brigade in Cuba as a news story. But HR 5010 is a. small step toward sanity in the rules regulating the conduct of American elections. It aJso is a timely demonstration that, even in Congress, common sense can occasionally prevaiJ over crasser instincts.

The background on the bill is this: in its rush to "reform" the smelly campaign finance practices revealed by Watergate, Congress five years a.go legislated some new restrictions that had a ch1lling effect on the local, volunteer political party activity that can add so much to the average citizen's sense of involvement in the choice O'f the president.

With Treasury funds financing the CarterFord contest, and tight spending limits in

37684 effect, there was a natural tendency to hoard the scarce dollars for the "big-ticket items," particularly purchase of television ttme and rental of jet planes to move the candidates around the country.

As a strategy for mass-marketing politicians to a national constituency, the airport-television studio approach was eminently sensible. But, as almost every observer of the last presidential campaign noted, the local, small-scale electioneering, which traditionally has provided so much of the color and flavor of American politics, was sadly missing in 1976. In many big-city neighborhoods and in most small towns, there was nothing to suggest that America was choosing a president-no local headquarters, no banners, no bumper stickers, no buttons and almost no volunteer activity.

The reason was simple: the national campaign headquarters allocated virtually no money for local electioneering. And local party organizations were inhibited or intimidated by the new rules from doing much of anything on their own.

The threat of prosecution for fa111ng toreport on the cost of such activities or spending beyond the limits was enough to keep most local Republican and Democratic activists out of the Ford and Carter campaigns.

The House bill addresses this problem directly by providing a. blanket exemption for state and local party committees to purchase, without limit, the buttons, bumper stickers, yard signs and other campaign materials used by volunteers. It also exempts those committees from any limits on what they may spend for voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns on behalf of their presidential tickets. Reporting requirements are eliminated for party committees riasing or spending less than $5,000-rather than the $1,000 floor that was used in the old law.

The effect and intent of the House-passed amendments is to encourage, rather than inhibit, local volunteer involvement 1n the presidential campaign by Democratic and Republican committees.

Along with the increase in the federal subsidy of the national party conventions, from $2 m1llion to $3 m11lion apiece, these provisions make HR 5010 the most positive measure for the strengthening of the political parties to move through Congress in years.

What is equally remarkable is the manner of the b1ll's passage. After years of bitter partisan battles over other kinds of campaign-finance legislation, particularly the recurrent proposals for public subsidy of congressional campaigns, the quarrel,:;ome Democrats and Republlcans on the House Administration Committee decided it was time to get their act together.

Chairman Frank Thompson Jr. (D-N.J.) and Rep. Blll Frenzel (Rr-Mtnn.) agreed to legislate in the areas where bipartisan agreement was possible, and to avoid the issues where they had split time and again. "Thompy and I agreed," Frenzel said, "it was time to stop cat-fighting and do something that had to be done." The result was that, as Thompson said, "the committee finds itself in the unusual position of being awash in a sea of uncritical acclaim."

With unanimous and bipartisan backing from the committee members, the blll was passed by the House in the bUnking of an eye. A similar measure, also enjoying bipartisan support, is awaiting floor action in the Senate. It's not a big story, but it is encouraging testimony for those who would like to belleve that both the political parties and the Congress can look more Ukely and responsible than they have in the past.e


NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION AFTER THREE MILE ISLAND: WHAT IS HAPPENING AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

HON. JONATHAN B. BINGHAM OF NEW YORK



• Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like very strongly to commend to my colleagues one of the most insightful, thought provoking, and concise analyses of the problems and future of nuclear energy which I have come across since Three Mile Island.

In a statement which appears in full below, Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Victor Gilinsky targets precisely our most important and dimcult task as decisionmakers: To determine a standard for safety upon which regulatory decisions can be based. Without such a standard, he points out, " ... each nuclear safety problem is unique, each calls for a handwriting return to square one. . . . It is a question both philosophical and political, economic and technical, and somehow we have to find an answer." It is a question for the Commission, the President, and the Congress to decide, not the NRC stat!, he argues persuasively.

Commissioner Gllinsky describes a nuclear regulatory establishment historically preoccupied with licensing issues at the expense of safety, and ill prepared to fill the "vacuum" created by the reordering of priorities which began with the aboliton of the old Atomic Energy Commission in 1976. "What we have been using in place of a standard for safety was an answer:" he points out, "the answer was provided by the Rassmussen safety study which was taken to say, in effect, there was little to worry about, and by the political imperative of allowing plants to continue in operation willy, nilly." In the wake of the NRC's decision that this study's risk estimates were "unreliable," and of the message from the Presidential Commission's report on Three Mile Island that even their suggested reforms cannot insure that accidents will not happen, it is up to us, Gilinsky claims, to fmd out what are tolerable limits of risk. Only this way can we begin to make intell1gent decisions about the energy future of this country.

The question does not arise in automobile or airline safety because. as Gilinsky points out, we have a significant statistical sample for estimating safety, and thus for relating regulatory requirements to performance. Not so with nuclear. Five hundred reactor-years of experience-and less than 50 of these having been logged in the newer, ove!"-900-megawatt category of plants--make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to proceed on the same basis with regulating this technology as with others.

In elaborating on the key areas for nuclear reform-emergency planning, feedback of safety information, utility

December 20, 1979

qua~cations and performance, and 11-c.ensmg procedures--Commissioner Gilmsky underscores the missing element· Any fixed point of reference. ·

I urge my colleagues to read the entire statement: NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION AFTER THREE

Mn.E ISLAND: WHAT Is HAPPENING AND WHAT DoES IT MEAN?

(By Victor GlUnsky) My talk is about nuclear safety: not the

nuts and bolts of reactor safety systems, but rather the more political side of the subject. I want to tell you about a change in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's approach to reactor regulation that has come about in the wake of the accident at Three Mile Island and what it means for the future of commercial nuclear power. The new approach amounts to a greater emphasis on protection of the public against the dangers inherent in power reactor operation. The change was long overdue.

In the fall of 1976, when I spoke here at Brown on nuclear safety and federal regulation, the NRC had been in business a little over a year and a half. It had been separated from the old Atomic Energy Commission, because Congress felt the AEC's vigorous boosting of the expansion of nuclear power had an inhibiting effect on its regulatory staff. NRC was established to make sure that expansion was not bought at the price of safety.

Unfortunately, there was a flaw in the system of priorities inherited from the AEC. For while NRC's mandate was safety, its top priority was licensing nuclear power plants. Performance in the new regulatory agency tended to be measured in terms of how many licenses were granted and how fast the proceedings were closed; the assumption was that the level of safety attained was already well beyond what was needed. This turned out not to be, so the flaw turned out to be fundamental. It took Three Mile Island to grind it out.

I do not want to leave you with the impression that the NRC staff was previously unconcerned. about safety. For the most part the working level engineers are a highly competent lot and what nuclear safety we have is due in large measure to their professional pride and sense of responsib111ty. Nevertheless safety was too often short-changed by internal management imperatives and external pressures, to which the agency was particularly vulnerable because the relatively elastic and informal rules of reactor regulation left considerable scope for subjective judgments.

We have made more progress in reorienting nuclear regulation this year than 1n the previous four years of NRC's existence. Our conceptual difficulties, however, are by no means over: the new emphasis on safety has brought us face to face with questions that have lain unanswered for years: How much public protection are we to require? How much risk is tolerable? An ultimately sensible system of nuclear regulation is going to depend on how successfully we grapple with these questions.

PRESSURES AND PRIORITIES: LICENSING VS.

SAFETY The change which is now taking place took

so long because until very recently, any effort to tighten restrictions has pitted the safety reviewers against an entrenched system (rightly perceived by the Kemeny CommisSion as a hangover from the Atomic Energy Commission) designed to foster expanded participation and growth in nuclear power. We should remember that for years the AEC encouraged electric uti11ty companies, almost without exception, to buy nu-

December 20, 1979 clea.r power pla.nts. In thts atmosphere, the burden of proof in administering the system or safety regulation always !ell on the regulators to justify negative findings on safety matters and consequent construction licensing delays.

Regulators were accused of indeCision and maligned as nervous bureaucrats worrying the technology to death with their regulations a.nd delays. When safety regulation was beginning to firm up, legislative proposals were pressed to "streamline" licensing and cut back on what were regarded as excessive safety review. AEC Chairman Glenn Seaborg, writing in 1971, bemoaned the !act that "procedures !or regulating the use of atomic energy ... impose a serious financial and time-consuming burden on the licensees of the AEC." The chief goal of regulatory improvement was conceived by a successor as "squeezing the water out of the system." Reactors were deemed to be sumciently safe and regulators were not encouraged to find new problems.

Atomic Energy Commission staff meetings with the Director of Regulation or with Commissioners were more likely to be held on licensing schedules than on safety problems, a habit that continued in the early days of the NRC. The now defunct Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, acting as the jealous protector of nuclear energy expansion, ritually pressed the regulators !or an answer to the question "Are power reactors safe or aren't they?" and almost invariably got a dutiful yes.

The very vulnerab111ty, at a.ny rate the imagined vulnerab111ty, of nuclear energy development to any quaUftcation of the regulators' safety judgment m111tated against any expression of doubt on their part. Beyond that, the truth 1s that !or all the elaborate reviews. computer accident scenarios and the extensive regulatory requirements so onerous to the utilities, most of the regulatory technicians-along with their industry coun terparts-belleved, deep down, they were only gilding the llly with their safety rules, that accidents were remote, that nuclear power plants did not pose serious risks, that the important possib111ties had been covered.

In any case, none of this was calculated to inspire the respect of the nuclear industry !or its regulators. NRC's public image, as well as its self-image, was less that of a tough but fair regulator than of a bureaucratic irritant bent on nitpicking an important growing industry to death. How else can one explain the regulators' use of the pejorative industry term "ratcheting"-piling on more and more regulation-to describe their own work.

The basic flaw in the system, then, was the secondary priority assigned to questioning and improving safety, an attitude legitimized by the astronomically small risk estimates of the Rasmussen Report. The complacency, and ultimately the sheer sloppiness, of the nuclear enterprise which so appalled the Kemeny Commission and led it to call !or a "fundamental change in attitude" was the result. Three Mile Island shattered that complacency. As one of our top officials said, "This was one we hadn't planned !or."

It would be inaccurate to say that the change in NRC stems entirely from the accident. The NRC was slowly being pulled loose from its origins and was beginning to take on its own identity as the independent guardian of the public health and safety. Vital to this process was the shift in Congressional oversight away from the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, and the implementation of the "Government in the Sunshine Act," both of which came in early 1977. Since that time the NRC staff and the Commission have had to learn to talk with increasing frankness about safety problems before skeptical Congressional

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS oversight committees as well as in open Commission meetings, and to live with the public t.ranscripts. After 1977 the Commission's outlook shifted as its membership changed. By January of 1979, the Commissioners were emboldened to issue a statement on the Rasmussen Report describing its overall estimates of risk as "unreliable." In March, just before Three Mile Island, the NRC took firm action after a persistent NRC inspector found calculations on the earthquake resistance of piping systems to be incorrect. The Commission, without hesitation, shut down five affected reactors immediately and followed, despite a howl of protest from the industry and from many in the Congress, with an extensive review of industry practices. A CHANGE IN APPROACH: THE 6 MONTHS BE

TWEEN TMI AND THE KEMENY REPORT

Then came Three Mile Island. The Kemeny Report concludes that pre

vention of future nuclear accidents can be accomplished only by "a fundamental change in attitude" among_ the regulators and in the nuclear industry, As I have indicated, a "fundamental change in attitude" has already taken place; more than that, there 'tlas been a major upheaval in the way NRC goes about its business.

In the half year since the Three Mile Island accident the NRC has taken a number of major steps toward self-examination and improved safety: NRC has commissioned an independent special inquiry into the circumstances leading up to the accident, the accident itself, and the industry and Commission response. It is headed by a director and deputy director from outside the agency and the investigatory staff numbers about 60. I expect this report, due around the first of next year, to be the most thorough of all the Three Mile Island accident studies.

Almost immediately after the accident, a special NRC "Lessons Learned" task force was set up to analyze the accident and identify necessary changes in licensing requirements. So far, this has resulted in over twenty specific recommendations for changes in hardware and procedures, all of which have been adopted. Tight schedules-and deadlines-have been set for implementing these requirements.

More generally, the NRC is giving particularly intensive attention to the improved gathering and analysis of safety data from operating plants, to improved operator training and licensing, to stricter requirements for ut111ty technical and management capab111ty, and to emergency planning and readiness.

Feedback of safety information The President's Commission was exactly

on target in finding that NRC was deficient in having no systematic method of gathering and evaluating the enormous amount of information on nuclear powerplant operating experience. In going forward with nuclear technology despite areas of uncertainty, we are operating on the assumption that trouble wlll appear in the small before it manifests itself in the large.

It is a reasonable assumption, but it does imply a commitment to keep a close watch on operations and to fix what needs fixing. A failure to do so led the NRC to overlooK an event at the Davls-Besse plant a year and a half before Three Mile Island; had we been carefully sifting safety data, we would have been warned of the danger at Middletown. A special safety data evalution office has now been set up in NRC to perform this extremely important function.

There is an additional reason why this systematic assessment of operating experience is so important. Beyond our relatively limited overall experience with nuclear plants 1s the

37685 fact that the current generation of large plants are complex, highly interactive systems whose operational characteristics are not fully understood. Of the 500 or so reactor years of commercial experience so far accumulated, only about 50 have been logged in the newer, over-900 megawatt category.

The size and complexity of these plants increased rapidly over a relatively short time, from a few hundred to greater than 1,000 megawatts, before any substantial operating experience had built up for ple.nts at the intermediate levels. We were outrunning our experience. While a power level llmitation was placed on all new plants in 1973, the fact remains that we still need to develop a better understanding of the operational characteristics of these huge plants; systematic and prompt use of operational feedback is essential to modify operating procedures and to update training and qualification of the operators.

Utility qualifications I do not think I have to explain why up

grading reactor operator training is necessary, but a word about the problem with the technical and management capab111ties or the electric ut111ty companies is in order. In his supplemental views on the Kemeny report, Governor Babbitt rightly complained that the report left some serious unresolved issues, one of them being that the proprietors of Three Mile Island were obviously not the only electric utility that did not measure up even to minimal standards. (Our staff, by the way, puts them about in the middle of the scale.) This, he felt, raised serious questions about the practice of licensing essentially any utillty that wanted a nuclear power plant. He found it remarkable that the nuclear sheep were not separated from the goats.

There are a number of reasons for this. As I mentioned earlier the AEC encouraged all utilities to buy nuclear plants. It wasn't then going to rule the smaller ones ineligible for licenses. Also, the clannish utillties industry-historically hypersensitive to any government involvement in the generation of electricity-was in a position to bring powerful pressure to bear on anything regarded as excessive interference from that quarter. While the NRC is charged with determining the qualifications of electric utilities to operate nuclear plants, this rule was never vigorously applied.

Of course, the obvious shortcomings of the Three Mile Island management wm lead to sharper scrutiny of license applicants, but if NRC should try separating sheep from goats a.IDong the utility companies, I suspect a mighty battle will ensue. In any case, the institutional credentials of power companies, thanks to the performance of Metropolitan Edison, will now come under very close scrutiny.

Emergency planntng Also coining under close sc:;:utiny are plans

for public protection in the event of an accident. For the first time, such planning will not be short-changed on the grounds that accidents can't happen. This applies to accident instrumentation, emergency communications, and readiness for public evacuation, all of which were deficient at Three Mile Island. As the Kemeny report pointed out, at Three Mile Island "response to the emergency was dominated by an atmosphere of almost total confusion." Local, State, and Federal authorities, along with the plant operators, themselves turned out to be unprepared for a serious nuclear power plant accident.

The problems of a possible evacuation loomed larger than they should have. It 1s in terestlng that just recently the Canadian government successfully evacuated about 250,000 persons from the vicinity of a chlorine gas leak. To make sure there is no rep-

37686 etltion of the confusion encountered at Three Mile Island, NRC wm require, as a. condition of licensing the operation of a. nuclear plant, substantial emergency readiness by the ut111ty and the State and local authorities for protection of the public.

Compliance with these and other new requirements emerging from the current review will be decided by the NRC Commissioners themselves. This represents an important and sharp break with their past practice of delegating licensing functions. The Commissioners have taken direct control over Ucensing and will themselves rule on any new construction permits or operating licenses for nuclear power plants.

I should add there is a. new and noticeable absence of shyness about the technical muscle the Commission is wi111ng to bring to bear on anything that looks like a. potential plant emergency. There is also less concern, post-Three Mile Island, about overreacting for fear of alarming the pubUc. In September an automatic reactor shutdown at Virginia. Electric Power's North Anna. plant set o1I the safety injection system and popped the now-notorious pressurizer relief valve. Twelve NRC engineers were dispatched immediately to the site.

The NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement is approaching its task more aggressively as well. The office has imposed maximum fines of $155,000 on the owners of the Three Mile Island plant, and more recently fines of $450,000 on a. Michigan utility. We are asking Congress for statutory authority to impose much greater penalties. AFTERMATH: RESPONSmn.ITY AND INCENTIVES

The Kemeny Commission has stressed that the nuclear industry is responsible for nuclear safety. So it is. The industry is aware that things are going to be much tougher in the future, and hasn't wasted any more time than the NRC did in trying to clean up its act after Three Mile Island.

The industry is developing a. technical organization to back up individual ut111ties. It is also putting together a. utllity selfinsurance scheme to provide for replacement power in the event an accident puts a nuclear plant down. Privately, industry leaders are as worried about the smaller or less competent ut111t1es as Governor Babbitt is; they say tough conditions will be placed on eligib111ty for such insurance. At the same time we should be clear that private and public incentives differ. The industry wants to keep its plants safe; it also wants to keep them running. Ultimately, it is NRC's responsibility to ensure industry discipline on safety.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS UNDER REVIEW

We should understand that there is a. price to be paid for the new, post-accident emphasis on sa.fety of operating plants. We a.re now holding up operation of several almost fully constructed nuclear power reactors. The entire sta1I 1s engaged in intensive safety reviews of operating ree.otors, including qualifications of operators and of utility managements, and of emergency readiness for evacuation. It is not out of the question that requirements flowing from our examination of the feasiblllty of evacuation could lead to the closing of operatIng nuclear plants in highly populated aree.s. The NRC has produced a dete.iled. response to the recommendations of the Kemeny Report, indicating general agreement with most of them, and setting schedules for implementation. At the moment, however, it is still not entirely clear how long our overall review process will take, or what its impact on our national commitment to nuclear power will turn out to be. This has got to be clarified promptly.

To understand what is at stake, it might be useful to take a. brief look at the status of nuclear power today and the role it plays in solving our energy problems. That role

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS is more limlted than was foreseen a. decade ago, or even in 1976, but it is nevertheless important to our energy choices. The 70 nuclear plants now in operation provide about 13 percent of the nation's total electric energy consumption. Certa.in regions of the country-New England, for example-depend to a much larger degree th:a.n that on nuclear plants to supply electricity. Electric energy represents about a quarter of the primary energy supply, and 13 percent of that is a. modest contribution. Yet having a. choice between coal and nuclear plants adds a desirable fuel flexib111ty in meeting future electrical demand. The alternative, which is to rely almost exclusively on coal for new plants, would put us in a worse fix.

In addition to nuclear plants now in operation, there are about 90 more in varying stages of construction. Several are close to completion and their owners are ·anxious to load fuel. A large investment is involved. Yet for at lee.st several months, all licensing activity will have to be put on lee while the regulatory staff goes about the business of reinforcing the safety of plants in opera.tiOIIl.

Despite the concern expressed about all this upheaval in the midst of our energy difficulties-and it must be acknowledged that the uncertainties about the time and outcome of the safety reviews are worrisome-there is no escaping the fact that the system was overdue for a shakeup. It is some consolation that it could have come at a worse time, so far as electric energy demand is concerned. But even 1f this were not so, the success of current efforts to improve nuclear safety would be a. precondition to restoring sufficient confidence in the technology so that it can be called upon when it is needed, thus preserving a desirable flexlb111ty in energy supply.

TOLERABLE RISK

Our interest in this energy source tended to overpower safety concerns in the past; nevertheless, it is a legitimate interest and should not be left out of the safety equation. If I am correct in saying we are going to put safety first, how are we to know where to stop? What are we to set as a standard for safety to guide the regulators? It is a question both philosophical and political, economic and technical, and somehow we have to find an answer.

"Safe" is a word used much too casually. Chairman Kemeny of the President's Commission told the Congress that nuclear plants are safe, that it "is just the people who run them that are not safe." He also said he did not believe the ·present situation fell within "tolerable limlts" of safe ~y. Another member of the Commission posed the rhetorical question: "What is tolerable?" and answered that the group "did not do risk analysis " that Congress and the President would ha~e to answer the question. The ensuing colloquy before a Senate Committee took on the Allee in Wonderland air so characteristic of this subject:

"How [do] you concel.ve of your concept," asked Senator Moynihan, "of tolerable llmlts? ... Is it possible to make estimates if we were to cut the energy oonsumptio~ In the country by half, you would raise the mortality rate by some unapprecia.ble amount? A member of the Canadian Atomic Energy Commission estimated the risk associated with various forms of energy and came up with solar power as the most costly in health terms because of the number of people that correspondingly fell off the ladders."

We shrink from making measurements in terms of an acceptable number of deaths per year. Yet we must have some kind of overall standard or goal; without it each nuclear safety problem is unique, each calls for a handwringing return to square one. The technicians need a goal and they can't

December 20, 1979 develop one themselves, nor is that their responsiblllty. Let me quote a note to me from a senior member of the NRC staff:

"Above all, we need a mandate. Are plants to keep operating? How safe must they be? What is needed, in a broad way, to make them acceptable? These are social decisions, to be made by the Commission and its successors, the President, and the Congress. The NRC sta1I has a contribution to make ... the present indistinct safety rationale awaits clarification to provide the needed basis for our job. There is a big job to do and the staff needs direction and inspiration from our nation's and agency's leaders to help us get on with it and do it well. I belleve further that doing it well is our best and only way to provide for the publlc health and safety."

We are confronted with this legitimate plea for a broad standard of safety because the reordering of priorities between safety and licensing has left a vacuum which must be filled. What we have been using in place of a. standard for safety was an answer: the answer was provided by the Rasmussen Reactor Safety Study which was taken to say, in effect, there was llttle to worry about, and by the political imperative of allowing plants to continue in operation, wllly nilly.

Why does this question arise here when it does not in automobile or airline safety, where we also lack an expllcit safety goal? It is because we have a significant statistical sample for making estimates of the safety of airplanes-anyone can look it up in the world almanac.

This is not true for nuclear reactors: 500 reactor-years of experience are not sumcient to provide a significant estimate of the probab111ty of large accidents. It is therefore much more difficult to relate nuclear regulatory requirements to practical safety performance than for the other technologies with which we have had more experience.

One possible way of searching for a standard for safety would be to start with the premise that we want, if at all possible and without paying a higher price for safety, to have a source of electric energy to supplement, or serve as an alternative to, coal. In this sense, the establishment of a standard might help clarify the argument about whether or not we want to go ahead with n uclea.r power.

Senator Moynihan went right to the jugular on this question; he asked Chairman Kemeny to write his views about the "tolerable limits" of risk. I must confess I hope he will share them with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In the meantime, we will have to struggle with it ourselves; without an overall safety standard of some kind, there is no limit to the amount of safety that can be piled on.

We are now navigating without any fixed point of reference. Our senior staff man Is right-we need to provide a. safety mandate. The present safety rationale is indistinct and it awaits clarification. That's our next big job.e

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY ACT

HON. JAMES J. HOWARD OF NEW JERSEY


e Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing the Transportation Systems Efficiency Act which I originally introduced on September 24, 1979. This bill will make our highway and public mass transportation systems more en-

December 2'0, 1979

ergy efficient. In addition to the chairman of the full Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Mr. JoHNsoN of California, and the ranking minority members of the full committee and of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Messrs. HARSHA and SHUSTER, respectively, 30 other members of the House primarily from the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, have joined in introducing this important legislation.

As the chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I have been concerned for some time about the need to establish a public transportation trust fund to support a contract authority funding program for capital improvements to our Nation's transit system.

Over the past 50 years, petroleum has become .the lifeblood of our Nation's economy. The growth of our national transportation system has been closely tied to our development of energy and of Petroleum in particular. Transportation consumes more than half of every barrel of crude oil used in this country. Coincidentally, the United States obtains half of its oil from foreign imports. Clearly, the transportation sector can make a tremendous contribution to petroleum conservation, and thus to the reduction of imports.

I believe the time is right for the Congress to consider long-term assured funding for our Nation's public transportation systems. Accordingly, the subcommittee I chair, and on which Mr. SHUSTER sits as ranking minority member, held 4 days of hearings in July so that we might develop a record on the issue of a public transportation trust fund.

I realize that the country must pursue increased energy production as well as conservation. Certainly, the circumstances indicate the need for a range of solutions. However, the country cannot place total reliance on increased domestic production of otl substitutes.

While these efforts proceed, in order to maintain our mobility, we will have to improve our public transportation systems so that our citizens will have an alternative to private automobile transportation which will undoubtedly continue to suffer fuel interruptions.

As I indicated, the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation held 4 days of hearings on the establishment of a public transportation trust fund with revenues generated by the windfall profit tax. The testimony presented at these hearings provided overwhelming support for the concept of a public transportation trust fund. Equally important, however, was the evidence presented which showed that the American public is turning to public transportation in greater numbers with each succeeding month, even in areas which did not experience long gas lines.

Another important insight gained from our hearings was the realization that each area of the conntry has different needs in developing altematives to the private automobile. What may be the most energy efficient solution for New


York, Chicago, and Los Angeles may not be for Rochester, Tulsa, or Salem, Oreg. I believe that there is a tremendous latent demand for public transportation throughout the country-in rural as well as urban areas. In other to satisfy this demand in an efficient and expeditious manner, an assured source of funding at adequate levels is required.

The goal of petroleum conservation necessarily involves improving the efficiency of the transportation systems which our citizens use to fulfill their most basic mobility needs, such as traveling to and from work and school. We must expedite targeted investments in our public transportation systems and in highway facilities which support more efficient automobile use. We must rebuild as well as provide for expansion of our existing bus :fleets. We must finance supporting bus facilities, including maintenance facilities and terminal facilities. We must provide for the modernization and expansion of our existing rail facilities. We must support projects which will facilitate carpools, vanpools, and other high occupancy automobile solutions.

I know of no other single action which the Congress could take to support such an effort than the clear and definite commitment of assured support through a dedicated public transportation trust fund.

That is why I have reintroduced the Transportation Systems Efficiency Act of 1979.

The heart of the bill is title ill which would create a public transportation trust fund with 25 percent of the revenue generated by the windfall profit tax. Amounts in the public transportation trust fund would be available for making expenditures to meet obligations incurred under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, or under title 23, United States Code, for public transportation capital projects or for transportation systems management projects.

Title I of the bill would make anumber of changes in the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 and title 23 of the United States Code.

Section 101 of the bill would make all authorizations, beginning in fiscal year 1981, under the Urban Mass Transportation Act for section 3 (discretionary grants), section 5(a) (4) (A) <bus formula grants), and section 21 (intercity bus terminals) available for obligation on October 1 of the fiscal year for which authorized. Payments to meet contractual obligations incurred by the Secretary for such programs would be derived from the public transportation trust fund.

Section 102 would broaden 23 U.S.C. 135 <traffic operations improvements) into a new categorical grant program for transportation systems management which would include, but not be limited to, energy conservation projects for: first, channelization of traffic; second, improved traffic control signalization; third, preferential treatment for mass transit and other high occupancy vehicles; fourth, passenger loading areas and facilities; fifth, fringe and corridor parking facilities; sixth, encouragement

37687

of the use of carpools and vanpools; seventh, bicycle transportation; and eighth, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Funds authorized under this section could be used at State option to cover 90 percent of project costs, or to increase to 90 percent the Federal share of energy conservation projects advanced under other provisions of title 23, United States Code-such as, section 146 <carpools and vanpools) section 142 <public transportation), section 137 (fringe and corridor parking facilities), and section 217 (bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways). The present Federal share for these programs is generally 75 percent.

Funds authorized for 23 U.S.C. 135 would be a~pportioned among the States on October 1 of each fiscal year: Threefourths on the basis of urbanized area population; and one-fourth on the basis of the primary system formula <onethird land area, one-third route mileage, one-third population) . Funds would remain available for obligation for 3 fiscal years following the fiscal year for which authorized. Payments to meet contractual obligations of the United States for payment of its proportional share of project costs would be derived from the public transportation trust fund.

Section 103 would restore to the Secretary of Transportation authority to incur contractual obligations for substitute highway and public transportation projects related to withdrawal of interstate routes under 23 U.S.C. 103 (e) (4). Sums obligated for public mass transit projects would be derived from the public transportation trust fund. Sums obligated for highway projects would be derived from the highway trust fund. Obligations for either type currently are paid from general revenues of the Treasury.

Section 104 would provide authorizations from the public transportation trust fund for fiscal years 1981 through 1990 to supplement existing authorizations through fiscal year 1982 for the section 5 bus and section 21 (intercity bus terminals) programs, through fiscal year 1983 for the section 3 discretionary grant program, to provide new authorizations for such programs through fiscal year 1990, and to provide authorizations for transportation systems management for fiscal year 1981 through 1990. Beginning in fiscal year 1981, authorizations in the bill are intended to limit the authority for substitute transit projects under 23 U.S.C. 103(e) <4). Substitute highway projects would remain subject to 23 U.S.C. 103 <e) (4), as amended by this bill.

The bill and its amendments to existing law would authorize from the public transportation trust fund a total of $45.5 billion over 10 years to carry out sections 3, 5(a) <4) (A), and 21 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, 23 U.S.C. 135, and public mass transportation projects under 23 U.S.C. 103(e) (4). A division of the annual lump-sum authorizations provided in this bill and continuing authorizations from general

37688 revenues of the Treasury for public mass transit operating assistance programs would be provided in a subsequent proposal.

Title n of the bill deals with another imPortant energy problem which needs to be addressed. ·

Increased domestic production of alternative energy sources will impact the transportation system itself. For example, truck shipments of coal and increased unit train service over our Nation's rail-highway crossings will require additional funds for these energyimpacted segments of our highway systems.

In fact, a recent Department of Transportation study indicated that transportation could well become a bottleneck on coal production. The coal transportation task force concluded that "large investments will be needed both to add to our existing transport capacity and to replace and maintain the very large complex system already in place'' and that "the capability of both the public and private sectors to finance the needed investments in infrastructure and equipment will be sharply challenged." Another DOT study on energy transportation identified almost $10 billion in needs across the country and indicated that the coal road and railroad grade crossing needs were so severe that they required "immediate attention" and could not even wait "enactment of legislation as to the proper type and level of tax that should be imposed in the long run."

The energy security fund is a logical funding source for these programs since an improved energy transportation network is necessary in order to meet our goals for production of coal and synthetic fuel and to minimize the adverse effect of this increased production.

Section 201 authorizes the Secretary to apportion funds for the repair of public roads which have incurred a substantial increase in use as a result of transportation activities to meet national energy requirements. The Federal share of project costs would be 80 percent. For each of the fiscal years 1981 through 1990, there would be $125 million authorized, of which $75 million would be appropriated from the highway trust fund and $50 million from the energy security fund.

Section 202 would authorize the Secretary to make grants for the elimination of rail-highway crossings where there is substantial increase in the use of those rail facilities in transporting coal to meet national energy requirements. The Federal share of project costs would be 80 percent. For each of fiscal years 1981 through 1990, there would be $125 million authorized, of which $75 million would be appropriated from the highway trust fund and $50 million from the energy security fund.

These provisions are essentially the same as the provisions which passed the House last year in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, except that a portion of the funding would come from the energy security fund. Unfortunately, last year's provisions were dropped in conference at the insistence of the Senate.


In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make three additional points: First, I urge early and favorable consideration by the Congress, and the conferees on the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act, in particular, of the public transportation trust fund outlined in title m of the bill; second, the program outlined in titles I and n is by no means locked in concrete. The Subcommittee on Surface Transportation will hold more hearings on these titles and looks forward to receiving suggestions for improvement of the legislation.

This bill and the public transportation trust fund concept, in particular, should not necessarily be construed as support for the windfall profit tax. Although I am certainly a proponent of the tax, the concept of a dedicated source of funding to support contract authority in public transportation programs is a separate issue, and supportable on its own merits. However, if there is going to be a windfall profit tax, the sponsors of this legislation are all in agreement that a substantial portion of the revenue should be devoted to transportation systems emciency.e

AUTOMATIC CRASH PROTECTION

HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD OF CONNECTICUT



• Mr. DODD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House considered H.R. 2585, the National Trame and Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Authorization. I supported this important piece of legislation because of my belief that automobile safety standards are important in saving lives.

There are a great many reasons why automatic crash protection in automobiles is good public policy. The best and most obvious ol these reasons is that passive restraints-air bags and automatic seat belts-will save thousands of lives and prevent tens of thousands of serious injuries each year.

For humanitarian reasons alone, one should support this very worthwhile Government regulation. But additional justification for passive restraints exists in the savings that can be realized in insurance premiums because of reduced claims.

It is simple. Since passive restraints can prevent many injuries and deaths, many auto insurers offer sizeable discounts on the personal injury or medical payments portion of the auto insurance premium. When passive restraints become standard equipment, this reduction will become available industrywide. And eventually, when a substantial nuxnber of cars are equipped with passive restraints, savings on the liability portion of auto insurance premiums will be realized as well. Of course, the exact amount of the discount across the U.S. would vary depending upon whether a no-fault insurance system operates in that State and upon the rating class and territory for each insured.

Dec.ember 20, 1979

The auto insurance industry is k~y a ware that the motorists are disturbed by rising insurance costs. Passive restraints enjoy the almost unanimous support of auto insurers because they will greatly assist in keeping premiums within affordable limits.

Thus, motorists will get a double advantage from automatic crash protection: they and their families are more likely to survive in the event that they get into a crash, and, even if they never have a serious accident, they will pay lower insurance rates, and have the peace of mind of knowing that their families are better protected all the time. not just when they buckle up.

Actually, the people who buy the cars built in the middle 1980's will get a car that will cost about $500 less to buy and operate over their lifetime because of the fuel economy standards. And as gasolip.e prices rise, the savings will be even greater. These savings will more than offset any increase in the price of cars because of automatic crash protection:

I believe that we should allow the American automobile industry to get on with the job of building the best crash protection that they can into the next generation of new cars.e

WIDESPREAD PROTEST MOVEMENT IN HUNGARY

HON. FRANK HORTON OF NEW YORK

TN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


e Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Members an analysis of Eastern European reaction to the October 24 sentencing of five members of Czechoslovakia's Committee for the Defense of the Unjustly Persecuted. This analysis, conducted by a good friend and respected member of the Hungarian-American community, Istvan B. Gereben <copresident of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters' Federation) provides a unique insight into how Hungarian dissidents are demonstrating their solidarity with the Czechoslovakians.

The text of the analysis follows: IF'ive members of Czechoslovakia's Com

mittee for the Defense of the Unjustly Persecuted; engineer Peter Uhl, writer Va.cla.v Havel, ma.thema.tlcia.n Vacla.v Benda., newspapermen Jiri Dientsbier, a.nd Ota. Bednarova were sentenced to 3 to 5 years of imprisonment in Prague.

The sentences delivered on October 24, 1979 triggered world-wide protests. Reflecting the sentiment of the civ111zed international community Hungarian intellectuals also raised their voice a.ga.inst the persecution and sentencing of the Czechoslovak human rights activists.

One of the four documents that appeared a.t the end of October wa.s sent to the Presidential Council of the Hungarian People's Republic. The letter signed by 185 individuals condemns the sentences and demandS the release of the convicted.

Some of the signatories of this letteralong with others, totaling 127-ha.ve also sent a. letter to Janos Kadar in his capacity

December ~0, 1979 as First Secretary of the Hungarian Socialist Workers (Communist) Party asking him to take steps, including the use of his personal prestige to see that the Prague Court of Ap· peals reconsiders the sentences passed on the Czechoslovak dissidents. This letter was dated on October 25, 1979.

A smlllar diOcument was sent separately to Mr. Kadar by 9 film directors.

The fourth letter-dated October 26, 1979-is written by three of the well known Hungarian intellectuals: philosophers Gyorgy Bence and Janos Kis and critic Janos Kenedi and addressed to the signatories of the Charter 77. This letter-although addressed to the Czechoslovak dissidents-discusses d'Omestic concerns as well as the fate of the Czechoslovak dissidents and Hungary's involvement in the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Addressing the process of liberalization of the economic and political system in Hungary the letter says:

"The limits of such an evolution graduallY become apparent. . . . And the more we use up the possiblllties of the evolution, the more people there are who are not satisfied with the diminishing results. There are more and more people in Hungary who do not want to give up hope of democracy for such a small price."

The majority of the 252 signatories of the letters are young : writers, newspapermen, scientists, artists, researchers, physicians. professors.

Among the older signatories are many who were persecuted during the era of Stalin; historians, poets, composers, film directors, economists, actors, actresses, priests, ministers and several former members of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Communist Party.

The protest movement of the Hungarian intellectuals has creat ed a deep embarrassment and dilemma for Kadar and his regime. Kadar's dilemma is that in early 1977, when the Czechoslovak authorities took their first steps to punish the members of Charter 77 only 34 Hungarians protested, now there a.re 252 signers. If he does not punish them there wlll be 500 the next· time.

The widespread movement of the Hungarian intellectuals follows the protest demonstrations of the workers staged last summer at Csepel and at other industrial centers of Hungary expressing dissatisfaction over the price increases implemented by the government. These two developments pose a new problem for Mr. Kadar.

The solution is not easy. Both punishment and "mature inaction" have repercussions which would damage Mr. Kadar's position, image and prestige either in the West or in the Kremlin.

The consequences of the events cannot be foreseen.

Kadar, however, is vdewed to be a sophisticated dictator and not expected to crack down openly and immediately. His methods of punishment wlll be subtle but effective. His freedom of a.otion is limited at the present by the closeness of the time for the crucial Party Congress in next March and by the dependence of the fragile Hungarian economy on loans and investments by sympathetic western democracies which would have dimculties to justify their liberal attitude towards Hungary if Kadar resorts to the old methods of oppression of internal dissent.

The task of handling disselllt in East Europe became more dimcult with the dawn of strong cooperation between human rights activists 'in the various countries of that area. Russians, Poles, Czechoslovaks and Hungarians attempt to move behind their own domestic concerns and focus on the denial in all Warsaw block countries of indi-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS vidual freedoms called for in the Helsinkiinal Act of 1976.

The trial of the Czechoslovak dissidents gave impetus to the coordination of dissident activities.

Messages of support and protest have flown back and forth among the various national dissident organizations since the trial. In addition to calling for multinational cooperation the Soviet activists slgnlflcantly took some stewardship over the human rights sit uation in Eastern Europe. "In view of the special position of the Soviet Union in relation to the countries of East Europe--their letter to their friends said-we consider it our duty to combat violations of human rights also in your countries."e

AmPORT AND AmWAY DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. LESTER L. WOLFF OF NEW YORK



• Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to House Resolution 511, waiving points of order for the consideration of the conference report to H.R. 2440, the Airport and Airway Development Act.

The House passed H.R. 2440 on October 22. This bill is to provide funding for airports, and has nothing whatsoever to do with airport noise. The House has not yet considered H.R. 3942, the A viation Safety and Noise Reduction Act, the proper vehicle for an indepth debate on airport noise abatement standards. In May the other body passed S. 413, to ease the airport noise standards, and to allow the airlines to fly noisy planes after 1985. In a conference to resolve the differences between H.R. 2440 and S. 413, two unrelated bills, the Senate added the provisions of s. 413.

I have long fought for a quieter fleet of airplanes. My congressional district lies in close proximity to LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports, and I am acutely aware of how annoying, not to mention how unhealthy, airplane noise can be. In the 15 years that I have been a Member of Congress, I have worked for legislation to reduce airplane noise. In 1969, with my active support, Congress passed the Aircraft Noise Abatement Act giving the FAA authority to control jet noise. As the law now stands, metropolitan airports will possess a quieter fleet of retrofitted, reengined or replacement aircraft in accordance with the 1981, 1983, and 1985 schedules established 3 years ago.

This is not the time to reduce our standards and allow noisy airplanes to harass our citizens. The waiver provisions of S. 431 will undermine the efforts and plans of local authorities in their aircraft noise abatement programs. Compliance with Federal noise standards is absolutely critical to local noise abatement strategies.

Some airlines, notably Northwest Orient, have made great strides in complying with these standards. I cannot believe that other airlines cannot do the same.

37689 I urge defeat of the rule for consider

ation of H.R. 2440. Should the rule pass, I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the conference report and allow for the proper procedure for the House to consider noise abatement standards. I will work against any bill which seeks to lower these standards, but I insist that the House have the opportunity for proper consideration, and not have the other body attach such an important issue onto an unrelated bill.e

TAX RELIEF FOR RENTERS

HON. JOSEPH L. FISHER OF VIRGINIA



• Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, one of the guideposts of tax equity is that similarly situated taxpayers should be similarly taxed. However, in spite of the consensus in favor of this principle, one glaring breach of it in the tax code affecting millions of individuals throughout the country is corrected by legislation, which I have introduced. The situation is simply this: Homeowners pay local property taxes and receive Federal tax relief to compensate for those payments. Renters, on the other hand, pay the equivalent of the same taxes, but do not receive similar tax relief. It would appear to be a matter of simple justice that renters should receive similar tax relief for that portion of their rent which represents the payment of property taxes.

For this reason I have introduced legislation which will provide the renter with a deduction for a portion of the rental payment attributable to property taxes. According to this bill, an individual will be allowed to deduct from gross income an amount equal to 10 percent of the rent paid with respect to property which is his or her principal residence, up to a limit of $200 for a single individual or $300 for a married couple.

I would like to emphasize several features of this legislation. First, it allows an individual to take this deduction and in addition, to take the standard deduction. If it were treated as an itemized deduction, then many renters would be unable to take advantage of it because a high percentage of renters do not itemize their deductions.

Second, this legislation can be administered effectively. By setting an acrossthe-board percentage for the deduction it avoids the morass of complexity which would result if the percentage of the deduction were calculated on the basis of floor space in individual apartments, as some other proposals suggest. The percentage which this bill specifies was determined after analyzing data on what is the average percentage of rental payments attributable to property taxes both nationwide and on a region-by-region basis. In tax legislation, it is always necessary to weigh administrative simplicity against precision. I believe that

37690 this bill strikes an appropriate balance with respect to the percentage of the deduction.

Finally, by specifying that only one taxpayer can utilize this deduction per residence, this legislation avoids further tax discrimination against married couples. Married couples will not be limited to one deduction while two single individuals who live together claim two deductions. This bill prevents discrimination on the basis of marital status. · In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my

colleagues to give this legislation their serious consideration. It merits their support.•

ISAAK SHKOLNIK

HON. PETER H. KOSTMAYER OF PENNSYLVANIA



eMr. KOSTMAYER. Mr. Speaker, for over 2 years I have been speaking out in behalf of Isaak Shkolnik, a Soviet Jew, whose only crime is that he wants to emigrate to Israel, where his wife and daughter now live. For this simple wish Isaak Shkolnik has paid dearly.

In 1971, Isaak, his wife Feiga, and his daughter Luiza applied for emigration visas to Israel. His wife and daughter were subsequently granted visas to Israel. Isaak, however, was arrested in July of 1972' and sentenced to 10 years of hard labor. That sentence was later reduced to 7 years.

On July 5, 1979, exactly 7 years later, Isaak was released from prison. Yet even with his release, he continues to be a prisoner in his own country. For the Soviet emigration officials have refused again to grant his request to emigrate to Israel. One can only ask how much suffering can the Soviets inflict on this man? And the answer is sadly clear. I have learned this week that Isaak was called to the local emigration office and told that his application had once more been refused. When he asked why, he was given the chilling answer: "We haven't yet finished with you. You are still not in the clear."

This incident is a compelling reminder that the madness of Nazi Germany lives on in the Soviet Union. The tragic lesson of the Nazi holocaust was not so much about Nazism as the danger of silence. We know now that the Nazi's viewed the world's indifferent response to the holocaust as tacit compliance if not silent assent to their brutal policies. We must never make that mistake again.& individuals, and as a nation, we must be vigilant in speaking out against human rights violations wherever they may occur.

Today, I appeal once again to the Soviet Government to allow Isaak Shkolnik to emigrate to Israel and to live with his wife and daughter in peace. So long as I am here, Mr. Speaker, I shall continue to speak out on behalf of Isaak Shkolnik


and others like him. We cannot afford to forget his plight.•

IN OPPOSITION TO THE AffiPORT AND AffiWAY DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. JAMES H. SCHEUER OF NEW YORK



• Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Speaker, in the near future the House will be considering the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1979. I rise in strong opposition to that bill.

In a grotesque example of transparent contempt for the legislative process, the Senate has seized upon a noncontroversial House-passed bill providing discretionary funding for airport development---H.R. 2440-and substituted language which would erode the aircraft noise standards set by the Federal A viation Administration. House Members were called to a conference in which they were asked to seek a compromise on legislation which has not been debated or voted upon by the full House.

With this as background, it is not surprising that an attempt was made yesterday to force House consideration of the conference report before the report had even been made available for study.

In 1976, after 7 years of extensive study and debate, the Federal Aviation Administration concluded that it was "economically reasonable and technologically practical" to require that all older generation aircraft be retrofitted or replaced so that there would be a noise certified fleet by 1985.

The FAA was overly generous to the airlines in requiring severely noise impacted communities to wait 9 long years . for relief. Any further compromise at the 11th hour would represent an unconscionable breach of faith with the public.

Excessive aircraft noise not only clearly diminishes the quality of life for 6 to 10 million Americans, but also seriously endangers their health. Excessive aircraft noise has been linked to damaged hearing, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, arthritis, fetal damage, increased heart rate, and high blood pressure.

Excessive aircraft noise has a devastating impact on property values, often affecting healthy communities in existence long before the airports were constructed.

Further delay in implementing the FAA noise standards would be an affront to noise impacted communities and to those carriers who, in good faith and enlightened corporate decisionmaking, have undertaken the costs of complying with the FAA's rules.

Americans have waited 20 years for noise relief. We must assure noise impacted communities that the commitment made to them in 1976 will be honored.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report when it is considered next session.•

December 20, 1979

MRS. ROUSSELOT'S PLEA FOR SOVIET JEWRY

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN OF NEW YORK



• Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, Members of this Congress have been unstinting in their support for the rights of Soviet Jewry. By exerting steady pressure on the Soviet Government, by a continuing series of bills, resolutions, and public statements, there has been some success in securing the release of a number of Soviet dissidents.

Religious freedom, the right to emigrate, free speech and other human rights have been the focal point of congressional actions. But we are not alone in our concern. There are, of course, many groups throughout the world who join with us in exerting this kind or public pressure on the Soviet Government.

One such concerned group, closer to home, is the Congressional Wives for Soviet Jewry. This month, the Congressional Wives participated in the annual Women's Plea for Soviet Jewry which was held throughout the country. Congressional Wives fanned out across the Nation to speak out on behalf of Soviet Jewry.

I want to call the attention of my colleagues to an effective speech by one of the Congressional Wives, Mrs. Vyonne Rousselot, wife of our friend, Congressman JOHN ROUSSELOT. Like her husband, Mrs. Rousselot is a.a outspoken advocate of freedom and human rights.

On Wednesday night, December 12, Mrs. Rousselot addressed the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation of Southern New Jersey in Cherry Hill, N.J. In her remarks, she vigorously enunciated the goals and hopes we all share for the future of Soviet Jewry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share this speech with my colleagues:

PLEA FOR SOVIET JEWRY

Dr. Farber, Mr. Respley, Assemblywoman Barbara. Berman, Mr. Berman, and Members of the Jewish Federation of Southern New Jersey. Thank you for the very kind introduction, Barbara. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here to tell you why my husband, Congressman John Rousselot, and I have joined the "Plea. for Soviet Jewry." John, who represents the 26th Congrssiona.l District of California., is deepy concerned about the plight of Jews in Soviet Russia.

He has worked closely with his Congressional colleagues, Ben Gilman of New York, Charles Va.nik of Ohio, and others both in the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate for the cause of Jewry under the Communist regi.m.e in Russia.. John Rousselot voted for the Jackson-Va.nik Amendment which linked the bestowal of "most-favorednation" status and Eximbank credits to the liberalization of Soviet Emigration policy.

He has cosigned letters to President Brezhnev, or the Soviet Ambassador, for Ana.toly Shchara.nsky, Vla.dimi.r Prestin, Igor Gruberman, Alexander Paritzky, and Mark Na.shpitz.

In addition, he has signed letters and supported legislation for numerous other

December 2'0, 19 79 Soviet dissidents, some of whom are Christian, as we are, and some whose religious affiliation I do not know. These include a resolution protesting Soviet citizenship laws and asking independence for the Baltic States, a resolution supporting perm1sa1on for Ida Nudel to emigrate to Israel-both of which passed the House recently. Another resolution he supports calls for Soviets to permit the emigration of Jews and to grant them true religious f·reedom. Moreover, he supported efforts in Congress last year to have the Olympics moved from Moscow because of Soviet violations o! the Helsinki accords.

John is a 7th-term member. I belleve that he would agree with me that the issues facing our N81tion have never been more complex. The situation in the Mid-East is alarming, 1f not frightening. I saw a cartoon the other day which was descriptive otf some of our rare evenings at home. A man and wl!e were sitting on the couch watching the TV. He was coiled In terror, hair standing on end, biting his fingerna.lls, and she was saying to him, "Maybe we should turn to one of the horror shows instead of watching the news."

I am proud of my husband's stand for Constitutional principles and for his voting record in the Congress of the United States. John Rousselot is a. freedom fighter and opposes the suppressive communist governments. I am proud of my role as an employee in his Congressional otnce, and I am proud to be a partner in his political career.

Now let me identify myself. My ancestral descent is from the original Colonies Oft the United States. I am an American and I strive to uphold the principles of the traditional American philosophy which is written into the U.S. Constitution, as law, and was adopted by our founding fathers and ratified by the people to assure the unalienable right of individual liberty, justice and freedom for all. The right of liberty and independence is fundamental to everything I believe. My participation in the Congressional Wives for Soviet Jewry gives me a chance to actively support the ideal of individual liberty and work to gua.rantee "for all" that government have no power to allenate man fTom his God-given rights. The truly American concept is that God 1s supreme, that the people of a country shall have free exercise of religion, of speech, Oft the press, to pea.ceably assemble, to petition the government feyr redress of grievances, and that government cannot delegate any power to violate man's rights.

Today we hear the teTm "human rights" which is, I believe, a. term of communism which has come into common usage. I shall use the popular phrase-as "individual liberty" seems outdated-as an expression of the fundamental principles underlying America's governmental philosophy.

The Jews of the Soviet Union are seeking to escape the discrimination and the repression o! the Soviets, they seek to live In open societies which will allow them educational and vocational opportunities, wm permit them to fulfill their hopes and will provide freedom for their religious beliefs.

The Soviet Jews have the right to emigrate under the 1975 Helsinki accords in which the Soviet regime agreed to expedite fa.m1ly reunification; but, the Soviets have repressed this right, they have denied exit visas and created a climate of !ear !or potential emigrants.

American diplomats, Members of Congress, the U.S. Senate, and prominent leaders from free countries around the world have supported the right of the Jews of the Soviet Union to emigrate, and they have openly criticized the Soviet Union for their flagrant violation of the 1975 Helsinki accords. This is the effort I am joining, and the reason we are together this evening Is to talk about how we can unify the appeal for human

CXXV--2369-Part 28

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS rights-individual Uberty-for Russian Jews.

Soviet Jews who wish to emigrate are often made political prisoners and this is what we denounce and wish to combat with dramatic, organized American force.

You an know about the Russian Prisoners of Conscience and the Refuseniks-they are men and women who persist In their attempts to emigrate to Israel, to help others to do the same, and to disseminate Jewish culture, and those who have been refused an exit visa to emigrate !rom the Soviet Union and have waited, some !or as long as ten years, making repeated requests. These brave and heroic people have suffered arrest, been tried on falsified charges and been sent to prison, labor camps and exiled to Siberia. One such person is Ida Nudel who has been In prison for a year and a halt under harsh and cruel conditions. Ida Nudel says of herself, "I am only a woman," but she is known as the "Guardian Angel of Prisoners of Zion" all over the Soviet Union.

Communists claim that they are the champions of "human rights" and the "party of the people." Last Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh appeared on NBG-TV's "Meet the Press" a.nd said that the American Government violates human rights. This spokesman !or the revolutionaries (whom Zbigniew Brzezinski has agreed appear to be Marxist-trained revolutionaries) further said that the Iranian Government is not interested in what the officials of the American Government have to say, but their government wants to hear from the "people" in America. Following that, last night on television, the newscasters relayed an appeal from President carter to all Americans to write to the Iranian Government, the Ayatollah Khomelni, to appeal fCYr the release of the American hostages.

It 1s not generally belleved that the Iranian uprising is communist inspired, but there are some curious happenings. For instance, almost immediately when Khomeini's regime took over, the Israell Embassy was seized and given over to the PLO for occupation. Fortunately, the members of the Israell Embassy had foreseen the danger and evacuated their people before the seizure. Too bad the American Government did not do the same.

Some of the efforts on behalf of citizens and publlc officials have been successful in the U.S.S.R.

Can more be done? How can we help? Keep this movement strong. Appeal to the

Soviets as individuals, by letter, through organizations. Urge your famdly and friends to do the same . . . a.ll of your friends and acquaintances, not just those 1n the Jewish community.

Send a written appeal to President Brezhnev. Circulate petitions. You can write to the individual Prisoners of Conscience and to the Refuseniks to let them know you care and are working to save them from these atrocious acts.

The Jewish Community Relations Council can make information available telling how this can be done.

You must raise your voice. The Congressional Wives for Soviet Jewry w1ll continue wdth great exertion in the "Plea for Soviet Jewry."

Thank you.e

JOURNALISM AND THE CRISIS IN IRAN



• Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, as you know, one of the more frustrating aspects

37691

of the crisis initiated by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Iran and the taking hostage of some 50 Americans has been the lack of direct contact between Iranian omcials and our own diplomats.

Rather, Khomeini and the others who make up what purports to be a government in that distressed land choose to conduct their diplomacy through journalists--principally through the medium of television.

Don Oberdorfer of the Washington Post prepared an analysis of this phenomenon which, along with the many other analyses that have been done on this aspect of the crisis, warrants careful attention. Accordingly, I am asking that it be reprinted in the RECORD at this time.

The article follows: ALL SIDES RESORT TO DIPLOMACY BY

JOURNALISM IN IRAN CRISIS

(By Don Oberdorfer) Washington's latest warnings to Iran

through the press refiect growing concern that some brainwashed American hostages, after a month and a half of captivity, may be trotted out to tell an Iranian-sponsored "international tribunal" about the past "sins" of the United States.

Polltical, as well as humanitarian, considerations make such a possib111ty abhorrent to policymaking circles here. The impact at home of such testimony in a. show trial or tribunal could be explosive--and it would make the drawn-out, unpredictlllble and complex Iranian crisis even more difficult to manage at the U.S. end.

In the continuing absence of direct diplomatic contact, communication through the news media is the quickest--if not always the most rella.ble-channel for the exchange of messages. The past several days have seen new demonstrations of the usefulness and the pitfalls of diplomacy by journalism.

The words from Iran, as usual, have come in torrents from competing centers of power: moral and political absolutism from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; sleight-of-hand suggestions for reassurances and accommodation !rom Foreign Minister Sadmlgh Ghotbzadeh; unyielding invective from the "student" captors, refiecting self-confidence and a sense of self-importance.

From the U.s. perception, this fragmentation of authorLty in Iran is bedeviling and overpowering. The words of student mllltants now openly atta.ck the words of the fore~gn minister, as occurred Tuesday in No. 75 of the series of daily student communiques, issued Tuesday.

At the same .time, Khomeini says it is "a. calumny" that the students a.re directing Iranian foreign policy, even while he is defending the positions they take.

In his most recent press interview on Sunday, Khomeini complained that Americans are so poorly informed that "it is all too possible that they have not even heard the name of Iran." He added that "the pen in the hands of the foreign press is a pen In the hands of the enemy, something that is worse than .the bayonet to the fate of mankind."

The State Department took pains yesterday to knock down the latest journalistically conveyed missive from Tehran: Ghotbzadeh's suggestion in a. Washington Post interview that an otncial U.S. investigation of the deposed shah's alleged crimes could end the crisis.

Spokesman Hoddlng Carter said such a u.s. gesture before release of the hostages would be surrender to blackmail--even while officials acknowledged that the United States is seeking to explore what Ghotbza-

37692 deh had in mind and what, 1f anything, it means.

The latest Washington initiative in the public exchange was a White House statement Tuesday that "public exploitation" of the hostages through appearances at an interns tional tribunal could be "a further provocation," bringing grave consequences. The warning was reinforced by official hints, conveyed to reporters at a not-for-attribution guidance, that certain types of U.S. military action could be triggered by such a provocation.

The suggestions about m1litary options, even though clearly deliberate 'and intended to be widely conveyed, were anything but specific. Reporters were told there is a wide range of options m.ore punitive than anything done so far, but which still need not involve shedding blood.

Reporters asked persistently about a naval blockade of the Persian Gulf, which seemed to be one such non-bloody military action in the realm of possib111ty. They were given no official encouragement and at one point were steered away from that option. Nevertheless, the idea of a blockade gained prominence in some accounts.

Tuesday's warning was the second such hint of possible m111tary action from the White House during this crisis. The earlier suggestion, in a statement and background guidance on Nov. 20, came in response to the threat of quick spy trials. The trials did not develop, and some U.S. officials believe the threats of military action had an etrect.

It seems less likely that the U.S. warnings will head otr the "international tribunal" on the "sins" of the shah and U.S. policy that Ghotbzadeh has been promoting assiduously since becoming foreign minister three weeks ago.

He is armed with a signed "instruction" by Khomeini, dated Dec. 13 and broadcast on Tehran Radio, to convene such an international investigating committee as soon as possible. Some international polltical figures reportedly have been approached to participate. But the role Of U.S. hostages in such a show-and the impact on their future-is much less clear.

At this point in the long-running crisis the war of words fills the newspapers and the newscasts, but it is misleading about the underlying reality. In fact, this is less a period of motion than a period of expectant waiting for more serious movement.

The stage has been set : In Iran, the Islamic holy days are over and the new constitution has been adopted. In the world community, the U.N. Security Council resolution has been unanimously adopted, and the International Court of Justice opinion unanimously handed down. The deposed shah has left the Ulnited States.

In the U.S. official view, the outside pressures on Iran-both diplomatic and economic-slowly are gathering force. Spade work is being done toward generating further pressures, probably through a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for economic sanctions.

What is stlll missing is a clear sign that any of this is having an etrect on releasing the hostages in the U.S. Embassy. Because of the complex power relationships in Iran, the main chance for the United States under the current arrangement is to hope for a three-bank. shot, affecting the outside en-vironment and the connections of the foreign minister and those members Of the Revolutionary Council attuned to external reality, in the hope that they will affect the actions of the ayatollah in Qom, in the hope that he can issue orders to the student militants tn the embassy.

It is a Rube Goldberg arrangement for deallng with an international problem worse

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS than the nightmare scenario of the most improbable books of Washington fiction. Unhappily, the Iran crisis is fact rather than fiction, and Washington has yet to fathom the plot.e

SO GREAT A PRICE-AN INSPIRATION

HON. TOM CORCORAN OF ll.LINOIS



• Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. Speaker, considering the uncertain world situation at the present time, especially with the Iranian crisis in mind, I think that it would be wise to reflect on some reasons why our country is the greatest land on Earth. A constituent of mine, Mrs. Marie Voights Thomas of Yorkville, Ill., composed a poem on February 11, 1973, which I believe, sums up well the feelings that I share, and that I know my colleagues share, about the importance of why this land of ours is so blessed.

At this point, I would like to insert her poem in the RECORD for the benefit of all the Members:

So GREAT A PRICE

It was bought at so great a price, My America, my blessed land, By the lifeblood of countless heroes Of a great and glorious band. They served their country proudly, Yet fell in the dark foray, To them the debt of gratitude That no one can repay. Young men with great ambitions, And dreams of a better life When the hell of battle is over, And gone is the pain of strife. How sad they shall never return, Their tales of war to tell, Only in tear stained memories, And broken hearts do they dwell.

We are free, yet so great a price Was paid that we might be free, At Valley Forge, and Gettysburg, And the beaches of Nortnandy, And at Dunkirk, and Iwo Jima, These places, and many more Countless unknown heroes Knew the agonies of war, And now there is peace again, We pray that it last for aye, The life o! a brave young patriot Is so great a price to pay. And we claim a wondrous heritage, We shall never know the cost, For in some far off land A soldier's life was lost.

There are those who would seek to destroy And tear down our traditions and fame, And disgrace our glorious flag, No tears, no remorse, and no shame. No thought of the blood that was split To keep our America free, But the ones with compassion and pride Who with discerning eyes can see We are debtors, yes, debtors indeed For as long as life shall last. We can only each day that we live Like those patriots of the past Love, and respect our flag, And trust God for our destiny, For so great a price was paid That America might be free

-Marie Voights Thomas e

December 20, 1979

SEALANE SECURITY SYSTEM FOR PACIFIC

HON. PAUL FINDLEY OF ll.LINOIS



• Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, turmoil in the Persian Gulf area, the withdrawal of the United States from Vietnam and Taiwan, partial U.S. withdrawal from Korea, and the dangerous increase in the size of the Soviet fleet in the Asian Pacific have created rising skepticism among some of our Asian allies about the credibility and adequacy of their partnership with the United States. Japanese and Southeast Asian officials show increasing apprehension that the Soviet Union, either directly or by proxy, may disrupt sealanes vital to the transportation of oil and other supplies.

Therefore, I am today introducing on behalf of Mr. BROOMFIELD, Mr. BOB WILSON, and Mr. SPENCE, and 11 other of my colleagues a resolution directing the President to consult with friendly nations in the Pacific area for the purpose of devising a Sealane Security System (S.S.S.), the goal of which would be lifesaving assistance on the high seas, and safe, secure, and free transit through international sealanes adjacent to East and Southeast Asia.

Under this plan, member nations of ASEAN (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand), plus Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea, would contribute naval or other resources to a multinational fleet fully coordinated under United States leadership, which would patrol the international sealanes proximate to East and Southeast Asia, emphasizing safety in all aspects for all vessels using these waters. It would not be a fullfledged military defense system and, therefore, would not alter or supplant the United States-Japan Mutual Security Treaty, the ANZUS Treaty, or any of our other collective security systems. I~ mission would be limited to assuring sealane safety and security in the designated international sealanes.

Hopefully, Japan would participate. It has a great stake in maintaining open sealanes and could make a substantial contribution to regional security through its participation. The recent announcement of the chief of Japanese Naval Defense that Japan will take part with the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, in joint naval maneuvers in the Pacific next spring suggests a positive change in Japanese attitudes toward defense matters. And because participation would be under U.S. leadership and auspices, Japan's new role need not cau8e domestic or regional anxieties, nor violate its constitutional prohibitions.

The member nations of ABEAN have already considered a cooperative approach to sealane security. Although no decision was made, strong support was

December 20, 1979 voiced by Singapore, and the issue remains ripe for action.

I, along with my colleagues, believe this resolution can lead to a significant improvement in our security in the Pacific. It is high time that the United States take the initi&tive to improve sealane safety and security, and offer specific additional assurances to our Pacific allies that the security of this region remains paramount to us.

List of cosponsors and text of resolution follow:

COSPONSORS FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Mr. Broomfield, Mr. Bob Wilson, Mr. Spence, Mr. Regula, Mr. Winn, Mr. Charles H. Wilson, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Oorcoran, Mr. Carter, Mr. Whitehurst, Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. Bauman, Mr. Stangeland, and Mr. Badham.

CONCURRENT RESOL~ON

Calling upon the President to consult with certain friendly nations in order to devise a Sealane Security System whose purpose would be to insure safe, secure, and free passage through international sealanes adjacent to East and Southeast Asia.

Whereas the nations of Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Ph111ppines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and the United States have a continuing interest in the free, safe, and secure passage of persons and trade, including raw materials, through the international sealanes adjacent to East and Southeast Asia; and

Whereas these nations have a long history of cooperation and friendship: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) that the Congress calls upon the President to consult with such friendly nations as he deems appropriate in order to devise a method whereby the naval and other resources of such nations and the United States will be closely coordinated in a Sealane Security System for the purpose of providing life-saving assistance on the high seas and insuring safe, free, and secure passage for all nations through the sealanes adjacent to East and Southeast Asia.e

CONTINUED MISGIVINGS CONCERNING THE 1980 OLYMPICS BEING HELD IN MOSCOW

HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI OF ILLINOIS



e Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, my original misgivings about holding the 1980 Olympics in the Soviet Union are repeatedly confirmed by events. I have long been concerned about our amateur athletes competing against professionals from the U.S.S.R. and other Communist lands. In addition, numerous questions are raised regarding the selection of a Communist country as the site, the prepaid television deal, and the new Soviet law which makes citizenship claims on certain foreign nationals.

A recent article by Kevin Klose, entitled "Moscow Prepares Purge Before Summer Olympics," outlines the latest Soviet moves to tighten up on their populace.

These games used to be thought of as promoting friendship and understanding,


but then the Soviets always have a different meaning for words than we.

The article, which appeared in the Washington Post of December 17, follows: MoSCOW PREPARES PURGE BEFORE SUMMER

0L YMPICs---"UNDESmABLES" To BE SENT FROM CAPITAL, ACCESS TO FoREIGN TOURISTS CURTAILED

(By Kevin Klose) Moscow, December 16.-0ne recent eve

ning, a Moscow housewife standing in an endless line at her local food store lost patience and began doing what Muscovites have always done--complaining about shortages.

Suddenly, a man stepped out of the crowd, seized her and forced the woman out of the store. She was bundled o1f to a local station house, where, to her astonishment, she found about 30 other shoppers who also had been seized in other stores for complaining. The stunned Soviets were harangued by an official for "spreading rumors and falsehoods about Soviet life" as the 1980 Moscow Olympics approach.

When the woman left, she discovered the authorities had another unpleasant surprise: her internal passport, with its vital permission allowing her to live in Moscow, had been freshly stamped to require an official review of her conduct in six months to be sure she behaves.

The Moscow Olympics purge is gathering momentum in the Soviet capital as authorities prepare for the 1980 summer games when an estimated 300,000 foreign tourists, inpluding about 20,000 Americans, are expected here.

The Soviets, intent upon presenting their society as an ideal unmatched elsewhere in the world, are planning Draconian measures to "cleanse the city," in the words of one person, of people the government believes are "undesirable." They are also taking steps to limit sharply Muscovites' access to Westerners in general and< Americans in particular. In recent weeks, the following examples have come to light here:

Some Soviet schoolteachers are telllng their students that American Olympic tourists will o1fer poisoned chewing gum to Soviet children. Some teachers are said to have warned that if not poisoned, the chewing gum will contain bacteria to spread disease and infection. The students have been warned sternly to avoid any contact with foreign tourists and athletes.

Directors of factories and enterprises in Moscow have beeDj ordered by local Communist Party officials to compile lists by April 1 of drunkards, psychotics, disorderly persons and Jews who have applled to emigrate so the party can decide who will be sent out of the city during the games, which open July 19 and close Aug. 2.

Schools are requiring students to fill out forms specifying where they will spend the months of June, July, and August. Those who plan to be in the city then will be sen:t to summer camps away from Moscow.

Human rights activists and dissidents said they believe the KGB secret pollee will institute tight surveillance and, possibly, house arrest of certain well-known dissident figures, similar to the house arrests made during President Nixon's visit here in 1974.

Adult vacation spas and rest homes and chlldrens' summer camps throughout the country apparently are being prepared to handle Muscovites who are to be sent out of the city during the games.

Beyond the usual anti-Western, anticapitallst propaganda attacks, there is nothing to be seen here in the official press of these measures. But reliable, unofficial sources tell of these pre-Olympic preparations. They sardonically use the Russian

37693 word Chlstka or "clean·ing" to describe what is going on. It is a word with dread connotations for Soviets, because it is the term used in designating the Stalinist purges that swept millions to their deaths in stave labor camps beginning in the late 1930S.

The 1977 Soviet constitution, which President Leonid Brezhnev likes to hail as one of the supreme achievements of his 15-year rule, guarantees a place to live for all Soviet citizens. But where a Soviet lives is controlled tightly by the state through extensive bureaucratic checks on individual freedom that center on the internal passport, which every Soviet is required to carry from the age of 16.

Thus, the threat to the housewife-likely to be repeated many times between now and the summer-falls into a gray administrative area where internal Soviet security organizations exercise virtually unlimited power.

The same gray area seems to cover the lists of "undesirables" now being drawn up. According to knowledgeable sources; the lists are to include as "disorderly persons" any citizen who has had at least two court appearances, of any kind, whether or not the incidents resulted in acquittal or dismissal. The category of "psychotics" is thought to include not only those who may have spent time in mental institutions or been treated for mental illness, but others whom officials deem unreliable.

A further category will be used to list "suspicious" or worrisome citizens who do not fall cleanly into the other definitions. The potential numbers could thus reach into the tens of thousands.

It is being said here that virtually every repository for Soviets-jails, prisons, psychiatric wards, rest homes, sanitariums, and summer camps-in the Moscow area will be specially cleared and readied solely for Muscovites sent from the city. The undesirables will be given vacations and if space in rest homes runs out, others will be dispatched on official business trips elsewhere in Soviet Union.

It is also thought that measures are being organized to bar the city to any provincial Soviets without specific travel permission to enter Moscow, either by establishing a new pass system or simply shutting down incoming commuter bus and train service. About a million peasants and other country folk are estimated to be in Moscow any day during the summer months, in search of meat and domestic goods unavailable in the countryside.

The Soviets used similar measures once before, during the 1957 International Youth Festival here during Nikita Khrushchev's leadership.e

JACK BURSEY-SOUTH POLE EXPLORER

HON. GUY VANDER JAGT OF MICHIGAN



e Mr. VANDER JAGT. Mr. Speaker, we recently commemorated the 50th anniversary of Admiral Byrd's famous flight over the South Pole. Special recognition for that extraordinary accomplishment is certainly in order. The tragic air disaster in Antarctica reminded us all of just how hostile that climate can be, and what dangers are ever present to mortal adventurers.

While Admiral Byrd bas deservedly become a national hero for his expedi-

37694 tion, there were many others ·in his expedition that deserve similar recognition. One of the young men who accompanied Admiral Byrd, Mr. Jack Bursey, is a longtime resident of western Michigan, and carries with him today the memories of not only that landmark flight, but subsequent expeditions.

I would like to commemo~ate Mr. Bursey of Whitehall and include in the RECORD a fine article on him which was written by Helen Panzl in the White Lake Observer.

The article follows: 50 YEARS AGo--JACK BURSEY REACHED THE

SOUTH POLE WITH BYRD

(By Helen Panzl) WHITE LAKE.--Jaok Bursey of Montague

needs no introduction to the White Lake public. His adventurous exploits and antarctic explorations have long a.go established him as one of the most interesting and outstanding citizens of our community.

His Acres of Diam.onds store on Old Channel Trad.l, in which he displayed much of the memoral>Uia of his Antarctic expeditions a.s wen as some stuffed penguins and !Photographs, was visited by just abOut everyone 1n the area. Some of the Arot1c tools and art1-fa.cts as well as penguins are ~so on exhibit at the Montague Museum.

Since the sale of the store these articles have been moved to a cottage on White Lake which he built with the idea 1n mind that it would afford him a place of seclusion where he could write of the days when danger .and adventure were h1s daily companions. He 1s the autihor of Antarctic Night and of st. Lunaire, the latter being e. tribute to his lead sled dog who saved his lite many times.

Bursey has had many honors bestowed upon hlm during his lifetime. He and his mates of the famed expedition during which Admiml Byrd 'flew over the South Pole in 1929 were presented With gold medals by a special act of Congress. They were engraved With the following words: "Presented to the officers and men of the Byrd .Antarctic Expedition to express the high admiration in which Congress and the American people held their heroic and undaunted service in connection with the scientific investigations and extraordinary aerial exploration of the Antarctic Continent".

He has known the thrill of being greeted as a returning hero by New York's Mayor Jimmy Walker who led them down the streets of New York for one of its famed ticker tape parades.

During his adventures Bursey distinguished himself again and again. Upon accompanying Admiral Byrd on the third Antarctic Expedition in 1939 he and two other men went on one of the longest dog team trips ever recorded, sledging over 1,200 miles in 83 days into Marie Byrd Land over the Great Ross ice Shelf. They were the first men in history to step upon this land. Today one of the mountains in this frigid land has been named in his honor-Mr. Bursey.

Again he and his companions received a special congressional gold medal on which was engraved: "In recognition of invaluable service to the nation by courageous pioneering polar exploration, which resulted in impcrtant geographical fmd scientific discovery."

Special recognition for his feats of daring and medals for distinctive service became commonplace to .Tack Bursey. His photograph appeared in leading newspapers and newsreels all over the world. Yet today, at 76, he lives quietly and unobtrusively among us so that we sometimes forget his former acclaim.

But the world has not forgotten these heroic men and now, on November 29, which

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS is the 50th anniversary of the fllght over the South Pole, another honor is to be bestowed upon Jack Bursey. He is to be guest of honor at a dinner sponsored by the Ford Aerosports Club in the new Hermitage Hall of the Henry Ford Museum in memory of the Antarctic flight .

A model of the Floyd Bennett, the Ford tri-motor airplane used for the historic flight (which now rests 1n honor at the Henry Ford Museum) will be the centerpiece and a. phone message is expected from the South Pole as a. salute. Of the 42 explorers who accompanied Richard E. Byrd to the Antarctic 50 years ago only nine are living today. Bursey is the only one residing in Michigan.

Bursey's only concern in attending this great event is his health which has kept him under doctors' surveillance for the past few years. That permitting-he wm be there.

Jack Bursey was only 21 years old when he joined the famed Byrd expedition. A native of St. Lunaire, Newfoundland, he was no novice in dealing with the rigors of the north country. He had sailed on his father 's schooner, fished on the Grand Banks, driven log teams across frozen land and water, and skinned seals for food and clothing.

His arrival in America coincided with the final stages of the preparations for Byrd's Antarctica exploration dream. Hearing that the expedition was still in need of sk1lled dog drivers and ski men, he immediately decided he wanted to be part of that adventure, only to find he was just one of 50,000 othersdaring Amertca.ns who had the same idea in mind-and at the time of his application the crew had already been hired.

Yet he did get to see Byrd and because of his experience a.n perhaps a measure of luck; he was signed up as an able bodied seaman on board the barque The City of New York, one of the two ships that were to take the expedition to the Bay of Whales, Antarctica.

He recalls his surprise upon being granted an interview the Commander Byrd.

"I had pictured him as a giant with fire in his eyes," he chuckles, "But the slight man gazing at me across the desk appeared humble and friendly."

He remembers well the day of departure and after that the day by day excitement as they sailed farther and farther south, the establishing of their base camp, and then the tension felt by all of them as they assembled in the mess hall on the great day when Byrd took off to fly over the South Pole.

"We had gathered in the mess hall to listen to the sound of the engines coming to us over the loud speaker," he recalls. "Tension mounted to fever pitch until that hilarious moment when we heard Commander Byrd's voice announcing, 'My calculations say we are 1n the vicinity of the South Pole.' The wild joy which permeated the camp was something never to be forgotten. The expedition had been a success!"

Often we, who have known and seen Jack Bursey mingle With his neighbors and take part in community activities, find it difficult to imagine this friendly, congenial, unpretentious man once played such an important role in the annals of American history. But the brave explorers who made possible this Antarctic voyage wrote a new chapter in American history and were as important to their generation as the astronauts were a generation s.nd a half later. They will always be revered for leaving homes and loved ones to explore this last wilderness of the world.

And so lt is with the concern of the community for his health that Jack Bursey hopes to once again share the world's spotlight as guest of honor at the dinner sponsored by the Ford Aerosports Club in memory of the Antarctic fllght.e

December 20, 1979

SMALL BUSINESS: CONGRESS APPROVES MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO FOSTER THEIR FURTHER GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

HON. DOUGLAS K. BEREUTER OF NEBRASKA



• Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Representatives approved the conference report on one of the most important pieces of legislation affecting small business to be produced by the 96th Congress. As a member of the House Small Business Committee which worked on the bill, I applaud this action because I believe it will contribute significantly to the growth of small businesses which are the backbone of the Nation's economic structure.

The bill, S. 918, contains authorizations for about 15 programs for a 3-year period. Major provisions include:

Sets SBA program limits and authorizations for fiscal years 1980-82. Program ceilings are established at $7 billion, $7.8 billion, and $8.5 billion respectively;

Revises the disaster assistance programs administered by both SBA and the Farmers Home Administration;

Authorizes SBA to make grants through a small business development center pilot program;

Directs the compilation of information needed to assess fully the current status of small business and its needs;

Authorizes organizations of handicapped in fiscal years 1980-82 to bid on up to $100 million for small business setaside contracts:

Authorizes Federal guarantees of debentures issued by certain State and local development companies for investment in small business;

Makes permanent and revises the labor surplus area factor in setting priorities for awarding small business set-aside contracts;

Allows SBA to guarantee loans to qualified Employee Stock Ownership Trusts or plans for the purchase if a small business or qualified corporation; and

Eliminates the burdensome requirement that SBA pay interest to the Treasury Department on outstanding disaster loans.

Mr. Speaker, there is no denying that small business and agriculture are the backbone of the American economy. Yet, it seems at times as if our governmental policies are working against the small businessman instead of for him or her. Over-regulation, paperwork, tax policies, and infiation--each frequently constitute a source of harassment for the small businessman. These factors destroy many small businesses and discourage the formation of many more.

The Government needs to do more than recognize the special role of small business to our economy. It must, through its policies stop the harassment and indeed work to promote small business and the many jobs and innovations that are created by small business.

-

December 2'0, 19 79

That is why I am pleased that Congress has approved the comprehensive provisions contained in S. 918. I believe they will provide the type of assistance the small business community can effectively utilize. I am pleased that one of the final actions taken in the first session of Congress is one that will benefit the Nation's small businesses.•

H.R. 6029-PARTICIPATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT

HON. L. A. (SKIP) BAF ALIS OF FLORIDA



e Mr. BAFALIS. Mr. Speaker, the Ways and Means Committee today filed a report to accompany H.R. 6029, "a bill implementing U.S. participation in the International Sugar Agreement." I did not have an opportunity to review the language of the report in detail prior to the designated time for filing.

In reviewing certain sections of the report, I believe that a number of points should have been emphasized and expanded. They are in that section of the report entitled "United States Sugar Tariff Policy." My views are as follows:

First. In the first paragraph of such section the report discusses the sales policy for commodities owned or acquired by the Commodity Credit Corporation. The report states: "Under section 407 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, the CCC cannot sell any 'storable nonbasic commodity at less than 5 per centum above the current support price for such commodity, plus reasonable carrying charges' " and further on in the paragraph states: "Currently the minimum statutory price is 13.78 cents." The report fails to state that the CCC selling policy currently prohibits the sale at less than the higher, :first, of the statutory price or, second, the current market price. Sales at less than the current market price would have a serious effect. Such sales would cause a reduction in the market price--returning less money to the Government, and also result in the CCC acquiring sugar which is now under loan, totaling $520 million in value as outlined in the report.

Second. The report notes that the world price of sugar has increased in recent months and that section 22 fees (under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933) have gradually been reduced to zero. Administration spokesmen have indicated that they are also considering a recommendation to the President toreduce the tariff, currently 2.81 cents per pound. It is assumed by some that any subsequent adjustment in import fees to achieve the desired domestic price can be promptly accomplished under section 22 authority. A close study of that authority under section 22 convinces me that there could be a great delay in implementation because of the procedural requirements contained in it. Therefore, consistent with the language currently in the report


which states "the goal should be to maintain the price of imported sugar, and thus the domestic price, at a level that discourages producers from placing sugar under loan, encourages sugar under loan to be redeemed and provides for an orderly sale of sugar that has been forfeited to the CCC,'' any reduction in the tariff should be carefully considered.

I have conferred with my colleague, the Honorable HENSON MOORE, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, and he concurs with this statement.•

POSSmLE SIDE EFFECTS OF SUPPOSEDLY SAFE DRUGS

HON. BARBARA A. MIKULSKI OF MARYLAND



• Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. Speaker, during the coming year my colleagues and I will be considering legislation concerning the complete provision of information to consumers using drugs. I strongly believe that both physicians and consumers should be aware of all possible side effects of drugs before they are taken.

To help my colleagues understand just how important it is that physicians and consumers know about all potential side effects, I would like to share with them a personal tragedy experienced by one of my constituents. I would like to enter into the RECORD a letter sent to me by Ms. Olga Worrall, a well-known lecturer on holistic medicine, who recently spoke before the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future. Ms. Worrall describes her misfortunes after a doctor gave her an an allegedly "safe" drug.

NOVEMBER 20, 1979. Hon. BARBARA MIKULSKI, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAREST BARBARA: Since both you and I are interested in Hollstlc Heallng, I must share with you a horrendous e~rlence that I am still suffering from because of wrong medication. Let me start at the beginning. On Thursday, the first of November, I went to Minneapolis to keep a. speaking engagement and Workshop comm.ltment with a group interested ln holistic medicine. My host and I arrived at the motel where I was to stay. Several members, my host and I went into the dining room for a late dinner. Everybody ordered chocolate lee cream for dessert; I ordered vanllla.. After two mouthfuls I noticed that the ice cream smelled and tasted like spoiled milk. I did not consume the lee cream.

I did my lecturing to about 1,000 persons and gave a workshop to over 200 personsmany of them medical doctors.

On Tuesday moming I awakened with a. strange feeling in my mouth and discovered that my mouth and tongue were covered with a white fuzz. I faintly recalled my mother speaking of Thrush mouth in little babies 1! they were given spoiled m.llk. I called my host and told him I felt that I should have a doctor check my mouth to make sure there was nothing seriously wrong. My host told me that he would cont act one of the doctors who attended my Workshop. The doctor came t o m y hotel room, looked at my mouth, and sa.ld: "Oh, there is a. m.lld epidem.lc of this, apparently caused by the very

37695 dry air." He then told me that he would prescribe an antibiotic that would clean it up very quickly. I told him that perhaps a milder treatment should be given, like rinsing the mouth out with peroxide. He told me that this would only klll off the surface fungus, but have no effect on the body. He then wrote out a prescription for Erythromycin (500 mg.). I asked him about the side effects, and he assured me that there would be none--that this was a very mild antibiotic.

The prescription was filled at once and the doctor told me to take two of the pills, and then four every day until the pills were used up. By the time I arrived in Baltimore, that evening, my voice was completely gone. I might add that I did not have a. temperature any time. For two days I was unable to speak-not even a whisper. Finally, after two days, my voice came back in a whisper.

I phoned my nephew, who is a medical doctor, and told him what had happened and when I told him what had been prescribed he couldn't believe his ears. He informed me that this drug is a very dangerous drug and that the side-effects are horrible and it can cause a yeast-type infection in the vagina, and that there is no drug to counteract it. He also informed me that Thrush mouth would have healed in a few days because it is self-contained and a mouth-wash of peroxide or other mouth-wash would have taken care of the problem.

I also phoned five of my doctor friends in Baltimore who expressed the same shock as my nephew did-that I had been given a non-specific drug.

I have suffered miserably from the sideeffects of this drug. It is two weeks now since I have taken the drug and my throat is stm swollen, as are the vagina and rectum.

As I have been pondering over this terrible experience I was subjected to by an ignorant doctor and a drug that should not be on the market, I wonder about the United States Government permitting drug companies to abuse our bodies through their terrible concoctions.

My doctors tell me that many of these antibiotics cause patients to be hospitalized because of the side-effects.

Centuries ago a. plague hit Rome. Greek doctors swarmed into Rome and bled and purged the poor Romans and thousands were dying from the cure. The Roman citizens approached the government and declared that Rome was giving Greek doctors license to comm.lt murder. One must come to the same concluison in this day and age and declare that our government is giving license to drug companies, and unscrupulous doctors-license to comm.lt murder. Perhaps these words aren't strong enough for the untold misery that unsuspecting patients are subjected to because of the poisons being dispensed by our drug companies. Many doctors are guilty of using their patients as guinea pigs for drug companies.

I come in contact with many young doctors who tell me how frust rated they are t hat they are tauitht nothing about medicine but are told t hat as soon as they gra.dua.te to open up an omce and that a. drug salesman will come by and give them a book with all t he drugs available for certain ailments. This is not Holistic medicine. Our dedicated doctors realize how short-changed they have been in not having true medical training and how to use drugs wisely.

I don't know how much good my letter will do, but I must cry out against the abuse of unsuspecting and innocent babies that are being thrown into cancer because of these t errible drugs. Never in the history of my mot her's , or grandmot her's time were women given hormones during t he menopause. It was indeed a very rare thing to hear about cancer when I was a young girl, but today

37696 our poor women, who are t~proac~ing the menopause, are becoming the victims of cancer because of money mad medical doctors, and drug companies.

I am sorry, in a way, that I have to burden you with this letter, but I have no one to turn to to cry out against medical abuse of my body.

I keep praying and visualizing my body overcoming the damage that was done to it. I shall have to suffer until this polson works out of my system.

Today my voice is much better, my throat and tongue are not as swollen, and with the help of God and the healing energy, my voice should return to normal.

Please feel free to use my letter in any way possible to make the powers that be in Washington take a hard look at the drug companies and the poisons that they are creating that in turn are destroying the health of the people.

God's richest blessings to you and yours. Much love.

Sincerely, MRs. AMBROSE A. WORRALL,

Director, New Ltfe Clinw.e

HUNTINGTON SENIOR CITIZENS MOURN THE PASSING OF RUTH BROWN

HON. JEROME A. AMBRO OF NEW YORK



• Mr. AMBRO. Mr. Speaker, I was recently informed of the untimely passing of Ruth Brown, the former director of senior citizens programs for the town of Huntington, N.Y. As supervisor of the town of Huntington, I appointed Mrs. Brown to that position in 1969. Before that she had served as the head of one of the individual units for a number of years. During her tenure as the head of the Huntington senior citizens program, it grew, in both size and scope at an amazing pace. From a small recreational activity serving under 1,000 people in nine units scattered throughout the town, it became a large, multifaceted series of services and projects with several thousand participants attending over 20 units. With Ruth Brown at the helm, a nutrition program was begun that sought to minister not only to the physical hunger of our oldet residents, but to their longing for companionship and pleasurable group activities. The Huntington nutrition program soon became a model for the county and the State of New York as well. During my many visits back to the center-which was first initiated during my term as town supervisor-! never fail to be impressed by the aura of joy, relaxation, and industriousness that is immediately apparent.

It was Ruth Brown who first brought to my attention, and to that of the town board, the serious need for garden apartment-type housing facilities for our lower- and middle-income seniors who were no longer ca,pable or willing to maintain their private homes. out of her prodding and initiatives first came the Huntington Senior Citizens Housing Committee-of which she was an ex officio member and key adviser-and


then Paumanock Village, the 292-unit housing complex that was dedicated only this past summer. Every senior citizen living in those lovely apartments can thank Ruth Brown for the work she did to make it a reality.

Ruth left the town of Huntington in 1974, when her husband was transferred to New Jersey. Not surprisingly, as a resident of Middletown, N.J., she soon got involved with senior citizen activities in that community and made a significant contribution there, as well.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, Ruth Brown passed away just before Thanksgiving after a short illness. In addition to her husband, Geary, her daughters, Judy and Joanne, and her mother, Ruth Harrison. Ruth Brown will be missed by all of us who worked closely with her and were educated and inspired by her to understand the needs and the desires of our elderly citizens. Most especially, she will be sorely missed by those many thousands of Huntington senior citizens whose lives she touched and enriched. For her, working with and for senior citizens was more than a job, it was a promise, an opportunity, and a commitment. The programs, facilities, and services offered to older residents of the town of Huntington will always be a living monument to her spirit and her memory.e

SALT II

HON. THOMAS E. PETRI OF WISCONSIN



• Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, in November I made a speech on the debate over the SALT II treaty before the faculty seminar on SALT II of the University of Wisconsin/Oshkosh. In hopes that this analysis may be of use to others concerned with this critical issue, I would like to insert it in the RECORD at this time.

THE SALT II DEBATE-AN ANALYSIS It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss

this extremely critical and complex issue. Of course the House of Representatives will not vote on the ratification ot SALT II, but every thoughtful American should be concerned about the debate over the treaty and the strategic equation which lieB behind it. I am not an expert on weapons systexns, and I don't claim to have all the answers on the treaty question. But I have thought about our baste defense posture in some depth. Today I would like to present my analysis of that defense posture and consider some of the key specific characteristics and possible uses ot the actual weapons that form the backdrop or the treaty debate. Out of that wm come a basic approach to the treaty itself.

BASIC ISSUES Our first question ought to be: what is our

baste objective ln the whole SALT process? The answer should be clear. It is to promote strategic stab111ty. That is, to minimize the risk of nuclear war (but without having to do so by giving up vital interests). Saving money, by avoiding the construction and deployment or more weapons, is a worthwhile objective too, but surely it is distinctly less important than l;ltrategic stabUlty. Note that

December 20, 1979 all sides in the debate share this primary objective. They just differ on how to achieve it. Despite implications to the contrary which surface from time to time, no serious person, hawkish or dovish, wants to increase the risks of nuclear war. Indeed some of the apparent hawks on this issue (i.e. those opposed to the treaty) regard themselves as the real doves since they don't think it does enough for arxns control. And some of the apparent dovoo seem almost hawkish in their willingness to accept situations others find fraught with danger.

We can make an arbitrary division of the issues in to two categories: the distinctly mil1tary issues and the broader issues which are mostly political. The basic military issue is the effect of acceptance or rejection of the treaty on the strategic balance and hence on strategic stabil1ty. The political issues include such things as the effect of acceptance or rejection on the SALT process itself, the effect on detente or superpower relations in general, the linkage to Soviet m111tary activities around the world, the effect on NATO, the effect on our image abroad, and the effect on our domestic defense policy and budget debates. It seexns clear at the outset that the m111tary issues are the heart of the matter, and most of my analysis will be directed to them. When we get through that analysis, however, it will appear that the two categories are much more closely interconnected.

OVERALL FORCE LEVELS Let us first put the military equation in

some perspective. At the time of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis Russia had only 70 liquid-fueled ICBMs requiring 10 hours to launch, plus some bombers. The U.S. was overwhelmingly superior in nuclear arms, and some think that was the key !actor that made the Russians "blink first." Others point to our conventional arxns superiority in the Caribbean as equally important.

In any case by 1962 all the major nuclear weapons systexns we rely on today were already well under way, including B-52s, Minuteman missiles, and Pola~is submarines. From '62 to '76, in inflation-adjusted dollars the U.S. actually cut its spending on strategic weapons an average of 8% per year. The 1979 spending level is only Y3 that of 1962-$10 b1llion versus $30 billion In 1979 dollars.

Meanwhile, the U.S.S.R. has steadily increased its strategic spending !rom the early '60s, speeding up after both the SALT I accord and the Vladivostok agreement in '74. In dollar terms, their strategic budget is now triple ours. Their general purpose forces are growing 20% !aster per year and are now twice as great as ours. Moreover, their R&D spending has led ours since SALT I and in recent years has been twice as great.

According to both the administration and most SALT critics, the strategic situation now is one of "essential equivalence." The U.S. leads in the total number of reentry vehicles or warheads (RVs), 9514 to 8226, and the U.S. also leads in accuracy. Russia leads in total megatonnage by a ratio of 2¥2 to 1, in throwweight by over 3 to 2, and in total launch vehicles by 2504 to 2053.

By the early 1980s Russia. is projected to catch up in the critically important variable of accuracy. By 1985, consistent with the limitations in the SALT II treaty, Russia is projected to be equal in accuracy, almost eque.l in RVs (12,504 to 11,728), ahead in mega.tonna.ge by over 3 to 1 (10,870 to 3,537), and ahead in throwweigbt by ai.most 2 to 1. Treaty critics think this may lead to "strategic superiority." The administration, including the current Joint Chiefs, insists that we oan maintain "essential equivalence." But these are pure abstractions. To understand what the argument is about, we must dig a ltttle deeper into what the numbers really

December 20, 1979 mean in terms of the concrete military objectives the various forces might theoretically achieve.

CAVEATS

But first we must make two caveats. Some people think th&t to even consider what might happen in actual nuclear warfare is to be a. warmonger and to invite the description to become reality. I must reject that attitude. The subject is far too important to be dealt with in superficial generalizations. In fact, the absence of detailed thought in this area. is at least as likely to invite nuclear war as its existence is.

Beyond this, sketching a series of theoretical attacks and counterattacks doesn't mean that any scenario will actually occur as sketched, even if leaders of the two countries believe the scenario describes a rational set of moves. Rather, as mentioned by Sene.tor Ja.vits in the hearings, it could be more like a game of chess. Chess masters can often project a long series of moves and realize which player has the winning position. Then the weaker player resigns without playing the game out to its conclusion. Some think this partly describes what happened in the Cuban misslle crisis.

WEAPON CHARACTERISTICS

The three most critical variables for describing the attacking potential of an o1Iensive nuclear force are the number of RVs (i.e. warheads}, their yield (i.e. mega.tonna.ge}, and their accuracy. Throwweight is basically the total amount of "stu1I" that can be put up in the air, and it really measures the potential for adding numbers of RVs and yield. The number of launchers (misslles, bombers, and submarines} basically describes the number of targets an opponent has to attack.

Accuracy is critical for destroying "hardened" targets such as missile silos. The probability of an incoming warhead destroying a hardened target varies as the square of yield and hardness but as the cube of accuracy. It turns out that up to a certain level of accuracy it is cheaper to add hardness to a missile silo than to add corresponding yield to the attacking warhead. But when accuracy reaches a certain level, which we probably have now and which Russia will achieve in the next year or two, according to administration testimony in the hearings, then no amount of hardness will do.

It is important that accuracy is highest for land-based missiles (ICBMs} and for the cruise missiles we are expecting to start deploying after 1982 or 1983. It is lowest for submarine-launched miss1les (SLBMs}. SLBMs probably cannot knock out hardened targets like missile silos in the near future, with the possible exception of our newest Tridents.

Megatonnage, or explosive power, is primarily useful for area destruction; that is, knocking out cities and industry. Large yield is wasteful for attacking small hardened targets 1f smaller warheads are accurate enough to do the job. SLBMs tend to have much lower megatonnage. Right now 50 percent of total U.S. megatonnage is on bombers, 40 percent on ICBMs and 10 percent on SLBMs. In contrast, our SLBMs now have 50 percent of our total RVs to just over 25 percent for the bombers and just under 25 percent for the ICBMs. Russia, with far fewer bombers, has over 75 percent of its megatonnage on ICBMs, about 15 percent on SLBMs and under 10 percent on bombers.

The number of RVs is important primarily in order t;o have enough to cover an the desired targets, particUlarly in second or third strikes.

POSSmLE RUSSIAN FmST STRIKE

As I indicated earlier, Defense Secretary Brown testified that improving Russian ICBM accuracy wm make our 1054 ICBMs

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS vulnerable by 1981 or 1982. He claimed we would have t<f rely on the other two legs of our "triad" of forces, bombers and submarines, until the situation can be redressed. Note that this is a somewhat di1Ierent concept of the "triad" than we used to hear about. It used to be that we needed to keep all three "legs" viable to maximize our security. Now we are told we have three "legs" so that we stlll have two left if one becomes vulnerable. As we shall see, however, this watered down concept xnay increase our risks draxnatica.lly.

The current proposed solution to our ICBM vulnerab111ty is the new MX missile in a mobile basing mode in which each of the 200 missiles will rotate on a track among 23 hardened shelters. creating 4600 targets that an enemy must attack. To attack each target with 2 incoming RVs would requd.re 9200 RVs. Once the system is in place, it is felt that it will be cheaper to add more hardened shelters than it will be for an enemy to add more RVs. Thus the defense will be able to add more targets than the o1Iense can attack. However, even if the MX stays on schedule and works, it is not scheduled to be deployed until 1986 to 1989, which is after the expdration of SALT II in 1985. Between 1981 or 1982 and MX deployment there w111 be what is called a "window" of time during which our ICBM force wlll be vulnerable.

Let us now consider what a. Russian first strike might achieve in, say, 1982. By then Russia. will have over 6,700 RVs on her 1,200 ICBMs, consistent with the terms of SALT II. It would take 2,108 RVs to target two each on each of our 1,054 Minuteman and Titan ICBM silos. If the probab111ty of any one incoming RV destroying its target is 80 percent to 90 percent, then 96 percent to 99 percent of our total ICBM force would be destroyed. That is, the first wave of RVs would destroy, at 80 percent kill probab111ty, 80 percent of the targets, and the second wave would destroy 80 percent of the remaining 20 percent, or 16 percent of the original total. Adding 80 percent and 16 percent gdves us the 96 percent of the total which would be destroyed. Let us assume that 97 percent to 98 percent of our ICBMs would be destroyed. That would leave 20 to 30 missiles. Since only half our Minutemen are MIRVed with 3 warheads each, those missiles would have a total of 40 to 60 warheads.

With a few hundred more warheads, the Russians would presumably attack our bomber bases and the submarines that are in port, plus our communications and intelligence facilitJies and some other m111tary targets, possibly including Washington. Many critics believe that at the very most, 30 percent of our bombers would escape destruction, since only a minority are on alert at any one time, and since explosions along the escape routes would destroy some in the adr.

The next question is how many of these remaining bombers could penetrate to their targets. Russia has been spending massive amounts on air defense, including thousands of surface to air missiles and interceptors, while some of our B-52s are older than their pilots. Admduistration experts testified they thought 75 percent could get through, assuming that attacks by some of our SLBMs suppress part of Russia's defenses. Some critics believe only 25 percent would make it. Let us assume that 30 percent escape the Russians' strike and 50 percent of those make it to their targets. Then we are left with only 15 percent of our bomber force capable of making it to any targets, assuming that they know whdch targets to go to.

Notice two further facts. The bombers may have to be used within a few hours, since they cannot return to their bases, which were destroyed. Also, the bombers take 6 to 10 hours to reach their targets, quite a bit of

37697 time for the Russians to decide to release their remaining missiles in a second attack if this is what they think the bombers are going after.

Turn finally to our submarines. Between 40 and 50 percent of these are in port defenseless at any given time. Let us assume the Russians attack when they can destroy 50 percent in port. Also assume that all submarines at sea survive, which seems a safe bet at present though by no means certain.

To sum up, at this point theoretically the U.S. would be left with 20 to 30 ICBMs ( 40 to 60 warheads}, e1Iectively 15 percent of its bombers, and 50 percent of its SLBMs. Russia would have left two-thirds of its ICBMs (about 800 with over 4000 RVs) and all of its SLBMs and bombers. Perhaps 10 to 20 million Americans would have been killed by Russia's attack on our strategic forces.

U.S. OPTIONS AFTER FIRST STRIKE

What would be our options at this point, aside from doing nothing? One would be to attack Russia's remaining forces. This has been our preferred doctrine, since we want to avoid having to threaten escalation to an exchange of attacks against population and industry. We would prefer to be able to destroy much of their remaining force and have enough left over to have at least equal abillty to threaten city destruction. Unfortunately, 1f our ICBMs are gone, this option is not very viable. It is doubtful whether SLBMs, which would comprise the bulk of our remaining force, could destroy the Russian ICBMs, two-thirds of which would remain in their hardened silos. Remember that SLBMs are not accurate enough and bombers take too long to get to hardened targets to be sure of destroying them before the missiles leave.

8<' we might be forced to a second option-attacking cities. To have a credible deterrent, we must at least be able to inflict unacceptable damage on Russian population and industry at this point. But even our ab111ty to do this would be unclear in the scenario we are sketching. Recall that destroying cities requires area destruction, and that re11uires not only lots of RVs, but lots of megatonnage too. Our SLBMs don't have that. Our total surviving force at this point would have only 20 percent of the area destruction potential of the original force.

Now look at what is being attacked. Russian population and industry are far more dispersed than ours, partly by design. In addition they have spent $100 billion on civil defense. In fact, besides having shelters, they can completely evacuate their cities in a few days, which might be how long it would take the surviving U.S. leadership to decide what to do. Besides this, some of their industry is hardened. Therefore, some critics believe Russia could survive a "counterva.lue" attack, as it is called, at this point with a. loss of as little as 10 to 20 percent of its industry and 20 million people, the same number it lost in World War n.

In contrast, it has been estimated that with what the Russians would have in reserve at this point, by attacking 254 American cities they could destroy 80 to 90% of our industrial base and kUl 150 mill1on people. Moreover, they would have enough weapons to do this 2 or 3 times.

So the bottom line of this analysis is that Russia could have a. decidedly superior position. Superior enough so that it is extremely doubtful that an American leader would force the exchanges to their conclusion, and therefore superior enough that the Russian leadership might consider it a. bet worth taking that they woUld suffer no retaliation at all. This could be the case even 1f the calculations are wrong by a fair amount. A lot depends on what the Russians' perceptions are. The key fact, perhaps, is that the loss

37698 of our ICBMs would remove the U.S. option to strike back at the remaining Soviet forces, forcing us to initiate the process of destroy lng cities, something which is of much more doubtful credibility. SOVIET Wll.LINGNESS TO LAUNCH FIRST STRIKE

We should pause to consider Russia's willingness to initiate this kind of a hideous policy. There are several factors that make it believable. First, their stated m111tary doctrine is that a nuclear war can be fought and won. Second, some point to the nature of their buildup, and particularly their civil defense preparations, as evidence that they might actually start a war. Third, they did lose 20 milllon people in World War II and k11led almost as many of their own people before that in the purges and the llquida.tion of the Kulaks. They recovered from that and may feel they can recover aga.l.n. Fourth, there wlll soon be new leadership in Russia and the nature of their politicial system gives us no confidence that the wisest, most humane men will rise to the top. Fi!th, at some point a few years down the road, they could find themselves in a very threatened position with China on the East, unrest in East Europe, and dissidence and economic !allure at home. There could easUy be a combination of circumstances that would encourage the ruling group to take bold, desperate action. Finally, and perhaps most important, the Russians may think that in a crisis, fearing an attack, the only hope for the U.S. might be for the U.S. to strike first itself a.ga.tnst Russia.. This could encourage the Russians to act to preempt such a move.

POSSmLE U.S. FmST STRIKE

Let us consider a U.S. first strike for a moment. In the early '80s, the U.S. wm have about 2100 highly accurate RVs on ICBMs. Augmented by a. few hundred of our newest, most accurate Trident SLBMs, these might be able to destroy almost all of Russia's 1200 ICBMs, just as they could destroy ours. Moreover, Russia's ICBMs comprise a much greater percentage of its total force than our ICBMs do of ours by most yardsticks. Since the strike would take our total ICBM force and a portion of our SLBMs to accomplish, we would not have nearly as many weapons left as the Russians would have after a. first strike, but we would certainly be vastly better off than if we had absorbed their blow first. In fact, the Russians might even fear that our Trident SLBMs wm become accurate enough to threaten them with an SLBM first strike from close in to their shores. This would give them to little warning tlme (only 5 to 15 minutes) that they couldn't even launch on warning.

BASIC PARADIGMS

Thus the basic strategic situation could become like a classic gun duel. Whichever side shoots first wins, both sides know it, and each side knows that the other knows it. This is clearly the most unstable strategic situation possible. It is impossible to overstate its danger. We have not been in this situation before--indeed there may not have been a similar one in the history of the world-but we may now for the first tlme be moving in that direction.

At present, the situation is more like a duel in which if either side fires, both die, and both see the situation that way. This is not pleasant, but it is much more stable than the first gun duel. The most stable situation of all, of course, is no duel at all, either because one side is clearly superior (as in"62, although each side had less knowledge of the other then) or because neither side can destroy the other-the ultimate goal of arms reduction.

It 1s not clear that we are definitely going to be in the gun duel situation. For example, Russia may not have enough of its most accurate RVs deployed by 1982, and our de-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ployment of cruise missiles between then and 1986 may be rapid enough to protect us by augmenting the penetrability and power of our bomber forces . Or again, the greatest danger would occur in a crisis situation, and then we would probably have more bombers on alert and subs at sea, so the equation would shift a bit. Still we cannot count on the Ru~sians not launching a surprise attack apart from a crisis.

There might also be other interim strategies the U.S. could pursue to alleviate the danger. One of the most obvious would be to adopt a policy of "launch on warning." This would be much more dangerous and less credible than our current policy of being able to absorb a first strike but it could give the Rus-:ians pause. '

Even if we reach the gun duel, we might be saved if the Russian leaders do not believe all their thecretical calculations, or if they are just not cold-blooded enough to strike after all, or if they think they can achieve their objectives by other means.

Despite all the ameliorating possibilities, however, it is clear that we are at least headed in the direction of the gun duel. It is extremely dangerous, we have no experience of what it might be like, and it has many people very concerned. This is the fundamental problem of our defense posture, and this is the essential background to the SALT II debate. Now what is the relationship of SALT II to all of this?

ENTER SALT ll

The first question we should ask is "What does SALT II prevent the two sides from doing that they would otherwise do?" Take the U.S. first. The consistent administration answer is nothing. Our cruise missile program can go forward as scheduled after the protocol expires in 1981, Trident is unaffected, and the MX, whose development is allowed by the treaty, isn't even scheduled for deployment until after the treaty expires, in 1986.

To get down to the launcher limit, the Soviets will have to dismantle 250 aging single-warhead missiles that are of little consequence. They will lose 250 RVs thereby, but at the same time they can add 3500 through adding MIRVs (multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicles). Supporters of the treaty point to the limits on the numbers of MIRVs each side can have on its various weapons as being significant on the Soviet side, especially for the huge 88-18. The SS-18 could carry up to 30 MIRVs with its throwweight but is limited to 10. This should prevent the Soviets from putting so many RVs in their force that they overwhelm the MX system before it is bullt. However, this may be more signlftcant as a precedent for SALT III since Russia would probably not get to far on this before 1985 anyway without sacrificing somewhere else in their buildup.

The essential fact is that neither side is prevented from doing much that they would otherwise do that is of essential importance to their program. At least this is what opponents cla.tm without too much argument. It is difficult to ma.tntatn that the treaty does not prevent us from doing what we would otherwise do and then turn around and try to maintain that tt does essentially limit Russia. Presumably the Russians a.re not such poor bargainers. Under the terms of the treaty, both sides, but especially Russia., will butld up their forces, primarU.y by adding MIRVs. It is in fact not an arms limitation treaty at aJ.I . It may be Ml arms control treaty ln that it does include some agreed boundaries to expansion.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

We ca.n now summarize some of the major arguments in the treaty debate. One of the principal arguments a.ga.tnst it is that it does not do enough. We are heading into grave

December 20, 1979 danger and we need arms limitation and arm.s reduction, but the principle effect of the treaty wlll be to delay the target date for another treaty for 6 years until 1986. By then Russia will be vastly more powerful than they are now. If they weren't induced to stop their buildup or reduce their arms in 1979, won't it be much more difficult 6 years later when they have much more invested?

Proponents reply that the treaty is the best we can get at the moment, and rejection will set the SALT process back rather than advancing it. In addition, it does establish the principle that the two sides should be equal on some criterion (namely number of launchers), it actually requires a reduction by Russia on this criterion, and it establishes very important fractionation (MIRVing) 11mits.

Whatever position you take, notice that more than a debate about mllltary substance, these arguments are fundamentally about polltical issues and political judgments. Remember at the beginning of this talk, I divided the issues arbitrarlly into the m111tary and the polltical. I assumed that the military issues were the heart of the matter. But because the basic strategic danger exists independently of SALT II, and because SALT II does not radically affect it, the basic arguments over the treaty become the political ones after all.

That is why some Senators are llnking acceptance of the treaty with an increase in defense spending, even though the increased spending might not be for strategic programs. They fear that acceptance of this treaty will be interpreted by Russia as indicating that the U.S. does not have the resolve to match the Soviet buildup, and that it will encourage them to continue a drive for strategic superiority. On the other hand, they fear that simple acceptance wlll "tranqu111ze" the American publlc, making them think our strategic problems are taken care of and there is nothing to worry about. An increased spending promise, according to this view, will send a basic message to the Soviets in a less drastic way then rejection of the treaty would. At the same tlme it would assure that resources were available for at least some expanded strategic programs, and the Soviets are more likely to agree to limitations if there is a concrete program under way to deny them superiority.

Note that I have said nothing so far about verification. Many opponents are concerned about verification of some aspects of the treaty, but most of them seem to regard this as a red herring since what the treaty allows is dangerous enough.

Similarly, you can nitpick other aspects. For example it is charged that the backfire bomber should be counted in the launch 11mits. Perhaps it should, since our bombers cannot make complete round trips back to the U.S. either. However, backfires are currently assigned "theatre" missions, and this is just one of those things we gave up to get the few concessions that were of greater significance to us elsewhere, according to the proponents. In any case, this seems a secondary issue, since the Soviets will have such significant reserves after any nuclear exchange that they won't need the backfire for intercontinental use.

Another nitpick ls the potential ab111ty of the Russians to build extra misslles (since it has launchers that are limited) and store them for quick reload onto their launchers or even for firing from their cannisters. Again this is of lesser importance for the same reason as the backfire. If they can already k111 us three times, what difference does it make if they raise it to four tlmes? Once is quite enough.

CONCLUSION

Thus, because of the increasing vulnerabllity of the ICBMs of both sides, the strategic balance is potentially headed for a pe-

December 20, 1979 riod of much greater danger than we have so far experienced. This is the essential background of the SALT debate, a.nd the actual provisions of the treaty do little to alleviate the situation. Even if we do not completely reach the extraordinarily unstable condition of the duel in which the side which shoots first wins, we are at least perllously close to it. Our margin for error is getting much too thin.

The members of the Senate a.re called upon to make a most di1ficult judgment. They must decide whether it wlll be better for future arms limitation efforts if we accept this limited treaty to keep the process going or if we reject it a.s inadequate. Because this judgment is difficult, other political issues such a.s the effect on NATO or Soviet activities around the world may be decisive in some Senators' minds. In other words, the la.ck of a.ny clear conclusion on the merits brings more secondary issues to the fore. We started out with the assumption that the strategic issues were more central than the political, but in the end we find that the two are inextricably linked after all.e

IN PRAISE OF KERMIT BLUME

HON. J. J. PICKLE OF TEXAS



• Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, Kermit Blume is a man who has served many people, and who has served them well. For over 42 years he has been a postal carrier out of the Ledbetter, Tex., Post Office, and he is now ending his career with the Postal Service and beginning his retirement years.

Mr. Speaker, each year in both private enterprise and the Government we find employees who retire after having served their constituencies well. Quite often it is an occurrence of little note or concern except to the retired employee himself, and perhaps his or her family. But some people feel their public service in a greater way than others, and I believe Kermit Blume is one of these. Yesterday I received a letter from Mr. Blume that I think typifies this dedication to public service. In it Mr. Blume thanks me for having helped to "save" the Ledbetter Post Office a few years ago when it was threatened with closure. But more importantly, it is a wonderful example of the love Mr. Blume has had for his community, the people he has served, and the work he has carried out for them and for us. I insert a part of it herewith for my colleagues• attention:

Small oil and gas wells are being dr1lled all around us and I am going to recommend to the Ledbetter Fire Dept. to put up a sign: "Ledbetter."

Where the cattle grow and the on flows. My wife and I, as well as other citizens

in Ledbetter, are doing progressively better every year.

Ledbetter is a far cry from what it was 42 years ago.

When I started we had no · electricityno running water-no street lights. During the depression years Ledbetter was a rundown Rail road town and on top of that a fire wiped out a block of business houses.

Enclosed you will see a note I wrote to all my patrons on the mail route with a mall box greeting card:

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS The mall box has been more than just a

box to me. The rural mall box has been an emblem of satisfaction to me.

Certainly it has been a.n emblem of satisfaction to you too. In It you received all the good news and sometimes a little bad news. For years, Mrs. Ellen Rebecca McClellan at Box No. 1 would give me a good send off by saying, "You are my sunshine, for you bring me letters from my chlldren."

After serving you GOOD people with pleasure and happiness for 42 years, it is hard for me to quit. However, there comes a time for all of us to understand that we cannot keep on forever.

After a million miles of "Service With a Smile" it is proper and fitting that I retire.

A dream come true of service and great satisfaction to me shall terminate December 13, 1979.

I shall continue to work and think happy. I have built a house by the side of the

road and tried to be a friend to man. Mr. Speaker, each of us have public serv

ants in our districts who are dedicated to the public interest as much a.s anyone. Kermit Blume is typical of the many post office carriers throughout America, and I am pleased to make note of this achievement and to express my appreciation to him for his years of devoted service to the Postal Service and to our country.e

THlE U.S.-U.S.S.R. MTI..ITARY BALANCE-MYTHS AND FACTS

HON. JON~ATHAN B. BINGHAM OF NEW YORK



• Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, over the last few months I have made a series of short speeches about the military balance between the United States and the U.S.S.R. I have received a number of requests for copies of these speeches, and to make it easier for readers of the REcORD to see all of these speeches, I am including them in order at this point in my remarks:

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there is a growing fear in the United States of the military might of the Soviet Union. Increasing numbers of people, including many Members of Congress, are convinced that the Russians have been conducting an unrestrained and largely successful drive to obtain military superiority in both conventional and strategic weapons. Cries of alarm about Soviet military might have resounded through these halls with increasing frequency, and many Members are convinced that the Soviet m111tary machine is now more powerful than any on earth.

This alarmist view ha.s traditionally been stressed to drum up support for larger spending on U.S. forces , but this year I fear that it will also be turned against the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. Those who become convinced that the Soviets' m111tary might surpasses our own in almost every category can also be convinced not to support a SALT agreement which only deals with one part of the military imbalance. In an effort to defiate some of the exaggerated fears about Soviet military capabilities, I will undertake to highlight some of the weaknesses of So-viet conventional forces , and the superior strengths of U.S. and Allied Forces. In a series of brief speeches over the next few months, I want to demonstrate that the military balance is not so dangerously lopsided as too many people seem to believe.

37699 Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the widespread

belief that the Soviets have surpassed the United States in m111tary power is often based on comparative calculations of what each nation spends on defense. The CIA publishes estimates each year of Soviet defense spending, and these estimates are frequently cited as showing that the Russians spend 45 percent more than the United States on their military machine-a startling gap-and have shown real, steady growth in their total defense spending for almost 20 years.

In fact, this is not the whole picture. The CIA calculates spending on Soviet forces in dollar prices that we would pay in the United States for the same forces. This means that the high pay scales of our volunteer army are applled to the Russians' conscripted force of over 4 million men, which grossly distorts the total cost figure. Calculated in rubles Instead of dollars, the CIA estimates Soviet spending on defense to be only 25 percent larger than our own, and admits that even this figure could be 10 percent too high. Other authoritative sources such as the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimate the gap as even smaller. Furthermore, 1f the defense spending of allies on both sides are taken into account, the gap disappears---i~deed it reverses.

And finally, the CIA itself insists that total spending alone is not a good measure of the strength and effectiveness of military forces . An accurate comparison of United States and Russian m1litary might must take into account the tactical proficiency, readiness, and morale of forces; the number and effectiveness of weapons, battle scenarios, logistic factors, and a host of other factors. The simple claim that the SOviets are m111tarily stronger than we are simply because they seem to spend more is not justlfted.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, those who would have us believe that the West is threatened by superior military power from the East often point to the fact that the Warsaw Pact nations have from 2¥2 to 3 times as many tanks as NATO. But numbers alone can be very misleading. When other vital factors are considered, the picture is very different.

First, it should be remembered that the role of the NATO forces is primarily defensive and a defending army does not require the numerical strength of an attacking army.

This strategic fact is especially important when one compares the comparative range of the Warsaw Pact and NATO tanks. According to experts, the T-62 tank, which the Soviet Army has been using for 17 years and which has only recently been provided to some of the other pact forces , tends to break down after 100 to 125 miles. The comparable figure for NATO tanks, which will have to travel shorter distances, is 150 to 200 miles.

Over 40 percent of the Warsaw Pact's tank ca.pabi11ty comes from the six non-Russian members of the pact whose equipment Is largely obsolete. In general, pa.ct tanks are lighter, have smaller ammunition loads, less accurate guns, and thinner armor than NATO's.

Next week, I will discuss the comparative strength of the two sides, in terms of tank crew training and anti-tank capabUities.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, last Friday I mentioned four criteria for comparing Warsaw Pact and NATO tank capabi11ties. I pointed out that NATO's advantage in preparing !or a defensive war with tanks o! superior quality offset the pact's numerical advantage. Today I wm look at the other

37700 two factors: The quaUty of the tank crews and antitank weaponry.

Experts have noted glaring deficiencies in pact training techniques and comm.and procedures. Pact crews are not trained on the type of tanks they would operate in combat, they have to use a small number of training tanks on a rotating basis. Thus, in the event of war pact tank crews w1ll have to operate tanks with wthich they have had little real experience. NATO, by contrast, trains its crews on the same type of tanks they would use 1! war breaks out. Further, Warsaw Pact troops are trained to follow a rigid comm.and structure which allows little room !or deviations from attack plans to deal with inevitable unforeseen tactical developments. In contrast, tactical fiexib111ty is stressed by NATO.

NATO antitank superiority is unquestioned. NATO antitank weapons are capable of penetrating up to 20 inches of armor. One hit is sufficient to knock out any tank currently used by the Warsaw Pact. NATO forces have 193,000 antitank misslles, more than nine times the number of tanks in the pact's arsenal. Many of these antitank mlsslles are accurate from distances of over 3 kilometers, well outside the cannon range of virtually all pact tanks. The fact that NATO w111 be fighting a defensive war means that its antitank weapons can remain hidden from exposed pact tanks.

I submit, therefore, that NATO's superior equipment, troops, and defensive weaponry, coupled with the ta.otlcal advantages of fighting a defensive war, offset the Warsaw Pact's numerical advantage in tanks.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, a statistic often cited by those who would have us believe that we Warsaw Pact's m111tary power is far superior to NATO's is the number of troop divisions each side claims--226 for the pact compared with 41 NATO divisions. While these figures sound threatening, a closer look shows the balance is not so one-sided.

First. The pact total includes all the divisions of all the pact members, including 61 Soviet divisions assigned to the often tense Sino-Soviet border which pose no threat to the West.

Second. The paot total includes divisions which are at as llttle as 25 percent of full strength. Pact divisions are divided into three categories; category I divisions are at least 75 percent of full strength, category II divisions are 50- to 75-percent combat ready, and category III divisions are at only 25 to 50 percent of full strength. Only about one-third of all pact divisions fall into category I.

Third. NATO divisions tend to be much larger than their pact counterparts and are kept at a much higher state of readiness. In addition, NATO assigns many of its troops outside of a division structure. It has been estimated, for example, that if the United States reorganized its troops along the lines of the Soviet mll1tary it could form from 80 to 90 divisions instead of Its current 19.

Fourth. If the 50,000 French troops which are stationed in Germany are included, NATO could claim 1,250,000 combat and direct support troops compared to 1,240,000 pact troops. Furthermore, the Warsaw Pact countries cannot blithely ignore the 400,000 man French Army, since it is inconceivable that France would stay neutral In a European con1l1ct.

Fifth. NATO, unlike the pact, is a true alliance whose members belong by choice and share common interests. There 1s no real question concerning the loyalty of our NATO ames, particularly in the event of an attack on Western Europe. The Soviet Union cannot speak with such confidence about its pact "ames."

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, no aspect of the Soviet Union's increasing conventional


military power has received more attention in the Congress than its naval forces. Newly designed Russian ships and submarines outnumber our own, and some alarmists charge that the U.S. Navy is being scuttled.

In fact, the Soviet Navy is no match for our own. Consider the following:

Our Navy is significantly larger than the Russians' in number of major surface ships, total tonnage, and average tonnage per ship.

The U.S. Navy has 13 large attack aircraft carriers, while the Soviets have none. Each of these carriers can deliver more munitions on land and sea or in the air than the entire Soviet surface fieet of ships which displace 1,000 tons or more.

While the size of the Soviet Navy is expected to decrease during the next 5 to 10 years, the U.S. Navy is planning to have a 10-percent larger force.

Our Navy works closely with 4 large, modern all1ed navies with some 600 ships, while the Soviets have only meager backup from Poland and East Germany.

Our ships are newer, while the Russians have a serious block obsolescence problemhalf their major surface ships were constructed over 20 years ago.

The U.S. Navy has over 100,000 more sa.1lors, whose skllls and training are far superior to their Russian counterparts.

We have 15 times as many marines and our amphibious ships can lift 4 times as many troops into battle.

U.S. ships are at sea and on station for much longer periods than Soviet ships, ma.lntalnlng much higher levels of trainlng and readiness.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in an earller 1-mlnute speech I listed some of the reasons why the Soviet Navy is no match for our own. Today I will add to that list.

Not only is our Navy already larger in number of major surface combatants, but that advantage will grow over the coming decade as our fieet of warships will increase by 34 percent to some 223 ships.

The Russian Navy must maneuver through narrow choke points, many of which are controlled by Western powers, to reach the high seas. They have only three major, lee-free naval bases and repair yards, while the United States operates more than 40 bases and yards along thousands of miles of our own open-ocean coastline as well as overseas.

The Soviets cannot sustain deployed combat operations outside their own contiguous seas because their smaller ships lack staying power and have too few support ships for services and auxiliary tasks. Their navy has only 1 large fieet support ship !or every 42 major combatants, whlle the U.S. Navy maintains a ratio of 1 to 15.

The Russian Navy cannot compare to ours in air cover or reconnaissance capablllty.-We have more than 5 times as many naval aircraft and 10 times as many aircraft aboard ships.

The Russians are only now building their first nuclear-powered surface ship, whlle the U.S. Navy already operates 11.

The Russians keep only 15 percent of their ballistic missile submarines on patrol, whlle 55 percent of ours are normally on station.

The United States has an unmatched ASW O&lpability based on elaborate system of sea bottom, ship-towed, and aircraft, dropped listening devices to track com.paratively noisy Russian submarines.

It is not surprising that our naval leaders freely admit that they would rather command the United States than tihe Soviet fieet.e

December 20, 1979

THE ROLE · OF THE AFL-CIO ON FOREIGN POLICY OF TIDS COUNTRY

HON. MICHAEL D. BARNES OF MARYLAND



• Mr. BARNES. Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the prominent role that the AFL-CIO has played in the development of foreign policy in this Nation. The AFL-CIO has never shied away from criticizing this country or any country when it felt our conduct in foreign affairs was contrary to the basic democratic principles on which the labor movement of this country was founded.

Mr. Meany, president emeritus of the AFL-CIO, was known for his outspokenness in the field of foreign affairs. His successor, Mr. Lane Kirkland, is no less outpoken. President Kirkland and the AFL-CIO at its recent convention vigorously condemned the actions of Iran in seizing and holding hostage over 50 Americans of our diplomatic mission to that nation. But Mr. Kirkland's concern and that of the AFL-CIO go far beyond public statements.

On December 12, in a letter to the presidents of the 105 AFL-CIO afiiliates as well as to the AFL-CIO State and local leadership, Mr. Kirkland called on them to undertake a campaign to circulate petitions among all union members, their families and friends, urging that the hostages be released. The petitions, which are to be sent to the Iranian Embassy in Washington, demand"* • • the immediate and unconditional release of each and every American being held hostage in Tehran." The petition states emphatically that '' • • • Americans of all opinions are united behind our Government's refusal to surrender to terrorist blackmail," and "• • • the Ayatollah Khomeini has perverted the spirit of religion, violated international law, and affronted the civilized values of humankind. Iran stands alone, dishonored and condemned by outraged world opinion. It can redeem itself in only one way: Release the hostages now."

Mr. Speaker, I place a copy of Mr. Kirkland's letter to the AFL-CIO leadership throughout the country in the RECORD as testimony of the moral leadership shown by Mr. Kirkland and the solidarity of American labor with all other Americans in their outrage over the events in Iran: PRESIDENTS OF ALL AFFILIATED NATIONAL AND

INTERNATIOAL UNIONS DEAR TRADE UNION LEADER: The members

of your union and their families can contribute in a substantial way to the campaign to free the American hostages held by the Iranian terrorists in the U.S. embassy in Teheran.

I solicit-and am confident of receivingyour support in this campaign.

Briefiy stated, it is a drive to obtain as many petitions as possible, similar to the attached, mailed to the Iranian embassy in Washington demanding the immediate, unconditional release and return of all the hostages, unharmed.

We want to fiood the Iranian embassy with these petitions, demonstrating the united

December 20, 19 79 support of American workers and their fam-111es for the U.S. government's position that this gross violation of international law be ended immediately and that our fellow Americans be returned to this country without delay.

Therefore we ask that: (1) You circulate copies of this petition

to all your locals, asking that they distribute it among their members, families and friends.

(2) That each signed petition be mailed at once to the Iranian embassy.

(3) Since we want a constant, continuing flood of mall, we have prepared the enclosed petition, with spaces for 10 signatures, that can be mailed without an envelope. We urge that you use a similar style and that each signed petition be folded, stamped and immediately mailed.

(4) Finally, we urge you to publicize this campaign in every way possLble.

Every state and local central body is being urged to undertake a similar campaign at once in order that petitions be circulated at every factory, shop and job site in America.

We must do everything we can to convince the terrorists in Iran and the rest of the world that American workers fully support their government in this crisis.

The hostages must be freed. The world must-and will-learn that the United States cannot and will not be blackmailed by terrorists.

I am confident of your complete support for this emergency campaign.

Sincerely and fraternally, LANE KIRKLAND,

President.e

NUCLEAR PLANTS-ARE THEY ALWAYS SAFE?

HON. ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN OJ' NEW YORK



• Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, the accident at Three Mlle Island has undermined the country's complacency about the safety of nuclear energy. Before, we knew that a serious accident at a nuclear facility would have catastrophic consequences; now we know that such an accident is very possible.

Moreover, there is also mounting evidence that even under normal operation nuclear powerplants may pose a serious hazard to the public's health. In this regard I commend to my colleagues' attention the informative article by Dick Brukenfeld, "Are Nuclear Plants Unsafe-Even Without Any Mishap?" that appeared in the November 11, 1979 edition of the W~hington Post.

The text of the article follows: ARE NUCLEAR PLANTS UNSAFE, EVEN WITHOUT

ANY MISHAP?-A NEW GERMAN STuDY CHALLENGES THE NRC's AsSURANCES

(By Dick Brukenfeld) Is fa.Uout .trom nuclear reactors exposilng

people to dangerous levels of radiationeven without an accident? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission claims that normal emissions from reactors a.re sate. But a report which the commission has been sitting on since early this year shows that these government safety claims are based on fraudulent research.

Performed by Atomic Energy Commission scientists 20 years ago. the experiments demonstrate the Eisenhower-Lewis Strauss policy of making fallout look harmless. Thus today, the new report sa.ys, fallout from normally

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS operating nuclear reactors is exposing people to radiation in excess of the authorized limits.

Although the NRC admits the charge aibout the fraudulent experiments, it denies that fallout from nuclear reactors is a health hazard. To find the tl"Uth in these confl.icting claims, it helps to begin with what is known.

It is known that each of this country's 72 reactors releases some radioactive waste. This happens 'by design and bec.ause of human a.nd mechanica.l flaws. Uranium fuel rods crack, pipes leak, filters fail and so do workers when they open the wrong valve. Thus the NRC limits how much atomic waste each reactor may discharge into the water and a.lr.

To measure what this is doing to people, the commission makes a. dose calculation. This tracks the radioactivity from the reactor through the food chain into human bone and tissue. The resulting "dose estimate" is the core of the claim t.ha.t 1s normallly operating nuclear reactor is safe.

But the NRC now acknowledges that thiS safety calculation is based in part on the dubious experiments of the 1950s. The problem begins with the conviction that atmospheric nuclear testing was essential to national securlity.

To quiet the Nervous Nellies who wanted a test ba.n, the old AEC took steps to show it was keeping on top of fallout. One such step was a. program of experiments to find whether food crops would ta.ke up dangerous levels of fallout from the soil. More than just looking for results that would make fallout appear safe, most of the scientists rigged their experiments to produce the desired reassurance.

In measuring how much fallout plants would pick up from the son:

The AEC scientists made preliminary tests on a va.riety of soils. They chose for their experiments those soils which absorbed the lea.st amount of fallout.

It was .known that plants have difficulty assimilating many f.allout ingredielllts until they are acted upon by soil bacteria. To prevent this, the scientists cooked their soil in ovens and killed its bacteria..

Then they added the radiotoxic substances to the soil shortly before the plants were harvested. This avoided the conditions of reality, where the plants would grow from seeds in the contaminated soil.

Not surprisingly, these experiments showed hardly any !Sillout was getting into crop plants.

The repol't which reveals this information breaks new ground. It's the first time independent scientists have dug into the NRC's safety assurances to expose their foundations. Written by a. team of 14 West German scientists--agricultural biologists, physicists, chemists, a. mathematician, a. physician a.nd a veterinarian-from the University of Heidelberg, it applies directly to this country. Not only does Germany build its reactors from American designs but it proves their safety with the same set of calculations the Nuclear Regulatory Commission uses for that purpose here.

As performed by the NRC or t1he utll1ties, these calculations show a reactor giving little r-adiation to a person llving within 10 miles-a fraction of a. mllllrem to less than 5 milllrems yearly. (CUrrent estimates peg a chest X-ray between 15 a.nd 30 milUrems.)

But the German scientists sa.y thBit in measuring fallout's journey from reactor to residence in the body, the NRC figures are "either at the lower end of the range given tn the literature or fa.r below the values that may be regarded as realistic. It follows 11ha.t the results of these assessments are unrealistically low."

They say, for example, that NRC judgments on how much plutonium, cesium and strontium crops pick up from the soil are "between 10 and 1,000 times too low."

The Heidelberg group reached its conclu-

37701 -::/ sion after digging through 25 years of soientlflc journals to find what experiments had been done on how much fallout was getting to people. They then compared the results of these other experiments with the NRC figures--eight other experiments in the case of cesium, 11 others in the case of strontium.

After examining the NRC safety estimates, the report scores another first. It calculates the dose from a nuclear reactor, using figures ohose by independent scientists. What tlhe German scientists did was feed their figures in to the NRC computer model.

They found that a pressurized water reactor planned for the town of Whyl on the Rhine could be expected to expose people to a yearly dose of 1.071 milllrems of wholebody radiation. The major part of this dose would come from radioactive substances taken into the body with food and drink. The reactor's exhaust a.ir is the principal source of this contamination, with its waste water playing a significant but lesser role.

The exposure limit in the United States is 170 milllrems of whole-body radiation yearly from a.ll nuclear fac111ties. On Dec. 1, the Environmental Protection Agency will reduce this limit to 25 millirems.

But it would be inaccurate to transfer the 1,071-mlllirem result from the Whyl study to a reactor in this country or anywhere else. Conditions speclfl.c to each power plant's site, such as wind patterns, nearness of farmland, size and type of reactor could bring these figures up or down.

Stlll, the study strongly suggests that realistic safety calculations would show each of this country's 72 reactors burdening people with more radiation than the new 25-millirem limit. Since the NRC uses these dose estimates as its basic yardstick for llcensing and regulation, it would have cause to act against all the country's nuclear pl8ints in more than a cosmetic wa.y.

But this is not likely to happen, for more than economic reasons. Just as the Heidelberg group calls the NRC figures too low, the commission replies that the German scientists' figures are too high. "Their literature search was not comprehensive," and NRC spokesman comments. "They looked for experiments that would support their conclusions."

More importantly, Dr. Frank Congel, leader of the NRC's radiological impact section, says that "real measurements" by the util1ties show that radiation emitted by nuclear plants is well within current safety limits.

Can the ut111ties be trusted to monitor how much radiation their own plants are giving off? Asked whether the NRC had assigned the fox to guard the chickencoop, Dr. Congel responded that the NRC "reviews the records and procedures of each plant on an average of twice a year." The commission also "spotchecks seven or eight plants each year."

But these "real measurements" by the ut111ties fail to answer the Heidelberg report. The German scientists are attacking not the ut1Ut1es emission figures but the set of calculations used to estimate what dose these releases give to human beings. To verify the Heidelberg report would require monitoring food from farms and dairies near reactors, a step which the NRC calls unnecessary a.nd expensive.

Yet both the Environmental Protection Agency and the states monitor milk for radioactivity. Although milk from dairies near reactors often shows high levels of strontium 90, both the uttllties and the NRC claim this contamination comes from atmospheric fallout. They blame this partly on the residue left in the atmosphere from old u.s. and Soviet tests, but mostly on the more recent Chinese bomb testing.

Since strontium 90 lacks a label of origin, no one can know for sure. But state and EPA monitoring shows a pattern. Mter the U.S.-

37702 Soviet test ban in 1963, strontium 90 milk levels remained high across the country for two or three years. Then the average dropped from roughly 25 picocuries per liter to 4 picocuries, where it remains. After a Chinese test, these levels jump briefly, then go back to what is now normal.

But in certain areas near nuclear plants the level of strontium 90 in milk has at times risen higher than it was at the height of atmospheric nuclear testing. Such readings were found in milk from dairies in Waterford, Conn., near the Millstone nuclear plant, when that facllity was experiencing high radiation releases in 1976.

In Wisconsin, South Carolina and other states, rises in strontium 90 milk levels from dairies near reactors have also been recorded after releases of radiation from those facilities. Still, NRC and ut111ty officials insist the strontium 90 comes from Chinese tests. This presents a picture of an America covered by a huge umbrella in the sky with holes punched over certain reactors.

This is less ridiculous than it sounds, since our technical institutes teach fledgling physicists that reactors do not give off strontium 90. Dr. Bernard L. Cohen, director of the Scaife Nuclear Laboratories at the University of Pittsburgh, writes in "Nuclear Science and Society" that "strontium 90, which has received wide publicity for its importance in bomb fallout, is removed in the chemical purification and hence is of little consequence here." (That is, it is removed by a filter within the reactor.)

Unfortunately, what's written in textbooks does not always happen in reality. Not only can filters be less than perfect, but the largest portion of radioactivity released from reactors, which is in the form of gases, presents special problems. These gases decay into radioactive particles, including strontium and cesium. Nuclear plants are designed to hold these gases long enough so that the decay takes place within the plant, where the particulates can be filtered out.

But if the gases leave the plant before they have had time to mellow, rather than tloatlng away harmlessy, they deposit strontium cesium and other isotopes in the environment. These gases can be released prematurely due to plant emergencies. Or, according to the Heidelberg report, significant quantities of the gases often leak out of the plant before they reach its filtering system.

Further, a Wisconsin investigation based on 14 years of milk monitoring by state officials support the validity of the Heidelberg report, giving evidence that reactors are indeed releasing strontium 90.

America's dairyland state is bordered on three sides by a Big Dipper-shaped chain of 14 nuclear reactors. Wary of safety assurances, a Wisconsin environmental foundation asked the State Radiation Section to prepare a dose estimate based on the official milk sampling program, started in 1963. The state refused. So this concerned group of middle-aged, middle-class professionals-Land Education Associates Foundation Inc.-took on the project with the assistance of a University of Minnesota biology professor. To insure credib111ty, they chose to use data only from state monitoring records.

The chain of reactors around Wisconsin grew from two to 14 between 1970 and 1976. State records show milk strontium 90 levels jumping in 1973 from just below to more than twice the national average, and staying there at least three years (The study had to close with 1976, since state officials were more than two years late 1n supplying records which are supposedly public.)

The largest increases of strontinum 90 came in a Wisconsin area. 50 miles downwind, and downriver, from Minnesota's Monticello reactor, and in the Green Bay area around the Point Beach nuclear plant Both high readings of strontium came and

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS persisted during the year that Monticello was leading the nation in gaseous releases of radioactivity, and Point Beach was tripling its allowed emissions.

Showing instance after instance where nuclear plant releases were followed by high radioactivity in milk, the study points to reactor fallout as the major source of contamination.

In calculating its dose, the Heidelberg report judges the impact of a large reactor on people living in a small area-roughly within a 10-mile radius, making a circle around the plant of 314 square miles. But the Wisconsin study judges the Impact of 14 smaller reactors on people spread across a territory of 54,000 square miles. Thus exposure for each person will be smaller.

Since they based their study on just the three radioactive poisons monitored by the state-strontium 90, cesium 137 and iodine 131-the Wisconsin investigators label their "Total Fission Dose" findings as "not the whole dose."

Using government formulas, they find the average yearly dose to Wisconsin citizens from nuclear waste in food and the environment is 33 mlllirems of whole body radiation for an adult, and 67 millirems for a growing child. The yearly dose to the bones is 76 millirems for an adult and 174 mlllirems for a growing child. The study says this "extra" radiation has more than doubled the risk of blood cancer for Wisconsin 14-year-olds.

They caution that this radiation comes from more than milk. Although ideal for monitoring, milk is one of the least radiotoxic foods. It contains only 10 percent of the radioactivity found in the grass eaten by the cow which filters out the rest As foods high in fallout radiation, the investigators note potatoes, whole wheat, leafy vegetables, soybeans, berries, venison, nuts, cabbage and cheese, which multiplies the milk dose times six.

The NRC rejects the Wisconsin study, even though it is based on verified state milk records and calculated with EPA and NRC formulas . The NRC's Dr. Congel states the Wisconsin study "showed extreme bias in its data and its presentation when we reviewed it."

At the same time that the EPA is establishing the new 24 millirem exposure limit, the NRC is stopping the monitoring of strontium 90 at nuclear plants. The reason given is that the utilities, assigned 'by the NRC to monitor themselves, aren't finding much. But like most manufacturers, utility executives want responsibility to end at the front gate. The public can't see the strontium 90 leaking out of the plant. Why should the util1ty? More importantly, why should nuclear plant owners be responsible for monitoring themselves?

The agency responsible for protecting the environment has given some indication of what its new 25 millirem limit means. One of its radiation officials explains, "The EPA does not have any regulatory requirements to monitor the environment around nuclear power plants; this monitoring is required by the NRC of their licensees."

When told of high strontium 90 levels being monitored in milk and fish from the area near the three Oconee reactors in South Carolina, another EPA radiation official responded that the 25 millirem limit applies to "planned discharges of radioactive materials." It does not apply, he said, "to background or fallout radiation in the vicinity of nuclear power plants." Chinese fallout again, and a large !oophole for the many unplanned releases which reactors experience.

Both EPA and NRC plan to enforce the new limit by letting the ut111ties tell them what radiation is being released. From this they will estimate the dose to the public, using that same set of calculations which the Heidelberg report examined.

Both agencies have copies of the Heidelberg

December 20, 1979 report. The NRC translated and printed it· last spring (NRC translation 520: "Radioecological assessment of the Whyl Nuclear Power Plant.") Its distribution has been delayed while the German authors made some revisions. But Bernd Franke, one of the Heidelberg scientists, told this writer they had changed nothing of substance.

The significance of the report is that it indicates t~ere is a great range of uncertainty in what is known about the impact of nuclear plants on human beings. The only way to determine whether the official dose estimates have validity is by a rigorous and continuing program of food monitoring performed by an independent agency.e

THE HOUSING SHORTAGE AND THE SRO OPTION

HON. MARIO BIAGGI OF NEW YORK



• Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Speaker, for those who could afford it during early 20th century, hotel living was the preferred choice of housing. Gradually, however, as the fashionable left for other accommodations, the single rooms of the rich were assumed by a less affiuent class of individuals. For many, living in urban centers across the Nation, hotel living has persisted up to this day as a viable lifestyle.

Although the once elegant hotels have suffered from neglect and have deteriorated with age, they have not disappeared. Today, they house a significantly large subsegment of the urban population and are commonly referred to as "singleroom occupancies" or SRO's. By definition, SRO's are hotels, roominghouses, or converted apartment buildings which offer furnished rooms, shared bathrooms and kitcnens, and some ·management services such as desk, linens, and housepoorly maintained, house a diverse group keeping. The buildings, often old and of individuals who, nevertheless, do share a common characteristic--their poverty. Without exception, all SRO tenants have very small incomes. The vast majority live on fixed incomes derived from supplemental security income, social security, and public assistance payments. It is true that there are anumber of unsavory elements within the SRO population, but their significance lessens somewhat when compared to the more stable retired elderly, the low-income worker, the disabled, and the unattached single persons.

In my home town of New York City, the number of SRO residents is currently estimated at 33,000 individuals living in 215 SRO hotels. To many of these individuals, the SRO is the only housing alternative within their means. Others, though, have chosen single-room living because of the independence and anonymity it provides, or simply because it has long been their mode of housing.

Dr. Carl Cohen, a physician who has worked with the New York City SRO popualtion, has noted in one of his study samples that two-thirds of the elderly residents have been living in SRO's for over 10 years-during which time they have acquired friendships of long duration with other tenants.

December 2'0, 1979

It would be a mistake to assume though, that this population is a selfsufficient one, merely in need of adequate housing. They are a vulnerable group of individuals in desperate need of social services, legal protection, and advocacy for better living conditions. Indeed, many of the SRO elderly would not feel comfortable in local senior citizens centers, nor would they be likely to avail themselves of such social services.

Substandard as these lower-priced hotels may be, it is important to recognize that they are a necessary and suitable type housing for selected segments of the population. The sooner we understand this phenomenon, the better the chances will be for the development of a coordinated housing policy for the single poor. Unfortunately, in the last decade or so, the SRO population has become a "problem" which many omcials would prefer to ignore or see el1m1-nated along with the demolition of a delapidated building.

The SRO problem, however, can be quickly reduced to the essential issue of how to house the single poor. There is no question that nationwide, this country is experiencing a housing shortage. This is especially true in urban centers where the existing supply of moderate- and low-income housing has not been maintained at adequate levels and affordable prices. In New York City in 1975 for example, 52 percent of the elderly renters lived alone and paid between 25 percent and 40 percent of their limited incomes on rent, thus leaving a mere $150 per month for all other expenses.

Besides the severe financial drain imposed by these economics, for the past decade, the elderly living in SRO's have become subject to rampant displacement as the number of SRO's has steadily declined as a housing alternative. The trend to eliminate this type of housing, by no means unique to New York City, is evidenced by the fact that in March of 1978 the city had 23 percent fewer lowerJ:riced hotels than in January of 1975. Indeed, in 1967, the New York Oity Council adopted a policy which would have phased the SRO out completely. This view has since been overturned though, and the SRO is now regarded by the mayor's office as a viable and necessary housing source for those who choose it. Unfortunately, the preservation and renovation of SRO hotels as not progressed along with the change of heart. There are powerful forces currently in place in New York City which, unless addressed promptly, will determine the ultimate demise of the SRO. One contributing factor is the labor intensive nature of the SRO. Since SRO operating costs have increased at a faster pace than other types of housing, yet the tenant paying-ability remains limited, landlords have compensated by reducing or eliminating building service and maintenance. This aggravates poor living conditions and hastens the date for tenant displacement and building demolition.

Another critical consideration is New York City's booming real estate market and the lucrative J-51 tax rubatement program. J-51 is a city tax-incentive pro-


gram designed to upgrade New York's housing stock and strengthen its neighborhoods. The provisions are generous and include a 12-year tax exemption on the assessed valuation attributable to the new property improvements as well as a tax abatement up to the amount equal to 90 percent of the construction costs. The J-51 program, positive in many other respects, has had a disastrous effect on the SRO stock.

Since 1976 when New York's tax code was amended to permit tax abatements for the conversion of SRO's into apartment units, their nwnber has dropped precipitously. As the J-51 program provides tremendous financial incentives to convert buildings into higher income housing, landlords have gone to great lengths to vacate SRO's.

Theoretically, New York City's rentstabilization and rent-control programs protect tenants from arbitrary eviction. The reality of the situation is a far cry from the ideal of the law, however, and the common practice is to harass tenants into "voluntary" departure. This imposes severe housing problems for the displaced-often the elderly and disabled-who have no desire to leave their homes. These unfortunate individuals are forced into the street or into occupancy of illegal, costlier, and less-appropriate housing such as unlicensed boarding homes and unregistered rooming houses.

The fact is that, unless permanent Federal and State housing alternatives are established, the current housing shortage and the regrettable plight of the SRO population wlll continue to worsen.

Regardless of the number of singleroom occupancy hotels available, the population requiring this type of housing will not disappear. Hotel living, with the advantages of housing-related services, and architectural features permitting social exchange and independence is an option which many believe should remain open. Both New York City's Office of Housing Preservation and Development and New York State's SRO project have set the renovation and maintenance of well-run SRO's as a major goal. The success of this alternative, which may very well be the easiest one to implement, rests primarily on the presence of capable and expert management. Often, social service and other nonprofit agencies have failed in their endeavors because they lack the critical requirement of a long-term commitment to the overall management of the SRO project.

Perhaps the greatest responsibility should be placed on the Federal level where, historically, there has been little in the way of planning or funding for the single person. Indeed, not only do Federal housing programs not address the needs of the SRO population, but currently there is no program specifically designed for this group. There are two Federal programs however-section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 <Public Law 85-372) and section 8 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 <Public Law 93-383) -that merit further cons! deration.

Section 202 provides long-term direct loans for nonprofit sponsors to finance

37703 rental or cooperative housing facilities for the elderly and handicapped. The section 8 program provides rent subsidies so that no eligible low-income household must pay more than 25 percent of their adjusted income toward rent. Funds from this program may also be used for building rehabilitation.

The stumbling block in both of these programs which excludes SRO's from eligibility lies in the Federal requirement that all housing meet minimum property standards <MPS's). MPS's require that housing include self-contained units or apartments which offer both a private kitchen and bath. The only exception to this rule is for congregate housing with central dining areas.

However, if the desire is to address the specific needs of the SRO population, then, it is clear that these two requirements are not appropriate. Slight modifications in the standards to permit waivers, or the creation of a separate set of standards for SRO's could make the section 202 and section 8 programs viable ones for the SRO community. In this manner, the two programs could provide incentives for landlords to maintain their building so as to qualify for leasing and assistance with costs and improvements. This would allow the SRO to maintain solvency and undergo repairs without major tenant displacement.

Any serious consideration to upgrade SRO's must also include plans for the provision of social services. Since traditional social services are often not appropriate for this population, intensive outreach-preferably by indigenous or paraprofessional workers-would be necessary. Innovative models providing therapeutic and secure service environments could contribute significantly to the success of the SRO project. Funds from title XX, the Older Americans Act, and the National Institute of Mental Health could help finance these programs either onsite or in a central location. ·

It is incumbent upon us, as lawmakers, not to overlook the critical housing needs of this vulnerable population. The single most important step in this process is to first establish an effective, viable housing policy which would recognize and integrate the critical elements of funding, the housing stock, potential sponsors, and the tenants themselves. The immediate future calls for housing subsidies and SRO renovation; the longrun needs, however, demand significant increases in the supply of housing choices.•

PERSONAL EXPLANATION




eMs. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for the following rollcall votes on Wednesday, December 19, 1979. Had I been present I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall No. 747, "No." Rollcall No. 748, "Yes." Rollcall No. 750, "No." •

37704 THE UDALL RECORD-1979

HON. MORRIS K. UDALL OF ARIZONA



• Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, it has become my practice at the end of each session of Congress to list my votes here in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. The people or southern Arizona have a right to know where I stand on the many issues that come before us, and I have found that printing my voting record here is the quickest and easiest way to provide that information.

This is not an all-inclusive list. I have omitted noncontroversial votes such as quorum calls, motions to resolve into the Committee of the Whole House, and motions to approve the J oumal.

The descriptions are necessarily somewhat short, and I am sure that many of my constituents will have additional questions on the votes described here. So I invite them to write for specifics, or to visit my district office at 300 North Main, Tucson, where we have more information.

The list is arranged as follows: Official rollcall number; Number of the bill or resolution; Description of the matter under con-

sideration; The date of the action; My vote <Y=yes; N=no; NV=not

voting); The vote of the entire Arizona dele

gation; An indication whether the motion or

amendment passed or was rejected; and The total vote. The material follows:

LIST OF VOTES

3. HR5. Motion to order the previous ques.tion (thus ending debate) on the House rules proposed by the Democratic caucus at its meeting in early December 1978. February 23. Y(2-2-0), passed 241-156.

4. HR35. Adoption of the resolution to provide $400,000 for investlga.tions and studies to be conducted by the House Veterans' A1fa1rs Committee during calendar 1979. February 23. Y(2-2-0), passed. 267-100.

5. HR45. Adoption of the resolution to provide $752,650 for investigations and studies to be conducted by the House Small BUSiiness Committee durng calendar 1979. February 26. Y(3-1-0), passed 266-94.

6. HR60. Adoption of the resolution to provide $677,000 for investigations a.nd studies to be conducted by the House Armed Services Committee during calendar 1979. February 26. Y(3-1-0), passed 256-103.

7. HR85. Adoption of the resolution to provide $2.5 million for investigations and studies to be conducted by the House Banking, Finance and Urban A1fairs Committee during calendar 1979. February 26. Y(1-3-0), passed 249-121.

8. HR87. Adoption of the resolution to provide $845,000 for investigations and studies to be conducted by the House Admln1strat1on Committee during calendar 1979. February 26. (Y(2-2-0), passed 253-119.

9. HR88. Adoption of the resolution to provide $2 million !or investigations and studies to be conducted by the House Ways a.nd Means Committee during -calendar 1979. February 26. Y(2-2-0), Passed 242-122.

10. HR91. Adoption of the resolution to provide $1.9 million for investigations and

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS studies to be conducted by the House Public Works and Transportation Committee during calendar 1979. February 26. Y(3-1-0), passed 267-98.

11. HR92. Adoption of the resolution to provide $2.5 million for investigations and studies to be conducted by the House Education and Labor Committee during ca.lendar 1979. February 26. Y(1-3-0), passed 201-171.

12. HR96. Adoption of the resolution to provide $927,401 !or investigations and studies to be conducted by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during calendar 1979. Febru.a.ry 26. Y(2-2-0), passed 272-101.

13. HR98. Adoption of the resolution to provide $1.74 million for Investigations and studies to be conducted by the House Foreign Affairs Committee during calendar 1979. February 26. Y(2-2-0), passed 239-135.

14. S37. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to repeal a provision of PL 95-630 requiring that financial institutions inform all their customers of their rights under the a.ct. February 27. Y(~), p&Q!ed 362-5.

16. HR1894. Motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate) on the adoption of the rule (HR133) providing for House fioor consideration of the blll. February 28. Y(1-3-0), pa.ssed 222-197.

17. HR1894. Pa.ss8€e of the bill to increase the public debt limlt to $836 bllllon from $798 billion through September 30, 1979. February 28. Y(1-3-0), rejected 194-222.

19. HR142. Motion that a portion of the testimony of Rep. Charles c. Diggs, Jr., D-Mic.h., at Diggs' trial on charges of 11-lega.lly diverting his congressional employees' salaries to his personaJ. use be read on the House fioor. March 1. Y(4-0-0), passed 353-53.

20. HR142. Motion that the reS'Olution to expel from the House of Representatives Rep. Charles C. Diggs Jr., D-Mich., be referred to the Committee on Omcia.l Conduct, March 1. Y(3-1-0), passed 322-77.

30. HR2479. Amendment to make employees of the American Institute in Taiwan employees of the U.S. government. March 13. N(3-1-0), rejected 171-239.

31. HR2479. Amendment to add the islands of Quemoy and Matsu to the definition of Ta.iwa.n. March 13. N(3-1-0), rejected 146-256.

32. HR2479. Amendment to establish relations with Taiwan on a consular basis. March 13. N(2-2-0), rejected 179-225.

33. HR2479. Motion to end all debate on the blll a.t 5 p.m., in e.n attempt to cut off further amendments. March 13. Y(1-3-0), passed 204-193.

34. HR2479. Motion to recommit the b111 to the Foreign Relations Oomm1ttee (thus killing it). March 13. N(2-2-0), rejected 110-295.

35. HR2479. Amendment to conduct relations with Taiwan through a quasi-governmental agency titled the "U.S. Commission In Taiwan." March 13. N (3-1-0), rejected 182-221.

36. HR2479. Amendment to require approval by both houses of Congress before the President could notify Ta.iwa.n that a. treaty or agreement between the United States and Ta.iwa.n would be terminated. March 13. N(3-1-0), rejected 141-264.

37. HR2479. Amendment to require the authorization and appropriation by Congress of any U.S. government funds for the American Institute in Ta.iwa.n. March 1. N(3-1-0), passed 226-174.

38. HR2479. Pa.sage of the bill to continue U .S. relations with Taiwan on an unomcia.l basis, provide security assurances to the people of Taiwan and continue in force 60 treaties and agreements on trade a.nd other matters. March 13. Y(2-2-0), pased 345-55.

39. HR114. Adoption of the resolution to

December 20, 1979 provide $167,500 for investigations a.nd studies to be conducted by the House Education a.nd Labor Comm1ttee's task force on welfare a.nd pension plans during calendar 1979 March 15. Y(3-1-0), passed 336-73.

40. HR2534. Motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate) on the adoption of the rule (HR157) providing !or House fioor consideration of the blll. March 15. Y(1-3-0), passed 201-199.

41. HR2534. Passage of the bill to increase the public debt limit to $830 bllllon from $798 billion through September 30, 1979. March 15. Y(1-3-0), passed 212-195.

42. HR1301. Motion to suspend the rules a.nd pass the blll to allow shipment of lottery tickets and other lottery materials by American manufacturers to foreign countries where lotteries a.re permitted. March 20. Y(2-2-0), rejected 270-140.

43. HR118. Adoption of the resolution to establish in the House a Select Committee on Committees, to study the structure, jurisdiction, rules, procedures, sta.mng and fac111-ties of the House committees and to report its recommendations to the House by February 1, 1980. March 20. Y(1-3-0), passed 208-200.

44. HR2283. Adoption ot the resolution (HR156) providing for House fioor consideration of the b111. March 20. Y(2X2-0), passed 305-102.

45. HR2283. Banking Committee amendment to require the Council on Wage and Price Stabllity to hold regional hearings and enlist voluntary individual and group participation from the public to help monitor wage a.nd price guidelines. March 20. NV (0-3-1), rejected 128-282.

46. HR2283. Amendment to reauthorize the Council on Wage and Price Sta.billty for one year (through September 30, 1980) rather than two years. March 20. N(3-1-0), passed 252-159.

47. HR2283. Passage of the blll to reauthorize the Council on Wage a.nd Price Sta.billty for one year (through September 30, 1980), a.nd to increase its authorization to $6.9 million for FY79 a.nd to $8.5 million for FY80. March 21. Y(2-2-0), passed 242-175.

48. HR13. Adoption of the resolution to establish a Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control for the 96th Congress. March 21. Y(3-1-0). passed 338-75.

49. HR38. Adoption of the resolution to establish in the House a Select Committee on Population for the 96th Congress. March 21. NV (0-2-2). rejected 187-214.

51. HR2774. Passage of the blll to authorize $19.27 million for the operations of the Arms Control a.nd Disarmament Agency during FY80. March 22. Y(2-2-0), passed 296-100.

52. HR86. Adoption of the resolution to provide $1.4 million for investigations a.nd studies to be conducted by the House Judiciary Committee during calendar 1979. March 22. Y(1-3-0), passed 285-100.

53. HR134. Adoption of the resolution to provide $1.6 million for investigations and studies to be conducted by the House Committee on Science and Technology during calendar 1979. March 22. Y(3-1-0), passed 286-109.

54. HR139. Adoption of the resolution to provide $1.2 mlilion for investigations a.nd studies to be conducted by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs during Calendar 1979. March 22. Y(1-3-0), passed 257-138.

55. HR140. Adoption of the resolution to provide $2.09 million for investigations and studies to be conducted by the House Committee on Government Operations during calendar 1979. March 22. Y(1-3-0), passed 268-127.

56. HR123. Adoption of the resolution to provide $850,000 !or investigations and studies to be conducted by the House Committee on Post omce and Civil Service dur-

December 20, 19 79 ing calendar 1979. March 22. Y(1-3-0), passed 249-147.

57. HR3091. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the blll to extend for one year, through December 31, 1978, a tax law provision alloWing state legislators to designate their place of residence Within their legislative district as their tax home and to claim tax deductions for travel expenses according to a formula based on the number of days their legislature was in session and the per diem payment for federal employees for the city in which the legislature was located. March 27. Y(4-0-0), passed 364-4.

58. HR2439. Motion to order the previous question (thus ending further debate and the possibUity for amendment) on the Smith, R-Neb., motion to recommit to the conference committee the report on the bill to rescind FY79 appropriations totaling $723.6 milllon. March 27. N(3-1-0), passed 225--177.

59. HR2729. Amendment to cut $14 milllon from the $172.1 mlllion committee recommendation for ,biological, behavioral and social science research. March 27. N(S-1-0), passed 219-174.

60. HR2729. Amendment to include language prohibiting use of funds to transfer any science education programs in NSF to any other existing or proposed agency. March 28. Y(2-2-0), rejected 175-218.

62. HR2479. Adoption of the conference report on the blll to provide for unofficial relations between the United States and Taiwan and to provide security assurances to Taiwan. March 29. Y(2-2-0), passed 339-50.

63. HR1787. Passage of the blll to authorize $185 milllon in FY79 for the spa~e shuttle program. March 28. Y(4-0-0), passed 354-39.

61:. HR1786. To cut $22.7 milllon from the $308.3 milllon committee recommendation for the aeronautical research and technology program and to prohibit the use of appropriated funds for supersonic transport research. March 28. Y(1-3-0), rejected 137-246.

65. HR1786. Passage of the bill to authorize $4.8 bllllon for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in FY80. March 28. Y(4-0-0), passed 323-57.

66. HR3173. Amendment to delete the $2.5 m1llion in the b1ll for financing arms sales to Panama. March 29. N(3-1-0), passed 272-117.

67. HR3173. Amendment to authorize appropriations only for FY80 instead of for FY80 and FY81. March 29. N(2-2-0), passed 210-179.

69. HR53. Adoption of the resolution to extend the llfe of the House Sele~t Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf through June 30, 1980. Mar~h 29. N(2-1-1), passed 194-172.

70. HJRes199. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution to correct technical errors in PL 95--498 that placed in trust 16,000 acres in New Mexico for the Pueblo of Santa Ana. Aprll 2. Y(3-1-0), passed 336-0.

72. HR2543. Motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate) on the resolution (HRes183) providing for House concurrence in Senate amendments to the b111 providing for a temporary increase in the public debt limit. Aprll 2. Y(-1-2-1), passed 216-160.

73. HR2534. Adoption of the resolution (HRes183) providing for House concurrence in Senate amendments in the bill to increase the public debt limit to $830 b1llion through September 30, 1979, and to require the Senate and House budget committees to submit balanced budgets for FY81 and FY82 on Apr1115, 1979, and balanced first budget reso~~~~1~~-for FY81 and FY82. Y(1-2-1), passed

74. HR595. Passage of the b111 to sell 35,000 long tons of tin from the national and supplemental stockpile, 5,000 long tons of that

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS amount to be contributed to the international tin bu1fer stock, and to provide a special fund in the Treasury from the proceeds to be used to acquire future materials for the national stockplle. Aprll 3. Y(3-1-0), passed 371-16.

75. HR3324. Substitute amendment, to the Harsha, &-Ohio, amendment, to prohibit use of appropriated funds tor development aid to Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries nations. April 4. N (2-2-0), rejected..J 75--222.

77. HR3324. Amendment to authorize funds for one year only, thus eliminating FY81 authorizations for international development programs. AprilS. NV(3-0-1), passed 239-157.

78. HR3324. Amendment to prohibit economic assistance to Panama. Aprll 5. NV(3-1-3), rejected 101-46.

79. HR3324. Amendment to eliminate a Food for Peace Title 1 concessional rice sales program for Zaire and replace it with a Title 11 program for that nation. Aprll 5. NV(0-1-3), rejected 101-246.

80. HRes195. Adoption of the resolution to provide $290,000 for investigations and studies to be conducted by the Select Committee on the OUter Continental Shelf during calendar 1979. April 5. NV(1~), passed 210-110.

82. HR3324. Amendment, to the Derwtnski , R-Dl., amendment, to authorize the President to waive the prohibition on the aid to Syria if he determines that it would be in the U.S. national interest to do so. Aprll 9. Y(1-1-2), passed 193-177.

83. H;R3324. Amendment, to the Bauman, R-Md., amendment, to delete provisions that 1) allowed the President to send observers to elections in southern Africa and 2) required the United States to grant Rhodesia $20 mlllion in aid once elections were held in that country. Aprll 9. Y(2--0-2), passed 191-184.

84. HR3324. Amendment, to the Bauman, R-Md., amendment, to authorize the President to send observers to elections in southern Africa and to authorize the President to grant Rhodesia $20 mlllion in aid once elections were held in that country. April 9. Y(2--0-2), passed 191-184.

85. HR3324. Amendment, as amended, to authorize a $68 million economic support fund for southern Africa; to authorize the President to send observers to elections in southern Africa; and to authorize the President to grant Rhodesia $20 milllon in aid once elections were held in that country. April 9. N(1-1-2), rejected 210-190.

86. HR3324. Amendment to delete Title IV creating an Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation. April 9. N(2-1-1), rejected 136--236.

88. HR3324. Amendment to remove the Peace Corps from ACTION and place it within the proposed International Development Cooperation Agency. April10. Y(3-0-1), passed 276-116.

89. HR3324. Substitute amendment, to the Bauman, R-Md., amendment, to reduce by 5 percent (instead of by 10 percent as proposed by Bauman) all authorizations in the bill, except Food for Peace, American schools and hospitals abroad and Middle East aid programs. April 10. Y(1-2-1), passed 259-135.

90. HR3324. Amendment, as amended, to reduce by 5 percent all authorizations in the b1ll, except for Food for Peace, American schools and hospitals abroad and Middle East aid programs. Apr1110. Y(3-0-1), passed 318-77.

91. HR3324. Passage of the b111 to authorize $4 billion in FY80 (less 5 percent, or about $123 m1llion, for most aid programs) for international development and economic assistance programs and for the Peace Corps. April 10. Y(1-2-1), passed 220-173 .

92. HR3363. Adoption or the rule (HRes217) providing for House fioor consideration of the b111 to authorize $2.1 b1llion for FYBO

37705 and $2.3 billion for FY81 for the State De~ partment and related agencies and to provide a FY79 supplemental authorization of $105 m1llion for migration and refugee assistance. April 10. NV(2-0-2). passed 360-8.

94. HR1301. Passage of the blll to allow shipment of lottery tickets and other lottery IllaJterials by American manufacturers to foreign countries where permitted. April 24. Y(3-1-0), passed 269-121.

95. HR3363. Amendment to prohibit the United States' mandatory contribution to the United Nations to be used for technical assistance programs. April 24. N(2-1-1), rejected 187-214.

96. HR3363. Amendment to require a 10 percent across-the-board cut in the blll's authorizations. April 24. N(2-2-0), passed 207-196.

97. HR3363. Amendment to make a 10 percent across-the-board cut in the bill's authorizations (amendment previously adopted). Aprll 24. N(2-2-0), rejected 199-203.

98. HR3363. Ordering the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amending) the Broomfield, R-Mich., motion to recommit (kill) the b111 to Foreign Affairs Committee. April 24. Y(2-2-0), ordered 265-138.

99. HR3363. Passage of the blll to authorize $2.1 b1llion for FY80 and $2.3 b11lion for FY81 for the State Department and related agencies and to authorize a FY79 supplement of $105 m1llion for migration and refugee assistance. April 24. Y(2-2-0), passed 256-146.

100. HR2283. Adoption of the conference report on the b111 to reauthorize the Council on Wage and Price Stab111ty for one year, through September 30, 1980, and increase its authorization to $6.95 m1llion for FY79 and $8.48 m11lion in FY80. April 25. Y(2-2-0), passed 240-168.

101. HR3354. Passage of the b111 to authorize $85.2 million in FY80 for conservation, exploration, development and use of the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves. April 25. Y(4-0-0), passed 394-12.

103. HRes234. Adoption of the resolution to provide $525,000 for investigations and studies to be conducted by the House Select Committee on Committees during 1979. Aprll 26. Y(2-2-0), passed 212-180.

105. HCRes107. Amendment to add $800 million to the proposed increase in FY79 defense budget authority, for a total increase of $1.4 b1llion. May 1. N(3-1-0), rejected 183-229.

106. HCRes107. Amendment to eliminate the proposed $250 m11lion increase in FY79 budget authority and outlays for targeted fiscal assistance. May 1. N(3-1-0), passed 21~-198.

108. HCRes107. Amendment to increase FY79 budget authority and outlays by $200 million for targeted fiscal assistance, and by $25 milllon authority and $20 milllon in outlays for disaster loans. May 2. Y(l-3-0), passed 224-197.

109. HCRes107. Amendment to reduce the proposed increases for food stamps to $515 milllon in budget authority from $650 million and to $465 milllon in outlays from $600 million, representing continuation of the "cap" on food stamp expenditures. May 2. N(3-1-0), rejected 146-276.

110. HCRes107. Amendment to eliminate the proposed $628 milllon in budget authority and $315 milllon in outlays for the purchase of two destroyers originally ordered by the government of Iran. May 2. N(0-4-0), rejected 88-325.

111. HCRes107. Amendment to increase fiscal 1979 budget authority for defense by $1.4 billion, enough to purchase two destroyers and various other items in the administration's FY79 defense supplemental request, May 2. N(2-1-1), rejected 141-269.

112. HCRes107. Amendment to increase

37706 FY79 budget authority for $2.2 billion and outlays by $1..5 billion so as to provide funds for the purchase of two destroyers, for targeted fiscal assistance, for unexpected increases in the cost of disaster loans and food stamps and several other 1979 supplemental appropriations. May 2. Y(1-3-0), passed 235-177.

113. HCRes107. Amendment to increase the FY80 level of defense spending recommended by the Budget Committee by $2.6 billion budget authority and $1.1 billion in outlays to $137.8 billion in budget authority and $125 billion in outlays. May 2. N(3-1- 0), rejer.ted 188-209.

114. HCRes107. Amendment to reduce FY80 budget authority by $8.1 billion and outlays by $2.7 billion, an amount equal to 1.5 percent of unobligated balances excluding funds set aside for pensions and loan guarantee programs. May 2. Y(1-3~). rejected 79-317.

115. HORes107. Amendment to reduce budget authority and outlays by $1.1 billion, representing cuts in government travel, filmmaking, paperwork and overtime. May 3. Y(~~). passed 403-3.

116. HCRes107. Amendment to "balance the budget" in FY80 with budget authority of $582.8 billion, outlays of $507.1 billion, revenues of $507.8 billion and a surplus of $656 million. May 3. NV(2- 1-1), rejected 134-275.

117. HCRes107. Amendment to "balance the budget" in FY80 with budget authority of $593.8 billion, outlays of $515 billion, and revenues of $515 billion. May 3. N(3-1-1), rejected 186-214.

118. HCRes107. Amendment to "balance the budget" in FY80 with budget authority of $513.8 billion, outlays of $494.6 billion, revenues of $513.8 billion, and a $70 million surplus. May 3. N(Q-2-2), rejected 2-376.

120. HR39. Adoption of the rule (HRes 243) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to designate certain areas in Alaska as public lands to be placed in use for the park, recreation and conservation systems. May 4. Y(2-Q-2), passed 236-18.

121. HR3404. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to authorize the Treasury, for a five-year period, to meet short-term cash needs by borrowing securities from Federal Reserve banks and selling them in the open market, and to permit the Treasury to obtain cash by selling securities to the Federal Reserve only in unusual and exigent circumstances. May 7. Y(1-2-1), rejected 175-195.

122. HCRes107. Amendment to reduce FY80 budget authority by $500 million and outlays by $50 million, representing elimination of funds for President Carter's proposed new Economic Development Administration initiatives. May 7. Y(3-0-1), rejected 140-245.

123. HCRes107. Amendment to include in the budget $2.3 billion for general revenue sharing for states and to cut categorical grant programs by $2.5 billion. May 7. N (1-2-1) , rejected 147-237.

124. HCRes107. Amendment to add $2.3 billion in budget authority and outlays, restoring funds for general revenue sharing and for state governments eliminated by the House Budget Committee. May 7. (N(1-2- 1) , rejected 190-195.

126. HCRes107. Amendment to increase FY80 oudget authority by $83 million and outlays by $73 million, restoring half of the cuts in Amtrak funding recommended by the Carter administration. May 8. N(1-3-0) , rejected 196- 227.

127. HCRes107. Amendment to reduce FY80 budget authority by $497 million and outlays by $95 million, assuming a fouryear phase-out of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). May 8. Y (3-1-0) , rejected 104-316.

128. HCRes107. Amendment to reduce the Budget Committee's recommendation for defense spending by $1 billion 1n budget

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS authority and $355 million in outlays; and to increase funds for the Young Adult Conservation Corps, youth jobs programs, and a job tax credit for employing persons age 16-18. May 8. N (~) , rejected 92-321.

129. HCRes107. Amendment to increase 1980 revenues by $1.2 billion, by recommending curtailment of foreign tax credits for oil companies and requiring that royalties paid for foreign oil be treated as deductible business expense instead (the original Holtzman amendment would have provided $1 billion of the increased revenues for energy conservation and research, mass transit, older Americans' jobs and nutrition and fiscal relief to states for welfare costs). May 8. Y(1-3- 0 ), passed 355-66.

130. HCRes107. Amendment to "transfer" $2.3 billion from foreign assistance programs to general revenue sharing for the states. May 8. N (3- 1-0), rejected 199-214.

131. HRes106. Adoption of the resolution urging the Federal Republic of Germany to abolish or extend beyond Dec. 31, 1979, the statute of limitations governing the prosecution of Nazi war crimes. May 9. Y(4-Q-O), passed 401~.

132. HCRes107. Amendment to increase budget authority and outlays by $1.1 billion, roughly half the amount of general revenue sharing for state governments, which the Budget Committee recommended eliminating. May 9. N (1-3-0), rejected 203-216.

133. HCRes107. Amendment to cut budget authority and outlays by $650 mill1on, representing a reduction in spending for food stamps. May 9. N(3-Q-1), rejected 147-276.

134. HO.Res107. Amendment to "balance the Budget" in 1980 by reducing outlays by the amount of undbliga.ted balances in the defense !budget, Department of Energy overhead cost and uranium enrichment programs; a.nd to increase revenues by $3 billions by recommending repeal of the foreign t .ax credit for oil companies; thus setting the following spending aggregates: Budget authority, $585.2 billion; O'Utlays, $509.9 billion; and revenues, $510.2 billion. May 9. N(~). rejected 45-371.

135. HCRes107. Amendment to set 1980 budget authority at $500.8 billion; outlays at $523 .4 billion; revenues at $508.2 billion (a $6.5 billion reduction); and the deficit at $15.2 billion. May 9. N(3~1~), rejected 191-218.

136. HCRes107. Amendment to set 1980 budget authority at $600 billion; outlays .at $526.9 lblllion; revenues at $508.2! billion (a $6.5 billion reduction; and the deficit at $18.7 billion. May 9. N(3-1~), rejected 198-218.

137. HCRes107. Amendment to reduce tax eXJpenditures by $1 billion in 1979 and by $4 billion in 1980; to increase 1980 budget authority by $2.3 billion and outlays by $1.5 billion for various domestic social programs; and to reduce the deficit by $2.5 billion. M.a.y 10. (Y(1-3~), rejected 130-277.

138. HCRes107. Motion that all debate on and amendments to the resolution and immedl.a.tely. May '10. Y(2-2~), rejected. 197-208.

139. H'CReS107. Amendment to reduce 1979 reyenues by $400 million and 1980 revenues lby $7.8 billion; and to reduce 1979 budget authority and outlays by $1.4 billion, and 1980 budget authority and outlays by $6.1 billion. M.a.y 10. N(3-1~) , rejected 182-229.

140. HlRes21~/HRes266. Adoption of the rule (HRes262) providing for House floor consideration of the Darter administration's standby gasoline rationing plan and amendment thereto. May 10. Y{l-3-0), passed 227-190.

141. HRes1212JHRes266. Adoption of the resolutions to approve the standby gasoline rationing plan which, during an emergency, would require th.a.t special ration coupons be used to purchase gasoline. May 10. Y(1-2-l), rejected 159-146.

142. HR2085. Motion to suspend the rules

December 20, 1979 and pass the bill to allow waivers o! dtsclosure requirements for part-time federal employees and government consultants and to make other teohnical modifications to the 1978 Ethics in Government Act (PL 95-521). May 14. Y(3-Q-1), passed 338-49.

143. HR3577. Motion to suspend the rules and p.ass the bill to authorize $550,000 1n FY80 for the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres, which provides independent advice on the nation's marine and atmospheric programs. May 14. Y(2-1~1), passed 340-36.

144. HCRes107. Amendment to set FY80 defense spending at $137 blliion in budget authority and $124.2 'billion in O'Utlays ($1.7 billion 1n budget authority and $59 million outlays more than supported :by the Budget Committee). May 14. N(3-1~). rejected 188-209.

145. HCRes107. Amendment to increase FY80 budget authority by $2i10 m11Uon and outlays by $164 million by recommending increases 1n funds for emergency fuel assistance for low-income families. May 14. N(~). rejected 179-222.

146. HCRes107. Amendment to out pending FY80 budget authority and outlays $2.5 btllion, or .5 percent, across the board-thus providing $605.1 billion in budget .authority and $529.9 billion in outlays. May 14. Y(3-1-0), passed 255-144.

147. HCRes107. Amendment to prorate among the various 211 budget functions the $2.5 billion in cuts authorized by the Fisher, D-Va., amendment. May 14. Y(4~). passed 272-128.

148. HCRes107. Adoption of the resolution setting FY•80 targets as follows : for 1979..:.... $557.9 billion in budget authority, $494.3 billion in outlays, $458.5 billion in revenues, and a $35.9 billion deficit; for 1980-$605.1 billion in budget authority, $529.9 billion in outlays, $509 billion in revenues and a $20.9 billion deficit. May 14. Y(1-3~), passed 220-184.

152. HR39. Amendment (HR3561) to create 125.4 million acres of national parks, wildlife refuges and forests in Alaska. May 16. Y(1-3~), passed 268-157.

153. HR39. Passage of the blll to create 125.4 million acres of natural parks, wildlife refuges and forests in Alaska. May 16. Y(82-2~) , passed 360-65.

154. HR10. Adoption of the rule (HRes241) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to authorize the U .S. Attorney General to initiate lawsuits in federal courts to safeguard the rights of persons confined in state prisons, mental institutions and nursing homes. May 16. NV (3-Q-1), passed 398-4.

158. HR111. Adoption of the rule (HRes 274) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to provide for the operation and maintenance of the Panama canal through the year 1999 and to implement the provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty. May 17. Y(1-2-1 ) , passed 200-198 .

160. HR4011. Adoption of the rule (HRes 279) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to authorize $5.3 blllion for Small Business Administration programs for FY8Q-82. May 22 . Y(~~), passed 380-7.

161. HR4011. Amendment to limit the applications for the Small Business Development Center pilot program to states or state agencies; require existing SBDC's to refer applicants to private consultants when applicable; and establish state advisory boards to monitor the program. May 22. N(3- 1-0) . rejected 192-216.

162. HR4011. Amendment to lower interest rates on homeowner loans to 1 percent on the first $10,000 borrowed and 3 percent on amounts between $10,000 and $55,000. May 22. N(2-2-0) , rejected 174-232.

163. HR4011. Passage of the bill to authorize $5.3 billion for Small Business Administration programs for FY8Q-82. May 22. Y(~), passed 398-5.

December 20, 1979 164. HCRes107. Motion to approve the con

ference version of the resolution revising binding FY79 budget totals and setting FY80 targets as follows: for 1979-$559.2 billion in budget authority, $494.45 billion in outlays, $461 billion in revenues, and $33.45 billion deficit; for 1980-$604.05 b1llion in budget authority, $532 billion in outlays, $509 billion in revenues and a $23 billion deficilt. May 23. N(2-2-0). rejected 144-260.

165. HR10. Passage of the blll to authorize the U.S. Attorney General to initiate lawsuits in federal courts to safeguard the rights of persons confined in state prisons, mental institutions and nursing homes. May 23. Y(4-0-0) • passed 342-62.

166. HR3914. Passage of this b111 to remove the authorization ce111ng for funding the District of Columbia share of construction costs for the capital area subway system, Metro. May 23. Y(2-2-0), passed 357-48.

167. HR3404. Adoption of the rule (HRes 275) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to extend the authority of the Treasury to obtain cash to meet short-term needs. May 23. Y(4-0-0), passed 377-13.

168. HR3404. Passage of the b111 to extend for two years the authority of the Treasury to obtain cash to meet short-term needs. May 23. Y(2-2-0), passed 316--75.

170. HCRes107. Motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the budget resolutions to revise binding FY79 budget totals and set FY80 targets as follows: for 1979-$559.2 billion in budget authority, $494.45 blllion in outlays, $461 bill1on in revenues, and a $33.45 blllion deficit; for 1980-$604.4 b1llion in budget authority, $532 billion in outlays, $509 billion in revenues, and a $23 billion deficit. May 24. Y(2-2-0), passed 202-196.

171. S869. Adoption of the rule (HRes281) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to provide certain clarifications of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. May 24. Y(3-1-0), passed 375-18 ..

172. 8869. Amendment to restrict former high-level federal employees for two years from assisting 1n representing anyone before their previous agencies and to limit the automatic coverage of the one-year ban on contacting a former agency to former executive-level employees. May 24. N(0-4-0), rejected 88-292.

173. S869. Passage of the blll to clarify and soften restrictions on post-federal-government employment. May 24. Y(4-{}-0), passed 327-48.

174. S7. Adoption of the conference report on the blll to establish a new program of psychological counseling and other readjustment assistance for Vietnam-era veterans, make changes in other veterans' health care programs and require approval of congressional Veterans' Affairs Committees before funds could be appropriated for major Veterans Administration medical facility construction, renovation or leasing. May 30. Y(2-0-2), passed 342-0.

175. HR4035. Passage of the bill to authorize $4.8 billion for FY79 in special economic and military assistance to help Egypt and Israel implement the Middle East peace treaty. May 30. Y(3-0-1), passed 347-28.

176. HR2575. Amendment to prohibit further development of the MX missile and of its basing system. May 31. Y(1-1-2), rejected 89-311.

177. HR2575. Amendment to prohibit further development of a specific basing system for the MX missile (called MPS) unless the secretary of defense certified to Congress that it was "consistent with national security interest." May 31. Y(1-1-2), rejected 100-291.

178. HR2575. Passage of the bill authorizing $1.322 billion in supplemental funds for programs of the Department of Defense in FY79. May 31. Y(l-0-3), passed 314-72.

179. HR4015. Motion to suspend the rules

C:X.XV--2370-Part 28

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS and pass the b111 to establish demonstrations centers of geriatric research, education and clinical operations within the Veterans Administration. June B. Y(3-0-1), passed 406-0.

180. HR3875. Amendment to transfer $200 million from the authorization for urban development action grant program to the community development block grant program. June 5. Y(3-0-1), rejected 159-263.

181. HR375. Amendment to make up to 20 percent of the urban development action grant funds avaUable to cities and urban counties that have at least one area of severe poverty. June 5. Y(3-0-1), passed 312-102.

182. HR3875. Amendment to extend ellgib1Uty for urban development action grants to any urban cm.mty that contains at least one area of severe poverty and had a population of at least 50,000 persons prior to 1960. June 5. N(0-4-0), rejected 48-357.

183. HR3464. Passage of the b111 to provide incentives to encourage disabled recipients of Suplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to return to work. June 6. Y(4-0-0), passed 374-3.

184. HR4289. Amendment to provide an additional $125 m111ion for discretionary capital grants for urban mass transportation. June 6. N(0-4-0)

186. HR3875. Amendment to eliminate Davis-Bacon preva111ng wage requirements for Indian housing and for residential rehab111tation projects carried out by neighborhood non-profit organizations. June 6. Y(4-0-0), rejected 155-244.

188. HR3875. Amendment to reduce paperwork by comp111ng, and subsequently consolidating and simplifying, forms used in federal housing programs. June 7. Y(4-0-0), passed 366-16.

189. HR3875. Amendment to prevent Social Security cost-of-living increases from being counted as income when calculating rent in assisted ho~fng. June 7. Y(2-2-0), passed 311-79.

190. HR3875. Amendment to delete language authorizing the secretary of housing and urban development to issue cease and desist orders prohibiting the sale or lease of property by a developer who violated the anti-fraud provisions of the Interstate Land Sales Act. June 7. N(3-1-0), passed 245-145.

191. HR3875. Passage of the bill to amend and extend various federal housing programs. June 7. Y(2-2-0), passed 355-36.

192. HR2444. Adoption of the rule (HRes299) providing for House consideration of the bill to establish a Cabinet-level Department of Education. June 7. Y(2-1-1), passed 283-73.

193. HR2641. Adoption of the rule (HRes272) providing for House floor consideration of the blll to authorize $14 million for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in FY80. June 8. NV(1-0-3), passed 297-0.

195. HR2641. Amendment to reduce authorizations for FY80 tor the U.S. Civil Rights Commission to $11.37 million from $14 million. June 8. NV(1-0-3), rejected 130-168.

196. HR2641. Passage of the bill to authorize $14 milUon for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission for FY80. June 8. NV(l-0-3), passed 276-14.

197. HR2347. Passage of the bill to authorize the establishment of the Frederick Law Olmstead Historic Site in Massachusetts and for other acquisitions in the national park system. June 8. NV(1-0-3), passed 243-41.

198. HR3347. Passage of the bill to authorize $22.4 million for international affairs functions of the Treasury Department for FY80. June 8. NV(1-0-3), passed 179-9£.

201. HR2444. Amendment to change the name of the proposed department to the Department of Public Education (DOPE). June 11. N (1-1-2), rejected 52-310.

37707 202. HR2444. Amendment to establish an

independent Office of Education instead of. a Cabinet-level department. June 11. N(0-3-1), rejected 114-257.

203. HR2444. Amendment to make one of the purposes of the proposed education department to permit dally opportunities for voluntary prayer and meditation in public schools. June 11. N(0-2-2), passed 255-122.

204. HR2444. Amendment to state the intent of Congress to limit future budget authority of the proposed department to the exis.ting funding for the programs transferred into it with allowance for annual increases related to rises in the Consumer Price Index. June 11. N(1-1-2), rejected 184-187.

205. HR2444. Amendment to state that no provision of law would authorize the proposed department to require a school district to undertake busing of school children to achieve racial balance as a condition for receiving federal assistance. June 11. N(1-1-2), passed 227-135.

208. HRes198. Adoption of the resolution to dismiss the election challenge brought against Rep. Parren J. Mitchell, D-Md. June 11. NV(2-0-2), passed 378-0.

210. HR2444. Amendment to add to the purposes of the b111 the goal of ensuring that no one be denied access to education opportunities because of racial or sexual ratios or quotas. June 12. Y(3-0-1), passed 277-126.

211 . .HR2444. Amendment to delete from the blll the transfer of Defense Department overseas dependent schools to the proposed department. June 12. N(2-1-1), rejected 178-230.

213. HR2444. Substitute amendment, to the Garcia, D-N.Y., amendment, to establish an Office of Bi11ngual Education and Minority Languages Affairs in the proposed department. June 12 Y(4-0-0), passed 396-22.

214. HR2444. Amendment, as amended, to establish an Office of BUlngual Education and Minority Languages Affairs. June 12. Y(2-2-0), passed 290-124.

215. HR2444. Amendment to provide that the assis.tant secretary for vocational and adult education of the proposed department establish a unified rural family education program. June 12. Y(4-0-0), passed 403-3.

216. HR2444. Amendment to delete from the bill the transfer of the Rehabilitatron Services Administration and National Institute of Handicapped Research to the proposed education department and to establish within the department of health and human services (currently tbe Department of Health, Education and Welfare) an assistant secretary for tbe handicapped. June 12. N(1-3-0), rejected 148-265.

217. HR2444. Amendment to require that each executive level official ap.nointed in the proposed department have been a school teacher or administrator for at least 18 of the 24 months preceding his or her nomination. June 12. N(0-4-0), rejected 28-374.

218. HR2444. Amendment to delete the authority of the assistant secretary for civil rights to collect data relating to civil rights laws, to select employees and to enter into contracts. June 12. N (2-2-0) , rejected 65-342.

220. HR2444. Amendment to delete from the b111 language authorizing the proposed department to provide information about. education and related opportunities directly to students, parents and communities. June 12. NV(2-1-1), rejected 149-243.

221. HR2444. Amendment to delete language in the bill providing for five officers tn the proposed education department with the duties to be assigned by the secretary. June 122. NV(3-0-1), rejected 170-220.

223. HR4390. Motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate) on the adoption of the rule (HRes312) providing tor

'

37708 House floor consideration of the blll to appropriate $952.88 million for the House and related congressional agencies in FY80. June 13. Y(1-3-0), rejected 126-292.

224. 8429. Motion that the conference committee meetings between the House and Senate on the FY79 Defense Department supplemental authorization bill be closed when classified information was discussed, but that any member of Congress would be eligible to attend meetings of the conference. June 13. Y(4-0-0), passed 397-16.

225. HR4390. Amendment to lower to 5.5 percent from 7 percent the celUng provided in the bill on any salary increase that could be paid during FY80 to any employee of the federal or District of Columbia governments whose salary was $47,000 or more as of September 30, 1978. June 13. Y(4-0-0) , passed 396-15.

226. HR4390. Amendment to reduce to $37.49 million from $39.42 m1llion the FY80 appropriation for House members' om.cial expenses. June 13. N (3-1-0), rejected 204-213.

227. HR4390. Passage of the bill to appropriate $952.88 million for the House and related congressional agencies in FY80. June 13. Y(2-2-0) rejected 186-232.

228. HR4388. Adoption of the rule (HRes 311) providing for House floor consideration of the b111 to authorize $10.7 b1llion for energy and water development programs in FY-80. June 13. Y(4-0-0), passed 386-34.

231. HR2444. Amendment to delete from the b111 transfer of health professions and nursing students assistance programs to the proposed departments. June 13. NV (2-1-0), passed 243-169.

233. HR2444. Amendment to transfer job training programs under Titles II, III, and IV of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) of the proposed department. June 13. NV(1-2-1), rejected 145-265.

234. HR2444. Amendment to delete from the bill the transfer of science education programs from the National Science Foundation to the proposed department. June 13. N (2-2-0) , rejected 165-240.

235. HR2444. Amendment to delete from the blll transfer of the employees of the overseas military dependent schools of the Department of Defense to the proposed education department. June 13. N (3-1-0), rejected 173-225.

236. HR2444. Amendment to delete from the b111 transfer of Indian education programs from the Bureau of Indian Mairs to the proposed department. June 13. Y(4-0-0), passed 235-170.

237. HR2444. Amendment to delete from the b111 transfer of criminal justice education progra.ms from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to the proposed department. June 13. N(3-1-0), rejected 128-175. .

238. HR2444. Amendment to add to the b111 transfer of Head Start progra.ms to the proposed department. June 13. N(3-1-0), rejected 179-230.

239. HR2444. Motion to strike the enacting clause of the blll (thus k1111ng the bill). June 13. NV(3-0-1), rejected 146-266.

241. HR4388. Amendment, to the Dodd, DConn., amendment, to require rthat expense funds paid by the federal government to an intervenor in Federal Energy Regulatory Administration proceedings whose side lost be pald by the intervenor to the respondent. June 15. NV(3~1), passed 257-156.

242. HR4388. Substitute amendment, to the Dodd, D-Conn., amendment, to set a limit of $550,000 on the amount of funds tha.t could be used to pay the expenses of intervenors. June 15. NV(G-3-1), rejected 136-271).

244. HRes291. Motion to table (k111) the resolution to direct the President to provide members of the House with information on crude oil and refined petroleum supplies. June 15. NV(o-3-1), rejected 4-338.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 245. HRes.291. Adoption of the resolution to

direct the president to provide members of the House with information on crude oil and refined petroleum supplies in the United States since January 1, 1978. June 15. (NV (3-0-1), passed 340--4.

247. HR4388. Amendment to delete $6 million from construction funding for the O'Ne111 unit, in northern Nebraska, of the Pick-~loan Missouri Basin project. June 15. NV(G-3-1) , rejected 106-210.

248. HR4388. Amendment to delete $5.3 million in construction funding for a desalinization plant near Yuma, Arizona. June 15. NV(G-3-1) , rejected 34-253.

249. HRes321. Adoption of the resolution to express the sense of the House of Representatives that the president should urge the secretary general of the United Nations to take appropriate measures to deal with the needs of refugees fleeing from Indochina. June 18. NV(2-0-2), passed 336-0.

250. HR4388. Amendment to add $5 million to appropriations for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for on-site inspectors at nuclear power plants. June 18. NV(2-G-2), passed 350-10.

251. HR4388. Amendment to delete language in the bill restricting to licensing operations the duties of additional employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, thus giving discretion to the commission for assigning responsibilities of the new employees. June 18. NV (G-2-2), passed 35G-12.

252. HR4388. Amendment to prohibit use of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) funds for issuance of operating licenses for a nuclear power plant in a state which had not submitted an emergency evacuation plan to the NRC. June 18. NV(G-2-2), rejected 147-235.

253. HR4388. Passage of the bill to appropriate $10.69 b1llion for FY80 operations of the Energy Department, Army Corps of Engineers, Interior Department Bureau of Reclamation and seven independent agencies and commissions. June 18. NV(2-0-2), passed 359-29.

254. HR4391. Passage of the b111 to appropriate $3.48 billion for m111tary construction programs of the Defense Department for FY80. June 18. NV(1-1-2), passed 366-21.

256. HR4387. Passage of the blll to appropriate $16.7 b1llion in FY80 for the Agriculture Department and related agencies. June 19. Y(4-0-0), passed 391-30.

257. HRes239. Adoption of the resolution to disapprove the administration's plan not to spend $1.79 mlllion for exploration and dr1lling for oil in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. June 19. Y(4-0-0), passed 409-3.

260. HR2444. Amendment to prevent the proposed department, during the first eight months of its existence, from withholding funds from a state because of a failure to comply with legal requirements for operating certain programs through a single organizational unit (the amendment specifically applied to Florida's vocational rehabil1tation program). June 19. Y(3-1-0), passed 362-36.

261. HR2444. Amendment to require the proposed department to inform local education agencies of proposed regulations and to withdraw the regulations if a majority of the agencies stated in writing that they opposed them, except for regulations concerning civil rights. June 19. N(2-2-0), rejected 159- 243 .

263. HRlll. Motion to strike the b1ll's enacting clause, and thus kill the treaty implementing legislation. June 20. N (2-2-0), rejected 97- 315.

264. HR111. Amendment, to the Hanley, D-N.Y., amendment, to restore the original language in the bill providing for special retirement, pay and other benefits to U .S. Panama Canal employees. June 20. N(2-2-0), passed 277-142.

December 20, 1979 265. HRlll. Amendment to prohibit the

annual payments to Panama called for under the 1978 canal treaties unless Panama settled all outstanding expropriation claims by American companies. June 20. N(2-2-0), rejected 210-227.

266. HR111. Amendment, to the Hansen, R-Idaho, amendment, to restore the original language in the bill dealing with annual payments to Panama from canal revenues, property transfers to Panama and U.S. costs in implementing the 1978 canal treaties. June 20. Y(2-2-0), passed 220-200.

267. HRlll. Amendment, as amended, to provide for annual payments to Panama from canal revenues, to authorize property transfers to Panama and to establish U.S. costs in implementing the 1978 treaties. June 20. Y(2-2-0), passed 255-162.

268. HRlll. Amendment to provide that Panamanians cannot be appointed to the Panama Canal Commission untll a government is installed in Panama through free elections. June 21. N (3-1-0), rejected 142-247.

269. HR111. Amendment to charge to Panama the $75 million cost of U.S. m111tary construction incurred as a result of implementing the treaty. June 21. N (2-2-0), rejected 210-213.

270. HRlll. Amendment to require congressional approval after December 30, 1999, before the Panama Canal railroad or any other U.S. property in the Canal Zone could be transferred to Panama. June 21. N(2-2-0), rejected 177-248.

271. HRlll. Motion to recommit the b111 to the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee with instructions to report the bUl back to the House with the original text of the Hansen, R-Idaho, amendment to require Panama to pay all U.S. cost in implementing the canal treaties. June 21. N(2-2-0), rejected 21G-216.

272. HR111. Passage of the b111 to implement the Panama Canal treaties by creating a Panama Canal Commission, requiring congressional approval of all spending by the canal and authorizing payments to Panama from canal _revenues under certain restrictions. June 21. Y (2-2-0), passed 224-202.

273. HR3173. Motion to instruct the House conferees on the bill to authorize foreign m111tary aid in FYBO, to insist on its disagreements with a Senate amendment providing $50 mUlion in grant m111tary assistance to Turkey. June 21. Y( 1-2-1), passed 303-107.

275. HR4394. Amendment to increase Environmental Protection Agency funds by $4 mill1on for groundwater contamination research and by $6 million for research into methods of controll1ng hazardous substances. June 22. Y(1-2-1), rejected 129-237.

276. HR4394. Amendment to increase EPA funds by $10 m1llion for research into and $10 mUlion for emergency measures to control hazardous wastes. June 22. N ( G-3-1), rejected 136-219.

277. HR1046. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to amend the 1968 Magistrate Act to expand the authority of federal magistrates to try civil and federal misdemeanor cases and to provide for merit selection of magistrates in order to expedite litigation of minor cases in the U.S. district courts. June 26. Y(2-2-0), passed 374-42.

278. HR4303. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the blll to allow households containing a person who is aged 60 or older, or who receives Supplemental Security Income benefits, to deduct from income, for the purpose of computing food stamp benefits, any medical expenses in excess of $35 a month and all shelter costs that exceeded 50 percent of monthly income. June 26. Y(4--0-0), passed 405-8.

279. HR3930. Amendment to limit the definition of energy production 1n the act only

December 20, 19 79 to that for defense purposes. June 26. N(1-3-0), rejected 69-351.

280. HR3930. Motion to end debate on the section defining the terms used in the bill at 6:40 p.m. June 26. Y(2-2-0), passed 209-183.

282. HR3930. Amendment to delete a sentence authorizing the president to command any fuel supplier to provide the government with synthetic fuels. June 26. N(1-3-0), rejected 94-291.

283. HR3930. Amendment to prohibit the eight largest oil companies from contracting with the government to provide synthetic fuels. June 26. Y(1-3- 0) , rejected 127-263.

284. HR3930. Passage of the blll to require the president, through purchase contracts, loans and loan guarantees and, if necessary, government backed corporations, to encourage production of the oil equivalent of 500,-000 barrels a day in synthetic fuels by 1985 and two million barrels a day by 1990. June 26. Y ( 4-0-0) , passed 368-25.

287. HR4394. Amendment to cut $685 million in general revenue sharing funds allocated to state governments. June 27. Y (3-1-0), rejected 102-302.

288. HR4394. Amendment to cut $14.7 million from National Aeronautics and Space Administration research funds earmarked for development of a commercial supersonic airliner. June 27. Y(1-3-0), rejected 113-292.

289. HR4394. Motion to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to reduce spending by 2 percent across-the-board on programs not required by law. June 27. N(1-3-0), rejected 170-243.

290. HR4394. Passage of the blll to appropriate $71.96 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and 20 independent agencies, including the Veterans Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). June 27. Y(2-2-0), passed 359-53.

291. HR4389. Amendment to prohibit payment of Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) funds to persons named by the General Accounting Office as violators of law. June 27. N(1-3-0), rejected 191-222.

292. HR4389. Amendment to reduce by $10.3 mill1on the appropriation for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. June 27. N(3-1-0) , rejected 177-240.

293. HR4389. Amendment to prohilbt use of funds in the bill to pay for abortions, unless the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, in cases of rape or incest or in cases where two doctors certified that carrying the fetus to term would result in severe and long-lasting physical damage to the mother. June 27. Y(1-3-0), rejected 180-241.

294. HR4389. Amendment to prohibit Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors from visiting a work-site wdthin six months of an inspection by a state safety and health agency, with certain exceptions, including cases where a worker had been k1lled. June 27. Y(4-0-0), passed 23~176.

295. HR4389. Amendment to increase by $47 million the appropriation for the National Institutes of Health, June 27. N(0-4-0), retected 178-228.

296. HR4389. Amendment to reduce the appropriation for HEW by $500 million, with the reduction to be taken from programs identified by the HEW Inspector General as containing waste. June 27. N(3-1-0), passed 263-152.

297. HR4389. Amendment, as amended by the Obey, D-Wis., amendment, to add $2 million to the appropriation for the Community Services Administration, to develop a plan for administration of the emergency fuel assistance program for the poor. June 27. Y(1-3-0), passed 300-112.

298. HR4389. Amendment to prohibit use of HEW funds to implement the system for Hospital Uniform Reporting (SHUR). June 27. N(3-l-O), passed 306-101.


299. HR4389. Passage of the b111 to appropriate $73.1 billion for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare, and related agencies, for FY80. June 27. NV n-2-1 ) . passed 327-84.

300. HR3919 . Adoption of the rule providing for House floor consideration of the bill taxing profits oil companies will realize from decontrol of domestic oil prices. June 2. Y £2-2-0 l . passed 292-118.

301. HR3919. Ways and Means Committee amendments providing for a tax rate of 70 percent and a permanent tax on price increases, adjusted for inflation plus 2 percent annually, of more than $17 a barrel. June 28. Y(3-1-0) , passed 230-185.

302. HR3919. Substitutes providing for a tax rate of 60 percent, discontinuation of the windfall tax at the end of 1990 and other changes. June 28. N(3-1-0), passed 236-183.

303. HR3919. Amendment extending for 13 months the tax on oil discovered before 1973. June 28. Y(1-3-0) , rejected 172-241.

304. HR3919. Motion to recommit with instructions to add a "plowback" that would give oil companies a credit for 75 cents of every dollar reinvested in energy development in excess of historic investment patterns. June 28. N(3-1-0), rejected 186-229.

305. HR4439. Amendment to terminate the existing sanctions against Zimbabwe-Rhodesia by December 1, 1979, to provide for a continuation of the sanctions past that date if Congress approved a presidential request for an extension. June 28. Y(2-2-0), passed 350-37.

307. HR827. Motion to suspend the ru1es and pass the bill to establish an arbitration board and proceedings to settle disputes between postal supervisors and the U.S. Postal Workers. July 10. Y(1-3-0), passed 30~94.

308. HR3821. Amendment to require the president to publicly disclose on November 1, 1979, the total amount appropriated for FY80 national foreign intelligence programs. Ju1y 10. N(0-4-0), rejected 79-321.

309. HR4537. Passage of the bill to make changes in U.S. law to carry out mu1tilateral trade (MTN) agreements limiting nontariff barriers to trade, including export subsidles and customs valuation methods. Ju1y 11. Y(4-0-0), passed 395-7.

311. HR2444. Amendment to limit the department to 800 fewer employees than were currently working on programs to be transferred into it; to count consultants hired by the department as employees; and to remove the provision in the b111 allowing the department to add 50 new employees each year without congressional approval. Ju1y 11. Y(4-0-0), passed 263-143.

313. HR2444. Amendment to prohibit the department from providing facilities to institutions of higher education that used mandatory student fees to pay for abortions, except for those to save the life of the mother. July 11. N(3-1-0), passed 257-149.

314. HR2444. Passage of the bill to establish a separate federal Department of Education. July 11. Y(1-3-0), passed 210-206.

315. HRes231. Adoption of the resolution to disapprove President Carter's reorganization plan no. 2 to reorganize most foreign aid programs under a new International Development Cooperation Agency (IDCA), to be effective October 1, 1979. July 11. Y(3-1-0), rejected 15~256.

316. HR3363. Motion to instruct the House conferees to agree to the Senate amendment expressing the sense of Congress that free and fair elections had been held in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and that the president should lift economic sanctions against that nation. July 11. Y(3-1-0), rejected 168-248.

319. HR4057. Amendment to reduce to $280 million, the increase in the ceiling for the food stamp program for FY79. July 11. N(3-1- 0), rejected 98-314.

320. HR4057. Passage of the bill to increase

37709 by $620 million the spending ceiling for the food stamp program in the FY79. July 11. Y(2-2-0), passed 335-81.

322. HR4392. Amendment to add $41.2 million for United Nations technical assistance programs. July 12. Y(1-3-0), passed 21~190.

324. HR4392. Amendment to reduce appropriations for the State Department by 5 percent. July 12. N(2-2-0) , passed 210-199.

326. HR4392. Amendment to add $69 million for Maritime Administration ship building and acquisitions programs. July 12. N(0-4-0) , rejected 135--272.

327. HR4392. Amendment to eliminate all funding ($1.6 million) for the U.S. Metric Board. July 12. N(2-2-0), rejected 122-280.

328. HR4392. Amendment to prohibit any use of appropriated funds for the Justice Department to be used to require the busing of school children, except for students requiring special education as a result of being mentally or physically handicapped. July 12. N(3-l-O) , passed 209-190.

329. HR4392. Amendment to add $41.2 million for United Nations technical assistance programs. July 12. Y(1--3-0), passed 198-197.

330. HR4392. Passage of the bill to appropriate $7.56 billion in FY80 for the operations of the departments of State, Justice and Commerce, the Judiciary and 18 related agencies. July 12. Y(2-2-0) , passed 299-93.

332. HR4393. Amendment to prohibit the use of Treasury Department appropriations for the collection of any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Service unless the conduct of IRS employees complied with the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. July 13. Y(4-0-0), passed 299-69.

333. HR4393. Amendment to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated in the bill to formulate or carry out any rule or policy that would cause the loss of tax-exempt status of any private, religious or churchoperated school, unless such rule or policy was in effect prior to August 22, 1978. July 13. NV(3-0-1), passed 297-63.

334. HR2282. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to provide a cost-of-living increase in compensation rates for disabled veterans and for their survivors. Ju1y 16. Y(4-0-0), passed 350-0.

335. HR3641. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to authorize $45 mill1on for federal health information programs for FY80-82; $7.5 million for federal physical fitness programs for FY82; $45 million for certain mental health programs for FY80; and to establish a national clearinghouse on digestive diseases, and authorize $5.7 mi111on for FY80-82. July 16. Y(2-2-0), passed 317--35.

336. HR3951. Amendment to waive the Davis-Bacon Act wage requirements for laborers and mechanics for work performed on the Washington, D.C., rapid rail system. July 16. N(3-1-0), rejected 127-260.

337. HR3951. Passage of the bill to authorize $1.7 billion for FY82-87 to complete construction of the 101-mlle Metro rapid transit system of the National Capital region. July 16. NV(1-2-l), passed 261-125.

338. HR4393. Prohibit the f50,000 appropriation for the expense allowance of the president to be expended for any other purpose and to require that any unused portion of the expense account shall revert to the Treasury. July 16. Y(4-0-0), passed 294-90.

339. HR4393. Amendment to prohibit the expenditure of funds appropriated for allowances and office staff of former presidents to be used for travel expenses. July 16. N(3-l-O), rejected 15~232.

340. HR4393. Passage of the blll to appropriate $8.79 blllion for the Treasury Department, the Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent agencies for FYSO. Ju1y 16. Y(2-2-0), passed 344-49.

37710 341. HR4289. Adoption of the conference

report to appropriate $13.78 billion for operations of various Federal departments and agencies for FY79. July 17. Y{2-2-0). passed 284-132.

343. HR4580. Amendment to prohibit the denial of appropriated funds to save the life of a pregnant woman entitled to receive medical benefits under the act July 17. Y(4-0-0). pased 309-112.

344. HR4580. Substitute amendment, to the Dornan, R-Calif., amendment, to limit appropriated funds for abortions to federal monies. July 17. Y(1-3-0), rejected. 200-217.

345. HR4580. Passage of the bill to appropriate $1.810 billion for FY80. July 17. Y(2-2-0), passed 272-147.

346. HR2444. Motion that the House insist on its amendment to the bill to create a Department of Education and request a conference with the Senate. July 17. Y{1-3-0). passed 263-166.

347. HR2444. Motion that the House conferees insist on the amendment to make the purpose of the department the goal of ensuring that no one is denied access to education on account of racial or sexual quotas. July 17. N{3-1-0), passed 214-202.

348. HRes369. Motion to table (k111) the resolution to permit male House members to dispense with coats and ties during the period from June 1 through Labor Day for 1979 and subsequent years, so long as energy shortages persisted, as determined by the House Speaker. July 17. N{3-1-0), passed 303-105.

350. HR4473. Substitute amendment, to the Young, R-Fla., amendment, to reduce by $17.7 milllon (2 percent of the committeerecommended amount) the appropriation for the Inter-American Development Bank. July 18. Y(4-0-0), passed 413--4.

351. HR4473. Amendments to reduce by $144.9 mlllion the appropriation for the International Board of Reconstruction and Development, July 18. N(3-1-0), passed 219-196).

352. HR4473. Amendment, to the Smith, R-Neb., substitute amendment to the Obey, D-Wis., amendment, to make an additional $1 million cut for the International Development Association. July 18. Y(4-0-0), passed 242-177.

353. HR4473. Substitute amendment, as amended, to the Obey, D-Wis., amendment, to reduce by $207 million the amount sought for the International Development Association. July 18. N(3-1-0), rejected 207-210.

354. HR4473. Amendment to cut $5.84 million (2 percent) of the $292 milllon a-ppropriation sought for the fourth reolenishment of funds to the International Development Association. July 18. Y(4-0-0), passed 402-13.

355. HR4473. Amendment to eliminate the $292 mlllion appropriation sought for the fourth replenishment of funds for the International Development Association. July 18. N(3-1-0), reJected. 194-219.

356. HR4473. Amendment, as amended. by McHugh, D-N.Y., to prohibit use of funds in the blll provided for the International Development Association to finance any assistance or reparations to Vietnam. July 18. Y(4-0-0), passed 291-122.

357. HR4473. Amendment to prohibit e. $359.5 mllllon U.S. payment to the Asian Development Bank unless Taiwan were permitted to continue its membershio in the bank. July 18. Y(4-0-0), passed. 244-164.

358. HR3917. Adoption of the rule (HRes305) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to revise and extend through FY82 the Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974 and to authorize a three-year total of $1.2 billion for planning activities and resources development. July 19. Y(4--0-0), passed 395-10.

359. HR3917. Amendment, to the Satterfield, D-Va., amendment, to require state

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS health planning agencies to receive comment on and publish their criteria for reviewing certificate-of-need applications for approval of medical service charges and to prohibit any conditional approvals that do not conform to the published review criterie.. July 19. Y(1-3-0), rejected 203-211.

360. HR3917. Amendment to make certain changes in membership requirements for health planning agencies (HSAs) and to convert private non-profit HSAs to public agencies. July 19. N(2-2-0), rejected 135-274.

361. HR3917. Motion to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to add a provision that planning agencies must evaluate effects of their health plans on medical ethics as embodied in the Hippocratic oath. July 19. N(1-3-0), rejected 55-364.

362. HR3917. Passage of the blll to extend through FY82 and revise the Health Ple.nning and Resources Development Act of 1974 and to authorize a three-year total of $1.2 blllion for planning activities and resources development. July 19. Y(2-2-0), passed 374-45.

364. HR4473. Amendment to reduce by $16.7 million the a-ppropriation for the African Development Fund. July 19. N(2-2-0), rejected 148--262.

365. HR4040. Adoption of the rule (HRes368) providing for House floor consideration of the blll to authorize $42.1 billion for wea.pons procurement and m111tary research in FY80. July 19. Y(4-0-0), passed. 219-158.

366. HR7. Passage of the bill to reduce reserve requirements for Federal Reserve System members and provide a system of mandatory universal reserve requirements for checking a.ccounts in the event the total amount of checking deposits subject to reserve requirements dropped. below 67.5 percent. July 20. Y(3-1-0), passed 340-20.

367. HRes359. Adoption of the resolution to permit ea.ch House member to add to their clerk-hire payroll up to four employees-if they fell into one of five specified categories-without violating the existing ce111ng in the House rules of 18 permanent clerks per member. July 20. Y(1-3-0), passed. 214-120.

372. HJRes74. Motion to discharge the House Judiciary Committee from further consideration of the joint resolution to propose an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit compell1ng students to attend a school other than the one nearest their home. July 24. N(3-1-0), passed 227-183.

373. HJRes74. Motion to order the previous question {thus ending debate and further amendments) on the joint resolution to propose an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit compelUng students to attend a school other than the one nearest their home. July 24. Y(1-3-0), rejected 172-251.

374. HJRes74. Passage of the joint resolution to propose an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit compelling students to attend a school other than the one nearest their home to achieve racial desegregation. July 24. N(3-1-0), rejected 209-216.

375. HR4453. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to extend a. moratorium on the Food and Drug Administration ban on the artificial sweetener saccharin through June 30, 1981, and to require studies and health warnings on saccharin-flavored products and in stores selling the products. July 24. Y(4-0-0), passed 394-22.

376. HR3996. Amendment, to the Eckhardt, D-Texas, amendment, to provide a. one-year moratorium on any Amtrak route cuts. July 24. Y(3-1-Q), rejected 197-214.

379. HR3996. Amendment to require Amtrak to establish fares that would produce revenues equal to 40 percent of total Amtrak expenses in FY80, 45 percent 1n 1981 and 50 percent in 1982. July 25. N(3-1-0), rejected 168--250.

December 20, 1979 380. HR3996. Passage of the bill to author

ize $1.12 billion for FY80, $940.5 milllon for FY81, and $958.5 m1llion for FY82, and to set formulas for retaining some trains scheduled for elimination under the Carter administrations plan. July 25. Y{3-1-0), passed 397-18.

381. S1030. Adoption of the rule (HRes 384) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to authorize the president to impose conservation measures in the event of a. national energy shortage. July 25. Y{2-2-0) , passed 326-85.

382. S1030. Amendment to permit gasoline rationing when there is a 15 percent shortage-instead of a. 20 percent shortage-in petroleum supplies for 30 days. July 25. Y(1-3-0), rejected 93-329.

383. S1030. Amendment to require the president to submit a standby gasoline rationing plan to Congress within 180 days of enactment and then giving Congress 60 days to approve the plan. July 25. N{3-1-0), rejected 185-234.

384. S1030. Amendment to give either house of Congress 30 days to veto a standby gasoline rationing plan submitted by the president. July 25. N(3-1-0), passed 232-187.

387. HR3920. Amendment to delete language extending through January 1, 1982, the exemption from paying federal unemployment insurance tax for certain temporary allen farm workers. July 25. NV{Q-2-2), rejected 85-325.

388. HRes317. Adoption of the resolution to disapprove (thus revoking trade benefits) the president's request to extend for 12 months a waiver of the freedom of emigration provisions of the 1974 Trade Act with respect to Romania. July 25. NV{1-1-2), rejected. 126-271.

389. HR3000. Adoption of the rule {HRes 379) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to authorize $6.9 blllion in FY80 for civilian programs of the Energy Department. July 26. Y(4-0-0), passed 404-6.

390. HR3000. Amendment to allow for termination of the Clinch River, Tenn., fast breeder reactor and to authorize $107 million to carry out a. study and design for an alternative breeder reactor. July 26. Y{1-3-0), rejected 182-237.

392. HR2462. Amendment to reduce tJhe construction differential subsidy authorization to $32 mlllion from the $101 milllon contained in the bill. July 27. N(3-1-0), rejected. 139-246.

393. HR2462. Amendment to prohibit the use of construction differential subsidies for vessels manned by crews that numbered. greater than 50 percent of the minimum, which was determined by the Coast Guard to be necessary for safe operation. July 27. Y{4-0-0), passed. 196-183.

395. HR3633. Amendment to reduce FY80 authorization for special projects and nurse practitioner training and eliminate other authorizations for nursing school grants, loans, construction aid a.nd financial aid for students. July 27. N{Q-4-0), rejected 12-341.

396. HR3633. Passage of the bill to extend through FY80 authorization for capitation, oonstruction and other types of grants to nurse training sdhools, and loans and other fl.na.nclal a.ld for nursing students, for a oneyear total of $103 mtlllon. July 27. Y(4-0-0), passed 344-6.

398. HR3509. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the blll to authorize $236.6 mlllion and to extend from FY8Q-82 the provisions of the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act. July 30. Y ( 1-2-1), passed 319-76.

399. HRes391. Motion to table (klll) the resolution calling for the expulsion of Rep. Charles C. Diggs Jr., D-Mich., from the House of Representatives. July 30. Y(1-3-Q), passed 205-197.

400. HRlll. Amendment to instruct House conferees to the House-Senate conference

December 20, 1979 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS committee on the blll to insist on certain House provisions of the legislation to implement the 1978 Panama Canal treaties. July 30. Y(4-0-0), passed 30~98.

measures. August 1. N(3-1-0), passed 244-170.

420. S1030. Motion to end debate on Section 3 of the bill at 3:45 p.m. August 1. Y(1-3-0), passed 247-164. 401. HOonRes168. Adoption of the concur

rent resolution to provide for a House recess from August 2 to September 5, 1979, and a Senate recess from August 3 to September 5, 1979. July 30. Y(3-1-0), passed 33~70.

402. HR3930. Passage of the blll to appropriate $10.23 blllion for FY80 for the Interior Department, the Energy Department and related agencies. July 30. NV(2-1-1), passed 344-42.

404. HRes378. Adoption of the resolution to censure Rep. Charles C. Diggs Jr., D-Midh., to order Diggs to repay the Treasury $40,031.-60 and to require Diggs' employees to certify to the House Committee on Standards of Offi.cial Conduct for the remainder of the 96th Congress th'at they are being paid by Diggs in full compliallJCe with House rules. July 31. Y(4-0-0), passed 414-0.

405. HConRes80. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the blll to authorize $25,000 from House contingent funds for a statue of Martin Luther King Jr. to be placed in the Capitol buUding. July 31. Y(3-1-0), passed 40~11.

406. S391. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the b111 to delay until July 1, 1980, from July 1, 1979, the effective data of the 1974 Speedy Trial Act dismissal sanctions. July 31. Y(4-0-0), passed 416-1.

408. S1030. Amendment to provide for a one-house veto over a standby gasoline rationing plan proposed by the president, but deleting the provision for a one-house veto of implementation of rationing. July 31. N(1-3-0), rejected 192-232.

409. S1030. Amendment to delete the requirement of the previously adopted Gilman, R-N.Y., amendment that either house could veto a proposed standby plan. July 31. Y(1-3-0), passed 234-189.

410. S1030. Amendment to delete the requirement that a 20 percent shortage of petroleum exist before gasoline rationing could be imposed. July 31. Y(1-3-0), rejected 63-356.

412. S1030. Amendment to provide that the president's rationing and conservation powers be valid until September 30, 1980, instead of until September 31, 1981. July 31. N(3-1-0), rejected 162-250.

413. S1030. Amendment to require an exemption from restrictions on the heating and cooling of buildings for a building operator who achieved an equivalent reduction in energy consumption by means other than controlling thermostats. July 31. Y(4-0-0), passed 267-152.

415. S1030. Amendment to the Rinaldo, R-N.J., amendment, to delete language in the b111 suggesting that the president adopt as a standby conservation measure a plan that requires a car owner not to drive one day of the week, with the non-driving day selected by the car owner. August 1. Y(4-0-0), passed 418-3.

416. S1030. Substitute amendment, to the Rinaldo, R-N.J., amendment, to restore the language suggesting a non-driving day as a conservation measure, with the requirement that governors be consulted as to the special needs of rural areas. August 1. N(0-4-0), rejected 107-306.

417. S1030. Amendment to prohibit a federal conservation plan from restricting the operating hours of a business. August 1. Y(4-0-0), rejected 190-224.

418. S1030. Amendment to prohibit a federal conservation plan from regulating the operation of any energy production, exploration, processing or transporting facility unless the facility were first given a. chance to save energy through other measures. August 1. N(3-1-Q), rejected 203-209.

419. S1030. Amendment to exempt health care facilities from federal conservation

421. S1030. Amendment to require that the president, upon finding a supply shortage, set aside middle distmate oil in order to provide supplies for agriculture production. August 1. Y(4-0-0), passed 229-191.

422. S1030. Amendment to require that the president, upon finding a supply shortage, set aside heating oil in order to provide supplies to homeowners. August 1. Y(1-3-0), passed 233-187.

423. 81030. Motion to recommit the b111 to committee with instructions to reinsert language providing for a one-house veto of a standby rationing plan. August 1. N(3-1-0), rejected 177-246.

424. 81030. Passage of the b111 to authorize the President, with the consent of Congress to require rationing of gasoline during a 20-percent oil shortage and to impose conservation measures on uncooperative states during a 10 percent oil shortage. August 1. Y(1-3-0), passed 263-159.

425. HR4388. Motion that the House recede and concur in the Senate amendment (No. 37) to appropriate $57.48 million with a total construction ceiling of $142.68 mill1on for the Hart Senate omce building and that the Senate vacate offices in certain non-federal buildings. August 1. N(1-3-0), rejected 173-236.

427. HR4288. Motion that the House recede from its disagreement with Senate amendment 37. August 1, Y(2-2-0), passed 214-184.

429. HR4057. Adoption of the conference report on the blll to increase by $620 million the spending ce111ng for the food stamp program in FY79, and to provide elderly and disabled recipients increased deductions for medical and shelter costs. August 1. Y(2-2-0), passed 336-72.

430. HR3324. Adoption of the conference report on the blll to authorize $1.979 billion in FY80 for bilateral economic aid programs and the Peace Corps. August 2. Y(1-3-0), passed 223-181.)

431. HR4392. Adoption of the conference report to appropriate $8.35 billion for the Departments of State, Justice and Commerce, the federal judiciary and 18 related agencies for FY80. August 2. Y(2-2-0), passed 291-106.

432. HR3344. Adoption of the rule (HRes 365) providing for House floor consideration of the blll to raise to $3.1 blllion, from $2.5 billion, the permanent ceiling on federal matching expenditures for state social service programs. August 2. Y{1-3-0), passed 251-154.

433. HR3434. Motion to recommit the bill to the Ways and Means Committee with instructions to report it back immediately with an amendment to delete the provision to establish the $266 million authorization for assistance to state child welfare programs on an entitlement basis rather than on an authorization and appropriation basis. August 2. N(3-1-0), passed 204-199.

434. HR3434. Passage of the b111 to amend the Social Security Act to raise to $3.1 billion, from $2.5 b1llion, the permanent ceilin~ on federal matching expenditures for state social service programs. August 2. Y(2-1-1), passed 401-2.

436. HR4473. Amendment to reduce appropriations for the United Nations Development Program to the FY79 level of $126.05 million. September 5. Y{4-0-0) , passed 234-139.

437. HR4473. Amendment to prohibit the use of funds for economic or mllltary assistance to Panama except for food and medical assistance. September 5. N(3-1-Q), passed 247-128.

438. HR4473. Amendment to remove the

37711 appropriation of $23.75 million for the Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation. September 5. N(3-1-0), rejected 166-234.

439. HR4473. Substitute :tor the Young, R-Fla., amendment to stipulate that the Young amendment not prevent use of U.S. funds to Israel, Egypt or any other country not specifically barred by HR4473 from receiving U.S. assistance. September 5. Y(1-3-0), rejected 153-244.

440. HR4473. Amendment to bar use of funds 1n the b111 for indirect aid as well as direct aid to Angola, the Central Mrican Empire, Cambodia, Laos or Vietnam. September 5. Y{4-0-0), passed 281-117.

442. HR4473. Amendment to the Obey, DWis., substitute amendment to an earlier Miller amendment, to reduce the .appropriation by 5 percent across-the-board. September 6. Y{3-1-0), rejected 178-228.

443. HR4473. Amendment to the Obey substitute to the first Mlller amendment to provide that appropriations for Israel, Egypt, disaster relief, refugee assistance and nutrition programs be exempt from reduction. September 6. Y{4-0-0), passed 395-12.

444. HR4473. Amendment to the Obey substitute to the first M111er amendment to reduce the appropriation by 4 percent rather than 2 percent as provided by the Obey amendment. September 6. N(3-1-0), passed 254-144.

445. HR4473. Amendment to prohibit any aid to Nicaragua without prior congressional approval. September 6. N(3-1-0), rejected 189-221.

446. HR4473. Passage of the blll to appropriate $7.7 billion for foreign aid programs in FY80. September 6. N{1-3-0), passed 224-183.

447. HR3236. Passage of the b111 to revise the Social Security Disability Insurance program by placing a cap on the amount of benefits received by workers who become disabled in the future and providing additional assistance to disabled workers who attempt to return to work. September 6. N{3-1-0), passed 235-162.

448. HR79. Adoption of the rule (HRes386) providing for House floor consideration of ·the blll to reorganize the U.S. Postal Service. September 7. NV(2-0-2), passed 343-2.

451. HR79. Amendment to authorize $920 mlllion annually through FY84 as a public service subsidy for the Postal Service. September 7. N(1-1-2), rejected 125-242.

452. HR79. Passage of the bUl to increase the Postal Service public service subsidy authorization to $1.3 billion by FY82, abolish the Postal Board of Governors and mandate the Postmaster General's appointment by the President. September 7. Y(1-1-2), passed 350-14.

453. S1090. Adoption of the conference report on the blll to amend the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1978 and the FY79 Foreign Aid Appropriations Act by repealing the prohibition on U.S. foreign economic and security supporting asslsta.nce to Uganda. September 7. Y{1-1-2), passed 280-69.

454. HR4986. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the b111 to authorize all depository institutions to provide interest-bearing accounts which may also be used to ma.ke payments to third parties. September 11. Y{4-0-0), passed 367-39.

455. HR4034. Amendment to require the Defense Department to complete a. list of critical military technologies by October 1, 1980. September 11. N(3-1-0), passed 273-145.

456. HR4034. Amendment to delete the section of the bill that allowed the secretary of commerce to periodically remove from the export control list goods or technology that had become obsolete, unless another government agency objected. September 11. N(2-1-1), rejected 201-206.

37712 457. HR4034. Amendment to provide tha.t

rules for the control of critical technologies should refiect the difiiculties associa.ted with end-use statements and other assurances that technology will not be diverted to military use. September 11. N(2-1-1), passed 271-138.

458. HR4034. Amendment to require government agencies involved in national security export control cases to retain a complete set of records on each application decision. September 11. N(1-2-1), rejected 109-296.

460. HR4040. Amendment to establish a Congressional Study Commission on Defense Readiness and Mobilization Os.pa.b111ty to study military manpower requirements and the adequacy of the all-volunteer armed forces and to report its findings within nine months. September 12. Y(2-1-1), rejected 144-268.

461. HR4040. Substitute amendment, to the Schroeder, D-Colo., amendment, to provide for mand·atory cWa.ft registration by 18-year-old men. September 12. N(2-1-1), rejected 163-252.

462. HR4040. Amendment to delete the provision in the bill a.s reported by the Armed Services Committee requiring mandatory draft registration and providing for a president1a.l study of the issue. September 12. Y(1-2-1), passed 259-155.

465. HR4040. Amendment, as a substitute for the committee amendment, to authorize $1.8 billion for a.n oil-power aircraft carrier instead of $2.1 billion for another nuclearpowered carrier. September 13. Y(1-3-0), rejected 96-309.

466. HR4040. Amendment, as a substitute for the committee a.mendment, to delete the $2.1 billion in the bill !or a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. September 13. Y(1-3-0), rejected 112-286.

467. HR4040. Amendment to delete $670 million for development of the M-X missile. September 13. N(0-4-0), rejected 86-305.

468. HR4040. Amendment to prohibit deployment of the M-X missile system if more than 25 percent or the launch sites were in any one state. September 13. N (0-4-0), rejected 84-289.

470. HR4040. Amendment to delete the provision in the bill authorizing $10 million for the military services to provide logistical support for the 1980 winter Olympics at La.ke Placid, N.Y. September 14. Y(3-1-0), rejected 112-247.

471. HR4040. Amendment to authorize a $990 million civil defense program for FY80-84, instead of the committee-recommended authorization of $138 million for FY80. September 14. N(3-1-0), passed 189-149.

472. HR4040. Passage of the bill to authorize $41.45 billion for FYBO weapons procuremenlt, m111tary research and civil defense programs. September 14. Y ( 4--0-0) , passed 282-46.

473. HR51. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the blll to strengthen !edernl regulation of pipeline transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas and natural gas. September 18. NV(3-0-1), passed 357-20.

474. 8428. Motion to close to the public the House-Senate conference committee on the differing versions of the FY80 Defense Department authorization bill at such times as classified national security information was under consideration, but to allow any member of Congress to attend any of the closed sessions. September 18. NV(3-0-1), passed 389-0.

475. ~40. Amendment to a.dd $6 million for bicycle projects. September 18. Y(1-3-0), rejected 111-296.

476. HR4440. Ame:t?-dment to prohibit use of FY80 funds to enforce regulations requiring air bags in passenger motor vehicles, but may be used to continue research on air bags. September 18. N(2-2-0), passed 228-185.

477. HR4440. Passage of the bill to appro-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS pria.te $9.84 billion for FY80 programs of the Department of Transportation. including funds to continue some Amtrak passenger trains scheduled for elimination and more funds for urban mass transit a.nd highway programs. September 18. Y(2-2-0), passed 335-71.

478. HR4034. Amendment to establish a petition procedure to allow representatives of the scrap metal industry to request Commerce Department hearings on the monitoring or control a! scrap metal exports. September 18. Y(2-2-0), passed 238-165.

479. HR4034. Amendment to limit exports at cattle hides to the pereentage of exports in the 1974-78 period, unless domestic supplies were adequate or foreign nations lifted their embargoes on hide exports. September 18. N(0-4-0), rejected 186-218.

481. HJRes399. Amendment to prohibit remodeling of the gallery of the Capitol's statuary hall. September 19. Y(4-0-0), passed 371-31.

482. HJRes399. Adoption of the joint resolution to continue appropriations for existing programs through December 31, 1979, for federal agencies that had not yet received their FY80 appropriations, and to raise pay 7 percent for members of Congress (to $61.,-525 from $57,500), federal judges and other top-level federal workers. September 19. N(0-4-0), rejected 191-219.

483. HConRes186. Amendment to set 1980 budget totals as follows: budget authority, $594.7 blllion; outlays, $529.8 bUlion; revenues, $510 blllion; deficit, $19.8 billion; and to provide for a $13 b1llion fiscal year tax cut. September 19. N(3-1-0), rejected 187-230.

484. HConRes186. Amendment to increase 1980 defense spending to $141.2 billion in budget authority and $129 bllllon in outlays (an increase of $3 billion and $400 mtllion respectively over the levels recommended by the House Budget Committee). September 19. N(3-1-0), rejected 191-221.

485. HConRes186. Amendment to decrease budget authority and outlays by $550 million, representing elimination of funds included in the budget !or anti-recession fiscal assistance programs for state and local governments. September 19. NV(3-0-1), rejected 183-220.

486. HConRes186. Amendment to reduce budget authority by $400 million, outlays by $100 million and revenues ,by $250 milllon, representing elimtna.tion of an expected supplemental appropriation for Baste Educational Opportunity Grants and establlshment of tuition tax credits. September 19. NV(2-1-1), passed 221-176.

487. HConRes186. Amendments to set 1980 budget totals as follows: budget authority, $600 m1111on; outlays, $518 blllion; revenues, $518 btllion. September 19. N(3-1-{)), rejected 181-224.

488. HConRes186. Adoption of the amended concurrent resolution to set 1980 budget totals as follows: budget authority, $631.8 b1111on; outlays, $548.t' b1111on; revenues, $519.2 billion; and defic:~t, $29.3 b1111on. September 19. Y(1-3-0), rejected 192-213.

490. HJRes399. Motion to reconsider the vote by which the House rejected the joint resolution to continue appropriations !or federal agencdes for which approprtaMons bllls ha.d not been enacted before October 1, 1979. September 20. N(0-4-0), passed 214-196.

491. H.TRes399. Passage of the jolnt resolution to continue appropriations for existing programs, through December 31, 1979-the end of the first quarter of FY80, of the federal agencies for which appropriations bills had not been enacted before October 1, 1979, and to raise pay 7 percent for members of Congress (to $61,525 from $57,000), federal judges and other top-level federal workers. September 20. NV(0-3-1) , rejected 196-212.

492. HR5229. Adoption of the rule (HRes-

December 20, 1979 411) providing for House fioor consideration of the bill. September 20. Y(1-3-0), passed 258-151.

494. F{R5229. Amendment, to the commlttee substitute amendment, to change the date for extension of the temporary debt limit to July 31, 1980, from March 31, 1981, and reduce the proposed debt ce111ng by $44 b1111on Septemlber 20. Y(4-0-0), passed 408-1.

495. HR5229. Passage of the b111 to provide for an increase in the public debt limit to $885 billion through July 31, 1980. September 20. Y(1-3-0), rejected 200-215.

496. S544. Adoption of the conference report on the btll to authorize $987 million for health planning and resource development grants and related activities for FYB0-82. September 20. Y(2-2-0), passed 362-45.

497. HR111. Adoption of the conference report on the blll to implement the Pa.na.ma Canal treaties, by establishing a. Panama Canal Commission and providing for operation and maintenance of the canal through 1999. September 20. Y(1-3-0), rejected 192-203.

498. HR3642. Adoption of the rule (HRes-331) providing for House fioor consideration of the bill to authorize $231 million for grants for emergency med10811 services and related activities for FY80-82. September 20. Y(4-0-0), passed 345-1.

499. HR4034. Substitute amendment, to the Dornan, R-Caltf., amendmelllt, to continue the confidentiality of export licensing information until June 30, 1980, after whleh tt would be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. September 21. Y(2-2-0), passed 318-29.

500. HR5136. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to authorize the sale of 14 older naval vessels to Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Greece, South Korea, Mexico, Peru, the Ph111ppines and Spain. September 25. Y ( 4-0-o) , passed 379-25.

501. HR5218. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the blll to authorize $25 million for the Dominican Republic and Dominica to be used for relief and rehabilitation for damage caused by Hurricanes David and Frederick. September 25. Y(2-2-03, passed 370-27.

502. HConRes167. Motion to suspend the rules and adopt the concurrent resolution to express the sense of Congress that the president protest to the Soviet Union concerning the nondelivery of personal mail to certain Soviet addresses. September 25. Y(4-0-0), passed 401-o.

504. HJRes404. Motion to order the previous question on the resolution to continue appropriations for certain federal agencies for the first quarter of FY80. September 25. Y(2-2-0), passed 209-200.

505. HJRes404. Passage of the joint resolution to continue approp-riations for existing programs, through December 31, 1979-the end of the first quarter of FY80, of federal agencies for which appropriations bills ha.d not been enacted before October 1, 1979, and to raise pay 5.5 percent for members of Congress (to $60,662.50 !rom 57,500), federal judges and other top-level federal workers. September 25. N(0-4-0), rejected 208-203.

506. HR4034. Amendment to allow exports of Alaskan oil in exchange for oil imports from Mexico unless the major oil-producing nations impose severe restrictions on the export of oil to the United States. September 25. N(2-2-0), rejected 61-340.

509. HRlll. Adoption of the conference report on the bill to implement the Panama Canal treaties, by establishing a Panama Canal Commission and providing for the operation and maintenance of the canal through 1999. September 26. Y(2- 2-0), passed 232-188.

510. HR5369. Amendment to delete Title II of the bill, establishing a procedure by which the debt limit in the future would

December 20, 1979 become the amount specified in the most recently approved congressional budget resolution. September 26. N(2-2-0), rejected 132-283.

511. HR5369. Passage of the blll to increase the public debt limit to $879 billion through May 31, 1980. September 26. Y(l-3-0), passed 219-198.

512. SConRes36. Motion to order the previous question on the rule (HRes427) providing for House floor consideration of the budget resolution. September 27. Y(3-1-0), passed 289-119.

513. SConRes36. Substitute amendment to establish the following budget totals for FY 80: budget authority, $631.8 billion; outlays, $548.2 billion; revenues, $519.3 billion; and deficit, $28.9 billion. September 27. Y(l-3-0), passed 212-206).

515. S210. Adoption of the conference report on the bill to create a new cabinetlevel Department of Education. September 27. Y(1-3-0), passed 215-201.

516. HR4394. Motion that the House recede from its disagreement with and concur in the Senate amendment to appropriate $3 million in FY80 for the livable cities program. September 27. N(3-1-0), rejected 128-278.

518. HR5359. Amendment to merge Navy basic training for helicopter pilots with basic training for mlUtary helicopter pllots under Army control at Ft. Rucker, Alabama. september 27. N(0-3-1), rejected 131-244.

519. HR5359. Amendment to add $10 million deleted by the committee for Army hospital operations. september 27. Y(2-1-1), passed 217-147.

521. HR5359. Amendment to delete from the b111 a prohibition on paying price differentials on Defense Department contractsthe so-called Maybank provision-in order to relieve economic dislocations. September 2'8. NV(Q-2-2), rejected 174-187.

522. HR5359. Passage of the b111 to appropriate $129.98 b1111on for programs of the Department of Defense in FY80. September 28. NV(2-Q-2), passed 305-49.

523. S737. Adoption of the conference report on the bill to extend through September 30, 1983, government authority to control exports for national security of foreign policy reasons, or because of inadequate domestic supplies. September 28. NV(Q-2-2), passed 321-19.

524. S237. Adoption of the conference report on the b111 to give federal magistrate expanded authority to handle jury and nonjury civil trials and criminal misdemeanors if the parties consent. September 28. NV (0-2-2), passed 273-38.

525. HR2795. Passage of the b111 to authorize $8 million in FY80 for the U.S. Travel Service and to reduce the number of its employees in the District of Columbia so not to exceed 40 percent of the total as of December 31, 1978. September 28. NV(Q-1-3), passed 239-48.

526. HR3642. Passage of the blll to authorize $231 million for grants for emergency medical services and related activities for FY'B0-82. September 28. NV(1-0-3), passed 245-12.

527. HR2859. Motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and further amendments) on the rule (HRes367) providing for House floor consideration of the blll to extend the authorization for domestic volunteer programs of ACTION. september 28. NV(0-1-3), rejected 16-235.

528. HR2859. Adoption of the rule (HRes367), as amended, providing for House floor consideration of the blll to extend the authorization for domestic volunteer programs of ACTION. September 28. NV(l-0-3), passed 236-15.

530. HR2172. Adoption of the rule (HRes-393) providing for House floor consideration of the blll to implement the International

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Sugar Agreement and increase domestic price supports for sugar. September 28. NV(l-Q-3),216-12.

532. HR5224. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the blll to prohibit the Treasury Department from issuing final regulations governing taxation of fringe benefits or commuting expenses untll June 1, 1981, and to extend a special rule for taxation of state legislators' travel expenses untll January 1, 1981. October 9. Y(4-Q-O), passed 347-114.

533. HR3777. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to amend the United States Code to limit the use of the congressional frank, a privilege permitting members of Congress to send official mall free of charge. October 9. Y(3-1-0), passed 319-68.

534. HR3949. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to require tire manufacturers in certain circumstances to provide public notice of tire defects. October 9. Y(3-1-0), passed 38Q-9.

535. HR5048. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to require tire manufacturers in certain circUIIIlStances to provide public notice of tire defects. October 9. Y ( 3-1-0) , passed 349-39.

536. HJRes413. Amendment to prohibit use of federal funds for abortion except where tne life of the mother would be endangered, or in cases of reported ra.pe or incest, or where two physicians certified that the continued pregnancy would cause severe and long-lasting physical damage to the mother. October 9. Y(l-2-1), rejected 163-234.

537. HR2859. Amendment to delete authority for the ACTION "national grant" program. October 9. N(2-1-1), rejected 177-209.

540. HR2859. Amendment to allow local elected officials to veto VISTA projects within their jurisdiction. October 10. N(3-1-0), passed 229-178.

541. HR2859. Passage of the bill to extend the authorization for domestic volunteer programs of the ACTION agency. October 10. Y(2-2-0), passed 307-106.

543. HR2061. Amendment to provide for LEAA funds to small communities to purchase equipment up to $1,000. October 10. N(1-3-0), rejected 181-224.

545. HR2061. Amendment to delete authorization for the proposed Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics, an office to oversee the LEAA and two new agencies. October 10. N(3-1-0), passed 237-169.

548. TR3000. Amendment to prohibit use of funds appropriated by the bill for expenditures related to lifting price controls on certain types of domestic crude oil. October 11. N(Q-4-0), rejected 124-243.

551. HR3000. Amendment to prohibit the use of funds to allocate or control the price of gasoline. October 12. N(3-1-0), passed 191-188.

553. HR3000. Amendment, to the Gramm, D-Texas, amendment, to authorize the president in an emergency to reimpose the gas allocation system and price controls. October 12. Y(1-3-0), rejected 182-191.

554. HR3000. Amendment to authorize the President in an emergency to allocate gasoline to agriculture and other priority users. October 12. Y(4-Q-O), passed 257-119.

556. HR3916. Adoption of the rule (HRes 307) providing for House floor consideration of the blll to authorize $221.5 milllon for alcohol abuse programs and $206 million for drug abuse programs in FY80. October 12. Y ( 4-Q-0) , passed 350-6.

558. HR2061. Amendment to allow California to use previously awarded LEAA block grants to fund the 1980 Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders. October 12. N(Q-3-1), rejected 127-203.

560. HR2061. Amendment to allow use of formula grant funds to buy photographic and fingerprint equipment for law enforce-

37713 ment purposes. October 12. N (0-2-2), rejected 149-174.

562. HR2061. Amendment to delete authorization for a new national priority grant program that would be used to fund projects ._ the LEAA determined had been successful and should be continued. October 12. N(1-1-2), rejected 85-197.

~64. HR2061. Amendment to delete the mini-block grant program, which provides qualified localities a share of LEAA formula vrant funds allocated to a state. October 12. N(l-1-2), rejected4Q-246.

566. HR2061. Amendment to extend coverage of the Public Safety Ofticers Death Benefits Act administered by the LEAA to rescue squad personnel. October 12. N(1-2-1), passed 180-99.

567. HR2061. Passage of the blll to create a National Institute of Justice and a Bureau of Justice Statistics to handle the research and statistical functions of the LEAA and authorize $800 million annually for FYSO through FY82 for the three agencies. October 12. Y(2-1-1), passed 22Q-54.

568. HR5288. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to revise the vocational rehabilitation program for disabled veterans, to allow the Veterans' Administration to release information to private debt collection agencies, and to make changes in the administration of GI Bill educational benefits. October 16. Y(4-0-0), passed 405-1.

569. HR3173. Adoption of the conference report on the bill to authorize $2.8 billion in foreign milltary aid programs for FY80. October 16. Y(3-l-O), passed 256-147.

570. HR3033. Passage of the bill to authorize $1.95 billion in FY80 for Justice Department and related agency programs. October 16. Y(4-Q-O), passed 386-24.

571. HR3916. Passage of the bill to authorize $221.5 million for alcohol abuse programs and $206 million for drug abuse progra-ms for FY80. October 16. Y(3-1-0). passed 396-8.

574. 8832. Adoption of the rule (HRes 414) to allow consideration of the Obey, D-Wis., amendment to the bill with a provisi<:n that only certain amendments to the amendment be considered. October 17. Y(l-3-0), pa.ssed 228-182.

576. S832. Amendment, to the Obey, DWis., amendment, to prohibit extension of credit for direct mail solicitations and to limit to not more than 60 days the time for extension of credit by advertising firms and other companies that provide advertising services to candidates. October 17. Y(1-3-0), pas.-sed 298-114.

577. S832. Amendment to (1) limit the amount a House candidate may receive from political action committees (PAC) during a two-year election cycle to $70,000 and to $85,000 if the candidate also faced a runoff election; (2) limit the amount a PAC could contribute to a H<:use candidate to $6,000 for primary and general elections combined, and $9,000 for a primary, runoff and general election; and (3) prohibit a House candidate from using campaign funds to repay a personal loan of more than $35,000 from the candidate to his campaign. October 17. Y(1-3-0), passed 217-198.

~78. S832. Moticn to recommit the b1ll to the House Administration Committee with instructions to delete the provision limiting to $70,000 the amount a House candidate may receive from political action committees. October 17. N(3-1-0), rejected 189-222.

580. HR3000. Amendment to require that the Energy Department, 1n its selection of nuclear waste disposal sites, give top priority to sites in the states where existing disposal sites or nuclear test sites were located. October 18. N(3-1-0), passed 208-197.

581. HR3000. Fuqua., D-Fla.., motion. to end debate on the Kostma.yer, D-Pa., amendment at 5 p.m. October 18. Y(2-2-0), passed 252-133.

37714 582. HR3000. Amend.merut, to the McCor

mack, D-Wash., substitute amendment to the Kostmayer amendment, to require that 12 percent of research and development contracts let by the Energy Department go to small business unless the secretary determined meeting that goal was impracticable. October 18. Y(l-3-0}, passed 220-168.

583. HR3000. Motion tha.t all debate on the b1ll and amendments to it conclude in 15 m.ln:utes. October 18. Y(4-0-0). passed 267-107.

585. HR595. Motion to close to the public, at such times as classified national security information was under consideration, but to allow any member of Congress to attend any of the closed sessions, the House-Senate conference on the b1ll to authorize the General Services Administration to dispose of tin in the national and supplemental stockpiles. October 19. Y(4-0-0), passed 358-0.

586. HR2218. Adoption of the rule (HRes 417) providing for House fioor consideration of the b1ll to authorize FYS0-82 funds to carry out the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. October 19. Y(4-0-0), passed 320-9.

588. HR4943. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the b111 to grant the consent of Congress, as provided by the Constitution, of the compact between New York and New Jersey providing for coordination and promotion of the commerce in the port of New York District by the financing of industrial development projects. October 23. Y(4-0-0), passed 412-0.

589. Sl030. Adoption of the coD;ference report on the b111 to give states primary responsib111ty for energy conservation and to provide a reduced congressional role in approval of a standby gasoline rationing plan. October 23. Y(l--3--0), passed 301-112.

590. HR2172. Amendment, to the Vanik, DOhio, amendme11:t to prohibit cLlrect federal payments to sugar producers as part of a sugar price support program. October 23. Y(l-2-1), rejected 200-2>12.

591. HR2172. Passage of the b1ll to implement the International Sugar Agreement, mandate the use of import fees to support the domestic price of sugar at 15.8 cents a pound in 1979 (With up to 7 percent increases in 1980 and 1981), provide for up to a halfcent a pound federal payment to producers (With a limit of $50,000 per producer) and raise minimum wages for sugar field workers. October 23. N(3-1-0). rejected 158-249.

594. HR3000. Amendment to require the Energy DepartmeJlt to acquire and share with the public information on the oll company activities. October 24. Y(1--3--0), passed 264-143.

595. HR3000. Amendment to prohibit the use of funds to allocate or control the price of gasoline. October 24. N(3-1-0), rejected 189-225.

596. HR3000. Passage of the blll to authorize $6.6 blllion for civ111an programs of the Energy Department for FY80. October 24. Y(l-3-0). passed 263-150.

597. HR3947. Passage of the b111 to authorize $3.8 billion for m111tary construction progra.ms of the Defense Department for FYBO. October 24, Y(4-0-0). passed 381-26.

598. HR3683. Amendment to authorize guarantee farm loans at negotiated interest rates, to require farmers to seek a guaranteed loan for operating needs before seeking an insured loan, and to require written evidence that a loan applicant had been unable to obtain private credit elsewhere. October 24. Y(4-()...{)), passed 326-84.

599. HR3683. Passage of the b111 to establish specific annual lending levels for the Farmers Home Administration farm and rural development loan programs in 1980-82. October 24. y ( 4-0-0). passed 393-14.

600. HJRes430. Adoption o! the rule (HRes464) providing for House fioor consideration of the b1ll to appropriate $1.35 bUllon

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS in FY80 supplemental funds to help lowincome people pay their fuel bills. October 25. Y(2-2-0). passed 355--47.

601. HJRes430. Amendment, to the Green, R-N.Y., amendment, to allow payments to renters whose heat was supplied by electricity. October 25. Y(3-0-1). passed 381-17.

602. HJRes430. Amendment to distribute the entire $1.35 billion in the b1ll in the form of block grants to states, which would use the money to set up their own programs of fuel assistance to the poor. October 25. N(2-1-1), rejected 183-207.

603. HJRes430. Passage o! the joint resolution to make a $1.35 b1llion FY80 supplemental appropriation to help poor people pay their heating b1lls, to be distributed by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Community Services Administration. October 25. Y(l-2-1). passed 290-105.

605. HR4955. Amendment to add $30 million to provide emergency assistance, through international relief agencies, to relieve starvation in Cambodia. October 25. Y(3-0-1), passed 362-10.

606. HR4955. Passage of the b1ll to authorize $207.3 mill1on in FY80 and $203.6 mill1on in FY81 for assistance to refugees, and $30 mill1on 1n FY80 for emergency aid to relleve starvation in Cambodia. October 25. Y(2-l-1). passed 301-69.

607. HR2313. Adoption of the rule (HRes 456) providing for House fioor consideration of the b111 to authorize funds for the Federal Trade Commission and provide for congressional veto of commission regulations. October 26. Y(2-l-1), passed 273-61.

608. HR4167. Adoption of the rule (HRes 385) providing for House fioor consideration of the bUI to extend milk price supports at not less than 80 percent of parity through September 30, 1981. October 26. Y(3-{}-1), passed 327-3.

609. HR4387. Adoption of the conference report on the b111 to appropriate $18.53 b11-11on for FY80 programs of the Department of Agriculture and related agencies. October 26. Y(3-0-1). passed 304-25.

610. 8428. Adoption of the conference report on the b111 to authorize for FY80 an active duty m111tary force of 2,051,700 and $41.39 b1llion for Department of Defense military procurement programs, including $27.8 b1llion for procurement, $13.5 b1llion for research and development and $106.8 m111on for civil defense. October 26. Y(3-0-l) • passed 300-26.

611. HR1885. Passage of the b1ll to provide special civll service retirement preference to non-Indian employ&e$ of the Indian A1fairs Bureau and Indian Health Service who had been adversely affected by fed'eral policies that gave preference to Indians for positions and promotions in the two agencies. October 26. Y ( 3-0-1), passed 175-120.

614. HR4389. Motion that the House recede from its disagreement with and concur in the Senate position that would retain existing law for federally funded abortions, With an amendment to narrow existing guidellnes to permit gQVernment-financed abortions only when required to save the mother's life or in cases of promptly reported rape or incest. October 30. Y(2-2-{)), rejected 187-219.

615. HR5472. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the blll to revitalize the pleasure cruise industry by amending the Merchant Marine Acts of 1920 and 1930 to allow several passenger ships to carry a limited amount of freight. October 30. Y(4-0-0) ,passed 405-Q.

616. HJRes341. Adoption of the rule (HRes439) providing for House fioor consideration of the resolution to keep the Chicago, Mil waukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroads western lines in service for a limited time and give shippers and employees a chance to prepare a plan to take over the railroad. October 30. Y(4-0-0), passed 373-33.

618. HR4985. Amendment to the Commerce

December 20, 1979 Committee version of the bill to delete the Board's authority to waive state a.nd local laws for a project designated a priority by the proposed Energy Mobil1zation Board. October 31. Y(4-0-0), passed 425-1.

619. HR4985. Amendment to establish the Energy Mobilization Board within the Energy Department. October 31. N(1-3-0), rejected 56-357.

622. HR4985. Substitute to authorize the Energy Mobili.zation Board to waive only procedural laws and to authorize the president to act in place of federal, state or local agencies only after taking the agency to court. November 1. Y(1-2-1), rejected 1-92-215.

623. HR4985. Amendment to eliminate the authority of the Energy Mobilization Board to waive substantive laws. November 1. Y(1-2-1), rejected 153-250.

624. HR4985. Passage of the b111 to establish an Energy Mob111zation Board to expedite construction of priority energy projects. November 1. N(2-1-.-1), passed 207-107.

625. HR4904. Motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate) on the rule (HRes465) providing for House fioor consideration of the bill to establish a national minimum for welfare benefits require states to provide coverage to unemployed two-parent famil1es with children, reduce state costs, and make administrative changes designed to reduce benefits to some recipients. No· vember 1, Y(1-2-1), passed 207-177.

626. HR4904. Adoption of rule (HRes465) providing for House fioor consideration of the b1ll to establish a national minimum for welfare benefits, require states to provide coverage to two-parent fam111es with children, reduce states costs, and make administrative changes designed to reduce benefits to some recipients. November 1. Y(1-2-l}. 202-181.

629. HR5192. Amendment to allow forgiveness of federal student loan program debts for former students who enlisted in the military, either for active duty or the reserves. November 2. Y (3-{}-1), passed 236-115.

630. HR4007. Adoption . of the rule (HRes363) providing for House fioor consideration of the bill to provide an alternative method for repayment by states of federal unemployment insurance loans. November 7. Y(4-0-{)). passed 362-24.

631. HR4007. Passage of the b111 to permit states with outstanding federal unemployment insurance loans to avoid automatic reductions in the federal tax credit for employers either by repaying the full amount of the loan, as provided under existing law. or by repaying out of state unemployment insurance funds the amount that would be collected if the tax credit reduction were to take place. November 7. Y ( 4-0-0) , passed 402-1.

632. HR4904. Amendment to allow states to ask the Agriculture Department to provide cash, in lieu of food stamps, to households containing only persons aged 65 or older and who were not eligible for Supplemental Security Income payments. November 7. Y(4-0-0), passed 406-2.

633. HR4904. Motion to recommit the blll to the Ways and Means Committee, With instructions to report it back with an amendment establishing a demonstration program providing eight states and three counties with block grants to run welfare programs according to their own design, and to allow all states to establish their own work requirements for welfare recipients, as long as they did not require work from parents who were caring for children under six years old, unless adequate day care was available. November 7. N (3-1-{)) , rejected 200-205.

634. HR4904. Passage of the bill to establish a national minimum welfare benefit, require states to provide coverage to unemployed two-parent tamllies with children, reduce state costs, and make administrative

December 20, 19 79 changes designed to reduce benefits to some recipients. November 7. Y(1-3-0), passed 222-184.

635. HR5192. Passage of the bill to extend fo.r FY81-85, the authorization for federal programs of assistance to higher education. November 7. Y(3-1-0), passed 385-15.

637. SConRes36. Motion to approve binding FY80 budget levels recommended by Senate-House conferees, but excluding Senate reconclllation instructions that directed various committees to achieve $3.6 billion in spending cuts (the conference version of the resolution set the following budget levels: budget authority, $638 billion; outlays, $547.6 billion; revenues, $517.8 blllion; and deficit, $29.8 billion). November 8. Y(1-3-0), passed 205-190.

640. HR4167. Passage of the blll to extend until September 30, 1981, the requirement that the price of mllk be supported at not less than 80 percent of parity (parity is an index designed to maintain farmer's buying power at the same level as the 191tr-14 base period). November 8. NV (3-0-1) • passed 310-64.

642. HR2335. Adoption of the rule (HRes458) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to authorize $25 million for additional research into the solar power satellite concept. November 9. NV(2-0-2), passed 319-1.

643. HR2603. Passage of the bill to authorize $2.89 billion for nuclear weapons and energy projects of the Department of Energy in FY80. November 9. NV(2'-0--2), passed 304-28.

644. 8673. Motion to close to the public House-Senate conference meetings on the bill (S673/HR2603) when classified information was being considered, except that all members of Congress could attend at any time. November 9. NV(2-0-2), passed 325-0.

647. HR4930. Adoption of the conference report on the bill to appropriate $30.3 billion in FY80 for the Departments of Interior and Energy and related agencies. November 9. NV(1-1-2), passed 271-46.

648. HR4930. Motion that the House concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment to specify a formula. weighted toward states with colder weather to be used to distribute $1.35 billion in fuel assistance funds to the poor. November 9. NV(0-2-2), passed 182-103.

651. HR5461. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to designate January 15, Martin Luther King Jr.'s birth date, a legal public holiday. November 13. Y(2-2--0), rejected 252-133.

652. HConRes200. Motion to suspend the rules and adopt the concurrent resolution expressing the opposition of Congress toward continued SOviet domination of the Baltic States, and directing the president to warn the Soviet Union against implementing a. Soviet law which made citizenship claims on millions o! U.S. citizens who were born in the United States or naturalized. November 13. Y ( 4-0--0) • passed 390--0.

653. HR5235. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to revise special pay provisions for doctors, dentists and certain other health professionals in the uniformed services. November 13. Y(4-0--0), passed 377-10.

654. HR5359. Motion to close to the public the House-Senate conference meetings on the bill to appropriate FY80 funds for the Defense Department when classified material was being discussed, except that members of Congress could attend at any time. November 13. Y{4-0--0). passed 381--0.

6515. HJRes440. Amendment to prohibit the use of any funds provided in the resolution for military or economic aid to Iran. November 13. Y(4-0-0), 379-0.

656. HR2727. Adoption of the rule (HRes-454) providing for House floor consideration of the b111 to revise the formula for deter-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS mining annual meat import quotas. November 13. Y(4-0--0), passed 372-5.

659. HR2727. Amendment, to the Frenzel, R-Minn., amendment, to raise the minimum level of meat imports to 1.3 billion pounds, from 1.2 billion pounds. November 14. N(0-4-0), rejected 136-266.

660. HR2727. Passage of the bill to revise the formula for determining annual meat import quotas, modify the president's discretionary authority to suspend or increase the quotas, and permit a minimum level of meat imports of 1.25 billion pounds. November 14. 4(4-0--0), passed 352-48.

661. HR2063. Adoption of the rule (HRes-474) providing for House floor consideration of the b111 to amend and extend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. November 14. Y{4-0--0), passed 382-10.

663. HR2063. Amendment to delete sections of the bill relating to the regional development planning process, federal coordination of regional programs, state and substate planning, and technical assistance to regional development commissions by the secretary of commerce. November 14. N(2-1-1), rejected 137-262.

664. HR2063. Motion to recommit the blll to the Public Works and Transportation Committee with instructions to delete language authorizing $2 billion for a. standby local public works program, to take effect when the national unemployment rate exceeds 6.5 percent !or at least a calendar quarter. November 14. N(2-1-1), rejected 148-250.

665. HR2063. Passage of the blll to extend public works and development financing programs for economically depressed areas for two years, through FY81; authorizing regional development commissions to replace the existing system of regional action planning commissions; extend the Appalachian Regional Development Act; and establish a standby local public works program to be activated in periods of high unemployment. November 14. Y(1-2-1), passed 301-99.

666. HR2313. Amendment to prohibit the Federal Trade Commission from regulating the funeral home industry. November 14. N (2-1-1), passed 223-147.

667. HR2626. Adoption o! the rule (HRes 486) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to establish a standby program of mandatory federal controls on hospital revenues. November 15. (Y(1-2-1), passed 259-129.

668. HR2626. Substitute amendment, to the Commerce Committee substitute, to establish for three years a. national study commission on hospital costs, and to authorize $10 million in FY80 and sums as needed for FY81-82 to state hospital cost control programs. November 15. Y(2-0-2), passed 234-166.

669. HR2626. Passage of the bill to create a. national study commission on hospital costs, and to authorize $10 milllon in FY80 and such sums as needed in FY81-82 for grants to state hospital cost control programs. November 15. Y(2-0-2), passed 321-75.

670. HR4440. Motion to insist on the House appropriation of $463.88 milllon for operation of the Panama. Canal in FY80, rather than the Senate figure of $511.4 milllon. November 15, Y(3-0-1), passed 366-10.

671. HR2440. Motion to instruct House members to the House-Senate conference to agree to the Senate a.n:endment to restrict solicitation by individuals and groups at airports. November 16. NV ( 1-0-3) , passed 247-106.

672. HR4391. Adoption of the conference report on the bill to appropriate $3.77 billion for military construction projects in FYBO. November 16. Y(2-0-2) , passed 318-83.

673. HR2335. Passage of the bill to authorize $25 million for additional research into

37715 the solar power satell1te concept. November 16. N(1-1-2), passed 201-146.

674. S1319. Adoption of the conference report on the bill to authorize $3.84 million for m111tary construction projects in FY80. November 16. Y(2-0-2), passed 306-33.

675. HR3994. Adoption of the rule (HRes 473) providing for House fioor consideration of the blll to authorize $156.5 mill1on in FY80 for the Environmental Protection Agency for hazardous waste disposal management and development and implementation of solid waste plans and rural community assistance programs. November 16. Y(2-0-2). passed 333-0.

676. HR3546. Adoption of the rule (HRes-416) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to authorize $66 million in FY80 for FlFRA programs. November 16. Y(2-0-2), passed 328-1.

677. HR3580. Adoption of the rule (HRes-438) providing for House floor consideration of the blll to provide for the establishment and coordination of a rural development policy. November 16. Y(2-0-2), passed 318-3.

679. HR5537. Passage of the bill to extend the authority of the District of Columbia to borrow from the U.S. Treasury to complete construction of previously approved projects. November 27. Y(2-2-0), passed 283-99.

682. HR2313. Amendment to prohibit the Federal Trade Commission from investigating or prosecuting antitrust cases against a.griculturaJ. cooperatives or investigating marketing orders. November 27, N(S-1-0). passed 245-139.

683. HR2313. Passage of the bill to authorize the operations of the F.T.C. for FY1980-1982, with a. one-House legislative veto of agency regulatory proceedings. November 27. N(3-1-0), passed 321-63.

684. HR2608. Adoption of the rule providing for House floor consideration of FY 1980 programs of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. November 27. Y(2-2-0), passed 296-77.

686. SConRes53. Motion to recommit the resolution to the Budget Committee with the instruction to cut 2 % from all programs except defense and veterans. November 28. N(3-1-0), rejected 187-207.

687. SConRes53. Adoption of the resolution setting binding budget levels for FY1980 (Budget authority, $638 billion; outlays $547.6 billion; revenue, 517.8 billion, deficit, $29.8 billion). November 28. Y{l-3-0), passed 206-186.

688. HR3546. Committee amendment to relax for one-year the ban on aerial spraying of the pesticide Mirex to control the fire e.nt. November 28. N(2-1-1), rejected 167-224.

689. HR3546. Committee amendment to allow one-House legislative veto of any EPA regulation dealing with pesticides. November 28. N(3-1-0), passed 278-121.

690. HR 2222. Passage of the bill to bring hospital interns and residents under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. November 28. N(0-4-0), rejected 167-227.

691. HRes493. Adoption of the resolution expressing the sense of the House that the U.S. Congress and the American people demand the immediate release of U.S. citizens being held in Tehran. November 28. Y(4-0--0). passed 386-0.

692. HR2608. Amendment to require a. report to the Congress from the NRC as to whether operating reactors are in compliance with current safety rules. November 29. Y(1-3-0), passed 217-161.

693. HR2608. Amendment to put a. moratorium on NRC issuance of nuclear plant construction permits until April 1, 1980. November 29 . Y(l-3-0) , rejected 135- 224.

694. 8239. Domestic Volunteers. Adoption of the conference report on the bill to authorize the operations of the domestic volunteer p\"ogra.ms of the ACTION agency in FY

37716 1979-81. November 29. NV(1-2-1), passed 214-152.

695. HR3352. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to suspend duty on flourspar, classified as a critical and strategic material used in steel, aluminum, and flourocarbon chemical manufacture, through June 30, 1982. December 4, 1979. N (2-2--0), rejected 240-163.

696. HR5892. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to authorize $100 million in FY81 for research, development, and demonstration of wind energy systems. December 4. Y(3-1--0), passed 383-23.

697. HR2743. Motion to suspend the rules and pass the b1ll to develop a national policy to promote research and development programs to provide a adequate and stable supply of strategic and industrial materials and to require the Interior Department to attain the goals set forth in the 1970 Mining and Minerals Policy Act. December '· Y(4--0-0), passed 398-8.

698. HR2608. Passage of the bill to author12le $427 mlllion in FY80 !or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. December 4. Y(4--0-0), passed 398-9.

701. HR3948. Substitute to the blll to remove the temporary raising of commercial airline pilots• retirement age !rom 60 years to 61¥2 years, and to authorize a one-year study by the National Institute of Health of the issue. December 4. Y(3-1--0), passed 24Q-165.

702. HR5461. Amendment to designate a national holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. on the third Monday on January each year, rather than on January 15, King's birthday. December 5. Y(2-2--0), passed 291-106.

703. HR5461. Substitute amendment to designate the third Sunday in January each year a national holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., but exempting such a holiday from provisions of existing law for paying federal employees or granting them leave when a holiday falls on a Sunday. December 5. N(3-1--0), passed 107-191.

704. HR5461. Motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole, thus delaying any further consideration on this legislation. December 5. Y(1-3--0), passed 231-161.

705. HR2977. Adoption of the rule (HRes 498) providing for House floor consideration of a bill to provide !or federal and state programs to prevent domestic violence and assist victims of such violence. December 6. Y (3-1-0), passed 358-32.

708. HR4862. Substitute amendment to Volkmer amendemnt to the Committee amendments to prohibit Medicaid payments for abortions except those to save the 11!e of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest 1f the rape or incest is reported promptly to the police or publ1c health service. December 6. Y(1-3--0), rejected 18Q-209.

709. HR4962. Amendments to the Committee amendments, to prohibit Medicaid payments for all abortions except those to save the life of the mother. December 6. N(3-1--0), passed 217-169.

710. HR4962. Amendment to authorize $3.15 b1llion for FY8Q-82 for new health services and broadened el1gib1lity under Medicaid for children and pregnant women, to replace a proposed entitlement program. December 6. N(3-1--0), rejected 152-266.

711. HR5870. Udall motion to suspend the rules and pass the bUl to improve the second career training program for air tramc controllers. December 11. Y(1-3--0) , rejected 200-180. (A two-thirds majority 1.s needed in order to pass bills brought up under suspension of the rules.)

712. HR4962. Amendment to prohibit payments for abortions from federal Medicaid funds , except for abortions to save the life of the mother, and to stipulate that nothing in Title XIX of the Social Security Act shall

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS be construed to require any state funds to be used to pay for abortions. December 11. N(3-1--0). passed 235-155.

713. HR4962. Amendment making clear that amendments made by the bill to Title XIX of the Social Security Act shall expire September 30, 1984. December 11. Y(4-Q-O), passed 226-162.

714. HR4962. Motion to recommit the blll to the House Commerce Committee with instructions to report it back to the House wlth an amendment requiring parental consent before family-planning services can be dispensed to minors. December 11. N(3-1-0), rejected 163-225.

716. 8423. Amendments (en bloc) to delete creation of a board to advise the Attorney General on the dispute resolution resource center and grant program. December 11. N(3-1--0), rejeoted 17Q-208.

717. HR595. Motion to delete section of strategic stockpiles bill authorizing the sale of five milllon troy ounces of silver !rom the materials stockplle. December 12. Y(4-Q-O), passed 272-122.

719. 8423. Amendment to cut the yearly authorization for the dispute resolution resource center !rom $3 million to $1 mllllon. December 12. NV (3--0--1). passed 238-156.

720. 8423. Motion to recommit the bill with instructions to report tt back with a $10 million yearly authorization for the dispute resolution grant program. December 12. NV(3-0-1), passed 203-197.

721. 8423. Passage of the bill to authorize $10 million annually for FY1980 through PY1984 for a federal grant program to help states develop local systems to settle minor domestic and consumer disputes and to authorize $1 million annually for the same time period to create a dispute resolution resource center within the Justice Department. December 12. Y(1-3--0), passed 207-195.

723. HR2977. Substitute amendment toestablish a program of block grants to state domestic violence programs and to consolidate existing federal programs in the Natlcmal Clea.rlnghouse on Domestic Vioile!Il.Ce. December 12. N(3-1-0), rejected 148-247.

724. HR2977. Amendment to allow state legislatures to veto federal funding of domestic violence programs in their states. December 12. N(3-1--0). rejected 142-251.

725. HR2977. Passage of the b111 to establish a new, three-year program authorized at a total of $65 mllllon, for grants to states and local efl'orts to prevent domestic violence and aid its victims. December 12. Y(1-3--0), pa"Sed 292-106.

726. HR5860. Motion to agree to the rule (HRes505) providing for floor consideration of HR5860, the Chrysler Coroora.tlon Loan Guarantees. December 13. (4-Q-0), passed 391-5.

728. HR3282. Substitute amendment to permit States to use up to 1 percent of their federal elementary and secondary education funds for projects to detect and remedy asbestos-related health hazards in schools. December 13. N(3-1--0). rejected 133-262.

729. HR3282. Passage of the b111 to authorize a program for the detection and removal of hazardous asbestos materials in elementary and secondary schools. December 13. Y(2-2--0) , passed 336-63.

730. S241. Motion to agree to the Conference report on a bill to restructure the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, to assist State and local governments in tm'"'roving the quality of their justice systems. December 13. Y(2-1- 1), passed 304-83.

733. HR5980. Motion to agree to the rule (HRes506) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to establish an antirecession fiscal assistance program. December 13. Y (1- 1-2) , passed 242-107.

739 . HR5980. Amendment to reduce the targeted fiscal assistance program from $250

December 20, 1979 m1llion to $150 million. December 14. NV(1-0-3), passed 184-153.

740. HConRes221. Passage of the resolution calling for appropriate financial compensation for the U.S. hostages being held in Tehran. December 18. Y ( 4--0--0) , passed 369-4.

742. HR3919. Motion to instruct the House conferees on the Windfall Profit Tax blll to agree to the Senate provision that would repeal carry-over basis of the Tax Reform Act of 1976. December 18. N(3-1--0), passed 326-77.

743. HR5860. Amendment to require $100 m1llion in non-federally guaranteed assistance from Chrysler Corporation employees not represented by labor organizations. December 18. Y ( 4-Q-0), passed 407-1.

744. HR5860. Substitute amendment to provide $1.25 b1llion in federal loan guarantees, $1.4 b1llion in concessions from Chrysler Corporation personnel, and $1.14 billion in nonfederally guaranteed assistance; to require $250 million in newly issued common stock to an Employee Stock Ownership Plan; and to establish a. three member Loan Guarantee Board. December 18. N (a.-1--0), rejected 107-296.

745. HR5860. Motion to recommit the b111 to the Banking Committee with instructions to report it back with a three-year wage freeze for Chrysler employees. December 18. N(3-1--0), rejected 114-295.

746. HR5860. Passage of the blll to authorize $1.5 b1llion in loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation. December 18. Y(1-3-0). passed 271-136.

747. S675. Adoption of the Conference Report on the blli to authorize the FY80 operations of the Department of Energy's national security programs. December 19. Y(4-o-O), passed 359-32.

748. HR3875. Adoption of the Conference Report on the blll to amend and extend certain federal laws relating to housing, community and neighborhood development and preservation. December 19. Y(2-2--0), passed 361-29.

749. HR2585. Amendment to the National Trame and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to prohibit the use of any funds to enforce or administer any standard or regulation which requires any passenger car to be equipped with an occupant restraint system unless the regulation permits the purchaser to select any such system that meets federal standards. December 19. Y(3-1--0), passed 32Q-73.

750. HR3927. Passage of the blll to amend the National Visitors' Center Faclllties Act. December 19. Y(2-2--0), rejected 139-247.

751. HR5295. Passage of the blll to amend Title u of the Social Security Act to make the monthly earnings test available in limited circumstances in the cases of certain beneficiaries, to amend the technical requirements for entitlement Medicare, and to provide that income attributable to services performed before an individual first becomes entitled to old-age insurance benefits shall not be taken into account after 1977 in determining his or her gross income. December 19. Y(4-o-O), passed 383--0.

752. HJRes467. Passage of the b111 making emergency appropriations for a.dm1nistrative expenses of the Chrysler Corporation guarantee program, and to provide for financial assistance to the Chrysler Corporation for FY1980, as authorized in the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act. December 20. Y(l-3-0), passed 252-141.

753. HR2440. Adoption of the rule (HRes 511) waiving certain points of order and allowing consideration of the Conference Report on HR2440, the Airport and Airway Development Act. December 20. N(2-2--0), passed 195-192.

754. HRes512. Pa.ssage of the 'tesolutlon condemning the use of chemical agents in Southeast Asia. Y(4-o-O), passed 378-1.

December 20, 19 79 755. HR2816. Passage of the Refugee Act

o! 1980. December 20. Y(4-0-0), passed 328-47.

759. HR5860. Adoption of the Conference Report on the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act. December 20. Y(1-3-0), passed 241-124.e

MAZZOLI COMMENDS SUCCESS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY., ECONOMIC CRIME UNIT

HON. ROMANO L. MAZZOLI OJ' KENTUCKY



Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to the successful completion of its second year of activity by the Economic Crime Unit of the Jefferson County, Ky., Commonwealth's attorney's omce.

This unit, under the direction o! the Honorable David L. Armstrong, Je1ferson County Commonwealth's attorney, has compiled an outstandling record of prosecution and conviction of whitecollar and economic criminals in the Louisville/ Jet!erson County area..

As the annual report for the second year of the program notes, the program has been involved in complaints and cases involving over $4 million in funds that were taken fraudulently from consumers in the Jet!erson County area..

This unlit has been so successful in its et!ort that it has been selected as one of six "lead units" in the country. These units are projects which et!ectively coordinate Federal, State. and local efforts against economic crime.

Because of his work with this unit, Commonwealth's Attorney Armstrong has been appointed to the Federal/State Law Enforcement Committee. This unit consists of representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice, the National District Attorney's Association, and the National Attorneys General Association. Its mission is to establish and implement procedures leading to effective law enforcement et!orts against economic crime and white-collar crime on the national, State, and local level.

I wish to insert in the RECORD the introduction, the statistical summaries, and the Conclusion from the second year's report of the economic crime unit of the Jefferson County Commonwealth's Attorney's omce.

The report follows: EcONOMIC CRIME UNlT !REPORT

I. INTRODUCTION

Jefferson Circuit Court Judges sentenced 43 percent of economic criminals convicted of felonies to sentences in the penitentiary.

2,144 citizens and businesses reported comple.ints o! white-collar or'lmes to the Economic Crime Unit.

Burglary squad detective refused to accept routine burglary complaints and continued his investigation until he obtained su.tncient evidence to indict a,nd convict oompla.inant for insurance !raud.

The Economic Crime Unit reported last year in its Report On First Grant Year that three serious barriers to combating economic or white-collar crimes were: ( 1) The lent-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ent attitude o! some judges toward economic criminals; (2) Reluctance af victims to prosecute; and, (3) Economic Crimes are often disguised from law enforcement offidals. During 1978-1979, very significant changes were noticed in .all three areas. A conference With the OJ.rcuit court Judges assisted the Unit in working for stronger sentences !or economic cr1m1na.ls and the Unit's strategy this year included filing written motions opposing probation with statements by victimS and police, and working closely With the probation department. Citizen and business victims of crime have not only reported orimes but worked closely with the Unit in investigations, e.nd the community's police officers have played a very important part in the fight aga.tnst economic crime.

This report covers the activities of the Economic Crime Unit during the period o! August, 1978 to October, 1979, the second year of a grant !rom the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Depa.rtment of Justice. The report 1s divided into the Six major areas Which the Unit Selected to concentrate its efforts during the second year.

Since the EconOIIllic Crime Unit of Commonwe.a.J.th's Attorney David L. Armstrong 1B financed by $166,074 in pu'blic !unds, this report is offered as an accounting to the community for the activities of the program. In summary, the Economic Crime Unit handled 2,976 cases, investigations, inquiries and complaints involving $4,953,651 !rom 4,207 citizens, businesses and government agencies. $491,404 was returned to the community through restitution and fines. In addition. the Unit's public awareness programs involved 14,967 citizens through speeches, exhibits, publications and t:ra.ining seminars.

n. PROSECUTION OF ECONOMIC CRIMINALS

A. Statistics on criminal court cases Court cases:

Convictions --------------Acquittals -----------------Pending -------------------New indictments __________ _ Money involved ___________ _ Total victims _____________ _ Civil judgments ___________ _

63 5

79 85

$1,883,342 637

1 Criminal convictions:

Defenda,nts ------------------Total crimes ________________ _

Felonies -----------------Mt&demeanors -------------Loss in crimes _______________ _

Averag~ the!t case ___________ _ Average felony theft _________ _ Average thefts per case ______ _ Number of victims ___________ _

Sentences (years):

63 441 400

41 $643,545

11,096 1,604

7.2 344

Total sentences __________________ _ 676 11.3 24

116 4.8

36

Average sentence _________________ _ Penitentiary ____________________ _

Totals years __________________ _ Average years ________________ _

Probation -----------------------F1nes onlY------------------------

Restitution: 3

Court ordered _________________ _ Court fines ___________________ _ Civil judgment ________________ _ Investigations ________________ _

Total ---------------------

$202, 131 27,000 17,800

244,473 491,404

Prosecution of economic crimes (average time) :

Crimes to investigation, months _______ 12 Investigation to indictment, months___ 2 Indictment to disposition, months ____ 10 Crime to disposition, years____________ 2 UI. INVESTIGATIONS OF ECONOMIC CRIME

A. Statistics on Investigations Complaints and inquiries________ 2, 517 Investigations:

Opened - - -------------------- 317 completed ------------------- 253 Pending ---------------------- 64

37717 Completed investigations:

Grand jury and court cases____ 87 Referred to other agencies_____ 55 No grounds for crlminal action_ 67 Oases settled__________________ 44 Restitution by settlement______ $244, 473 Money involved _______________ 2,203,513 Citizens involved______________ 890

Pending investigations: Number cases_________________ 64 Money involved _______________ $866,796 Citizens involved______________ 163

Totals: Number of citizens____________ 3, 570 Money involved---------------$3, 070, 309

VIn. CONCLUSION

The ultimate objective of the Economic Crime Unit is to signifl.cantly erase the attitude among criminals that "white-collar crime 1s profitable with very little risk of punishment." While eradication 1s an ideal, the realistic goals of the Unit are to make the risks greater, the punishment definite and appropriate and to make white-collar crime an important element of our criminal justice system. However, the goal o! successful prosecution totally depends upon the recognition, detection and investigation of economic crime which requires the involvement o! the total community.

During the Economic Crime Unit's operation in the 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 grant years, the following results have been obtained in economic crime cases: Criminal convictions ___________ _ Victims of crime _____________ _ Number of crimes _____________ _ Money loss by crimes __________ _ Criminals imprisoned _____ ~ ___ _ Criminals probated ___________ _ Criminals fined _______________ _ Court ordered restitution _____ _ Voluntary restitution _________ _ Court fines ___________________ _ Civil case restitution __________ _

Total restitution ________ _

154 723 858

$1,%8,353 49 89 16

$429,477 273,847 49,500 17,800

$770,624

The Economic Crime Unit of Commonwealth's Attorney David L. Armstrong has successfully prosecuted the economic crimes reflected by the above statistics because of the great response and cooperation of citizens, businesses, police and local, state and federal agencies. However, the ultimate goal is the immediate challenge of the future.

This program was supported by Grant Number 2731--Q27-1/78 E2a, awarded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, United States Department o! Justice. Points o! view or opinions stated in this publication are those of the Economic Crime Unit of ·the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney, 30th Judicial District of Kentucky and do not necessa.rlly represent the official position o! the United States Department of Justice.

CHRYSLER LOAN GUARANTEES

HON. THOMAS J. TAUKE OF IOWA



• Mr. TAUKE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that the report that I included in the RECORD on Wednesday, December 19, was a staff report prepared by the minority counsel of the Small Business Subcommittee on Antitrust at my re-

quest.•

37718 ADMIRAL RICKOVER GIVES SOME

WISE AND TIMELY OBSERVATIONS ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT THAT MERIT CAREFUL STUDY

HON. SAMUEL S. STRATTON OF NEW YORK



e Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, the other day at a meeting of Naval Reserve officers and retired Naval Reserve officers connected with the Congress in one capacity or another <and known informally as the order of 5-48) , Adm. Hyman G. Rickover addressed the group on a subject which he regarded as especially important for persons interested in U.S. Government affairs at this particular time, namely, the rules and principles of successful management.

As is usually the case, Admiral Rickover's remarks make a great deal of sense, and are couched in plain, simple, and readily understandable language, I am happy therefore to have this opportunity to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Congress the exact text of the admiral's remarks. I feel sure they will find them-again, as is usual with the remarks of this very distinguished naval officer, the father of the nuclear navy-both interesting, stimulating, and tremendously helpful.

The text of the remarks follows: REMARKS OF ADM. H. G. RICKOVER, U.S. NAVY

AT A MEETING OF THE "ORDER OF 5-48" ON 15 NOVEMBER 1979 AT THE RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Today the American people have little trust in those Who work for the Federal Government. To an extent this lack of confidence is justified, particularly when it involves senior managers. Since the end of World We.r II the number of high grade clv111ans in relation to the total Government workforce has steadily increased to the point where we have more xnanagers and checkers than we have doers. This increase has been brought about by the purveyors of the "techniques of modern management."

Our senior employees have been schooled in this "new" philosophy which holds that as long as a person is well-versed in a few Slimpie rules of how to handle people and situations, he need not know anything about the details of the programs he is managing or the increasingly sophisticated technologies on which many of these programs a.re based.

This has allowed the non-professional to achieve high status and high pay within the Government. These "managers" can move easily from one position to another without the slightest pause. As long as their area does not become a public disaster they are sate. If trouble erupts, they are lost; they c&~n then blame those beneath them or those who preceded them. Until this false concept is rooted out of the Federal Government we cannot expe<:t the American people to regain their trust in Government. In fact, they should not.

I do not hold much hope for this being done before a major disaster befalls the United States. But I can provide some basic principles for doing a job that I have followed for over 50 years of government service and which I have instilled in my senior managers. If these principles were emphasized instead of the present ones, it would go a long way toward reversing the current

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS trend. Unfortunately, many of those who have been brought up in the "new management" system will probably never understand the significance of the principles I offer.

OWNERSHIP

A person doing a. job--any job--must feel that he owns it and that he will remain on that job indefinitely. If he feels he is a temporary custodian, or is using the job as a stepping stone to a higher position, his actions will probably not take into account the long-term interests of the country. Lack of commitment to the present job will be perceived by those who work for him and they also will tend not to ca.re. If he feels he owns his job and acts accordingly, he need not worry about his next job. He should exercise a. devotion to his work as if his children were the direct beneficla.ries of what he is doing, as indeed they are. Too many spend their entire lives looking for the next job. We need to make it challenging and rewarding for managers to remain in one organization for more than a few years. Thereby the organization wm benefit from their knowledge, experience, and "corporate" memory.

RESPONSmiLITY

Along with ownership comes the need for acceptance of full responsibi11ty for the work. It is now common in government to deal with problems in a collective way. For example, a program will be divided into component parts or into sub-programs, but with no one responsible for the entire effort. Another approach is to have a committee run the program in some pseudo-democratic form, or to establish more and more levels of managers to theoretically give better control.

All of these are but different forms of shared responsib111ty, and shared responsibil1ty means that no one is responsible. Unless the one person truly responsible can be identified when something goes wrong, then no one has been really responsible.

ATTENTION TO DETAIL

A tendency among managers, particularly as they move to higher positions, is to think they no longer need to be concerned with details. If the boss is not concerned about details, his subordinates also will not consider them important. Yet "the devel is in the details." It is hard, monotonous, and onerous to pay attention to details; most managers would rather focus on lofty policy matters. But when the details are ignored, the project fails; no infusion of policy or lofty ideals can then correct the situation. This principle is pa.rticulq,rly important in those programs where the application of special skills or technology is needed for succer.s.

PRIORITIES

The need to pay attention to details does not mean that you should do everything. Any individual has only so much time to work, with an absolute limit of 24 hours each day. If you are to manage your job you must set priorities. Toe many people let the job set the priorities. On any given day, small, unimportant but seemingly "interesting" trivia pass through an office; you must avoid letting these monopolize your time. A tendency of human beings is to while away time with important matters because these do not require mental effort or energy. This is why television is popular. You must apply self-discipline to ensure your energy on where it is most needed.

KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON

You must establish simple and direct means to find out what is going on in detail in the area of your responsibility. There are ways of doing this, but all involve constant drudgery. For this reason most managers avoid keeping up with details; instead they create "management information systems."

December 2'0, 1979 Giminicks such as these merely demonstrate you are incapable or unwllling to use the necessary effort on your job.

I require regular, periodic reports directly to me from personnel throughout my program. I insist that they report the problems they have found in plain English, and that they report the specific action they are taking, and what assistance they need from me. The concept that the use of complex systems can simplify matters is specious. It may sound attractive but it files in the face of nature's laws, as I have observed them.

HARD WORK

For this there is no substitute. A manager who does not work hard or devote extra effort cannot expect his people to do so. You must set the example. Hard work compensates for many shortcomings. You may not be the smartest or most knowledgeable person, but if you dedicate yourself to the job and put in the required effort, your people wlll follow your lead.

CHECKING UP

An essential element of carrying out my work is the need to have it checked by an independent source. Even the most dedicated individual makes mistakes. Further, many are less than fully dedicated to their work. In industry an independent check is usually referred to as "quality control" and is widely used in engineering applications. But the concept is valid for more than just engineering. Much poor work and sheer nonsense is generated in Government because it is not subjected to impartial review and oversight.

FORMALITY

A corollary of the concept of checking work is in the need for formalizing communications and actions. If this is not done, then one is dependent on individual memory which is quickly lost as people leave or move to other jobs. In my work an invaluable feature has been the ability to go back anumber of years to determine the basis for an action. In this way an emerging problem can be put into proper perspective, and can facilitate taking the action needed for correction. If actions are not formalized, one can never be sure they are understood or executed.

FACING THE FACTS

Another principle for managing a successful program is to resist the natural human inclination to hope things will work out, despite evidence or doubt to the contrary. This may seem obvious, but it is a factor one must be conscious of and actively guard against. It can have a subtle effect, particularly if the manager has spent much time and energy on a project and has come to feel possessive about it. It is not easy to admit that what you thought was correct did not turn out th&~t way.

If conditions require it, one must face the facts and brutally make needed changes despite considerable costs and schedule delays. The man in charge must personally set the example in this area and require subordinates to do likewise. Figuratively, he must, if necessary, kill his own child, regardless of the consequences to himself. After all, he is the trustee for the Government; he is not the owner.

CONCLUSION

The principles I have stated have many ancillary facets that can be further developed. I have merely provided the key elements. I suspect most of those here today will give passing acknowledgement and may even agree with the principles. But unless tangible action is taken to put them into practice, they have been of no merit. There is a desperate need in Governmen·t for responsible management; for managers who pay attention to substance and not to glib "management techniques." If there continues to be little movement toward more responsible and effective management along the lines I have outlined, it should come aa

December 20, 19 79 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 37719 no surprise 1! the "taxpayers revolt" takes on cans, whether they make their living on an increasingly tangible form which extends the farm or in our Nation's cities. even into the Federal Government.e One of the difficulties with a Presiden-

permanent chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the Department of Defense in 1949, was voted to receive a special citation for outstanding service by the Harry S. Truman Good Neighbor Foundation in Kansas City. The award was presented to General Bradley in absentia on December 3 of this year. General Bradley is 86 years old, and presently lives at Fort Bliss, Tex.

tially-imposed tax--one that takes effect with congressional authorization-is

on. IMPORT FEE AN ECONOMIC that the President has no concurrent au-CATASTROPHE thority to reduce other taxes. A real

HON. JIM LEACH OF IOWA

question exists whether the President has the constitutional authority to impose import duties of this magnitude in the first place, but there is no question

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES that he cannot lower other substantive taxes.

Omar Bradley was a member of the 1915 class at West Point with Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he commanded forces in Europe under General Eisenhower in World War II. It has been said that no other general in history has ever commanded more combat troops.

Thursday, December 20, 1979 My personal view is that any increase • Mr. LEACH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, this morning the gentleman from Michigan <Mr. STOCKMAN) spoke against the current administration's proposal to place a $5-per-barrel import fee on petroleum imported into this country. This tax would be largely passed on to the American consumer in the form of a gasoline tax of up to 30 cents per gallon. I want to express my own vigorous objection to this "back-door" increase in taxes proposed by the administration and point out several specific international economic ramifications of the proposal.

Importantly, such an import duty would work dramatically against price restraint efforts within OPEC. A tax on imported oil would be interpreted by OPEC members as indicating that the price of crude oil is not yet high enough-that the market will bear even further increases. It is an open invitation to increase world prices further and would virtually insure an equivalent price increase at the next OPEC meeting, if not before.

In particular, a new import duty would be taken as · a direct affront to Saudi Arabia and other OPEC moderates if such a step were to be taken so soon after their having taken a firm stand against the spectacular price increases sought by the price hawks at the recent OPEC meeting in Caracas. The price moderates would be made to look foolish, and it would be highly unlikely that they could work effectively for restraint at the next OPEC meeting.

Furthermore, raising the price of imported petroleum has the effect of raising, as well, the price of domestically produced oil. Under a decontrol system, domestic prices will tend to rise to the world price level. The Government will thus enjoy the benefits of a double taxonce in the form of the import fee, and once through increased revenues from the windfall profit tax on higher-priced domestic production-both shouldered by the beleaguered American consumer.

in petroleum taxes can only be justified if simultaneous reductions in other forms of taxation are also implemented. In this regard, there is a strong argument that social security taxes should be reduced commensurately with any increase in petroleum taxes. Earmarking any new petroleum revenues to the Social Security Trust Fund adds additional protection for those of our citizens living on fixed incomes who bear the infiationary brunt of hard economic times. In addition, workingmen and women, the majority of whom pay more in social security than income taxes, can benefit through a reversal of recent trends toward ever bigger social security taxes.

However, given the fact that we have witnessed this year alone a 65-percent increase in the price of gasoline, and the fact that the American people have responded with a significant reduction in petroleum usage, I have strong doubts that a new tax on petroleum is in the national interest at this time.

Taxes, to be effec.tive, must be equitable. Unfortunately, petroleum taxes are antirural and anti-Midwestern. Farmers comprising only 2 percent of the population, consume 16 percent of all petroleum. Midwesterners, in turn, live where the winter is severe and, in general, drive long distances to work without the benefit of mass transportation. They will be the ones, in contrast to southerners and city dwellers, who will be asked to pay a disproportionate part of this import tax.

In addition, one of the current advantages now enjoyed by American industry and agriculture is a basic energy-cost advantage over foreign competitors like the Japanese. Increasing energy costs decreases one of the few trade advantages we enjoy. Export-oriented industries are thus penalized in their efforts to compete on a reasonable cost basis for overseas markets. This is particularly true of our energy-intensive agriculture which is the backbone today of our whole international trade picture.

In 1950, Congress put Omar Bradley among the class of military superstars. It pinned a fifth star on his lapel, only the ninth time in history it has been done. In 1953, he left his post as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before that he was Army Chief of Staff for 2 years and head of the Veterans' Administration from 1945 to 1947. He has written two books, and he has received many awards for outstanding service.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I bring this former Missourian's achievements to the attention of my colleagues, and I want to extend my sincerest congratulations to General Bradley on his well deserved honor .e

RUSSO LAUDS DAN O'NEAL

HON. MARTY RUSSO OF ILLINOIS


• Mr. RUSSO. Mr. Speaker, on December 31 A. Daniel O'Neal will leave the Federal Government. Since April of 1977 Dan O'Neal has been the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Prior to his appointment as Chairman he served as Vice Chairman of the Commission.

I came into contact with Mr. O'Neal during hearings my subcommittee conducted on the regulatory problems confronting the Nation's independent owner-operator truckers. It was a refreshing sight to all of us to see the Chairman of a Federal regulatory commission come before us, admit problems existed, and then on his own do something about it.

It is exactly this kind of step which will bring us closer to an international recession, since developments in the Amertcan economy, and future actions by OPEC pruducers, have far-reaching effects. The respected Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development <OECD) has recently predicted that relatively small increases in the price of OPEC oil will place such burdens on western economies as to stop positive economic growth in the immediate future. Problems in the international economy are not confined to the big banks

Mr. Speaker, I call upon the administration to put this idea back on the shelf where it belongs.•

Dan immediately established a small business assistance office within his offlee. Since its inception, this office has been more than ably directed by Mr. Bernard Gaillard. The office has served thousands of small business people in the motor transportation industry. It has served as a model for other Federal agencies in their search to help the "little guy" figure out the Federal bureaucratic maze.

a?d corporate boardrooms, but reach right into the pocketbook of all Ameri-

GEN. OMAR N. BRADLEY

HON. IKE SKELTON OF MISSOURX


Thursday, December 20, 1979 • Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, recently Gen. Omar N. Bradley, a native Missourian, five-star general and the first

Dan O'Neal has been a candid, helpful, innovative public servant. His own actions should serve a.s a model for all Fed~ral employees. In the recent nationwide truckers shutdown, Mr. O'Neal acted. His Agency's subsequent decision to add a fuel surcharge for truckers geared to the rise in fuel costs defused the situation and eventually led to the

37720 establishment of Federal task forces to study the truckers' grievances. After the fact a lot of people were ready to stand up and take credit for calming the situation. Mr. O'Neal is the one who deserves the credit.

Government is a trust and the officials of any government are its trustees. Dan O'Neal has been a good trustee. I wish him and his family well in the future.•

SUPPORT FOR HOSTAGES

HON'. M~RC L. MARKS OF PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. MARKS. Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous heartening responses by Americans in all walks of life to the plight of the 50 Americans illegally taken captive by the so-called students in the U.S. Embassy in Iran.

I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues here in the House one such response which has allowed the entire community of Erie, Pa., in my 24th District to become involved by showing their support for their fellow Americans held hostage in Iran.

The idea began with Mr. John Kanzius, assistant to the president of the Jet Broadcasting Co. He suggested to his staff that they work on what W JET radio in Erie is calling "The World's Largest Christmas Card."

It was an idea that was both welcomed and supported by various members of the Erie community, such as Mr. Robert DeVitt, vice-president of the Hammermill Paper Co., who generously donated a 3-feet wide by 350-feet long roll of Hammermill bond paper for the project in addition to offering to share in the cost of postage with W JET radio.

Men from American Legion posts 771 and 773 agreed to watch over the greeting card and to supervise those who wished to sign it. Millcreek Mall provided a space where thousands of residents and visitors to the community would have the opportunity to see the giant greeting card, and to add their names to the list while Christma.~ shopping.

I believe WJET radio, and everyone involved in "The World's Largest Christmas Card," should be commended for their effort to make known to the American hostages that their fellow citizens in the 24th District of Pennsylvania, as well as all across the United States, have not forgotten them, and that they fully support the hostages and the U.S. Government's efforts to secure their safe and immediate release.

Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to express my own personal gratitude and support to the people who have provided this opportunity for their fellow Americans to unite and show their support in a peaceful manner, and also to all the people who have shown their concern by signing the card in an effort to let those captive Americans know that our thoughts and prayers are with them, especially during the holiday season.

Thankyou.e


SAVE THE WILDCATTER

HON. JACK F. KEMP OF NEW YORK



• Mr. KEMP. Mr. Speaker, "oil is found in abundance only if a great many people are looking for it at once in all sorts of unlikely places," Ruth Sheldon Knowles wrote 20 years ago in her history of the American oil industry, "The Greatest Gamblers." That insight is vital to understanding why there is an energy crisis in America today. Considering the fact that, at current world prices and available technology, the United States has at least 200 years of liquid oil and 1,000 years of natural gas left in the ground, the solution is obvious. We must produce more of our cheapest domestic energy in competition with OPEC to restrain world energy prices. But the problem is also obvious--Federal Government policies over the past 10 years have discouraged oil and gas exploration and production.

So it is incredible that, at a time when world sources of oil are becoming more and more expensive and uncertain, the U.S. Government is about to impose a tremendous new tax on the domestic energy industry. Mr. Speaker, this new tax will increase our dependence on foreign sources of oil, reduce domestic discovery and production of oil, drive up the price of oil, and further reduce competition in the world energy market. In the end the "windfall profit" tax is just another new tax on the American people, whose tax burden is already expected to increase by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. I was opposed to it when it was first advanced, I voted against the rule bringing it up and I am against it now.

But if this tremendous new tax is inevitable, the least we could do is exempt the small independents who do 90 percent of the oil exploration in the United States and reinvest 105 percent of their revenues into energy exploration and development, the 12,000 independent "wildcatters." The Senate had the good sense to do just that. Their exemption would remove the burden of regulation from roughly 99 percent of our domestic independent producers, allowing them to drill an estimated 14,500 additional wells, expand recoverable reserves by 1.5 billion barrels by 1990, add productive capacity of almost 300,000 barrels per day by 1989, and save almost $48 billion in import costs over the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, today I join 170 of my colleagues in introducing legislation to put the House on record in support of this independent producer's exemption. I ask that the House conferees take special note of the strong support this ex-emption has in the House, and of the dire consequences in terms of lost domestic energy production that will result if this exemption is dropped. I also ask that they take a moment to consider the following editorial which was written by the son of an oil wildcatter, published in this week's Newsweek magazine. Gregory Lewis gives us an inside

December 2'0, 1979

look at the risks, hardships, and sacrifices involved when a small entrepreneur decides to drill for oil. Without an exemption these small businessmen will certainly go under a sea of Government redtape and overregulation. America needs the wildcatters if we ever hope to move out from under the shadow of OPEC, and into a more secure energy future.

The article follows: Two CHEERS FOR 0U.MEN

(By Gregory Lewis) My father is an oilman, and I am un

abashedly proud to say so. This is probably the most unpopular pro

nouncement I could make, for today, as Americans fill their fuel tanks in preparation for winter, the oilman, once a romantic figure in American lore, is widely perceived as a gangster of U.S. capitalism. Across the land, the very word "oilman" evokes the sinister image of a robber baron in a Stetson hat, a venal plutocrat who chomps on Texas-size cigars, has crude on his breath, a diamond-studded derrick stickpin in his tie and a TV in his limousine so he can watch the news and snicker at everyone else waiting in gas lines.

Of course, this characterization is absurd, but it is nonetheless being used as a rallying cry against American oilmen, corporate and independent. Oilmen are ripping us off, we scream. Oil-company profits are a "national disgrace" and "unearned." Admittedly, these allegations are easy to accept. In the face of dollar-a-gallon gasoline and 85-cents-a-ga.llon heating oil, we overheat with rage and v111fy the oilman, whoever he is. But is this justified?

I didn't care for the first oilman I met. His family lived in Colorado, but he worked in Indiana because there was an on play there. He spent weeks away from home, often sleeping near a drnling rig in his car. always hoping the drill would find oil that day because he couldn't afford the next day's drilling. His children didn't recognize him as their father when he came home. He was just the man who fouled the air with his nervous ·chain-smoking, and drank a quart of milk at night to quell his ulcer. I was a chnd then; the oilman was my father.

DRY HOLES

Sentimental? Not really, because while many of his acquaintances in the early 1950s in Indiana never found all and went broke, my father played poker with Mother Nature and won. He found oil, and he made a lot of money. But by the late 1950s he was losing. When I was a teenager, the ugliest words anyone could utter in our house were "dry hole," because dry hole meant untold hours spent and thousands of dollars invested without gain. And my !ather could drill dry holes as well as anyone. In 1956, he drilled 40 wells and found fifteen barrels of on. Soon after, he contemplated trying something more secure, and briefly owned a small retan store. Although he found comfort in a business without substantial risk, he soon recognized there would never be substantial gain.

By 1960, he was concentrating again on the oil business, this time in Wyoming, with a plan to rejuvenate an exhausted oil field. He wanted to attempt secondary recovery, to dr111 water wells where the supply of underground water was uncertain, then inject this water back into the ground, gambling that a subterranean flood woUld untrap the oil he hoped was there. His associates deemed the project impracticable if not 1Inpossible. The dollar and t1Ine gamble was enormous. But the highly speculative pro.Ject worked. Five years after he began, the first barrels of secondary oil were pumped from the ground.

December 20, 19 79 Sure, my father made a. lot of money, but

his rewards were not greater than his risks. And the landowners, who had no risk, made money; and the government, which had no risk, made money; and Americans, who also had no risk, got oil and jobs.

Many children of self-employed men take over their father's business. I, however, have steered a.wa.y from my father's trade. Actually, there's no business to inherit. Oh, there are a. few oil wells, inexorably drying up, and there are a. few leads on a. few new, risky ventures. There is also so much paperwork that it's driving some independents out of business. And there is the uncertainty, not only about finding oil, but about what government is going to do and when. Independents find 45 percent of American oil. But I don't want to be a.n independent like my fa.ther-st111 working a.t age 65, and viewed with contempt.

Whoa., you say; we just hate Big 011. And you know what? I also a.m irate a.t Big Oil. It's been far too smug. Because of its 111-conceived public relations, it has lost the trust of the American people. We detest Exxon for its profits of $1.1 b1llion in the third quarter of 1979 and, consequently, we ignore its announcement that it paid $6.2 billion in taxes in those three months. We don't want to know that Exxon has invested $3.1 billion so far this year in the search for more energy, and we're yelling "ripoff" so loudly that we haven't heard that Exxon's 1979 proceeds from its U.S. natural-gas and oil operations are up only 2.7 per cent. Did you know that U.S. manufacturing firms (excluding oil} earned 6.6 cents on each dollar of sales in 1979, while oil companies made 6 cents? We're so mad we're blind. Tragically, Big Oil has done little to strip our blinders a.wa.y.

President Carter calls on-company profits "unearned." To me, unearned profits are money made !rom collecting unemployment when you could work, from taking a. day of sick leave when you're perfectly healthy. I! I'm wrong, then why does anyone in this country work when all we have to do to reap unearned profita is go out and drill a.n oil well?

MIRROR

There have long been, and stm are, controls on the price of domestic oil. But the costs of discovering, producing and refining oil are not controlled, and they have soared. Now that the price of oil has been pa.rtia.lly freed to reach fair market values, the government wants to tax that additional money as "windf'a.ll profits." Can you imagine a. labor leader who, after any period of unilaterally frozen wages, would allow the government to tax the salary increases of his union members as windfall profits?

I! you want to blame someone, America, look in the mirror. We are a. nation of energy winos, for too long besotted on the cheap high-octane stuff, and irrationally bell1gerent toward suggestions of temperance. Our national malaise is an energy hangover, and we demand a. cure now.

But what kind of cure is 1t to overfeed Washington's lumbering bureaucratic brontosaurus With oil-company greenbacks? Without a. Windfall-profit ta.x, decontrol would add an estimated $360 btllion to Uncle Sam's coffers over the next eleven years, a. genuine windfall for big government, and enough for efficient government to promote energy growth, invest in mass transit and provide energy subsidies for America's indigent. Government should take punitive action against oil-company malfeasance, and it should ensure that oil companies reinvest their earned profits in all forms of energy development. But it should not threaten with demagoguery.

It may be chic to curse U.S. ollmen, but is it sensible? If we fetter the oilmen's incentive to seek oU, it is the sheiks who will have

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS us by the pipelines. We Americans need on. American oilmen want to find it for us. Their profits are not unconscionable; they are the promise of a. secure energy future.e

NATIONAL FOREST MULTIPLE-USE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1980

HON. AL SWIFT OF WASHINGTON



• Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, today I cosponsored H.R. 6070, the National Forest Multiple-Use Management Act of 1980. I believe this legislation is a necessary response to the present legislative situation in which no bill containing release language is going to see the light of day in the foreseeable future.

I have talked with the chairman of the Public Lands Subcommittee of the House Interior Committee. The policy of that committee is to consider RARE n related bills that contain no release language before considering bills that do provide for release of lands for multiple use. I understand this policy is based on the assumption that environmental groups will kill on the floor any bills that contain such release language. That is not my judgment. That is the judgment of the subcommittee.

That policy, however well intended as I believe it is, makes legislation like H.R. 6070 inevitable.

I am not happy about that. It creates a situation from which confrontation and even greater divisiveness will result. But the policy of the Public Lands Subcommittee based on the assumption environmentalists will prevent any release language from being passed by Congress, is clearly the first cause.

Let us look back. The RARE II process was understood

by everyone to be a means by which we could bring to a conclusion the seemingly endless battle over which lands should properly be protected and managed as wilderness, and those which should properly be managed for their natural resource values under a multiple-use concept.

There would be, we all understood, lands recommended for wilderness, and these would be given high priority consideration by Congress for inclusion in the wilderness system. There would be some lands that required further study. We hoped these would be few. But they would be kept in limbo until further information could be developed on which to base a decision as to their proper use.

And finally, there would be those lands recommended for multiple-use and these would be given high priority consideration by Congress for release to multipleuse management.

By this process we could resolve disputes, preserve areas with high wilderness value and give certainty to those who rely on national forests for other uses.

Another major use of those national forests is timber. My region of the country was founded on a timber economy, and it is still major and important, not only in the northwest, but nationally.

37721 Rhetoric about the "rape" of the land

breeds rhetoric about "lock-up" of the land, but does not lead to effective public policy.

The fact is that some of the magnifiicent forest lands of our Nation ought to be preserved for recreation-and some of those for wilderness. But, unless we simply want to outlaw the forest-products industry, we must secure other forest lands for management as the renewable resource. I emphasize the word "secure" because certainty of supply is vital to a healthy and continuing forest-products industry.

I think it important to add here that when we talk of the timber industry we tend to conjure images of fat lumber barons, wading in money, who callously destroy forests for some esoteric and unimportant purpose.

In my district, as in most of the northwest, the industry, as it relates to Federal forest lands, is composed of individuals, small loggers, lumber mills, workerowner plywood plants. Whole towns depend on the forests for their economic survival. Families livelihoods are tied to the availability of timber.

And these people are not exploiting the land but "farming" it in a sense that is simply ignored too frequently when the various values of our forests are considered.

Their values are not exclusively important, but are certainly equally important as recreational values.

However, the conflict between these two uses had accelerated over the years to the point that the paranoia level has become nearly unmanage:lble. Conservationists will tell you the Forest Service is set on chopping down every tree in the Nation, including the apple tree in your backyard.

The forest-products industry is equally certain that, given its head, the Forest Service would build a brick wall around all the forests and preserve them forever.

This suspicion leads to a desire on the part of conservationists for a category of management that is mandated by Congress, and <'.an only be undone by Congress. They have no confidence in the Forest Service managing an area for recreation or wilderness purposes, even though the service has that authority They want congressionally mandated protection for wilderness areas.

The response from timber-products people, then, is predictable: There must be some land set aside for resource use, too, and they want that to be congressionally mandated as well.

In other words, we have permitted these legitimate and conflicting uses to deteriorate into a climate of such suspicion, and escalate to a level of such acrimony, that everybody wants to have their approach to forest use protected by statute.

However unfortunate it may be, that is where we find ourselves as we begin to legislate on the recommendations of RARE II.

Without H.R. 6070, proponents of wilderness can get in line and have their concerns heard and acted on with alacrity. Those who want release of lands must wait-indefinitely.

37722 There is no equity in such a policy. It

amounts to saying, "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine."

Such a policy leaves those who expected, and have the right to obtain certainty of, timber supply with an empty bag, and no hope of getting consideration for their needs-unless they seize upon another committee's jurisdiction to gain that consideration. What alternative have they?

So a divisive situation is created in which the reasonable process by which this should be settled is impossible. Ideally each State, each region that has RARE II-based legislation introduced in relation to it. should have both wilderness and release language. That not only provides equity, but establishes a method, a procedure by which these two legitimate and often conflicting uses can be worked out in the normal give-andtake of the American process. I would prefer that approach to the one Congress now seems committed to. I would prefer working out the needs of my area with consideration of both issues. Instead, the refusal to consider release language is forcing this approach and if those are the rules by which we are forced to play, then I endorse and sponsor H.R. 6070 as the only means of assuring that all legitimate interests are heard before this Congress.•

MORE SHOULD BE IX>NE TO SECURE THE HOSTAGES RELEASE

HON. E. THOMAS COLEMAN OF MISSOURI



e Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, today is the 46th day that American citizens have been held hostage in the American Embassy in Iran. Unfortunately, the situation has changed very little with the passing of over a month and a half. I know that the President has made this a priority concern, as well it should be, but nevertheless, I cannot help feeling that more should be done to secure the hostages' release. Because of this, I found a receillt editorial in Newsweek magazine by the eminent columnist George F. Will to be very interesting and thought-provoking. Mr. Will makes a firm statement on this subject and gives his views substance by suggesting actions which our Nation could take to resolve this very serious problem. I am, therefore, including Mr. Will's commentary in the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD for the benefit Of my colleagues who may IWt have had the opportunity to read it:

How To DEAL WrrH !RAN

(By George F. Will) Russia. oerta.lnly is ungrateful, supporting

Ira.n's seizure of the U.S. Embassy. In August, when Soviet agents hustled a. ballerina aboard a. Soviet plane an U.S. soil, the U.S. treated the plane as an embassy, inviolable. Instead of kicking off the agents and freeing the ballerina to think in peace about her future, U.S. policy condemned the hostage-that's what she was-to the uninterrupted custody of the agents. Today, as then, the U.S. has chosen "restraint" rather than other, better options. Even if the crisis ends tomor-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS raw, "favorably" 1n that the hostages are safe, the U.S. will have hurt itself by advertising its reluctance to act unilatera.lly.

The u.s. should immediately have jammed radio and television transmissions in Iran, and from Ira.n. Khomeini, a seventh-century Jllaiil dependent on twentieth-century technology, fought for power with telephone ca.lls and tapes from Paris. Jamming broadcasts (and perhaps sabotaging the telephone system) would sever the ligaments of his regime, and would make impossible what otherwise is impossible to stop: Ira.nia.n ma.ntpula.tion of the international media..

An immediate blockade of Iran, keeping food out a.nd oil in, would have had the secondary benefit of discomforting our allies. They should be reminded with pain, not rhetoric, that our fates are linked. The U.S. could have bombed the dam that supplies much of Teheran's electricity. If Iranians want the Dark Ages, we can provide the dark. The Aba.dam kerosene refinery cOUld have been put out of commission. Iran has cold winters. Shivering in the dark would concentrate Iranian minds on the cost of Khomeini. Iran is mountainous. Radlroa.ds can be cut easily by bombing tunnels and bridges. And don't forget the pipeline that sends natural gas to the Soviet Union.

Many choices: The U.S. should seek to lease the Sinai air bases, and the former British base on Oman's island of Masirah. The U.S. could occupy the three islands off Iran's coast that the Shah seized in order to settle a sovereignty dispute. The U.S. should ready the island of Diego Garcia. in the Indian Ocean for B-52s, aircraft carriers and missile-carrying submarines.

From the start, many Americans felt a vague relief that "there is nothing we can do." In fact, there are many choices the U.S. chose not to make. Instead, it sperut weeks emitting chaotic signals about avoiding bloodshed, force, even pressure. Carter waited 39 days before even expelling most Iranian diplomats. If the U.S. had wanted this crisis prolonged, would lit have acted otherwise? Washington is not wholly unhappy when immersed in a. crisis that enlivens conversation without actually compelling hard actions. I detect something like enjoyment of this crisis, with its vigils, public praying and telegenic gestures.

But while Washington is dimming the national Christmas tree, the Soviet Union is forging an iron ring around the Middle Eastin South Yemen, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Libya, and with its Mediterranean fieet. Soviet radio spreads insta.b111ty, as in Iran. Soviet military maneuvers are honing a quick-reaction capability to exploit instab111ty. Within the closing ring, Arab leaders are not reassured by U.S. "restraint."

At the U.N., U.S. "restraint" was rewarded with a resolution of e,wful "evenhandedness." It did not condemn Iran; instead it asked the aggressor and the aggressed-aga.inst equally for "restraint." The U.S. should have replied: "You won't condemn Iran, we won't subsidize this travesty. Henceforth, we pay 1/151, not a. fourth, of the U.N.'s budget." Instead, the U.S. hailed the U.N. resolution as a. victory. As John Jay Chapman said, "One need not mind stealing, but one must cry out at people whose minds are so befuddled that they do not know theft when they see it." The U.N. "victory" was a. call for the criminal and the victim "to resolve peacefully" the "issues between them." Issues, shmissues, "they've stolen our citizens. That's not an "issue," that's an act of war.

The U.N. debacle, the effort at the World Court and Secretary Vance's travels in search of supportive allies were attempts to cultivate world opinion. But what the world needs is a. demonstration that, 8lt times, tne U.S. doesn't give a damn about "opinion." There is, as Jefferson wrote, such a thing as "decent respect for the opinion of mankind." But he wrote that in a declaration of inde-

December 20, 1979 pendence The U.S. needs a. declaration of independence from the ideal of restraint in the face of government-sponsored terrorism.

When Pravda supported Iran, many staff members at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow complained that the U.S. was too mild in dealing with the Soviets. Only the State Department could contrive to find Soviet policy on Iran ambiguous. Vance called Pravda "deplorable" (is deplorable worse than "unacceptable," as in the "unacceptable status quo" 1n Cuba.?). Earlier, in Moscow, some Soviet omcia.ls were disinvited from an embassy screening of "Goodbye Girl." Thus did the American eagle show its talons.

'Vietnam Complex': Last week, the Wall Street Journal noted that when, last August, Aleksandr Oodunov defected, "a. contingent of burly Soviets" fiew in from Moscow. Then "a. carload of husky Soviet 'tourists' paid a. sudden visit to the Tolstoy Foundation estate in Valley Cottage, N.Y., a. frequent stopping place for Russian refugees. The 'tourists' clumsily but effectively searched the premis·es, in the apparent hope of finding the defected star before he received asylum." Have you heard the eagle scream about that? Or about Soviet violations of the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty? Or of the Thresold Test Ban Treaty? Or of the SALT I ABM treaty?

The Administration is decorous with the Soviets, in part because of its paralyzing obsession with SALT II ra.tifl.cation. Last week, Carter yielded to Senate pressure and endorsed increased defense spending. An aide said this marked the end of "the Vietnam complex." Nonsense. Carter wants the increases because he wants SALT II, which embodies a complacent world view that Js part of "the Vietnam complex." Were SALT II ratified, Carter probably would no longer want the increases. He has a. record of watching quietly as Congressional a.Ules trim his paper proposals.

Three months ago he opposed what he now proposes. And three months from now? If his sudden, Saint Paul-like conversion is real, he is too plastic for comfort. But his rebirth as a. realist is too convenient for comfort, coinciding as it does with the imperatives of the SALT debate and the mood of the moment, both of which will end.

Soviet troops have entered the Afghan civil war; another Soviet inhibition is being shed. When told that the Soviet Union is helping starve Cambodians, impeding the delivery of relief and diverting supplies to its proxy soldiers, Carter exclaimed, "Is there no pity?" No, Virginia, there is no Santa. Claus, no pity and no one listening to White House appeals to "the responsible leaders in both Hanoi and Moscow."e

NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM-LESSON IN CREATIVITY

HON. MARIO BIAGGI OF NEW YORK



e Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of my colleague an article which was recently printed in the Washington Post on a most in-novative school lunch program which is being run at Benjamin Franklin High School in East Harlem.

I am bringing this article to light to note the hearings which our Education and Labor Committee has been holding on school lunch programs. As many of you mav know, this body will be considering a bill to reauthorize many of our school lunch programs next year. There

December 2'0, 19 7 9

are those who want to see a sizeable portion of the budget for these most worthy programs be cut substantially. To those people I say, take a look at what t~ program has done for millio~?-s upon millions of American schoolchildren. Look at what it has done for the nutritional education of these children. And more importantly, stop and think w~at it would mean if we no longer proVIded a nutritionally balanced meal at affordable prices in our elementary and secondary schools.

The energy factory is a unique program which has managed to transform an inner city high school, which was once the scene of open dealing of drugs, crime and an attendance rate of less than 50 percent. This special lunch program has been the major reason for the miraculous "turn-around" of this school and its student body. A student advisory council plays a major role in the decisions and activities of the energy factory program, from what kinds of foods are served, to the decor of the cafeteria. It is not only the school lunch program, but it is also an educational program.

I must also make note that our New York City Board of Education has been in the forefront of the Nation with regards to providing nutritional, interesting meals to the school children of our city. The Department of Agriculture has even acknowledged the fact that the New York City school lunch program, under the direction of Elizabeth Cagen, "has been way ahead of us."

I urge my colleagues to read this article and learn how beneficial our child nutrition programs have been in not only feeding children good foods, but providing them with an important education that can remain with them the rest of their lives.

THE ENERGY FACTORY FACTOR

(By Marian Burros) To believe this story about Benjamin

Franklin School in East Harlem, you must engage, at least for a time, in a "willing suspension of disbelief." Otherwise, you may find it difficult to understand how in two years an improved school lunch program could turn a school, described as one of the worst in the city, into a model for other urban schools.

In 1977, the New York City board· of education was prepared to close the East Harlem high school because attendance was less than 50 percent. Dope was used and traded openly in the halls. It was unsafe to walk in the corridors.

Today 1,200 to 1,400 of the 1,800 or 1,900 students are in class each day and almost 1,000 of them eat the school lunch. Most of the credit for this miraculous turn around goes to Eugene (Gene) Brown, assistant principal in charge of the special lunch program, the Energy Factory, and almost every extracurricular activity in which the school participates.

The Energy Factory, which features low fat, low salt, low sugar versions of fast foods and fast food service instead of a cafeteria line, is the concept around which Brown has rallied the students. It wasn't conceived for that purpose: It was an e1Iort to get more kids to ea.t the school lunch.

But Brown has made it much more than that. From the beginning he involved the students, "not necessarily the best kids," in the planning of the Energy Factory: The refurbishing of the cafeteria; the food to be

C.XXV--2371-Part 28

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS served; the policing of the area during lunch time. "The kids are harder on each other than the guards we used to have," Brown said. "They were having a discussion about what they would do if someone broke the rules. 'Throw him out,' someone suggested. 'Nah. That's just what they want'," another wisely noted.

Two years ago when the Energy Factory committee was discussing whether or not they should have a salad bar in the cafeteria, one of the black students said: "That's for The Man, not for Niggers. We'd spit in it." You are unlikely to hear any of the committee members, 60 percent of whom are black, 40 percent of whom are Hispanic, denigrate himself that way now.

What Brown is teaching to his committee of 90 students is pride, self confidence and self esteem.

Today he says the "president of the Energy Factory is probably bigger than the president of the Student Council."

What has happened, according to Brown, who is also a social worker, is that the kids "feel they are part of the structure. They talk to us."

Lorraine Chambers, supervisor of the cafeteria, who came to Benjamin Franklin before the Energy Factory was instituted, sees a big di1Ierence. "Before our sta1I was not tuned in to the students' needs. The students dis· liked the employees quite a bit. Now we have a lot of neighborhood peoole working here and that relationship has made a lot of difference. We have to care about these kids."

And pay attention to wha.t they like to eat, a lot of which does not fit the stereotypes.

One of their favorite dishes is baked fish . They also eat beets, love spinach salads, ask for broccoli with cheese and won't eat hot dogs. And Brown is convinced the kids don't really like French fries; they like catsup.

One thing both Brown and Chambers say the kids won't ea.t is hamburgers on whole wheat buns. "Whole wheat and hamburgers don't go together," Brown says.

According to Brown when they took the vending machine out, none of the kids objected, only the teachers.

Brown thinks so highly of the food now, and with good reason, that he says "If you can't find what you want to eat in this cafeteria, then you didn't want to eat." He says waste is at a minimum, "maybe 4 percent."

On the whole the kids are pleased with the food , though they would like desserts. They would also like more salad to be served so there will be enough for those who come to late lunch. "It's much better than we used to get, and better than other schools" said one, while another compared it to a fast food restaurant.

But the Energy Factory concept alone might have failed if it hadn't been directed by Brown who talks the kids' language but commands their respect. He also cooks for their parties, sewed all the costumes for the cheerleaders and is available to them seven days a week.

As he tours the cafeteria with a visitor, he doesn't miss a trick: "I know you love me, but go to class," he tells one loiterer.

"Sit on the chair," he tells another who is perched on a table.

When he conducts a class in nutrition education the students are expected to be quiet, "Excuse me ladies and gentlemen. If we all talk we won't get anything done"-and they are, but his classes in nutrition education, like his Energy Factory committee meetings, include a lo.t of things that have nothing to do with nutrition. Brown is developing ethical standards and leadership.

And he's doing it with firmness and love. "If you care about kids, love kids and have patience, it will work," he says.e

37723 SECURE ISRAEL IS OUR BEST

ASSET

HON. RICHARD KELLY OF FLORIDA



• Mr. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, since early November, the attention of the American people has rightly been focused on the outrageous actions of the Iranian Government, whose Gestapo-type special forces are holding U.S. citizens hostage. The best we can hope for out of this situation is that the American people's indignation over their government's failure to protect American lives and property overseas may someday reach our national political leadership.

The recent events in Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lybia, and elsewhere serve to underscore the critical importance of U.S. relations with our strongest ally in that region, Israel. The Carter administration, in continuing its well-established policy of appeasement diplomacy, which simply involves bowing to the most radical and irrational antiAmericanism in any given situation, has been pressuring Israel to withdraw from the West Bank in order to accommodate the PLO, a terrorist organization which exists only to destroy Israel.

The nuances of local government control on the West Bank are issues that can be resolved through careful negotiation between the parties involved. But this does not apply to the question of military control.

Since partition in 1948, the State of Israel has been forced repeatedly to defend itself against the aggressive attacks of hostile neighbors. Those who call on Israel to return the West Bank to the Palestinians should remember that until the 1967 Six Day War, the West Bank belonged to Jordan, and that country could have established a Palestinian homeland there without Israel's cooperation. But rather than take that action, the Arabs concentrated on trying to "push Israel into the sea."

The goals of the PLO have not changed, and neither has the importance of the West Bank to Israeli security. For Israel, continued control of the West Bank as a military defense buffer zone is indispensable. It is incredible to realize, and many people do not, that without the West Bank, the State of Israel is only 9 miles wide at that point. So a hostile military force that occupied the West Bank would need to drive only 9 miles, or roughly the distance from Zephyrhills to Dade City in Florida, to reach the Mediterranean and split Israel in half. And the entire nation of Israel is only one-seventh the size of Florida. Thus, Israel's security, even her very existence, heavily depends on her continued military control of the West Bank. For Israel, the two issues of security and existence on the one hand, and military control of the West Bank on the other are inseparable and not negotiable.

Our country's declining position and stature in the world stems from our continuing failure to support our friends

37724 and to oppose our enemies-mostly we. do not even call our enemies our. enerrues. we could choose no better time than now, and no better friend than Israel,_ to recommit ourselves to a pro-Amer~ca foreign policy. A secure Israel, reta~ing military control of the West Bank, Is the United States best asset in the Middle East.•

THE CHRYSLER VOTE

HON. TOM CORCORAN OF ILLINOIS



e Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. Speaker, . on Tuesday, the House of Repr~entatives considered legislation to proVIde a loan guarantee to the Chrysler Corp. On ~al passage of that measure, I voted aga1nst

it.After listening to the debate and talking to people affected by Chrysl~r problems, one thing in the end determJ!led J?Y vote on this: The issue of a possible mcrease in imports related to a Chrysler shutdown. The real question, for me, was "Could U.S. automakers move in and expand their production to picJ:t up the slack caused by a Chrysler failure and thus preclude the loss of Chrysler's market share to foreign imports."

As I analyzed the consequences •. lar?ely through reviewing and correllatmg mformation provided to the Congress by the Treasury Department and the Congressional Research Service, it appears .to me that imports would not necessa;rily expand with a Chrysler collapse. Smce 1980 and 1981 appear to be years of varying degrees of economic recession, 8;D;d since this would result in the un~erut~l~zation of other U.S. automakers. ~aCllities they would have the capabillty to exp~nd their operations to pick up the slack-even if the Chrysler gap reflects a total loss of Chrysler production. I do not believe, however, that plan!-B su~h 8;5 the modern Belvidere facility m Dlm01s would be mothballed pursuan~ t~ a Chrysler bankruptcy and reorgaruzat10n.

Moreover, there are a number _of changes taking place in the automobile industry, and assistance to Chrys~er may not be enough to put it back on Its feet. Energy costs, the impend~ng U.S. ~ec~sion, and other factors Will make It difficult for any automaker to operate successfully in the near term. By. approving this legislation, we would simply be postponing the inevitable. Much as. I regret Chrysler's problems and the ill ~ffect of a bankruptcy, the greater mistake would be for Congress to bail out this private company especially considering that some of its problems are traceable to Government policie_s wl?lch must be changed in the early eighties.

If I had been convinced that the result of a Chrysler collapse would be further penetration by German, Japanese _and other foreign imports into the Amer:H~an automobile market, my final decision might well have been different. .

There certainly were other Issues raised in the debate on providing a loan guarantee to the Chrysler Corp. As pre-


viously noted, some financiS:l ex~rts have testified that the fina~cial ~ssistance required in the legislatiOn Will_ not be adequate to insure Chrysler:s survryal. There are several serious philosophical questions involved in this proposal r~lating to the relationship between busn:ess and American Government, the obhg~tion of the Federal Government to aid business enterprises adversely aff~te~ _by unwise regulation, and the desirability of preventing the failure of one of the Nation's largest corporations <and employers) in the face of az: impending economic downturn. I beheve that these matters could have received more attention and debate than was the case.

During the debate and in the discourse that took place in advance of yesterday's activities, though, several poin~s were made that merit further emphasiS. As a member of the House Banking Committee noted, a Japanese auto worker produces 40 cars per year and receives about $6.50 per hour; American workers, on the other hand, produce 25 cars each year and would be paid $15.50 per hour under the new Chrysler wage plan. The productivity difference, coupled with the unit labor cost comparison, raises significant doubts in my mind that Chrysller can continue to compete in the American automobile market successfully.

The distinguished chairman of the Republican Task Force on Economic Policy, Congressman DAVE STOCKMAN, has contributed greatly to the de'bate on this matter. In disspelling what he terms "the politics of single-entry bookkeeping," Mr. STOCKMAN correctly points out that lost Chrysler-related jobs will soon be replaced in the economy by more productive positions. That is the nature of our economic system. By giving Chrysler a loan guarantee, and thus moving its requests for credit from the back ~o the front of the loan line, we would directly contribute to economic inefficiencies that ultimately result in a lower standard of living for the country as a whole than that which would otherwise exist.

Congressman STOCKMAN also notesagain correctly so--that workers at Chry;ler plants are almost universally covered by trade adjustment programs, unemployment compensation, and the like. As a supporter of the trade adjustment concept (since a limited number of American workers should not be asked to bear the total adverse consequences of fair international trade), I am pleased that it has been stressed that Chrysler's employees can be expected to receive special unemployment benefits alm?st equal to their present incomes, sPeCial placement assistance and special job retraining opportunities. It is also pertinent to note that Chrysler pensions will be secure through the pension guarantee program.

I am fully aware that Government regulation of the auto industry over a compressed period of time has substantially caused Chrysler's current condition. I feel this situation has justified my support of reasonable regulatory approaches in the past, and it is relevant to note that I have joined in sponsoring legislation to bring rationality to pending auto-related


regulations. Perhaps we can act on that measure and preclude a recurrence of the Chrysler debacle.

However, in the final analysis I voted "no" because of the fact that every banker in the world had refused the credit that we in Congress were being asked to give Chrysler and because I doubt that a Chrysler collapse would really give foreign imports much of an increased share of the automobile market in the United States.•

DIABETES LEGISLATION

HON. TIM LEE CARTER OF KENTUCKY



• Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Diabetes Research and Training Amendments and National Diabetes Advisory Board Extension Act of 1979. This legislation reaffirms congressional commitment to combat diabetes, one of our Nation's greatest public health problems.

Diabetes mellitus afflicts 10 million Americans, of whom 1% million are juvenile diabetics. Over 300,000 lives are lost each year because of diabetes and its complications. Moreover diabetes is the leading cause of blindness in this country. Disproportionately, this disease strikes the aged, poor, and black. Despite significant progress in diabetes research and treatment, the incidence of this condition is increasing by 6 percent each year. At this rate, the average American newborn has 1-in-5 chance of becoming diabetic within his or her lifetime.

Mr. Speaker, clearly this disease is not going to disappear overnight. To fight diabetes effectively, we will need to sustain a well-supported and well-coordinated Federal effort on all fronts: research, treatment, education, and ultimately prevention.

Fortunately, Congress has already recognized the importance of a broadbased and concerted effort in this field, as shown by enactment of previous diabetes legislation. Over the years, I have been pleased to sponsor such measures, and work for their passage. The proposal I am introducing today builds on that strong foundation and renews the commitment which Congress has made to address this national health problem. Specifically, my bill would continue for 3 years the National Diabetes Advisory Board and the Diabetes and Research and Training Centers established by Public Law 94-562, and Public Law 93-254 respectively.

In order to appreciate the need to continue these initiatives, I think it would be helpful to review briefly their purposes and some of their accomplishments.

Congress created the National Diabetes Advisory Board in October 1976. Its mandate has been to serve as the national focus for review, evaluation, and advice with respect to the long-range plan to combat diabetes, that had been developed in response to previous legislation. The Federal diabetes etfort alone involves eleven component Institutes of

December 20, 19 79

the National Institutes of Health as well as the National Institute of Mental Health, the Center for Disease Control, the Indian Health Service, the Division of Emergency Medical Services, the Health Resources Administration, the Veterans' Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.

Since its creation, the Board has served as an important catalyst for the coordination of efforts among each component of the diabetes community. For example, the Board has aided in the implementation of numerous cooperative programs: 5 model diabetes care programs on Indian reservations, 10 CDCsponsored community-based diabetes control programs, the creation of the Intra-NIH Coordinating Committee, the development of the National Diabetes Data Group and National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse, and the development of improved guidelines for the multidisciplinary Diabetes Research and Training Centers. These and other activities with which the Board has assisted illustrate the importance of an organized, broad-based effort to fight diabetes.

The Board's expertise and varied constituency is another important factor in its success. As a result the Board has been able to initiate, as well as participate in, a wide range of activities which have enhanced the overall diabetes effort. The Board is also uniquely suited to respond to a variety of policy issues affecting the diabetes communi.ty. For example, in 1977, an FDA report questioned the adequacy of insulin supplies during the next decade. The Board expeditiously established an ad hoc committee composed of its members and expert consultants and invited representatives of domestic and foreign pharmaceutical companies, the meat packing industry, and responsible Federal agencies to participate in the collection and analysis of data relating to the supply of and demand for insulin. Within 3 months, the Board was able to establish that insulin supplies were indeed adequate through the end of the century. This ad hoc committee presented a carefully reasoned set of guidelines by which the availability of insulin could be monitored effectively by both Federal and private sectors.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one example of the unique ability of the Board to contribute to our Nation's efforts to control, and ultimately, prevent diabetes. My legislation would continue for 3 years authority for the operation of this Board, which would otherwise expire on September 30, 1980. Under my bill, funding would be authorized at the same level as current law, $300,000 annually, for the next 3 years. To assure effective coordination and guidance of the national diabetes effort, I believe continuation of the National Diabetes Advisory Board is essential.

The other major component of the Federal diabetes effort which is extended by my legislation is the authority for the diabetes research and training centers. As you may recall, Congress authorized the establishment of these centers in 1974, under Public Law 93-354, to accel-


erate the transfer of research information to health professionals. These training centers provide core research facilities and short-term support for pilot and feasibility studies. They also conduct special education and information activities. At the present time, there are eight diabetes research and training centers funded under this authority located in New York, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Illinois, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Virginia.

Diabetes research, which has been encouraged by the National Diabetes Advisory Board, and conducted in part. through these centers, has resulted in significant breakthroughs in the treatment, cure, and possibly prevention of diabetes. In the last year alone, the following advances have been reported:

Yale University's Dr. Philip Felig developed a miniature battery-powered artificial pancreas, worn at the waist, which feeds a continuous supply of insulin to meet the fluctuating needs of the diabetic. With sustained and appropriate delivery of insulin, the complications of the disease may be lessened or even avoided.

Dr. Paul Lacy of Washington University devised a way to transplant insulinproducing islet cells and overcome rejection of the body's immune system. If this process should one day, work in humans as it does in laboratory animals, such transplants could provide a natural insulin supply to diabetics.

Dr. Arthur Riggs and his team at the City of Hope in California, as well as Dr. Walter Gilbert of Harvard University, reproduced human insulin using recombinant DNA techniques. This insulin may soon provide a purer, more compatible alternatives to the pork and beef insulin now used by diabetics.

Dr. Kenneth Gabbay of Harvard University located the specific genetic marker for diabetes, which may one day tmake it possible to identify high-risk candidates before they develop diabetes.

Dr. Abner Notkins of the National Institutes of Health established a firm link between juvenile diabetes and the Coxsackie B4 virus. Eventually, a diabetes vaccine could be developed for those who have an inherited susceptibility to the disease.

Thus, although many unanswered questions remain in this field, it is evident that Congress support for the Federal diabetes program has proven to be an investment which is yielding large dividends. It is also clear that future progress in this field depends on a strong research component. In that regard, the diabetes research and training centers offer a unique resource for interaction between traditional biomedical research and health care delivery.

The legislation I am introducing today will extend the authority for the diabetes research and training centers for 3 more years, beyond current law's 1980 expiration date. My bill would authorize $14 million for fiscal year 1981, $17 million for 1982, and $20 million for 1983. Included in the funding for these centers, the legislation would provide up to 10 training stipends for each cen-

37725 ter to strengthen the training component.

Finally, I should mention that my proposal would provide for the statutory creation of the position of the Associate Director for Diabetes, Endocrine, and Metabolic Diseases. Although this position has been created administratively, I believe it is appropriate to require it in the statute, and to delineate the specific responsibilities of this important position.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Federal diabetes effort has resulted in a remarkable record of achievement over the past half-decade. Through the combined efforts of many, many dedicated individuals, including Federal officials at the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Disease Control, as well as the American Diabetes Association and the Juvenile Diabetes Association, effective diabetes research, treatment, and control programs have been established. The framework for a broad-based, well-coordinated effort to fight diabetes has been set in place and its activities are well underway. We are now at a critical juncture, and we cannot afford to lose the momentum already gained. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that the diabetes movement can continue to mature and realize its fullest potential in the coming years, and thereby benefit millions of Amerioo.:ns.

Mr. Speaker, the full text of my proposed legislation follows:

H.R.-A b1ll to amend the Public Health Service

Act to revise and extend the programs of the National Institute of Arthritis, Metabolism, and Digestive Diseases with respect to diabetes, to revise and extend the authorization for the National Diabetes Advisory Board, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE: REFERENCE TO ACT SECTION 1. (a) This Act may be cited as

the "Diabetes Research and Training Amendments and National Diabetes Advisory Board Extension Act of 1979".

(b) Whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Public Health Service Act. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS, METABO

LISM, AND DIGESTIVE DISEASES SEc. 2. Section 434(<b) is amended to read

as follows "(b) (1) There are established within the

National Metabolism, and Digestive Diseases Advisory Council a subcommittee on diabetes and related endrocine and metabolic diseases, a subcommittee on arthritis, a subcommittee on digestive diseases, and a subcommittee on kidney diseases. The subcommittees shall be composed of members of the Council who are outstanding in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of diabetes and related endroclne and metabollc diseases, arthritis, digestive diseases, and kidney diseases, respectively. The subcommittees shall review applications made to the Director for grants for research projects relating to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of diabetes and related endrocine and metabolic diseases, arthritis, digestive diseases, and kidney diseases and shall recommend to the Advisory Council those

37726 applications and contracts which they determine will best carry out the purposes of this part. The subcommittees shall also review and evaluate the diabetes and related endrocine and meta.bolic diseases, arthritis, digestive disases, and kidney diseases programs under this part and recommend to the Advisory Council such changes in the administration of such programs as they determine are necessary.

"(2) The Advisory Council, taking into account the recommendations of the subcommittees, shall review the applications made to the Director for grants for research projects and recommend to the Director for approval those applications which the Advisory Council determines will best carry out the purposes of this part, and shall recommend to the Director such changes in program administration as it determines are necessary.".

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR DIABETES, ENDROCRI

NOLOGY , AND METABOLIC DISEASES

SEc. 3. Section 434 (d) is amended to read as follows:

" (d) (1) There is established within the Institute the position of Associate Director for Diabetes, Endrocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases who shall report directly to the Director, except as provided in paragraph (4).

"(2) Acting rthrough the Associate Director for Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases, the Director shall-

"(A) carry out programs of support for research and training in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of diabetes mellitus and related endocrine and metabolic diseases, and

"(B) establish programs of evaluation, planning, and dissemination of knowledge related to research and training in diabetes mellitus and related endocrine and metabolic diseases.

"(3) The Associate Director for Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases shall have primary responsibility for all diabetesmellitus-related activities supported or conducted by the National Institutes of Health, shall serve as an information resource and contact point for public and private agencies with respect to such activities; and shall report and make specific recommendations to the Director of the National Institutes of Health with respect to the functions described in paragraph ( 4) on a regular basis.

" ( 4) After consult81tion with appropriate Federal agencies, the Associate Director for Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases shall be responsible for-

"(A) development of a coordinated plan for the National Institutes of Health with respect to diabetes-related research; training; and data and information collection, analysis, and dissemination;

"(B) development or sound management approaches for diabetes-related activities within the National Institutes of Health;

"(C) collection and evaluation through the National Diabetes Data Group of epidemiological data with respect to diabetes;

"(D) monitoring and review of diabetesrelated expenditures by the National Institutes of Health and identification of research opportunities in Federal diabetes-related activities, including specific recommendations for means to take advantage of such opportunities;

"(E) coordination through the National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse of information dissemination activities with respect to diabetes; and

"(F) preparation and submission to the Director of the National Institutes of Health of an annual, coordinated budget for all diabetes activities supported by the National Institutes of Health, including specific recommendations with respect to fiscal issues relating to such activities.".

DIABETES RESEARCH AND TRAINXNG CENTERS

SEc. 4. Section 435 is amended-( 1) by redesi~ting sUibsections (b) and

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS (c) as subsections (c) and (d) , respectively, and inserting after subsection(a) the following new subsection (b) :

"(b) In connection with training programs conducted in accordance wdth subsection (a) , the secretary shall provide, from the amounts appropriated under subseotion (d) and through centers developed or expanded under subsection (a), not to exceed ten training stipends in any :flscal year through each such center."; and

(2) by striking out "and" after "1979", in subsection (d) (as so redesignated) and inserting before the period ", $14,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981, $17,-000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, and $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983".

NATIONAL DIABETES ADVISORY BOARD

SEc. 5. (a) Section 436A(a) (1) is amended ( 1) by inserting "nonvoting," before "ex officio", (2) by inserting", the Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or his designee" !before ",the Director of the Center", and (3) by inserting", the Associate Director for Diabetes, Endrocrlnology, and Metabolic Diseases of the National Institute of Arthritis, Metabolism, and Digestive diseases or his designee" before ", the Chief Medical Director".

(b) Section 436A(e) is amended to read as follows:

" (e) The term of office of appointed members of the Board is three years, except that in the case of the appointed members serving on the date of enactment of the Dia~betes Research and Training Amendments and National Diabetes Advisory Board Extension Act of 1979-

.. ( 1) the term of office of six of such members shall expire three years from such date, and

"(2) the term of office of six of such members shall expire two years from such date, as designated by the Secretary within ninety days of such date.".

(c) Section 436A(f) is amended-(1) by striking out "Act, and" in para

graph ( 1) and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "Act and a.mended in accordance with paragraph (2) ,"; and

(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph ( 3) and inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph (2):

"(2) amend and make such changes in the Diabetes Plan as the Board detennlnes are necessary to insure the Plan's continuing relevance, and".

(d) Section 436A(k) is amended by striking out "and" after "1979," and by inserting before the period", and each of the next three fiscal years".

(e) Subsection ( 1) is amended by striking out "1980" and inserting in lieu thereof " 1983" .•

A POEM APPROPRIATE TO AMERICA'S CURRENT QUEST FOR ALLIES AND SUPPORTERS IN OUR FIGHT AGAINST THE mANIAN AGGRESSION




• Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, a good friend of mine from Ainsterdam, N.Y., the Reverend Father John F. Krzysko, has been good enough to bring to my attention a poem that has recently been featured in the press, written by a Canadian, which appears to him and to me to be appropriate to the distress that this country finds itself in as it tries now, in the face of the illegal Iranian

December 20, 1979

aggression, to seek some substantial help and support from countries that in the past have been the recipients of American aid, support, bounty, and largess.

Father Krzysko suggests that this poem be played at the beginning and end of each day on American television and radio stations. I think the Father has a very interesting idea.

The text of the poem follows: THE TALL THIN MAN

I stand tall at seven feet two Clothed in Red and White and Blue. I've grown large so all can see I serve the slaved and the free. And an who seek shall truly find That I am also "color blind".

Trouble strikes and I am there I'm on call to everywhere. The world is large, but when in need I clothe, I heal, I also feed.

Sure at times my heart does bleed When those I've helped when in need, Soon forget and will not share When others plead and need their care.

Can I hope that other nations Wlll share a portion of their rations? What wlll happen when I stop When disaster kills my crop?

Let's take him gently by the hand Thank the Lord for this great land. If only all could understand The kindness of the Tall Thin Man.e

EDITORIALS IN THE AMSTERDAM EVENING RECORDER EXPOUND A SANE, SENSIDLE AMERICAN PHll.OSOPHY



Thursday, December .20, 1979

e Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, in my home town of Amsterdam, N.Y., the local newspaper, the Amsterdam Evening Recorder, has long exercised a very remarkable role of community leadership. It has been in the forefront of the :fight to modernize and revitalize a city that suffered a heavY economic blow in the late :fifties when the carpet industry moved out. It has also espoused a hardhitting, dynamic editorial policy in behalf of sound, sensible American principles of thrift and patriotism.

It is a privilege, Mr. Speaker to bring a few of these editorial essays to the attention of my colleagues, because I believe their wisdom deserves a wider audience.

In so doing, Mr. Speaker let me at the same time pay tri·bute to the hardworking, energetic publisher of the Recorder, Mr. Charles Miller, and to the editorial page editor, Mr. Stanley Silvernail, for this very significant contribution to editorial excellence.

The editorials follow: WE DARE NOT IGNORE 8cHLESXNGEB'S WARNJ:NG

Whether or not we like exiting Secretary of Energy James R. Schlesinger, and many do not because of the bluntness with which he has told us so much bad news in recent months, he is a very wise man and we owe it to ourselves to give attention and thought to what he had to say in his farewell address.

What we all have feared and haven't 11ked

December 20, 19 7 9 to even think about the consequences, Secy. Schlesinger gave voice to last week.

Soviet Russia , he said, in more professorial language but equally bluntly, is taking dead aim at controlling the oil tap in the Middle East, and if they are successful, "it will mean the end of the world as we have known it!"

Although it is more fashionable in government circles to wishfully think that the Kremlin could have no such sinister designs on the welfare of the Western World, what Schlesinger said is not the far-out thought of a "crazy," but the actual fact based on a realistic appraisal of overt Soviet actions in Iran, Yemen and elsewhere in that section of the world, not to mention covert influence in Libya and other trouble spots.

What will we do if the Soviets manage to turn off the Middle East oil spigot on us?

If it happens, it will be the greatest crisis in American and Free World history. Whether we are able to survive politically and industrially depends on how well we have managed to prepare ourselves through conservation and development of alternate energy sources.

We wish to call particular attention to these Schlesinger words:

"Even if the flow of oil is maintained, it will no longer be available in increasing quantities . . . and the use of coal and nuclear power will jointly have to grow-at the rate of 6 percent per annum if we are to maintain moderate economic growth."

Nuclear power has been a "bad word" since the accident at Harrisburg a few months ago. But even so, we cannot afford to abandon it as blow-with-the-wind New York State energy commissioner James Larocca would have our state do in his blueprint for our future.

We must retain, develop and improve every energy source that we now have, including nuclear energy, as well as exploit our vast coal deposits, integrate alcohol production into our fuel spectrum, and work diligently at developing solar, wind and wave energies. Above all , we must learn to really conserve energy where we have either wasted it or spent it lavishly.

Anything less, and the "end of the world as we have known it" will be more than a warning in a farewell address.

VERIFICATION OF 'SALT II A REASON FOR WORRY

Of all of the criticisms of the proposed SALT II arms limitation treaty with the Russians that we have heard, the one concerning doubt of America's ablllty to verify Soviet compliance seems the most clear-cut, the most indisputable.

We have succeeded in defanging our intelligence agencies to the extent that our government is in the unenviable position of continually being surprised by international developments and thus reacts too slowly and often in such a way that it makes us appear to be the "!heavies" when in truth what we are seeking is world stablllty and peace and the advancement of self-deterinination and human rights for all the world's people.

If there was ever an "incident" which showed up our intelligence weakness for what it is, it is the current "crisis" over Russian troops in Cuba.

We have obviously been surprised by the discovery of Soviet troops in the island only 90 Iniles off the coast of Florida which have been there three years according to American versions and 17 years according to Moscow. They are 2,000 to 3,000 Soviet combat troops there according to our government, and only troops to train Cubans in use of Russian weapons, according to Pravda.

No mater what they are, they do not appear to be a military threat to us. It is our belated discovery of the Russians on Cuba which is more worrisome.

If our Intelligence has trouble Identifying Russian troops only 90 miles away, how on

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS earth can we expect to keep tabs on Russian compliance with the very technical treaty aspects, when they have successfully resisted almost every treaty provision that would have provided us an easy means for verification?

We have an open society in which Soviets have only to go to a newsstand to obtain periodicals which, along with public congressional records, give them all the information they need to verify our compliance.

They, on the other hand, have a closed society and no such information is available to us. In addition they have encrypted the telemetry on a number of intercontinental missile tests, and we do not encode telemetry. And the agreement gives each side the freedom to encrypt, but bans "ecryption which deliberately impedes verification.'' And who is to say what is deliberate?

These are just a few of many verification concerns. But perhaps our gravest concern should be the accuracy of our own intelligence and its ablllty to penetrate the enigma which is the USSR.

Our intelligence, even in healthier days repeatedly underestimated the timing of Soviet development of several sophisticated weapons systems. Our intelligence monitoring facilities in Iran have been uprooted by revolution and political turmoil there.

We have, in short, a very real problem of verification. We know it and the Russians know it. And when and if the treaty is ratified either in its present form or as possibly amended by the Senate, the American people would be well advised not to feel too secure or to be lulled into complacency by it. A security blanket, SALT II is not.

OUR RESPONSE HAs LEFT THE DooR OPEN IN

CUBA

Our response to the presence of the Russian combat brigade in Cuba will be meaningless military maneuvers and a beefing up of our Caribbean task force, which will impress or scare the Soviets not a whit.

The combat brigade certainly in itself does not represent a Inilita.ry threat to America. But in a larger sense, an adequate American response would seem to be vital to prevent future, more serious encroachments of the Soviet Inilitary might into the Western Hemisphere.

It was but 17 years ago this month that President John F. Kennedy took the bold action that forced the removal of attack bombers and other offensive weapons from Cuba. Today, in Cuba, not only is there the Soviet brigade of foot soldiers, but much more importantly, there are attack planes with nuclear capability and attack submarines.

The Soviet Union is apparently going to make full use of its New Hemisphere puppet not only to supply troops for communLst Inillta.ry incursions in Africa, but also the island itself as a base for increased political and mmtary activity in Latin America.

We do not believe in the 1979 Cuba incident it would have been necessary to take the same risky quasi-Inilltary solution that worked in 1962 because the Russians , then quite a distance back of us as number two in Inilitary Inight, decided not to call our hand and risk possible Inilitary consequences.

But now the situation is different. They continued to build Inllitary Inight while we were dissipating ours in a gallant but failing military effort to stem the communist takeover of an Asian ally. If they are not number one in strategic military capability already, they soon will be.

In this confrontation, we held one trump which President Carter chose not to play. The SALT II treaty, which the Russians want more than we do, is about to come before the Senate for .ratification. Instead of a meaningless response, which is certain to be ignored, we could have said we will not even consider SALT II until offensive military troops and weapons are gone from Cuba. But we did not.

37727 And a few days before we backed off in

Cuba, the Carter administration was success_ ful in defeating a proposed 3 percent increase in defense spending that was introduced in the House by Rep. Samuel Stratton-this despite the fact that President Carter had pledged ·to NATO countries that he would support a real (above inflation) 3 percent increase in defense spending. As a result the House passed a 1.5 percent increase. But the Senate was undaunted, it went ahead and passed a 5 percent increase, after the Administration had grudgingly proposed a 3 percent increase in the Senate after defeating it in the House.

This led a Democratic senator, Sam Nunn, to characterize the Carter position as "a fake to the right while winking to the left."

The same comment would adequately describe the American response to the Cuban "crisis," which has left a door open that we may one day wish we had kept closed.

DEFENSE SPENDERS SEEM IMMUNE TO STUDIES

The newest study of military spending pretty much confirms in detailed data what we have all been aware of: That there is drastic imbalance and inequity among regions of our country and that the Northeast and North Central states are getting the short end of the stick.

Our own state fares more poorly than most. We send to Washington in taxes about $10 billion a year that goes toward costs of national defense. We get &bout $5 billion back in military expenditures.

The new study just completed by Prof. James R. Anderson of Michigan State University, delves into the pluses and minuses of various congressional districts in terms of defense spending in relationship to taxes contributed.

In our district represented by Rep. Samuel Stratton of Amsterdam, one of the highest ranking members of the armed services committee, we send $169.8 million more to the Pentagon yearly than we get back. Rep. Donald Mitchell's 31st District, is on the plus side, because Griffis Air Force Base is within its borders.

Because New York and the 28th District are losers is no reflection on our senators and Rep. Stratton. Sen. Moynihan and Rep. Stratton have been particularly active in trying to bring about a change in Pentagon construction and buying habits, which have been tilting unfairly to the South and Southwest since before World War II.

Pentagon officials, from time to time have reacted almost angrily, to pressures from the losers to receive a fairer share of the defense dollar. It is becoming obvious that the desire to do their training, soldiering and flying , and much of their purchasing, in the Sun Belt is so well ingrained that any considerable change will be resisted.

It is ironic that Congress, itself, could have influenced that change, but it did not.

Only two weeks ago, Sen. Moynihan sought to amend the Defense Appropriations b111, by repealing the so-called Maybank amendment which has been in effect 26 years , and in effect excuses the Pentagon from having to spend a certain proportion of its funds on purchases from firms in areas of high unemployment.

The Moynihan amendment lost 29 to 59, and inexplicably several senators from New England and the North Central states voted against it. The same thing happened in the House when the repeal of Maybank was attempted a couple of months earlier. Between absenteeism and some hard-tobelieve opposition from states which would have benefitted, the cause was lost.

Passage would have meant several millions of dollars and several thousand jobs in our state alone.

But it was not to be. Studies on the transfer of wealth from the Frost Belt to the Sun Belt will probably continue, only to be tucked away on a dusty shelf. Pentagon pro-

37728 curement officers must be laughing up their sleeves.

PEACE, RESPECT BELONG TO THE RESOLUTE,

STRONG

It is relatively easy to look back with wise hindsight and say what we should have done to avoid the crises that has befallen our diplomatic personnel in Iran, Pakistan and other points in the infiamed Middle East.

There will be many highly critical analyses on this score, and most of them will belabor the Carter administration for repeated indecision, weakness and vacillation in the face of almost every test of our strength over the past three years.

We have been too slow in our decisionmaking and too weak in our national resolve not only in Iran, but in Nicaragua, the Russian troop crisis in Cuba, in Yemen, and Africa, incursions with direct Soviet and Cuban involvement.

This country has become a paper tiger, feared by no one and respected by few, even though our assistance to their governments and humanitarian acts toward their peoples are legion.

Some would lay the full blame on the Carter administration for its genteel approach to foreign policy in a divided world where muscle and the willingness to flex it are respected, and not much else. Even in the Free World, our weak resolve t§ abhorred.

But hasn't the Carter administration been reflective of the general feeling of the American people? Likely, it has. America lost much of its national resolve in and after the Vietnam War; it has been part of our malaise of spirit, that has seen a great decline in our confidence in our government, and in our patriotic feelings.

Since the Iranian mob action against our embassy people in Tehran, patriotism has been taken out of the closet, and Americans are demanding strong action against Iran.

But, alas, it would appear that there is no military action available to us now which could extricate the Amerioans safely without t.aldng an unacceptalble toll of lives of both Americans and ITanians. A commando radd could not succeed without a blood bath. A blockade of Iranian ports is a possibility, but we would be immobilizing and rendering defenseless some Free World countries which run on Iranian oil.

What big stlck is left? The cutting off of exports of technical items, spare parts, even food, seems like a probable step. But it probably wouldn't free the captives from the mob. And it !s not likely that sending the sha.h back to Mexico or to Egypt, or Iranian students back to Iran would change anything.

This not yet the time to circle the wagons. The best thing right now is to work through dlplomatio channels to bring greater world infiuence to bear on our predicament. Even countries which might be hwppy to see us on a griddle, are fearful of the consequences of encouraging terrorism and mob action, to which they may one day fall victim.

Should the civilized world fail this test and should our embassy people be tried as spies and executed, as has been threatened, the Ira.nians should understand that it will not 'be tolerated by Americans and the consequences to them will be severe.

And .from this lesson the American people should relearn what we used to know-that peace and international respect belong only to the reso'lute and the strong.

'I1he CM W!aS torn apart in the post-Watergate probe. Now we have the incredibly ba.d state of U.S. intelligence in Iran and the utter inability of the CIA today to mount serious clandestine operations-a "must" for a. oountry with a.n open society in competition with the Russian closed society. What is so ironic is that many of. the oftidais that

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS now want the CIA rebuilt fast a.re the very ones who helped tear it down. In any event, the CIA must have urgent priority in a total and rapid rebuilding program.

LESSONS OF PEARL HARBOR QUICKLY FORGOTTEN

The attack on Pearl Harbor this date, 38 years ago, in 1941, has unfortunately been pretty much forgotten by Americans everywhere.

Of course, it will never be forgotten by the American sailors and airmen who lived through it or by the parents and friends of those who did not. And it is remembered and observed by a few at wreath-laying ceremonies as it was in Amsterdam this morning.

But generally, it has been all but forgotten, perhaps because it is not a pleasant memory to retain.

And that is as much of a tragedy as the sneak attack and the loss of 1,500 lives, along with much of our Pacific fleet and airpower. For in experiencing it, we should have had an important lesson burned indelibly in our brains.

But the lesson didn't take that we must remain militarily strong, be always vigilant, be fair but firm in our international dealings and never abandon our world leadership role. And now we are being kicked around in Iran by terrorists with encouragement and acquiescence of the Iranian government.

With the end of our ill-fated attempt to help an ally, South Vietnam, beat off an aggressor in Southeast Asia, a war that divided the American people and wrecked our national spirit, the gangrene of retrenchment from our world leadership role and military preparedness began to set in.

Because the draft had an unbearable connotation to many of our young people, we abolished it and have tried to run our military forces with volunteers, which professional military people will admit has been something of a disaster. We have a strong nuclear capability, best or next best in the world, but a nuclear war is out of the question unless combatants are willing to destroy world civilization. A conventional war of much magnitude would find us largely unprepared either in armament or spirit.

Until the Iranian situation was upon us, patriotism was largely invisible even on patriotic holidays. The lack of national resolve was reflected in governmental decisions and policy. And where we once had a containment ring of military bases around our most potential adversary, Soviet Russia, we have stood aside while it made incursions in Africa, the Middle East and even in the Caribbean. The Middle East oil fields are all but surrounded-not by us but by the Russians. Oil is already a weapon-it mey be THE weapon of any future confiict.

Pearl Harbor Day 1979 finds the paper tiger, as some call us, growling, and the sleeping giant awakening. Which may bode well for the future if we do not go back to sleep once our Tehran captives have been freed. We may have difficulty remembering Pearl Harbor, because it was long ago, but we shouldn't have difficulty remembering Tehran.e

LESSONS OF THE LOVE CANAL



Thursday, December 20, 1979 • Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, early in November I had a conversation with William Branche, formerly editorial page editor for the Niagara Gazette in Niagara Falls, N.Y. Bill has been a voice of reason and of sensitivity in Niagara Falls for

December 20, 1979

some time now, and his editorial coverage of the Love Canal tragedy in that city was of great importance as the dimensions of the problem became known throughout the months of agony which, unfortunately, still continue.

Bill had left his role as editor when we had our conversation, but he had not severed all ties with the Gazette, retaining an association as a part-time editorial commentatol'l. Knowing as I did his background with the Love Canal situation and the uncanny talent he has in using the English language, I felt that he, perhaps more than anyone else, might be in a position to bring the Love Canal history into perspective and recount what was done, for what reasons, and provide a focus for the future Love Canals this Nation will undoubtedly face.

A few days later the Gazette printed "Canal's Lessons," Bill's reaction to our conversation. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that no one could possibly have said what he said better, or more properly framed the kinds of questions that were faced at the Love Canal and that will be faced in similar situations down the road.

As can be seen in the editorial, which I am submitting .for printing in the RECORD foilowing these remarks, numerous public policy judgments were made and are being made-about temporary or permanent relocation of residents of the Love Canal neighborhood, about revitalizing that neighborhood, and diverse other actions-with relatively little solid scientific knowledge on which they could be based.

Wherever the next serious case of longterm human exposure to chemical contamination may occur, let us all hope that the questions raised so cogently in "Canal's Lessons" will have been answered; for only if that is true will we know that our system of government is really trying to provide a responsible level of protection to the citizens of the United States. And the impetus in the future must come from the Federal Government.

The editorial follows: CANAL'S LESSON

The trouble with what now looks to be the final act of the Love Canal drama is that it appears nobody who counts-the local, state, and federal governments-has learned the principal lesson of it.

Everybody has learned a lot about what to do with chemical wastes, but nobody has learned much about what to do with people. More precisely, nobody has decided what ought to be the conditions under which people should be permanently or temporarily evacuated from a contaminated area.

There have been various evacuations from Love Canal, including the one that ls to come under the newest state law affecting the area. But an of them have come about because public ofticials couldn't stand the heat of resident and public pressure any more. They were the right actions for the wrong reasons.

It should not be necessary for people whose lives may be in danger to wring help out of their governments. The help ought to be automatically forthcoming as soon as the danger is discovered. But a.t Love Ca.na.l, neither the political nor the medical authorities ever did agree on how to define the level of danger that would justify evacuation.

The defining ca.n still be done. Should be done, for there a.re almost certainly InOre Love Canals in this region's and this country's future.

December 20, 19 79 What is needed is a method for applying

what 1s ·known about chemical wastes and their effects upon human health situations in which combinations of wastes are present in the environment. What 1s needed is a standard which says that people shall be evacuated from their homes at public expense when certain levels of chemical contamination have been reached.

There is nothing easy about setting such a standard. The effects of many chemicals are only vaguely known. Moreover, the effects are often slow to appear in human beings, or are difficult to recognize when they do appear.

But since the object of such a standard is to prevent any effects from appearing, then it becomes chiefly a matter of setting the standard low enough. Lower, probably, than the standards for industrial exposure to chemicals, which presuppose eight-hour-aday exposures of healthy adults, not 24-houra-day exposures of people of all ages and conditions.

Defining acceptable standards for evacuation of endangered populations is going to be an arduous and contentious task. But it must be done if locallties, states, and the federal government are to deal intelligently with the next Love Canal, and the ones after that. It must be done as the unfortunate citizens affected by the next Love Canals wm have the protection they ought to expect from their governments.e

EPITAPH FOR AMERICA

HON·. ROBERT K. DORNAN OF CALIFORNIA



• Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, America faces multiple crises as the Nation looks to another decade. Our economy is in dire straights. Our foreign policy wavers with each global incident as our strength and resolve is questioned by ally and foe alike.

At the root of our problems, domestic and foreign, is America's "lack of will." These are diffi.cult times. Hard decisions must be made and unfortunately, many do not want to face them. Until this country can boldly set its goals and exert the resolve to take its place as the leader of the free world, we cannot expect to find any lasting peace, any lasting stability.

I strongly recommend to my colleagues the following article by Vice Adm. E. F. Rectanus, USN retired, "Epitaph for America." His words on the future are powerful and moving and deserve our attention.

The article follows: EPITAPH FOR AMERICA

(A presentation by Vice Adm. E. F. Rectanus USN (Ret.)

In the words of one of the great men of our era, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "Friends, I have not come to tell you comforable things, but I have come to tell you the truth."

Here lies the only civilization that perished at the peak of its power, with its power unused.

Here lies a decent people who wanted love, not empire, and got neither; who tried to trade power for popularity and lost both.

Here lies a nation of advertisers who knew how to change consumer tastes in cigarettes, but were themselves manip-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Ulated on the issues that really mattered to their Salvation.

Here died a sort of Lancelot in the court of nations who, granting all his grievous flows, was stlll perhaps the noblest Knight of all--except, this Lancelot ...

Crippled with an underserved Guilt complex-let his weapons and ideals fall unused-and so condemned all Mankind to the thousand-year winter of the Russian Bear.

Somehow, the words of Frank Barnett have a rather hollow sound for us sophisticates of the late 20th century America. Such an exaggeration-really unthinkable ... this strong great country of ours . . . melodramatic ... unreal ... I don't believe it ... We are not Rome and the barbarians do not exist ...

I am here tonight to talk to you about thinking about the "unthinkable". About thinking about "survival" ... about whether survival is important; whether trading "liberty for mere existance" is worth it; whether it is really better to be red than dead.

Has the "United States passed its historic high point like so many other earlier civilizations." Is the United States on the downhill and cannot be roused by challenge. Must we obtain only the "best deal we can get, recognizing that the historical forces favor the Soviets." Must negotiations with the Soviets be favorable to them because the American people lack the stamina to stay the course against the Russians who are "Sparta to our Athens."

Let us look at the canvas . ·. . or maybe look at the mirror.

We have met the enemy and he ds us I Our standard of living has and is signifi

cantly declining. Inflation, debt, oil, energy. taxation ... Who is guilty; at whom do we point the finger of guilt? At us!

Who wants the government to become the recipient of all their insecurdties, but only vote when it is convenient. Who else but us! We want the government to protect us against being sick, old, female, fat, Indian, a consumer, Hispanic, alcoholic, homosexual, an undisciplined chlld or a battered wife.

Our usual reaction to rising prices, for example, is a demand for higher salaries and government regulations. This in turn requires higher taxes. Do you realize that you worked 153 days last year to pay taxes? In fact, at 7:12a.m. on June 2, 1979, you started to keep the money you earned. (Congressman Mickey Edwards)

One of the p:rdncipal reasons for our higher taxes and souring cost of goods and services Is the huge bureaucracies we have developed to take care of our so-called needs. Public education provides a good example, where the enrollment has decreased as the cost of education has increased. At the same time, the academic achievement of later elementary and secondary students has declined every year for 15 years. The average eighth grade student today reads, writes, and computes only as well as the average sixth or seventh grade student did in the early 1960's. Thds same period, however, has witnessed an equally sharp and consistent increase in the grades awarded these students.

This historical fact of educational and economic progress is part of our American heritage; each generation of Americans has outstripped its parents in education, in ldteracy, and in economic attainment. For the first time in the history of our country, the educational sk1lls of one generation will not surpass, will not equal, wm not even approach those of their parents ... Progress has become decldne. (Paul Copperman)

If the symptoms of educational decline are apparent, we might suggest that the societal values have, if not declined, at least significantly changed in the past twenty years. Rarely any more do we hear such things as "Give me Uberty ... " ... they sound sort of

37729 "carney"! Where are the great Memorial Day parades ... where are the work ethic values. Can we really say that the societal values today are on a higher plane than 1n the past ... few would say they are.

On the altar of dndividual rights, we have sacrificed the rights of the injured for the rights of the criminal. To compensate for our declining standard of living, we all too often sacrifice homogeneity and values of family for the new leisure desire. As the price of gasoline dncreases, we need to cut back on our food budget.

We have time to demonstrate for all manner of causes except those that really matter to our survival ... we have time to demonstrate but little time for production or learning ...

Reflect for a moment ... For the last eight years. IDI AMIN has ruled Uganda with an incompetence and cruelty remarkable even for the 20th century. His regime and that of POL POT in Cambodia finished dn a dead heat for the worst in the world. stm, obvious as that has been, the AMIN regime has not been a target for protest around the world. No university students picketed against AMIN. No committees of concerned this and that sprung into action. No conferences were held. Moral indignation about AMIN's depredations has been muted, sporadic. Yet the chief targets of international moral outrage remain Rhodesia, South Africa, Chile, and until the fall of Shl\h, Iran; all far preferable to AMIN's regime, and all friends and allies of the United States, all anti-communist. (Jeffrey Hart)

If our societal values declined and have weakened our moral fiber, what has happened to us in the economic sphere.

The philosophical flabiness of societal values have obviously affected our econom1c outlook, but few Americans realize just what has been happening.

A "median" family can no longer afford a "median" home. Consider that in 1950, a median-priced home in this country cost $7,300. In 1979, $54,000. In 1950, the median income was $2.619. In 1979, $12,800. Under the 2Y:z times income thumb-rule, today's median income fa.mlly can only afford to buy a $37,000 home. Or, put another way, under the Federal government's 25 percent guide of annual income to cover the costs of owning a home, a family would have to at least earn $32,880 to own a $50,000 home .... We are a buy-now-pay-later society!

This philosophy has serious, even grave ramifications. Let us look lilt our debt which must be paid some day by someone, unless it is repudiated . . . which of course means a major change in our present way of life.

The national debt increases at a rate of one blllion or more each week. Richard Russell the noted publisher of Dow Theory Letter~ ponders "How the devil 1s the U.S. going to continue financing this rising debt year a.fter year. How can this enormous and growing debt possibly to kept afloat,"? he asks.

In answer, he points out that the total continualinflational process slowly wtpes out all the lenders as their receivables become worth less and less. Finally, long-term bonds become impossible to sell and the entire debt moves into the shorter term area. And the short term debt then rolls over at an everincreasing rate. Meanwhile, the stock, commodity s.nd money markets attempt to adjust to the indexing monster. As paper dollars become worth less and less, the price of stocks and things cost more and more. The bond market, seeing the destruction of values, drops lower. The long end of the bond market is gradually phased out of existence. Finally bonds with maturities of more than five years are the object of derision-they are unsalable.

Russell asks "Is th1s the way its going to happen? Is this the way 1t will look as the U.S. economy slowly sinks into a sunset of unmanageable debt?"

37730 Tangentially, did you know that the budget

of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare is larger than any budget i·n the world with the exception of Russia's and the total U.S. budget.

Sometimes, we tend to scoff at what appears to be simplistic observations, but in many cases, the final answers come down to separating the wheat from the chaff. A recent letter to the editor is a case i·n point. Mayor Hopfer of Youngwood Pa., asks about revenue sharing .... He points out that $6.8 blllion of the money we give to the Federal government comes ba.ck in revenue sharing. Dividing this among 220 mlllion Americans, brings the individual rate to $30.91 annua.lly. Therefore Youngwood's 3,700 people should be getting $114,700 which of course is not happening.

Why couldn't we keep the money and subtract it from the federal income tax returns. If we could keep that amount in Youngwood, we could eliminate the real estate tax; drop the per capita tax; the occupation valuBition and privilege taxes; and then !!."educe our earned income tax by 30%. "Just tell me what it is that we are sharing,'' he asks.

Further on the economic front, we see other signs of decline. I need not talk about the deplorable state of our merchant marine and that 75% of our sea borne exports are transported in non-U.S. flag carriers. Nor do I need to tell you, we are economic hostage to OPEC for oil and to foreign countries for large percentages of strategic materials. But what is significant, is that our country 1s making negligible progress in this regard. The latest setback of course is nuclear power.

The success of Washington's and New York City's massive anti-nuclear demonstrations and then continuing political fall-out has made it clear that the cost, safety, and reliability of nuclear power is going to be one of the great issues of the next decade-the Vietnam of the 1980's. Unfortunately, the same disregard for long term social and political consequences once again haunts the conceptual glass houses of the Left. Suppose they do shut down nuclear power? What will happen then? asks Kevin Phillips. Witlhout it, within a few years, five to ten at the most, we're likely to face job lay-offs, production cutbacks, brown-outs, black-outs and city riots. Government control over the economy will grow; so will public demand for law and order in the cities.

Just as in Southeast Asia, then, the end result of anti-nuclear demonstrations could easily be a more authoritarian system, not a more democratic one. But alas, Phillips opines, "that's typical of recent American liberalism; the best of intentions; the worst of results.

If we don't find much to cheer about in the dha.nges in our societal or economic health, what can be said about the bodypolitic in foreign affairs.

Our noble Lancelot has wrestled with the great Ivan and there are few who would dispute the grievous wounds inflicted on our Knight over the past 10-15 years.

While we have bent over backwards to accommodate to our avowed adversaries, the Soviets, we are removing our influence from Korea; we have sacrificed thousands to the communists in South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos allowing great pressure on Thalland and otJher nations in the area; Afghanistan is now firmly in the Soviet orbit, Iran is available to the 'Soviets when she wants it; Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are accommodating to the Soviets; Yemen is under Soviet control; we have faclUtated communist influence and control and surrogate milltary operations in Africa; we have provided Panama a. gift of billions in the strategic canal and opened the door wide to the Soviets in all of Latin America; we have castigated Chile for having the courage to save its country from the Soviets and other adversaries; we leave the most while taking insults from the Mexican government; we continue to provide food for

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS higher and higher cost crude and other materials; we continue to provide technology to the Soviets and other adversaries; we have the most progressive country in Asia and staunch ally in Taiwan to the Communist Chinese ... and now we are given a SALT treaty which legalizes strategic nuclear inferiority.

Oh yes, we pat ourselves on the back for buying a temporary "solution to tlhe EgyptIsraeli problem.

Probably never was the guilt complex of our Lancelot more apparent than in Vietnam, where ...

A decade ago, John K. Galbraith was saying the United States should withdraw from Southeast Asia and allow it to return to the obscurity it so richly deserved. We withdrew. Did it return to obscurity?

Sen. George 'McGovern called for the termination of m111tary aid to Saigon and Phnom Penh so that the "killing could stop". Since the United States withdrew, 40 Cambodians have died in four years of "peace" for every American killed in 10 years of war. Of course, not to mention the milllon boat people, half of them dead. (Patrick Buchanan)

In fact, a Harris poll taken in October this year resulted in 63 percent of those queried agreeing that Vietnam veterans were "made suckers having to risk their lives in the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time".

Yes, this guilt complex was so great that:

We reacted to the enemy's initiatives instead of instituting our own;

We did not seriously try to destroy the enemy's war base or demolish his command structure;

We did not take advantage of our superiority in air and naval power;

We did not prosecute the war in a timely manner;

We did not even try to fight in the enemy's territory ...

And we could have done all of these things (U.S. G. Sharp)

And for this we masochistically killed thousands of our own servicemen, tens of thousands of our friends and destroyed the very country we were honor bound to defend and doomed not only it but its neighbors to the "long winter".

And there is more . .. Even a. brief interruption in the flow of

oil from Saudi Arabia for example, would produce havoc quickly in America. A prolonged cutoff would threaten economic and political chaos. Yet despite this perception, little has been done to prepare the nation for such a siege-military or economically. On the military front, American forces are ill-prepared to intervene in an oil crisis; there are not enough of the right kinds of personnel and equipment in the right places . . . and even more disturbing . . . half of the oil available for import by the West passes through the narrow Strait of Hormuz. Sink one tanker in there and you have shut off all that oil to the Western World. "It would bring us to our knees" in the words of Henry Jackson.

And there is more: Look at the debacle now occurring in Iran-a. canvas which depicts more than words can say, the utter contempt in which people view America.

And there is more ... We sit by and watdh tJhe Soviets build a

nava.l base in Cienfuegas in Cuba. ... deploy one subm.a.rine and then another. We waOOh. Soviet troops in CUba being equipped as a. combat brigade for use in Latin America.. We watch one nation after another in the a.rea. come under Comm.unist domination . . . and we do absolutely nothing.

"Nicaragua. is CUba. all over again," says Earl Smith, formaT" amb9.ssa.dor to Cuba. (1957-1959). In South America., the Communists hBiVe a foothold in Guyana, and Castro's a.gents and military advisors 8lre

December 2'0, 1979 busy in Jam.a..ica., Grenada. and atheT" Caribbean islands."

But there is more . . . At the same time, we have destroyed the

nation's intelllgence services, have initiated an a.ll volunteer force which 1s a farce; reduced operations.l readiness to a dangerous degree; and have by d.txect policy and design reduced the ca.pabillity of our armed forces to a point where no sign1fl.ca.nt international commitment can be supported. In WW II, we had over 12 m.lllion in the Armed Forces with a. population of 135 mWion. Today with 220 million people we have difficulty in keeping one-sixth of that number. But es George wm has said "most recent improvements have been for the worst". On the absurd and and fallacious reasoning of a.l!lowing the Soviets to oa.tch up and surpass us believing they will then be transformed into pa.clflsts: we have not inJCrea.sed our strategic posture; we have stopped AMB development and civil defense; we have stopped the B-1 bomber and the neutron bomb; and we have :reduced the conventional forces to the point which is suicid:a.J. for the thin grey line.

The Soviet Union has un-dertaken a relentless expansion of its forces, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Over the past 15 years, Soviet military expenditures have increased on an s.nnu811 average rate of 4-5 percent, to a. total of 11-13 percent of Soviet GNP. On the other h&nd. U.S. military expendltm-es for FY 1980 e.re less than five percent of our own GNP--lthe lowest level since the Korean War. And . . . unlike the Soviets, most of the u.s. defense budget 1s tied up in manpower costs from the volunteer army (Jake 081rn).

In recent yeaTS, one has heard loudly and ofoten that military power really no longer matters. President Carter has said that "one submarine ca.rrtes enough explosive power to destroy the SOviet Union". They have been whistling in the da.rk. More people's fates have been affected by military victories and defeats durlng the period of Salt I and Soviet-U.S. detente and especially since 1960 than during Wol'lld War II. During these years India has beaten Pakistan twice; Israel has beaten Arab coalitions twice; North Viet Na.m, with Soviet help, has beaten tJhe U.S.; Soviet clients have triumphed in Cuba., Nicaragua, Algeria, Angola, Mozambique, Guinea, Ethiopia., Afghanistan, Iran, Laos, and Cambodia.. They narrowly failed in Za.lre and Indonesia. Soviet clients or sympathizers have '8llso waged inconclusive wars or have attem.pted coups d'etat in nearly every country of Africa., Asia, and Latin America.. The Soviet Union has repeatedly vowed support for such enterprises, and has made c'.l.ear that their success depends on the growth of Soviet power.

Certainly, the fea.r of greater Soviet involvement kept the United States from winrung in Vietnam. That fear has helped to convince American policyma.kers nat to help America's beleaguered friends in places like Iran. In 1973, the threat of Soviet intervention into the Middle East led the U.S. to stop Is.Tael from consummating its victory a.ga.'inst Soviet-supplied Arab armies which had attacked her on her highest holiday. The same prospect frightened the U.S. into submitting to virtual expropriation of its om production equipment in the Middle Esst, and the quadrupling of the price of oil.

As the Soviet Union's arsenal becomes more fearsome, it will become more reasonable for the Soviet Union's friends around the world to be bolder, and it will be more reasonable for the United States and its friends to suffer more to avoid antagonizing the Soviets.

Incredible as this all seems . . . there is more ...

Our Lancelot feels so guilty that he must try to make the Communists love him by giving and giving ... wheat to feed the people of the USSR so that more money can


go into armaments and technology so that Ivan can be as atnuent as we . . . All this aided and abbetted by the misguided notion that trade and aid brings friendship with the Soviets.

On February 10, 1922, British Prime Minister Lloyd George stated: "I believe we can save her (Russia) by trade. Commerce has a sobering infiuence . .. trade, in my opinion, will bring wn end to ferocity, the rapine, and the crudity of Bolshevism surer than any other method."

Since the early days of Soviet Bolshevism, the Western World has been trying to coax the communists into NOT being communists with periodic injections of credits and technology. The hoped-for result echoed in Lloyd George's statement--now more than 57 years past--has failed to materialize. Yet leaders of the capitalist world continue to charge ahead like so many modern-day Don Quixotes in search of their impossible dream; the merger of totalitarian dictatorship with capitalism (Miles Costick)

Like Lloyd George, Kissinger with his "economic detente" envisioned that "through a. set of strategic and economic agreements, the U.S. could spin a web of vested interests thereby encouraging the Soviet Union to temper its international behavior." This of course has not happened.

After the infusion of $64 b1111on worth of credits from the Western World and Japan, and about 1,000 joint manufacturing ventures with Western and Japanese firms , as well as about 1,200 contracts on industrial cooperation signed between COMECON governments and Western firms, the Soviet Union, using proxy Cuban troops and its Eastern European satellites threatens the free world 's access to the critical resources of Africa and the Middle East.

The massive transfer of technology and capital from the West to the East, instead of enhancing Soviet interest in peace and tranqu111ty has accomplished exactly the oJ)posite. It made a tremendous contribution to the Soviet strategic capa.b111ty and in consequence encouraged its belligerency.

Let me give you just three examples. In 1972, the Bryant Chucking Grinder Co.

sold the Soviets 164 precision ball-bearing grinding machines to produce pin head-size ball bearings. This $20 million sale approved by the Nixon administration at the peak of detente euphoria, is to a great extent responsible for the $40 billion MX missile system program requirement.

In 1974, a. turn-key plant for the manufacture of integrated al.rouits was sold to the Soviets by .a. French firm under license by Fairchild and approved by the U.S. This technology is essenti&l far missile guidance and acoura.cy.

IThirdly, Geo Space Corporation sold 36 small array transform processors called ATP's to the Soviet Union a.nd China. This type of equipment is crtitica.I for subm.a.rlne detection systems a-nd may h.a.ve a significant adverse e1feot on our 'I!RIDENT program.

If Americans are infa.ct writing history books 50 years from now, they will certainly lbe perplexed.

Of course in the context of history, it has been noted that the average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations progressed through this sequence:

From Bondage to Spiritual Faith. From Spiritual Faith to Great Oounge. From Great Courage to Li'berty. !From Liberty to Abundance. From A:bunda.nce to Selfishness. From Selfishness to Complacency. From Complacency to Apathy. From Apathy to Dependency. From Dependency back again to Bondage. In 1976, our United States was 200 years

o'ld. This cycle is not inevita.ble--it depends on you and me.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS But there is more . . . Now we are given a. SALT n treaty wbich

is said to ibe the ''lbest we can get from the Soviets' and any treaty is better than no treaty.

You ha.ve been listening to me for quite a. while now and I aan not going to Stpend the next hour giving you the details of a. complex document which is being debated ·by very knowledgeable people on both sides. Just let me emphasize some funda.menta.l facts.

To understand SALT, you must understand one simple oonoopt.

The Soviet Union has developed its total defense strategy with only one goal in mind: To destroy Americ.a.n weapons systems, the U.S. ICMBs, bombers and submarines and to protect its popula.tion . . . in short to WIN A WAR. They do not desire to destroy people, unless they haNe to; just win the war. For this reason they have developed very large warheads of the equivalent of 1 million tons of TNT to destroy our silos which are hardened to only 1,000 psi.

The United States on the other hand haa developed its strategic we.a.pons not to destroy Soviet weapons systems but rather to destroy populations. The ba.ck.bOne of American force is the Pola.ris Poseidon fieet. Each warhead yields only 40,000 tons of TNTtotally useless against Soviet hard targets. This is by design. As poseidon was being perfected, Secretary MoNem.a.ra rejeoted plans to fit it with 3 large, accurate warheads on the grounds that the alb111ty to strike "ha.rtl targets" was against America's strategic policy. That policy simply put, is to deter war by thre.a.tening to kill Soviet civ111MlB in a. second strike. According to that policy, a.ny weapon which can destroy missile silos makes war more likely because it gives its owners severaJ. militarily rational options including a. first strike.

The Minuteman III missiles, the best we have, have slight chance against hard targets.

Does this concept sound immoral? It is. Does this concept sound militarily ridicu

lous? It is. Why is it our policy: the Complacency and

Apathy of the American people . . . the growing tendency of the people to rely on the federal government to give them bread, tell them how to do things, organize their lives and not to fight the bureaucracy.

1. It will lock the United States into strategic inferiority.

The USSR is granted the right to have over 300 SS-18 ICBM launchers while the U.S. has none and is not allowed to build any. In these weapons, the USSR will have a first strike capab111ty. These 3,000 warheads (10 each missile) will be able to destroy up to 95 % of our ICM force with some left over for attacks on our bomber bases and submarines in port. After such a first strike, the Soviets would have more missiles and bombers left for a. second strike than the U.S. had to start with. Since the U.S . has unilaterally disarmed its defense (no ABM, no civil defense, no surface to air missiles), it would be suicidal for the U.S. to carry out a retaliation after a Soviet first strike, when a second strike by Soviet missiles and bombers . would incinerate from 100 m1llion to 150 million Americans.

In addition to the above, there are 700 Backfire bombers, 1,200 SS-20 IRBM convertible to SS-16, ICBMs, and Soviet Seaborne cruise missiles which are not counted against the Soviets.

2. It makes our people hostages. The SALT I treaty on AMBs remains in

force ... We have no ABM, civ11 defense or surface to air missiles. This is because the U.S. has operated according to the doctrine of mutual hostages called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This strange theory holds that if the Soviet and American people are undefended, neither side would consider

37731 launching a first strike because the retaliation would destroy the attackers population. Modern ICBMs are now so accurate however, that a massive advantage goes to the side striking the first blow, and deterrence is weakened by the absence of defense. The Soviets have not operated on the theory of Mutual Assured Destruction and as a result they have extensive air defense and civil defense systems to go along with their ABM system.

3. It removes the American nuclear shield which used to protect our allies.

The Administration has been, by implication and innuendo stating that unless SALT II is ratified, NATO will collapse and our allies will drift apart and toward the East.

The administration campaign has confused many Americans. Franz Ludwig Schenk Gra.f von Stau1Ienburg, a member of the German Bundestoy and whose father planted the bomb that almost killed Hitler on July 20, 1944, posed the question otncia.lly to the German Government and received the following answer.

"There is no reason whatsoever to link the loyalty of members of NATO and especially the Federal Republic of Germany, to the SALT ratification process."

Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) responding to the threat implicit in the idea. that without ratification, NATO will not proceed with theater force modernization, sa.ys:

"This reminds me of a. Marx brothers movie where Chico, whose life is being threatened by armed thugs, points the gun at his own head and shouts, "if you come any closer, 111 pull the trigger."

To accept this threat as a. serious argument for SALT II ratification, one would have to conclude that our allies are not dedicated to their own defense. If this is the case, the future of the alliance is not bright whether SALT II is ratified or rejected. (George F. Will)

4. It is a symbol of phased surrender by the United States.

The toleration by the U.S. of Soviet strategic advantage is interpreted by friends and foes alike as symbolic of our loss of determination to defend ourself and the Free World . . . at best a policy of phased surrender. The Administration sa.ys we should overlook such anti-Detente actions as Iran, Afghanistan, Africa., Cuba., etc.

5. Ratifying SALT II will cost more than rejecting lt.

Whether SALT n is approved or disapproved by the Senate, the declining U.S. strategic posture must be strengthened to restore the credib111ty of U.S. deterrence. However, if SALT II is ratified by the Senate, the cost of regaining an adequate defense would be vastly increased because the least expensive ways to rebuild our strategic strength wlll not be permitted. For example, the Air launched cruise missile, which would be severly limited to 600 km is by far the least expensive strategic weapon and is the one o1Iensive strategic weapon in which U.S. technology is superior to the Soviets. It is important to note that the Soviets can place almost 70% of our population In jeopardy with their existing submarine launched cruise missiles we have no sea. launched cruise missiles and are not allowed to test or deploy any until after 1981.

In addition to all the above, remember that although SALT II agrees to equal numbers of launch vehicles, we are far short of that ceiling whereas the Soviets are already above that ce111ng. Moreover, in order to get the agreement, we h.a.ve included over 200 B-52s in the "Boneyard" in Arizona. which would take over a. year to refurbish. In addition, we had to count 4 B-1 prototypes which are not operational.

And possibly the most ominous . . . the SB-17 and 18 Soviet Missiles are cold launched by compressed gas so that the silos do not burn up on launch. This means that

37732 limiting the number of LAUNCHERS can be a non-seqitur in the real world scenario.

Yes, we must think about the unthinkable.

It is important that we again understand that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and failure to prepare for the possibi:ity of war is a sin which can lead a nation into hell.

America is currently heading toward international damnation, ignoring lessons of yesteryear.

The voice of the veteran and the silent symbolic reminders in the form of gravestones go unheeded. The honor bestowed upon those who fought and lived or fought and died to preserve freedom dwindles with each passing year as America appears to forget its faith .

America is withdrawing !rom the world. Many do not see nor care about the spreading oppression enslaving millions abroad. We have imp!oded into our own selfish, narrow concerns. No longer are we concerned for our brothers in foreign lands. Meanwhile, the internal fabric is being torn to shreds Patriotism is ridiculed. Individual liberty is reduced daily. Free enterprise is under the heel of the State. The legacy of creative freedom is dying, our flag is being burned!

Yes, we must think about the unthinkable.

Is the United States on the downhill and cannot be roused by challenge?

Must negotiations with the Soviets be favorable to the Soviets because the American people lack the stamina to stay the course against the Russians?

Is our civ111zat1on becoming so decadent that we no longer care about the next generation of Americans, our sons and daughters?

Will we allow this to be America's Epitaph? Here lies the only Civ111zation that per

ished at the peak of its power with its power unused.

Here lies a. decent people who wanted love, not empire, and got neither ... who tried to trade power for popularity and lost both.

Here lies a nation of advertisers who knew how to change consumer taste but were themselves manipulated on the issues that really mattered to their Salvation.

Here died a. sort of Lancelot ... who let his weapons and ideals !all unused-and so condemned all Mankind to the thousand-year Winter of the Russian Bear.

Thank you.e

ON FURTHERING OUR UNDERSTANDING: COLONEL QADDAFI ON AMERICAN, ·IRAN, AND THE WORLD REVOLUTION

HON. ROBERT K. DORNAN OF CALIFORNIA



e Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, the incomparable Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci recently conducted an interview with Libyan strongman Muammar el Qaddafi. Published in the December 16, 1979 New York Times Magazine, the interview details his own thinking on the present crisis in Iran and what it means for the United States. Oriana Fallaci is to be congratulated for the spirit and honesty and forcefulness with which she conducted this interview. We can thank Colonel Qaddafi for removing any lingering dou'bts we may have had concerning his attitudes toward the norms of civilized conduct. I realize that


the Members of this House often submit items for the inspection of their colleagues that they feel compelled to label "must reading." However, given the incredible demands on our time I must implore my colleagues and you, Mr. Speaker, to carve out a few moments and carefully read this amazing interview. It is imperative. "IRANIANS ARE OUR BROTHERS"-AN INTER

VIEW WITH COL. MUAMMAR EL-QADDAFI OF LIBYA

(By Oriana. Fa.lla.ci) On Nov. 23, 19 days after hostages were

seized at the American Embassy in Tehran, Oriana. Falla.ci, the Italian journalist, began what would be a. two-day interview with Col. Mua.mma.r el-Qa.ddafi, the revolutionary Moslem leader of Libya.. Believing that "not only America but the whole West is tied and blindfolded in that embassy," Miss Fa.llaci sought in her conversation to probe the intentions of the Arab bloc in the expanding crisis.

Colonel Qa.dda.fi, who is now 38 years old, rose to power on Sept. 1, 1969, after overthrowing the monarchy. He rules his Mediterranean nation of some 2.5 million-an area. about three times the size of the state of Texas, with annual oil revenues of approximately $16 billion-using precepts he has collected in a. 2-by-3-inch "Green Book." He refers to his system of government as Jamahiriya, "command of the people."

Colonel Qa.dda.fi is fervently Islamic and pro-Palestine, and he has built up an awesome arsenal of mainly Soviet weapons. He is considered both shrewd and quixotic (when a Libyan airliner was shot down over the Sinai Desert by Israelis, he ordered a.n Egyptian submarine based in Libya. to sink the Queen Elizabeth II, which was carrying Jews on a. cruise to Israel, a.n order contravened by Egyptian officials; on another occasion, he moved all the desks out of Government offices because he thought his deputies spent too much time at them drinking coffee) .

Miss Fallaci's interview with him took place in his oompound in Tripoli. Her questions were asked in English and translated into Arabic by an interpreter, though Colonel Qa.dda.fi frequently responded in English without the help of the interpreter. An edited version of the transcript follows.

MUAMMAR EL-QADDAFI. I have bad news. There is movement in the American military bases in Europe, especially in Germany, Greece and Turkey. The Americans are preparing paratroopers and armored cars, missiles, gas, neutron bombs and things like that. Yes, a lot of movement; it's serious. If this is really the beginning of the Third World War, we must use any effort to avoid having things precipitate a. crisis.

I am trying to persuade the Iranians to release the hostages. A delegation of Iranians has just arrived here in Tripoli, composed of men close to K.homeini, men Khomeini Ustens to. I wm give them a personal message for the Imam, asking him to free the hostages. This whole matter is becoming dangerous. Or rather, it could become very dangerous. And not only for America. and Iran, but on a. larger scale. Of course, we shall remain neutral if something happens to Iran; the Iranians are our brothers. And we small countries can form a. very vast front against America..

ORIANA FALLACI. I, too, have bad news, Colonel. The American Embassy in Pakistan has been devastated, burned, destroyed, and six people were killed. Demonstrations against American embassies also took place in India., Bangladesh and Turkey, and the embassy in Teheran has been mined.

QADDAFI (laughing). International revolution against America..

December 20, 19 79 FALLACI. To me it seems more like a.n in

ternational provocation, Colonel, and a very well-organized one.

QADDAFI. I said international revolution. These things are happening because people hate America. An explosion of hatred toward America. is taking place. Everybody hates America., everybOdy, not only the Moslem countries. Because everybOdy is or has been oppressed by America. and sooner or later will revolt against America--even those countries that are not Moslem.

FALLACI. The students who are holding the hostages tied and blindfolded in Teheran have said that they wlll try the hostages even if the Shah were to die or if he were turned over to them. Doesn't this seem like a provocation to you?

QAoDAFI. No, and I doubt that there would be a. trial if something positive happens with the Shah. In any case, you have to understand that such things happen in revolutions. Revolutions are sometimes chaotic. Iran does not even have a government. The students do what they want without any government control, and this means that the incident of the embassy cannot be viewed as a. normal conflict between states. Nor can it be judged by traditional criteria., even less, approached by traditional methods.

If I were in the place of the Americans, I would not react as they are. I would take into account the revolutionary circumstances under which the incident took place and Js taking place. And I would remember what American policy in Iran was like before the whole thing began.

FALLACI. It's not true that the students are acting exclusively on their own, because some kind of government exists. There's Khomeini, who, with only one word, could resolve the drama. and instead is purposely making the situation worse and worse. Finally, there is no justification for taking over an embassy, whether it be American or Soviet or Chinese or Italian or Libyan or whatever. An embassy is considered foreign territory, remember? There · is something called international law, remember?

QADDAFI. I don't agree at all, because when an embassy or some members of a.n embassy commit acts that go beyond their functions, that are damaging to the host country or the relations with that country, reactions such as those in Teheran may follow. Embassies cannot be granted diplomatic immunity when they perform the kinds of acts I said.

FALLACI. Colonel, this is the thesis of Khomeini, who maintains that the American Embassy in Teheran was a. center of espionage. So let us clarify things and remember that diplomatic relations between Libya. and Tran were renewed after the Iranian students took the hostages. Also, let us remember that Libyan students have declared their solidarity with the Iranian students. Am I wrong in saying that you fully approve of what is taking place in Iran?

QADDAFI. Well, I personally am against the kidnapping of persons and in particular those who belong to a. diolomatic mission. Embassies are, in general, under the protection of the countries that occupy them. But what is taking place in Iran concerns the Iranians and no one else.

I am very happy that the Iranian revolution has happened and that it has been successful twice: first in kicking out the Shah and second in kicking out the Americans. I would even go so far as to say that my revolutionary role has been strengthened by the Iranian revolution. And I want to repeat that in case of an American attack against Iran, even apart from this episode, we will not remain with our hands tied.

FALLACI. What do you mean by "apart from this episode"? Everything depends on this episode. Everything began with this episode.

QADDAFI. I told you, you have to consider the motivation for taking the hostages.

December 20, 1979

FALLACI. The motive is blackmail, a. blackman whose roots go back to the deplorable protection the Americans always gave to the Shah, but nonetheless blackman. Khomeini wants to get back his enemy, Riza. Pa.hlevi (Shah Mohammed Riza. Pa.hlevi), to execute him. Tell me, Colonel, if Uganda. asked you to return Idi Amin, would you do it?

QAooAFr. If Amin were here, I would think about a. reply to your question. But since he is not here, the comparison does not hold up.

FALLACI. Amin is here, Colonel. Indeed, we know very well that Amin is hidden here, that he is your guest. He lives in a villa with a park and a. swimming pool near Tripoli. He is there with two of his many wives and 10 of his innumerable children. He was even interviewed by that journalist whom you had arrested as a punishment.

QAooAFr. No, Arnin is not here. Perhaps that journalist interviewed him during a visit.

FALLACI. Come on now! What visit? If we want to call it a visit, then even the Shah is on a. visit [to America.]. Therefore, I repeat: If Uganda asked you for Amin while he is here on a. "visit," would you return him or not?

QADDAFI. I maintain that every person has the right to ask for political asylum in any country in every part of the world. But I also maintain that the Iranians have the right to ask for the Shah's return. In other words, I am in favor of the Iranian revolution against the Shah and I hope that he will end up in the hands of the Iranian people, as he deserves. But at the same time he has every right to ask for asylum in America or elsewhere. In any event, the case that you are proposing is d11ferent, since I do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

FALLAcr. We'll talk about that later, Colonel. Now let's talk about Libya in relation to this matter-that is, vis-a-vis the possibillty of a. world war. What did you and the President of North Yemen-that is, the non-Communist Yemen-say to each other while I was waiting for you tonight? And what does it mean that he came immediately after a visit by the Foreign Minister and chief of the political bureau of South Yemen-that is, Communist Yemen?

QADDAFI. There is nothing special about the fact that the President of North Yemen and the representatives of South Yemen came to visit me. North Yemen, too, Is a revolutionary country: it is in favor of our revolution. North Yemen, too, is against the United States.

FALLAcr. I see. And probably they discussed with you the boycotting of the dollar and the cutoff of petroleum to America. Is it true that Libya is prepared to accept Iran's appeal to the Arab countries, refusing payments in dollars for oil?

QADDAFI. Yes, the substitution of the dollar by other solid currencies is being seriously considered by the Arab countries which export petroleum, the OPEC countries. Together with Iran, Iraq and Algeria, Libya is seriously studying the matter. And so are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Emirate states.

FALLAcr. Which means that Libya and those other countries might imitate Iran even in regard to other decisions, such as withdrawing money deposited in American banks?

QADDAFI. Yes, this decision could also be taken. This, too, is under serious study by the Arab countries that have deposits in American banks. We are working toward a collective measure. It was time: we have given America more than enough time to respect us. But America continues to make fools of us, to make things dimcult for us by protecting Israel, and we are fed up. We are acting in self -defense.

FALLACI. Colonel, it's a well-known fact that there is plenty of Libyan. money in American ba.D.:ks, more than Iranian funds. What if the American banks freeze those funds as they did with the Ira.nia.n.s?

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS QADDAFI. They have no right to do that.

They cannot do that! FALLAcr. Yes, they can. And if you try to

withdraw those funds, they'll do it. They have already said they would.

QAooAFI. It would be an act of aggression, an unjustifiable act of aggression. And it would further undermine American prestige; it would increase the hatred toward America. In such case we, too, would react brutally because we, too, are capable of causing America. serious trouble.

FALLACI. By not selling your oil to America, which amounts to 10 percent of her consumption?

QADDAFI. Yes, certainly. This could also happen and in the end it will.

FALLACI. Come on, Colonel. Everybody knows that America is one of your best customers, perhaps your best one, since almost all the oilpumping equipment is in the hands of American technicians.

QADDAFI. I told you that it could happen, that it will happen, if America pushes us in that direction. It depends on America, on her attitude toward us, toward the Arabs, and not only with regard to Iran but with regard to the conflict with Israel as well. We do not ask America to stand on our side. We ask America to remain neutral. If not, we will strike back with economic blows of every kind, includJ.ng refusing to supply our petroleum.

FALLACI. Colonel, you krww very well that America will continue to support Israel. And with regard to Iran, you know very well that if the hostages are not freed, if they are put on trial, if they're condemned to death, if one of them will be killed, just one, Carter will do something. You yourself said that there was activity at the American military bases and we all know that American ships are heading for the Persian Gulf.

QADDAFI. Thus it is clear that we are moving toward the refusal to supply petroleum as a political weapon. Undoubtedly the moment has arrived to use our oil as a political weapon. We are already on that road. And we will deny it to them.

FALLACI. When? In a matter of days, weeks, months?

QADDAFI. We have no prefixed deadlines. It depends on the oil technicians, on the economic experts, on the Libyan people, who have to discuss the matter in their congress. Right at this moment I can only say that we are heading in that direction.

FALLACI. And will the embargo also affect European countries?

QADDAFI. It depends on the European countries. Those who support us will be looked upon as friends, those who side with America will be our enemies. We are friends of those who love us and we are the enemies o! those who hate us. We will not help those who help American imperialism.

FALLACI. You belong to a country that calls itself nonaligned, and to be nonaligned means, or should mean, not to serve either of the two blocs, neither of their imperialisms. Why do you always refer to the Soviet Union as a country that has no blame, that has no ulterior motives?

QADDAFI. Let me repeat that I judge things based on my experience. My experiences with regard to the Soviet Union have not been negative. If the Soviet Union had an imperialist attitude toward Libya, I would call the Soviet Union imperialist. But the Soviet Union is a friend of ours.

FALLACI. I see. And, apart from the weapons the Soviet Union continues to supply youfor example, those 2,500 tanks; in a country with a population of 2.5 million, it's not clear what purpose they serve-how is this friendship manifested?

QADDAFI. In every way, in every sense of the word friendship. Plus the fact that the Soviet Union Is on the side of the Arabs against

37733 Israel. This we consider an anti-imperialist position.

FALLACI. So you keep saying that imperialism exists on one side only-that is, from the American side.

QADDAFI. I know that there are two great powers, not one, and that there is a lot of competition between the two. I also know that the Soviets are our friends.

FALLACI. At this point I feel that it would be superficial to ask you which side you would be on in case of a world war.

QADDAFI. I belong to the Arab nation and to the nonaligned countries. Thus, my position will be that of the Arab nation and the nonaligned countries.

FALLACI. There are nonaligned countries such as Yugoslavia and there are those such as your country, Colonel. As far as the Arab nation is concerned, I would say that it is very divided.

QADDAFI. We are one nation, nonetheless. Sadat is not with us, but the Egyptian people are, and the land of Egypt is part of us. In a world war, the interest of the Arab nation will be one, above and beyond the differences that today divide us.

FALLACI. Then is the purpose of those 2,500 Soviet tanks to remind Sadat that in case of a world war the land of Egypt is part of the Arab nation?

QADDAFI. Everyone knows that Sadat wants to wage war with Libya. Everyone knows that Sadat continues to mass arms along the Libyan border. Everyone knows that the Americans are protecting Sadat. Sadat is at the top of the blacklist of the Arab countries that are enemies of his.

FALLACI. And who is second on the list? QADDAFI. Sudan, Somalia and Oman are

candidates, although their position at the Tunis conference seemed somewhat changed. Saudi Arabia is with the countries that are boycotting Egypt. And so are the Emirate States, although the latter have not yet succeeded in freeing themselves of the influence of the enemies of the Arab nation, have not yet changed their government.e

HOME HEATING FUEL CRISISPART Xlll'

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN OF NEW YORK



• Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to once again draw the attention of my colleagues to an issue that has hung like a sword over our heads for the entrre year and will certainly follow us into the new year, the home heating fuel crisis.

Although we are approaching the new year and a whole new decade with anticipation and with good wishes, there are a few handicaps from the 1970's that we will be dragging along with us. One of these handicaps has been our inability to become energy self-sufficient so that we will not be vulnerable to oil blackmail and inflationary price hikes. In terms of crude oil supply, we have been living from week to week and from month to month.

The Nation's oil refiners have managed to increase the production of gaso-

1 Part XIII is part of a series of reports on the home heating fuel crisis with parts 1 through 12 appearing in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on Sept. 17, Sept. 22, Sept. 29, Oct. 11, Oct. 19, Oct. 26, Nov. 2, Nov. 9, Nov. 16, Nov. 29, Dec. 6, and Dec. 15, respectively.

37734 line last week, but motor fuel supplies are still at a comparatively low level. Inventories of home heating fuel remain adequate, however, despite increasing consumption as the weather in the United States turns colder.

Gasoline production increased during the week ending December 14 to 6.8 million barrels a day from 6.6 million barrels the week before. But that is still far below the production level during the comparable week a year earlier when refiners produced 7.5 million barrels a day. Gasoline inventories rose to 223.8 million barrels in the week ending Friday, but that was close to the minimum acceptable level outlined by the Department of Energy.

Production of distillates which include home heating fuels, fell slightly to 3.1 million barrels a day from 3.2 million barrels daily in the week ended December 7. A year earlier refineries produced 3.4 million barrels a day. Stocks were drawn down to 231.9 million barrels, which is within the normal stock range. In the prior week the inventories were at 238.6 million barrels. A year earlier they stood at 220.1 million barrels.

U.S. refineries were operating at 86.9 percent of capacity in the latest week, up from 85.1 percent the week before but down from a 90.1 percent plant utilization the same week during 1978.

Inventories of crude oil were up slightly in the week ending Friday to 350.7 million barrels. A week earlier they were reported at 349.2 million barrels, while a year ago they stood at 319.4 million barrels.

It does not take much thought to recognize that the OPEC cartel profiteering policies whatever may be the outcome of their present and future meetings, will have a devastating effect on not only the United States but on every other economy of the industrialized West. Escalating oil prizes will fuel inflation, increase unemployment, cause deficit spending, and threats to our national security.

It becomes more and more imperative that the United States develop a national energy policy that will take the edge off of such security threats. As the House goes into the new year, it has already behind it the deliberation and passage of synthetic fuels, windfall profit tax, and the creation of an Energy Mobilization Board.

All three of these salient programs of the President's national energy plan are in conference with the Senate and are in the process of ironing out the various differences. Hopefully, these conferences will be concluded as expeditiously as possible in order to provide us with a green light as we prepare to meet the energy challenges of the 1980's.

It is obvious that there is not too much time for lengthy deliberation considering the present world instability. At the conclusion of my remarks I am adding an article from the Washington Post that outlines the gloomy prediction from the latest meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

I urge my colleagues to consider the developments that have taken place over the past year and to concentrate their


endeavors on the crucial energy issues confronting our Nation.

The article follows: (From the Washington Post, Dec. 20, 1979] ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION

AND DEVELOPMENT (By Hobart Rowen)

The latest round of world oil price increases could tilt the major industrial nations into actual recession next year, resulting in negative growth rates but continuing inflation in double-digits.

That is the implication of a report on the 1980 economic outlook published yesterday in Paris by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

OECD chief economist, John Fay said at a news conference that the burst of oil price increases would produce a shock comparable to the severity of the 1973-74 oil crisis, but that recession would not be as deep.

The OECD report was based on information up to Nov. 23, at which time prices for oil sold by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries had increased by 66 percent since the end of 1978.

Taking into account that increasing amounts of oil are sold above official prices by OPEC countries in the spot market, U.S. Treasury officials have calculated the overall price hike of 80 percent, before the current round being negotiated by OPEC in Caracas.

The result, OECD said, is that the better prospects for the world economy that were appearing a year ago have been wiped out. Instead, it forecast that the gross national product in the OECD industrial countries might increase by only one percent in 1980, compared with 3 percent in 1979, assuming "oil prices remain relatively stable."

Events, of course, have overtaken the OECD report. Fay said that if oil prices go up 20 percent in 1980, instead of the 7.5 percent figured in the report, the one percent world GNP growth figure would shrink to 0.3 percent.

But even this appears to be on the optimistic side, taking the OECD rule of thumb that for each 10 percent increase in OPEC prices, growth is cut by half a percentage point and inflation increased by a half point.

Thus, a 30 percent increase in oil prices to about $28-about the midpoint of yesterday's rumor reports from the OPEC meeting in Caracas-would produce these results .

World GNP growth turning negative by a fraction of a point.

World inflation rates running above 11 percent, instead of slowing from the present 10 percent level.

Further deterioration of unemployment in the OECD area, which was estimated to rise to more than 6 percent in the latter half of 1980, from about 5 percent from the end of 1978 assuming stable oil prices.

A further build-up of OPEC surpluses and an equivalent swell1ng of oil-consuming countries' deficits. Even before the Caracas decisions, the OECD report said, "the payments position of non-oil developing countries is likely to deteriorate substantially."

The OECD report devoted considerable attention to the fact that every 10 percent rise in OPEC oil prices is about twice as devastating as it was in earlier years, for two reasons.

First, the net import bill is larger in absolute terms-about $210 billion in 1980, compared with $•180 blllion in mid-1979, "so that any percentage rise is now more important."

Second, given the build-up in OPEC oil revenues, only a smaller fraction of increased OPEC earnings gets respent immediately. Thus, according to the report, "in early 1979, as much as hal! of any increase in OPEC earnings would probably have been respent in a year."

But in 1980, according to the OECD, "since OPEC import volumes are now growing very rapidly," only about 15 per cent o! the in-

December 20, 1979 creased revenues would be respent !or OECD goods and services.

There was little new in terms of policy recommendations. But in somewhat blunt language, the OECD said that the failure o! nations to limit their oil imports and to take "cooperative action swiftly and rigorously to alleviate the consequences" of supply reductions was largely responsible for the oil price run-up in 1979.

"The recent international rises in interest rates and in the market price o! oil might each have been moderated--or a.t least have taken place in a way more conducive to the maintenance of business confidence-with more intensive international cooperation." the report said.

Key observations made by OECD on major countries:

United States. Despite recent strength, the U.S. "is thought" to have entered a recession that may last "several quarters," with unemployment hitting 7.5 percent by the end of 1980.

France, Germany and Italy. Growth wlll be in the 2 percent range, compared with 4 percent for Italy and Germany and 3 percent for France in 1979.

United Kingdom. Britain wlU be in recession, with a minus 2 percent GNP rate and an inflation rate of 16.5 percent.e

INEQUITIES IN MILITARY EXPENDITURES




• Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw my colleague's attention to an article that appeared recently in the New York Times describing a study of defense-related taxation and expenditures. The study, conducted by Prof. James R. Anderson of Michigan State University, illustrates that each year military spending drains billions of dollars from New York and other Northeastern States, largely to the benefit of cities in the South and West. The defense budget, the study concludes, has become a major source of imbalance and inequity in the Federal tax and budget allocation systems.

The text of the article follows: [From the New York Times, Nov. 19, 1979] STUDY CHARGES INEQUITIES IN MILITARY

ExPENDITURES WASHINGTON, November 18.-Most of the

country's 435 Congressional Districts pay more in taxes for the Pentagon tha.n they receive in mil1tary spending, a.nd more than half have a net loss of a.t least $100 mllllon a year, a new study says.

The study was conducted by Prof. James R. Anderson of Michigan State University for Employment Researc.h Associates, a. private consulting firm in Lansing, Mich., that speciallzes in analyzing military spending.

The net result is that the Pentagon budget drains money out of 305 districts and funnels it into 130 districts, according to the analysis released today.

The analysis also supports earlier studies that military spending is concentrated in the South and Southwest.

"IMBALANCE AND INEQUITY

"Milltary spending is a principal source of drastic imbalance and inequity in the Federal tax burden and budget allocation," the study concluded.

Professor Anderson said that military spending was excessive, and "is ulti.m.a.tely

December 20, 1979 an unproductive use and waste of a country's resources once you get beyond the sums needed to defend your shores and help allies."

He calculated the amount of taxes from each Congressional district that went to the Pentagon budget in the fiscal year 1978. He compared that with the amount of money the Pentagon spent in each district for payrolls, contracts and other costs. Pentagon spending totaled $112.7 billion in that year, Professor Anderson said.

[The study does not reflect the allocation of military subcontracts because the information is not available from the Government, Professor Anderson said in an interview. However, he said he felt the study was "fairly accurate in terms of giving an indication" of the pattern of Pentagon outlays.

[Defense officials estimate that roughly 70 percent of the money for a major contract is spent in the area of the contractor's headquarters or major plant, he said.]

LOSSES IN NORTHEAST

The study found that 95 of the 100 districts in the upper Middle West and 79 of the 104 districts in the Northeast had a net loss.

In New York, 33 of the state's 39 districts are "losers." In New Jersey 13 of 15 districts are net losers, but in Connecticut's six districts there are four districts with net gains and two with net losses.

In Pennsylvania 20 of 25 have a net loss , and in Illinois all 24 have a net loss.

By contrast, 71 districts in Sun Belt states have a net gain , while 89 districts experience net losses.

Overall, 220 districts suffer a net loss of $100 million or more, the study said.

The area of the country with the greatest net loss of military funds is the loth District in Illinois, covering the northern suburbs of Chicago, which was represented by Representative A·bner Mikva, a Democrat, at the time of the survey. Mr. Mikva has since been appointed a Federal judge. That district had a net loss of $409.2 million in 1978, the study said.

California ranks first in the country in terms of the number of districts with a net gain, with 28 "winners" and 15 "losers." Most of the winners are in the southern part of the state where there is a heavy concentration of electronics and aerospace contractors.

The 12th District of Texas, represented by Jim Wright, the House majority leader, has a net gain of $1.6 billion, the largest in the country, the study said. OVerall, however, 14 of the state's 24 districts have a net loss.

Other areas with a net gain of $1 billion or more are the Fifth District of Mississippi, represented by a Republican, Trent Lott; the Third District of Missouri, represented by a Democrat, Richard A. Gephardt, and the First District of Missouri, represented by a Democrat William Clay.

While Mr. Lott's district has a huge gain due to shipbuilding contracts, the state's other four districts have a net loss , the study said.e

ADMIRAL RICKOVER RETAINED ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR 2 MORE YEARS

HON·. SAMUEL S. STRATTON OF NEW YORK


e Mr. STRATrON. Mr. Speaker, last Columbus Day recess an event occurred which was of great importance to our national security, but which did nOit receive much public notice. This was the


October 2 extension of Admiral Rickover's period of active duty. Admiral Rickover contributed more than any other one man to the development, operation, and maintenance of our nuclear submarine forces upon which our national security is vitally dependent. Every citizen of this Nation is indebted to the dedicated efforts and talents of this man which he has devoted unstintingly to the welfare and security of our Nation.

This latest 2-year extension is the ninth which Admiral Rickover has agreed to serve for. This will result in 57 years of service to this country. He has set new levels of performance for public servants in this period of service which so badly needs emulation. Our Nation need not be concerned about its future if it has public servants of his stature in its service.

Most of us know of the great contribution which Admiral Rickover made to our national security by developing nuclear propulsion plants for our warships. Less generally known, is the contribution he has made to the quality of the technology of our Nation in general, and the standards of excellence of the people we rely on to direct the safe development and application of such technology. He has applied himself with a tenacity our industry has never before encountered to attain new levels of quality and dependability. His effort was not appreciated in many quarters. It is now very gratifying to see that a more general appreciation of his efforts is coming into existence. Now his advice and guidance is actively sought by industry and Government on the attainment of the new levels of reliability and safety he has put into effect in our nuclear Navy.

For the welfare and security of this Nation, I hope that Admiral Rickover is willing and able to serve our Nation for many more years to come. I want him to know that there are many of us up here on the Hill who are cognizant of his efforts and of the diffi.culties he encounters in certain quarters in carrying out the mandate we have placed on him. I want him to also know that we stand by to help him in any way that we can, since we know how vital his work is to the Nation. Let us join in saluting a great American, an historic American, Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, still going strong, still bubbling over with energy and ideas, at a youthful 79 years of age! •

DAY 10: NEW POLITICAL REPRESSION ON TAIWAN

HON. JIM LEACH OF IOWA


Thursday, December 20, · 1979

• Mr. LEACH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, in the past 10 days some extremely disturbing events have occured in Taiwan which give cause for grave concern for political evolution on that island and, indeed, for the future relationship between the United States and Taiwan.

In the several months following diplomatic recognition of the People's Republic of China by the United States a

37735 year ago, the Nationalist Kuomingtang <KMT> authorities in Taiwan took a series of politically repressive steps to restrict opposition political acti,vities. Scheduled local elections were postponed, two non-KMT publications were banned, a respected, elderly local politician was sentenced to 8 years in prison and other actions to impede political expression were taken.

In subsequent months, however, there were encouraging signs of a degree of political relaxation. Two monthly magazines taking positions independent of the Government were allowed to publish, and there was even some reason to believe that the postponed elections would be rescheduled late this year or early next year. Both magazines enjoyed instant success, with a circulation reflecting the widespread thirst on Taiwan for information from sources not tightly controlled by government censorship. One of the two, the Formosa Monthly, published four issues and reached a circulation of some 200,000 copies.

Because of the long history of restrictions on political activity in Taiwan, where the KMT is the only legal political party, the Formosa Monthly became a magnet for many of the Taiwanese who seek a greater voice in their own government. The magazine became a focal point for opposition points of view and its organizational structure came to function almost as a pseudo-political party. It was critical of one-party rule on the island and urged greater opportunities for political freedom for the native-born Taiwanese who constitute 85 percent of the population of Taiwan.

Unfortunately, the views expressed in the Formosa Monthly were not well-received by the KMT and the Government began a crackdown. In vigilante-style tactics typical of many police states, the magazine's office in Kaohsiung, Taiwan's largest city, was broken into and ransacked. The publisher of the Formosa Monthly, Mr. Huang Hsin-chieh, an elected native Taiwanese member of the National Legislative Yuan, had his life threatened because of the political opinions expressed in the magazine.

The latest and most serious incident resulted from a request by Formosa Monthly to sponsor an outdoor rally in Kaohsiung to commemorate International Human Rights Day on December 10. Large opposition political rallies have not been permitted on Taiwan, and the authorities denied the request. There is some question whether a smaller indoor meeting would have been allowed. Nevertheless, the magazine decided to proceed with its plans for an outdoor rally in a large park in central Kaohsiung. On the evening of December 9, two employees of the magazine who were advertising the rally were arrested and severely beaten at the local military garrison.

On the evening of December 10, supporters of the magazine gathered at its Kaohsiung office. Large numbers of police and ntillitary forces cordoned off the building and a crowd of many thousand gathered in rtJhe area. When some 200 to 300 persons tried to march from the magazine's office to the city park, they

37736 were restrained. Fighting broke out between the marchers and the police and tear gas was used to quell the demonstrators. Disturbances continued until the early morning. Although little physical damage was done, Taiwan military authorities claim 182 military and civilian police were injured and charge that the demonstlrators were deliberately provocative. Supporters of Formosa Monthly, for their part, point out that there was never any reason to have such overwhellming police and military forces at the rally and argue that the authorities seized upon tihe planned rally and the confrontation between security forces and demonstrators as a pretext for rounding up increasingly bold Taiwanese dissidents.

In the following days, the largest mass arrest of opposition forces in Taiwan's recent political history occurred. Fifteen prominent personalities in the Taiwanese political movement, including sever-al who did not even attend the December 10 march, were detained on December 13. Subsequently, others involved in the demonstration have been arrested, bringing the totaa of those detained to more than 100. Others are in hiding and are being sough!t by the police. Formosa Monthly has been proscribed from further publication.

Among those arrested are two members of the Taiwan provincial assembly, one of whom visited my office in September, as well as Mr. Huang, the publisher of Formosa Monthly. Mr. Huang's detention created a particularly precarious problem for the authorities since his parliamentary status theoretically gave him immunity from arrest. However, the Yuan, most of whose members are mainland Chinese e!ected before 1949 to represent provinces of China which the KMT government no longer controls, gave overwhellming approval tJo his detention, and he was arrested on the fioor of that body on December 13. Also among those detained is a woman human rights leader who called on me last summer. While formal charges have yet to be announced, there is a very strong possibility that these 15 will be charged with sedition, which carries the maximum penalty of execution and certainly extended imprisonment. I sincerely hope that those arrested will be released, but, should this not occur, that those who are eventually charged will be tried before a civilian and not a military court.

Mr. Speaker, it is evident that a new wave of political repression is beginning on Taiwan. The KMT authorities, after a brief period of apparent uncertainty on how much dissent to allow, have decided to crack down on legitimate political dissent. The Formosa Monthly rally on December 10 in Kaohsiung could have been peaceful, demonstrating to outside observers that there was hope that the KMT authorities and the Taiwanese majority could work together in the exercise of democratic rights which many believe are essential to the future freedom and independence of Taiwan. Instead, it is apparent that hardline ele-


ments among the ruling group have increasingly come to prevail.

These events on Taiwan sparked immediate ramifications in this country. Over the past weekend offices of the Coordinated Council for North American Affairs <CCNAA) in Washington, Seattle, and Los Angeles were attacked. Windows were broken and, in one of the incidents, furniture broken and one person injured. Although reftective of understandable frustration, the violent acts against Taiwan's offices in this country are as much to be condemned as the violence which occurred in Kaohsiung. It is time for cooler voices to be heard on both sides and for moderation to prevail.

Above all, it is time that the ruling KMT authorities on Taiwan recognize that the continued denial to the majority of the island's population of the right to participate fully in their own political system is likely to lead to further demonstrations and political instability.

What has happened to Taiwan in the past 10 days is worthy of careful attention in the Congress. Last March, when the Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, it asserted in a provision that I am proud to have proposed that "The preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan are hereby reaffirmed as objectives of the United States."

I regret to say that, unless there is a fundamental change in favor of greater popular political participation in Taiwan, it may become increasingly difficult to maintain the historically close relations which the United States has had with Taiwan. It would indeed be tragic if the unwillingness of a small minority on Taiwan to share its political power resulted in a degree of instability which threatened Taiwan's present prosperity and at the same time undermined one of the essential ties between the people of Taiwan and the people of the United States.

The events in Iran have captured so much attention from the administration and the American public in recent weeks that the new tightened political repression on Taiwan has largely gone unnoted. It is incumbent, however, on the Congress and the administration to express on behalf of the American people our deep concern for the new directions being taken by the Government of Taiwan.

Clearly, if there is to be a stable future for the people of the island, it can only be insured by expanding rather than restricting basic human liberties. A minority pledged to the unrealistic dream of recapturing the mainland cannot forever rule an independent people committed to democratic participation.

Today marks the lOth day since the clash that took place outside the Formosa Monthly office. The future of U.S.-Taiwanese relations as well as the future of the democratic movement on Taiwan hinge on the judgment that KMT authorities bring to bear on the issues involved. American friends of Taiwan urge restraint and greater democratization. The reverse imperils the freedom and security of the island.e

December 20, 19 79

REPUBLICIANS WORK FOR RURAL AMERICA

HON. BUD SHUSTER OF PENNSYLVANIA


• Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, from the vanta~ point of the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, I would like to review what was achieved for farmers in this first session of the 96th Congress by the Republican members of the House Committee on Agriculture-and what remains for them to try to achieve in the next session.

Just the other day, when I was back home, a constituent stopped me on the street to thank me for what Congress had not done for him this session. That pretty well sums up not only the mood of the people but what happened in the Congress this past session.

On balance, we are pleased with the efforts of the Committee on Agriculture to meet and help solve a number of problems facing the farmers----and I commend the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia <Mr. WAMPLER), for his leadership of the minority members of the committee over the past year. I would also like to commend all the minority members of tihe committee whose initiatives helped to enact better bills on numerous occasions and to block bad legislation on others.

Since I consider these efforts reflective of the positive role of Republican members on the committee, let me elaborate on these efforts and these achievements, starting in order of seniority with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. WAMPLER), WhO is the ranking Republican member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Let me mention two bills Mr. WAMPLER has introduced which are very important to continl!ation of a sound agricultural system in this country.

The first one is called the USDA restoration Act of 1979-a bill designed to restore to the Department of Agriculture the basic responsibility for which it was founded in 1862-namely the production of food, fiber, and forest products in this country. Specifically, instead of dismembering USDA which the Carter administration sought to do earlier this year, the bill would transfer to the Department a number of agriculturerelated functions now spread thin over a number of Government agencies.

This legislation is vital to restoring to USDA its rightful role as the Department of Agriculture instead of a Department of Consumer Activism which it has become.

Another proposal which Mr. WAMPLER plans to introduce calls for the National Academy of Science to make recommendations to the Congress as to how we should assess cancer and other healthrelated risks which might be found in chemicals used in food and other products or found in the workplace. The problem here is--the Government's regulatory authority over such chemicals presently resides in 21 di1ferent laws admin-

December 20, 1979

istered by 6 different agencies-and there is no uniformity in administering these laws or coordination in assessing possible cancer-causing substances. More importantly, there is no requirement for scientific review of studies and tests on which these agencies base decisions to ban chemicals-thus creating confusion in the public mind over whether a substance is truly cancer-causing.

The case of nitrites is a good example of the willingness of Government to regulate. A substance before it has a firm scientific basis for its action. This has led Mr. WAMPLER to draft legislation which he intends to introduce early in the next session to transfer to an independent blue ribbon science panel all Federal authority for the determination of relevant questions of scientific fact involved in all Federal regulatory actions against chemicals used in the production of food and other products or found in the workplace or in the environment generally.

Next I would like to direct my remarks to the activities of Mr. SEBELIUS, the gentleman from Kansas, who is the ranking Republican member of the Livestock and Grains Subcommittee.

For starters, as an avowed advocate of farmer-held rather than Governmentheld grain reserves, Mr. SEBELIUS led the way in oft'ering an alternative to the poorlY conceived international emergency wheat reserve plan urged on us by the carter administration.

Mr. SEBELIUS' proposal would have established a $500 million fund to purchase grain in times of need from farmer-held reserves at the going price. This plan would have cost taxpayers considerably less than the massively expensive proposal of the administration for a Government-held reserve--a program which would have started us back down the road to taxpayer-funded grain reserves which once cost an average of $3 million a day just for transportation and storage.

In another area, the gentleman from Kansas introduced H.R. 3693 to extend the life of the great plains conservat~n program and has been instrumental m other conservation eft'orts aimed at preserving the soil and water we so vitally need to produce the food, fiber and forest products for our national s~vail.

Of major importance to gram farmers, Mr. SEBELIUS introduced legislation 00 increase wheat and feed grain target prices by 9.5 percent, the maximum allowed under President Carter's first voluntary wage and price guidelines. Although the 9.5 percent was not adopted, it did provide the basis for the 7 percent increase which eventually was approved by the House and is now in the other body. Another measure sponsored by ~Y colleague from Kansas would have t~ed target prices for whoo.t and feed grams to the Consumer Price Index or to the index of prices paid by farmers, whichever is higher. This is a plan I hope the House will consider next year.

To make sure that meat imports meet the same standards as that produced in this country, Mr. SEBELrUS joined with his colleagues on the committee to seek legislation writing such standards into


law. He also backed countercyclical meat import legislation and was instrumental in obtaining its passage by the House. This legislation which was recently passed by the other body, reverses the 1964 Meat Import Act and provides that beef and veal imports rise when domestic production is low and falls when U.S. prodruction is up.

Like other Republican members of the committee, the efforts of the gentleman from Kansas on behalf of the Nation's farmers ranged over a wide area. For instance, he was a leader in trying to make sense out of the volatile debate on the alcohol fuels issue and was named to the National Alcohol Fuels Commission.

One area of interest and concern to the Congress this past session was the food stamp program-and no House Member was more involved in eft'orts to reform this program than my colleague from Illinois, Congressman FINDLEY. He spearheaded the bipartisan eft'ort to obtain a General Accounting Office investigaJtion of the propriety of the Food Research and Action Center-also known as ''FRAC"-actively intervening against "workfare" projects authorized under the 1977 Food Stamp Act. "FRAC" is a public interest group receiving Government funds and the Findley eft'ort to obtain a GAO investigation of whether these funds were used to impede the intent of Congress is most :fitting and proper.

Incidentally. Mr. Speaker, these workfare projects, which were set up under leg1slation sponsored by Congressman FINDLEY, indicate that a surprising number of program participants, when confronted with working off their benefits or losing their right to receive food stamps, simply opted out of the program. This is particularly surprising since the amount of time required to work oft' food stamp benefits is not more than 3 or 4 days a month, at most.

In other areas, Congressman FINDLEY was instrumental in bringing to the attention of the Congress many of the problems surrounding the cotton research and promotion program. In particular, he raised questions which deserve answers concerning possible conflicts of interest involving the president of Cotton, Inc.-an organization which promotes cotton under a contract with the Cotton Board-these charges deserve a hearing, Mr. Speaker.

In a highly controversial piece of legislation-sugar le~islation-minority members of the committee were active in trying to obtain the best bill possible. I would like to single out two of my colleagues, the gentleman from Idaho (Congressman SYMMS), and the gentleman from Colorado (Congressman JOHNSON) , for special praise. Both Mr. SYMMS and Mr. JOHNSON played important roles in the committee deliberation and floor consideration of H.R. 2172, the International Sugar Stabilization Act of 1979.

Both worked hard to achieve a bill palatable to all interests concerned and I commend them for their efforts.

I might mention that Mr. Snms is the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Con-sumer Relations and Nutrition and Mr.

37737 JOHNSON is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Forests. Mr. JoHNsoN's decision to retire from Congress at the end of next year will leave a void in the committee which will be hard to fill. We are glad he will be around for at least 1 more year-but I know he will be missed after that.

One of the most active members of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, is my colleague from illinois (Congressman MADIGAN) , who is ranking GOP member on the Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit. His dedicated efforts were instrumental in committee action on the all-risk crop insurance legislation and on its extension to all counties and all crops which are important to agriculture in a given area.

This legislation is now pending and action is expected on it next session.

I might note that one amendment my colleague from Dlinois plans to press for when the bill reaches the House floor next year would require the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to offer two insurance policies to farmers: An all-risk policy and an all-risk policy without hail and fire coverage, with premium costs adjusted accordingly. This proposal would place the Federal Government and the private insurance industry on a more equal footing and provide the farmer with the flexibility to select the type of insurance protection best for him.

Mr. MADIGAN has also been active in trying to broaden the availability of credit to farmers and several of his amendments to achieve this result are included in legislation now pending. For instance, one would establish higher funding levels for farmers home administration loans and another would increase the size of rural communities eligible for watersewer and community-facility loans from a population level of 10,000 to 20,000. This would add about 1,200 communities to the eligible list and aid them in finding financial assistance for such needed projects as hospitals and nursing homes.

To increase the effectiveness of alcohol fuels projects, several amendments were offered by Mr. MADIGAN to insure that producers receiving Government assistance do not waste energy or raw materials in the alcohol conversion process.

Mr. Speaker, because of the range of legislation proposed by Republican members on the Agriculture Committee, it is difficult to list each and every bill in these remarks--so at best I can touch only on some of the highlights.

I would be remiss, however, if I failed to mention the activities of the distinguished gentlelady from Massachusetts (Mrs. HECKLER). who was instrumental in leading the fight on behalf of consumers against the sugar bill which was defeated on October 23. She felt that the bill would be highly inflationary. She is continuing to oppose the International Sugar Agreement, which she feels would be a windfall for Cuba, and contrary to the interests of our Central and South American friends.

Mrs. HEcKLER also initiated as a result of fuel stamp hearings, a request to the Secretary of HEW that he take immedi-

37738 ate action to fund the emergency fuel assistance program for the winter of 1979-80 as it appeared no legislation would be enacted.

Because of Mrs. HECKLER's interest in providing an e1Iective food stamp program, the Agriculture Committee adopted amendments she sponsored to provide food stamps for battered women and children in halfway houses or shelters and to revise the deduction system to provide a separate dependent care deduction for households.

Congressman JIM JEFFORDS from Vermont has, for the past 3 years, pressed for legislation to protect U.S. agricultural land-and his e1Iorts have finally resulted in the creation by the administration of a panel to study the issue. This study, to be made as a joint e1Iort of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, is scheduled for completion by January 1, 1981. Mr. JEFFORDS is also the author of the agricultural land protection bill reported by the committee recently. This bill is designed to find ways of protecting our prime agricultural land, which is diminishing at a fast rate in this country.

As ranking Republican member of the Dairy and Poultry Subcommitte, Mr. JEFFORDS has pressed for milk price support levels at 80 percent of parity or above-and I am sure his e1Iorts helped to shape the administration's decision to set the price at 80 percent through March 31, 1980. Mr. JEFFORDS was also responsible for setting up Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee hearings on the problems of imported casein which milk producers contend is having a negative impact on the milk price support program. He was also responsible for obtaining passage of a resolution asking the Secretary of Agriculture to assess whey, a byproduct of cheese processing, to determine its usefulness as an edible product.

One member of the Agriculture Committee who has been most helpful in getting the committee to face the real issues during consideration of proposed legislation is Congressman RICHARD KELLy of Florida. Judge KELLY was particularly active during committee consideration of the gasahol bill. Although he was not successful in persuading the committee to adopt his amendments he made a major contribution in focusing the attention of the committee on the underlying problems of the bill. His bill to make the current tax exemption in gasahol permanent and thereby provide the certainty the alcohol fuels industry will require in order to make alcohol a major contributing factor in the national energy picture is a significant alternative.

Judge KELLY has also been one of the staunchest supporters of maintaining discipline in the food stamp program. His e1Iorts to preserve the "cap" on the authorization for that program will prevent its returning to an open-ended and less disciplined entitlement program.

Congressman KELLY also took a leadership position in opposition to this year's sugar bill arguing that defeat of the bill would prevent the domestic industry from becoming even less competi-


tive with foreign producers by avoiding federally mandated increases in labor costs.

One important piece of legislation which is still pending at recess was introduced by my colleague from Iowa <Congressman GRASSLEY), who is ranking member of the Subcommittee on Family Farms, Rural Development and Special Studies. I am referring to H.R. 4992, which would amend the export sales reporting law and require dailyinstead of weekly-reporting of overseas sales of U.S. agricultural commodities by all firms which use our futures marketswhether they are located in this country or not--and which hold positions on those markets in excess of the speculative limits established by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. I believe this legislation would provide us with more up-to-date information on export sales of agricultural exports.

One of American agriculture's most persistent defenders on the House Agriculture Committee has 'been ToM HAGEDORN of Minnesota. A farmer himself, Congressman HAGEDORN has been at the forefront Of a fight by members of the committee, mainly Republicans, to keep nitrites as preservatives for processed meats. His bill, H.R. 3377, the Botulism Prevention Act of 1979, first introduced in 1978 soon after USDA and FDA announced their intentions to ban nitrites-and his demands for proof that these agencies were on sound scientific grounds-have ibeen most helpful in getting these agencies to back up and review their e1Iorts against this beneficial preservative and meat cure.

Another major contribution of a Republican committee member was by my colleague from Missouri, (Congressman COLEMAN), WhO introduced H.R. 4028, the Food Stamp Beneficiary Protection Act, which authorizes the Secretary in any given year in which benefits must be reduced because of fund shortages to give special consideration to the elderly and disabled instead of cutting back all participants in the program on the same pro rata !basis. This proposal was included in the food stamp legislation which became law-and I congratulate Mr. CoLEMAN. He was also responsible for an amendment to retain the food stamp "cap" or authorization at a fixed amount on the program-an e1Iort which will save taxpayers considerable money, I might add, because it will force the food and nutrition service to give discipline to the program which is badly needed.

In crop insurance legislation, Mr. CoLEMAN pressed for an amendment to delete fire, wind, and hail coverage from the Government crop insurance program along similar lines proposed by Mr. MADIGAN. His efforts helped to keep the issue alive before the committee and assured consideration of the possibility of private sector involvement in the crop insurance program.

Another active Agriculture Committee member on our side of the aisle is my colleague <Congressman MARLENEE) of Montana, whose e1Iorts to aid farmers and ranchers cover a wide-range of issues, including bills to extend prevented

December 20, 19 7 9

planting and farm disaster payments to 1980 and 1981 wheat crops; to reduce the amount of imported meat in any one calendar year by the amount, if any, lby which actual imports during the preceding year exceeded the quota for that year; to require reciprocal testing of imported meat and meat food products and to require the labeling Of these imports; and to establish a countercyclical formula for meat imports.

One of RON MARLENEE's particularly interesting proposals was a bill requiring that the label on each loaf of bread disclose the cost to the manufacturer of the farm ingredients in it. This is an important way to get across the message that the farmer receives less than onethird of the retail cost of each loaf of bread for the wheat and work he puts into it.

Since tobacco raising is an important part of our agricultural economy, I commend my colleague from Kentucky <Congressman HoPKINs), for his e1Iorts on behalf of tobacco growers.

In particular, Mr. Hopkins led the :fight to continue the experimental loose-leaf tobacco marketing experiment for a second year, through the 1979-80 marketing s'O-ason, and he deserves the thanks of tobacco growers all over for his e1Iorts. Congressman HoPKINS has also actively worked to improve and fully fund all the Farmers Home Administration programs which come under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit, of which he is a member.

Mr. Speaker, the newest Republican member of the Agriculture Committee is Congressman THoMAS of California who has taken up his responsibilities with a vigor and dedication which is refreshing. Mr. THoMAS cosponsored H.R. 5523, a bill which would establish an improved program for extra-long staple cotton. One of Mr. THOMAS' amendments which was adopted in H.R. 5523 strikes a section from the bill which would have allowed for the unprecedented interstate sale or lease of cotton allotments to producers wanting to grow ,more extra long-staple cotton. Historically, allotments have been used to control production rather than increase it. His amendment to delete this section was most pertinent, since USDA can increase the national allotment and achieve the same results.

Congressman THOMAS was also successful in inserting into H.R. 3683 an amendment that did not place a "cap" limiting the total amount of emergency loans that may be obtained by a farmer under the emergency loan program administered by Farmers Home Administration. In the conference with the other body on this subject, he unsuccessfully fought for a compromise that would have placed a cap of $2.5 million on the loans covering the actual loss and any operation and adjustment loans made to any one individual.

Congressman THoMAs comes from a district in California where the capital requirements of farmers are high because of the high costs of producing crops, such as an $11,000 cost of producing one acre of strawberries.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I have just touched on a few of the measures pro-

December 2'0, 1979

posed by the minority members of the Agriculture Committee which we consider beneficial to American agriculture in general and to the farmers in particular. But taken along with other related bills by these members, their consideration in the next session could be an important step toward making sure American agricultural production remains "No. 1 in the world."e

LABOR'S HEARTFELT TRIDUTE TO THE LATE WILLIAM DUCHESS!, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING AND TEXTTI.£ WORKERS OF AMERICA




e Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, last May, one of the great leaders of American labor, Bill DuChessi, executive vice president of the Am,algamated Clothing and Textile Workers of America, passed away after a long and painful illness.

Bill DuChessi was a native of my home city of Amsterdam, and had been a close friend of mine for over 20 years.

Bill was also well known on Capitol Hill as one of the finest, fairest, and most effective representatives and lobbyist for organized labor. He also served with great distinction as a member of the Obey Commission for reforming some of the management practices of the House of Representatives.

Last June 14, here in the city of Washington, the top leaders of the AFL-CIO joined to pay their heartfelt tribute to Bill DuChessi, at which time Vice President MONDALE, Speaker O'NEILL, and Senator KENNEDY joined others in honoring the memory of Mr. DuChessi. It was a moving and deeply emotional experience.

Later, in its July issue, "Labor Unity," the official publication of Bill DuChessi's union, printed in considerable detail the tributes paid to Bill DuChessi at that memorial service.

In tribute to a great American and a great labor statesman, I include at this point in the RECORD the text of the Labor Unity article of July 1979, highlighting the DuChessi memorial service.

The text follows: DUCHESS! MEMORIAL: CELEBRATING A LIFE

DEDICATED TO TRADE UNIONISM WASHINGTON, D.C.-With tears, prayers

and with songs and even some laughter, 500 friends of Bill DuChess! gathered in the .AFL-CIO lobby on June 14 to pay tribute to the memory of the late ACTWU Exec. Vice President who died May 19.

DuChess! was one of the best loved, best respected union officials and lobbyists in the country. His passing was marked in a. moving ceremony attended by friends , family, union officials, members of Congress, and the Vice President of the United States.

All of the eulogizers paid tribute to DuChessi's joyful dedication to the trade union movement, his humanity, and his love of people.

DuChessi helped organize Local 1 of the Textile Workers Organizing Coininittee in Amsterdam, N.Y., in 1937. The TWOC later

CXXV--2372-Pa.rt 28

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS became the Textile Workers Union of America. which in 1976 merged with the Amalgamated Clothing Workers to become ACTWU.

DuChessi served in a variety of jobs and offices in the union during his career, including the second highest office in TWUA, international secretary-treasurer. At his death, he was the union's chief lobbyist and legislative representative, and assistant director of the Textile Division.

U.S . Senators Edmund Muskie (D-Me.) , Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Birch Bayh (DInd.) attended the service as well as members of Congress Margaret Hechler (D-Mass.) , Barbara. Mikulski (D-Md.), David Obey (DWisc.) and Frank Thompson (D-N.J.). Former Senator William Hathaway and former Congressman James O'Hara. also attended the service.

Tom Donahue, assistant to AFL-CIO Pres. George Meany, delivered tributes from Meany who was recuperating from an illness and from Sec.-Treas. Lane Kirkland.

The mourners sang "The Mill Was Made of Marble," "Joe Hill" and "Solidarity Forever," led by Joe Glazer. "'I want songs at my memorial ' Bill DuChess! said before he died," Glazer said in introducing the traditional songs.

ACTWU Leg. Dir. Elizabeth Smith delivered the remarks for Rep. Sam Stratton who *Nas ill.

The invocation was given by the Rev. Monsignor George G . Higgins. The Rt. Rev. Bishop Pa.pken, S.T.D. delivered the benediction.

Following are excerpts from the memorial service:

ACTWU PRESIDENT MUR&AY H. FINLEY "Bill, in his lifetime of dedication to his

fellow workers, reached the heights. He became a. friend of the people in the highest positions in our land, who knew him by his first name and he knew them by first names, but in all of his honors and all of the credits that deservedly were his, Bill DuChessi never lost closeness with the rank and file.

"He still was one of the ordinary workers, one of the ordinary trade unionists. He never forgot where he came !rom. He was always proud of his roots, his roots as a. worker, his roots as a. trade unionist. And he always remained close to one of the warmest families that any of us ever met.

"I don't think that the labor movement has ever had a. more humane, a. more energetic leader than we've had with Bill DuChess!. I don't think there's a. moment when anybody called on Bill that you couldn't find him ready at a moment's notice to come to help his fellow workers, whether of the same union or another union. Whenever people were in trouble Bill DuChess! was available to come in and to give whatever help and comfort that he could."

SECRETARY -TREASURER JACOB SHE INK MAN "Bill had a. passionate belief in trade

unionism. As such, it was not just a. job for him, but a joy. His joy was transformed into a zest, a. zest which was contagious. It was hard for him to sit still. He was a. man in perpetual motion, but the motion always had a purpose, it always had a direction, it always had a. goal.

"The purpose, the direction, the goal: a. better America for the people, of the country which he loved, the country which afforded him the opportunity to bring his dedication and ability to full fruition. In so doing, he never forgot from where he came. He was a leader as has been said, who never lost touch with those he led.

"He had that uncanny ability to bridge the generation gap. The young, who are most discerning, who can see through hypocrisy, were able to relate to him because he was a genuine article.

" We shall not forget him-by continuing to fight for the goals in which he believed. We shall honor his memory by establishing

37739 a soh.ola.rship fund for the young who meant so much to him which will bear his name." SENIOR EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT SOL STETIN

"Bill helped organize the carpet mills in his native Amsterdam, and I came out of a. dye shop in Paterson, N.J. We shared a. dream of organizing the unorganized textile workers of North America.. That's been the story of our lives.

"He started out as a. boy in a. carpet mill , and took his God-given natural leadership qualities to serve the people. In every sphere of union work, but particularly in the political field that he loved so much, Bill made a. mighty contribution towards bettering the lives of workers and their families.

"Bill DuChessi's name will live on in the annals of labor history, indelibly written in the proceedings of our Textile Workers Union !or the last 40 years, as a. person who came out of the shop and devoted his life to the well-being of workers in the textile industry.

"Even in his final battle, Bill was an inspiration to all of us and he makes each of us proud to have been his friend. Yes, let us cherish the memory of Bill DuChess! and dedicate ourselves to pursuing the dream that Bill never lost sight of, pursuing that dream of that young man in the carpet mill in Amsterdam to organize the unorganized and build a. better world for workers, for all Americans."

VICE PRESIDENT WALTER F. MONDALE "We are not here today to mourn. We're

not here today to cry. We're here today to celebrate the victory of a great human being who lived a. life of value, principle and served with a full heart the cause of social justice.

"When he was 22 years old, on a wonderful day for the labor movement, he became a charter member of Local 1 of the CIO's Textile Workers Organizing Committee. A_nd, from that day forward of every hour of his life Bill fought for the rights of working men and women.

"Just like a. tree planted by the water, Bill could not be moved. He brought the blessings of organization to other mills in the South, in the North, all over the countTy. He was part of that early generation of union leaders who worked with a. full heart to vindicate the rights of labor and he and they worked even for those who never held a union card."

SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY "Emerson once said that a. friend may

well be reckoned the masterpiece of nature. Bill was our masterpiece. His passing is our sorrow.

"His accomplishments are legion. There was Bill 's continual presence whenever we were considering renewing minimum wage legislation. It was simply impossible to get into a. committee markup or onto the Senate floor or into the House-Senate Conference without Bill there to remind you of the importance of the task.

"In this last reauthorization, it was Bill who suggested that we end the impasse by mandating four years of increases in the minimum wage rather than three. Millions of the poorest workers, those for whom the minimum wage still does not reach the poverty line will see a. rise in their wages next year and each check will say-this is Bill's testament."

HOUSE SPEAKER THOMAS P. O'NEILL "Bill DuChess! was in the forefront of

every fight on Capitol HUl concerning labor in the last 25 years. We saw him as a. champion of minimum wage, pension reform., occupational health and safety hazards. He put his whole-he always put the whole or his energy and his competence iJD.to everything he did. A straight shooter.

"When Bill gave his word, that was it. It was a. hard, fast commitment. He was un-

37740 afraid to stand and be count ed. He manifested a no-nonsense approach in the legislative process. Once Bill made a commitment, he never deviat ed, never wavered, he never played games.

"There are few men whose skillful determination and decisive accomplishments have had a more profund or lasting effect on the people to whom he dedicated his effort s than Bill DuChess!. "

REPRESENTATIVE SAM STRATTON

"Bill DuChessi was a real union statesman. He added lu st re to that much abused word 'lobbyist.' Bill had unmat ched success lobbying on Capitol Hill, not by strong-arm tactics but b y underst anding members, u nderstanding t heir dist ricts, persuading-not leaning on them-and letting them know well in advance what were t he key legislative issues from labor's point of view. Bill always leveled with you and Bill was a guy you could t rust."

THOMAS DONAHUE

"Bill DuChess! had a tremendous amount to give and he gave it all . He gave his heart and his force to working men and women and he never took those things back. He worked and he studied, shaped his life and he developed his talents t o serve workers.

"His one aim was t o help ot her people gain the means and the opportunities to widen their horizons and become bet ter than t hey were or bet ter than they knew they could be, and in the process he turned himself into a better man, into the fine man we knew.

"He was a man of iron conviction, of bott omless courage and unshakable determination, but happily he had none of the grimness that some associate with strong and dedicated men.

"In even the darkest times, he could be lighthearted and cheerful and fun to be with. Throughout his lifetime in all his efforts to upgrade the quality of life for working people, at the bargaining table and in the legislatures, Bill had plenty of opponents, plenty of adversaries, but I don't think anyone ever heard him speak of an enemy as such, and I don't believe he ever had one.

"Clearly, the part of the trade union movement, the part of the movement of youth in politics, the part of American political life-all the parts of America that were touched by Bill DuChess! were left far better than he found them." THE REVEREND MONSIGNOR GEORGE G. HIGGINS

"Bill DuChess! died too young. He died before his time, but length of days is not what makes age honarable.

"Pope John Paul II has been saying as a kind of motif to his pontificate in recent days that the glory of God is man alive. Marvelous motto, and I think a very good summary of Bill DuChessi's life. The most alive and vital, energetic man that most of us will ever meet."e

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER

HON. RALPH S. REGULA OF OHIO



• Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 17 I introduced a concur-rent resolution which expresses the sense of the Congress that December 23, 1979, should be considered a national day of prayer and meditation as an expression of concern for the safety of the hostages in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and hope for their eventual release.

Twenty Members of Congress have joined me in this and today I am resub-


mitting the resolution with the names of those cosponsors. It is our hope that the President will express our concern by declaring Sunday a national day of prayer and meditation.

I believe the American people will greatly appreciate the efforts of Congress to unite the country in an expression of support for fellow-Americans who are being held in Iran and will actively participate in this day of prayer and meditation.•

JACKSON-V ANIK: A USEFUL POLICY TOOL

HON. ANDREW MAGUIRE OF NEW JERSEY

I N T HE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


e Mr. MAGUIRE. Mr. Speaker, talking about the human rights situation in the Soviet Union we should not merely list the facts , but rather we should focus on the question as to what on our side could be done in order to bring about change with regard to these issues.

A great number of my colleagues and I have engaged in activities such as the "Shatter the Silence, Vigil 1979" and its antecedents, the congressional adoption program for Soviet Refuseniks and Prisoners of Conscience. We have appealed to Soviet officials on behalf of these individuals over and over again. What we are still lacking, though, is a strategy to achieve the above defined goals, the transfer of our knowledge about the human rights situation in the Soviet Union into an actual policy toward the Soviet Union.

Such a strategy appeared to develop in the context of the Trade Act of 1974 with the discussions on the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Sections 401-409, Trade Act of 1974, define the eligibility of nonmarket economies for nondiscriminatory treatment and for U.S. Government credits and credit investment as being linked to free emigration of the respective countries' citizens. It seems, however, that during the last couple of years the significance of these provisions has increasingly deteriorated and the provision is no longer looked upon as a first step in the direction of an overall policy to bring about the recognition of human rights as a legal obligation by the Soviet Government.

This general tendency found its escalation in the rapprochement between the United State~ and the People's Republic of China; among the economic agreements between both parties signed on March 14,1979, in Beijing was a commercial agreement providing for the mutual granting of MFN status. And it is in the context of these agreements that discussion on granting MFN treatment to the Soviet Union has come up again. Representative CHARLES A. VANIK, one of the two sponsors of the "Freedom of Emigration" amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, is supporting, as he calls it, an "evenhanded approach." As chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, in his opening remarks on the Hearings on the Trade Agreement with the P.R.C., he

December 20, 1979

stated that MFN status should as well be granted to the Soviet Union. And it should be granted without formal assurances because in his own words, "the deed might serve as well as the promise." But, as of today, such a policy is legally impossible. It would also turn the priorities we have had so far upside down.

The priorities, as they are defined under present law, state that trade with nonmarket economies is not an end in itself but rather a means with regard to emigration policies of the respective countries. This is the existing legal framework within which we have to decide whether or not we can grant MFN treatment to the Soviet Union. There is no need for redefining these priorities.

Free emigration is the threshold, the "quid pro quo" for MFN status for the Soviet Union. This precondition leaves 1t up to the Soviet Union and all other nonmarket economies themselves to open the door for free and unlimited, even preferential trade with this country.

Given the above difined priorities, the existing system is also the least restrictive way to achieve our objectives; it allows the President-as he has already done in the case of Hungary and Romania-to waive the Freedom of Emigration provisions if such a waiver will: First, substantially promote the objectives of the provisions; and second, if he has received assurances that emigration policies will lead substantially to the achievement of these objectives. Thus, a waiver can be granted even if free emigration has not yet been realized.

However, it does not mean that the waiver should be granted liberally once assurances are given. On the contrary, we have to be very careful with such a decision. Granting the waiver, as we could observe in the case of Hungary and Romania, creates precedents for further waivers. It also builds up dependencies on our side: Business relationships established on the grounds of the waiver provisions are usually of longer term interest than the 1-year waiver period. This very fact often takes away the effectiveness of the waiver as a control mechanism. And for this reason I cannot agree with those who argue in favor of MFN treatment for the Soviet Union on the grounds that Congress would still have control over the issue and could just deny renewal of the waiver after 1 year if the Soviet Union does not actually fulfill the committment.

Other arguments raised in favor of MFN treatment for the Soviet Union vary greatly, and range from security interests to the view that the present system merely results in harm to U.S. producers competing with the Japanese and the West Europeans in the East European market. An entirely different approach that has been heard from time to time is based on the assumption that liberalization within Communist societies can be brought about only by the East opening up for Westem commodities. I do not quite understand, though, how this mechanism is supposed to work. The examples of Czechoslovakia and Romania are not entirely reassuring.

Among all the cases being made in

~-

December 20, 19 79

favor of MFN treatment for the Soviet Union, there is not one that points to assurances being given by the Soviet Union with respect to future emigration policies. The Soviet Union, thus far, has not been willing to give assurances in order to be eligible for the waiver provisions in the Jackson-Vanik amendment. From their point of view the linkage of trade to emigration issues constitutes an interference with internal matters and is, thus, not negotiable.

What, then, has actually been changed since, back in 1974, Gromyko, in a letter to then Secretary of State Kissinger, resolutely declined the interpretation that any pledges or assurances as to the Soviet treatment of prospective emigrants had been or would ever be given to the United States? What has been changed since the Soviet Union, in the context of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the letters exchanged between Kissinger and Gromyko thereon, declared the commercial agreements negotiated under the Nixon administration null and void?

I do not want to overemphasize the need for assurances. Nor do I want to focus on the reasons for the Soviet reluctance to give them. It really does not make that much of a difference whether they are given or not; even if they were I could not argue in favor of such an agreement on that basis alone.

Assurances are not a mere formal requirement. They have to be of substantial quality. We could not just simply rely on them, but rather must look at their political and economic context. We would have to evaluate their credibility. One way of doing this is to take into consideration what has been said so far with respect to the overall issue of free emigration by Soviet o.tncials. And so far there is not a single statement of Soviet commitment to free emigration.

The next step to take in evaluating the credibility of possible Soviet assurances would be to take a look at the outcome of the conference on security and cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Final Act, and its implementation by the Soviet Union. The Helsinki Final Act does not, by any means, constitute an agreement of legally binding e:fl'ect. This is largely due to Soviet pressures during the negotiation process. It does not constiute a commitment. However, the objective of the Final Act is to overcome existing tensions on a basis of voluntarily granted concessions.

Yet the Soviet Union has proven to be extremely reluctant to voluntarily adjust its human rights and emigration policies to the standards expressed in the Helsinki Final Act. As of today, the Soviet Union has not recognized the right of its citizens to emigrate. Applying for emigration is still a costly, lengthy, complicated, and arbitrary process with uncertain results. Members of the Helsinki monitoring groups have faced heavy sentences, their trials being marked by permanent violations of internationally accepted standards for fair trials. Political abuses of psychiatry and imprisonment for religious beliefs occur every day-despite the Helsinki Final Act. Thus it was also not too surprising that the Soviet


delegation to the 1977 Belgrade Conference on Security and Cooperation, when asked about Soviet implementation of basket m, threatened to leave the conference.

All this would be already enough reason to seriously question the credibility of Soviet assurances about future emigration policies. However, in this context I do not want to ignore the fact that during this year almost 50,000 people were allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union. This is an improvement over the recent past. But does it mean free emigration?

The increase in visas issued this year is due to a gerat extent to the fact that, in the context of the trade agreement with the People's Republic of China, the Soviet Unlon expects us to pursue an evenhanded approach. And they are very well aware of the fact that restrictive emigration policies might constitute an obstacle in this process. But does it say anything about their future emigration policies? Is it not entirely possible that they will once again restrict emigration once they have obtained the desired trade concessions? Let me, for the purpose of this question, refer to Soviet emigration !lQlicies during and after the negotiation process on the trade agreement of 1972.

Negotiations on mutually granting MFN status began in early 1971 and resulted in the signing of two agreements in October 1972, both providing for reciprocal granting of MFN status. It was not known until December 1974/January 1975 that the agreements would not enter into force.

During this period of time, from 1971-1974/1975, one can observe interesting changes in Soviet emigration policies.

In 1971 emigration increased 40 percent over the previous decade's total emigration. The year 1972 observed a 125-percent increase over the 1971 totaJ. Yet, in 1973, the year after the signing of the agreement, the increase in emigration amounted to only 6.3 percent and in 1974 decreased again by 38.2 percent. Yet the question whether or not the trade agreements would enter into force was not decided. Jackson-Vanik was not yet the law. The change in Soviet emigration policies, thus, can only mean that the Soviets thought that they had won the battle. The increase in visas granted during 1971/1972 can be explained with their desire to reach an agreement. And the decrease during 1973/1974 can be explained with their (mis) calculation of having achieved a definite agreement already.

Having said this, it is apparent that we cannot rely on the mere fact that 50,000 people were allowed to emigrate this year in our decision to grant MFN status to the Soviet Union. What could prevent them from applying the same strategy as in 1972/1973?

Taking all this into consideration, I cannot but urge that we use trade as a means to bring about change.c; with regard to Soviet emigration policies, to force the Soviet Union to recognize free emigration as a legal obligation they are committed to by international law.•

37741 LIBERTY IS NOT FREE

HON. ROBERT K. DORNAN OF CALIFORNIA



• Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, as the world grows smaller, freedom is under attack. Not a point on the planet exists that does not face the threat of oppression. While America has historically yearned for isolationism, we cannot retreat into the false security of ignoring "far-oft' lands" in today's global village.

In short, we take our freedom for granted until a crisis arises. The threats to America's liberty today are multidirectional and harder for the average citizen to track. Yet the greatest threat is from within. In a terrifying, numbing world we want to escape reality. We cannot. Our national strength is being tested every day, and the tests are increasing in severity.

The country must be made aware that America's survival is at stake. Dr. John A. Howard, director of Rockford College Institute, has clearly addressed this vital issue in his aptly titled essay, "Liberty Is Not Free." I urge my colleagues to carefuly consider his timely words.

The essay follows: LmERTY Is NoT FREE

(By Dr. John A. Howard) The pitiable, paralysis of the United States

of America, when faced with the terrorist blackmail of Iranian fanatics, underscores with the force of endangered lives the theme of my comments today: "Liberty Is Not Free."

Even the most superficial observer of international atfairs recognizes that the multiplying centers of turmoil and anti-American hostmty throughout the world are cause for grave concern. What is not so widely recorganized is that this seething foment in the developing nations calls for a. dramatic revitalization of national spirit and unity and resolve, a rekindling of pride and patriotism and determination as the first order of business in America. If this vital change is to come about, our leaders and those who aspire to leadership are going to have to put this goal at the top of the agenda, and give force to their public persuasion by a. depth of understanding and a degree of personal commitment that have not been heard in our country for many years. Our liberty has been taken for granted for so long that the nation has generally lost track of what Uberty is. Liberty is not free. It cannot be earned by one generation to endure forever. Liberty, in order to survive, must be understood and cheri:;hed by each generation. For two and a half years, we at the Rockford College Institute have been studying the nature and the present condition of free institutions, and we have been formulating specific plans fw: restoring strength and integrity to structures enfeebled by confusion and self-interest. Today I want to share with you sorue of the comments about the response we must make to the deteriorating world situation. Three things are, I believe, necessary:

First, as I have said, we must bring back into sharp focus what freedom actually is, and register in every mind and heart how mercilessly important liberty is to the human soul, a fact that has been repeatedly dramatized for us by the desperate people who have escaped, or have died trying to escape, from the tyranny of Russia, China, Cuba and their communist allies;

37742 Second, we must think through our na

tional priorities tar more intelligently than we have dne in the past. In my judgment, Russia is a powerful, ruthless and steadily advancing enemy, and we have been living in a tool 's paradise, providing her with technological know-how and equipment and food, enabling her to devote her own energies to subverting nations around the globe, meanwhile grievously under-equipping our own military forces and naively trying to man them on a volunteer basis. Instead of mobilizing our funds, manpower and national will to proclaim and safeguard liberty, we have been squandering our capital on social programs which seldom accomplish the proclaimed objectives and, what is of far greater importance, are destroying the moral fiber of the citizens;

And, third, we must choose leaders who are not simply seeking power and glory for themselves, but who are courageous, intelligent and honest patriots capable of inspiring our citizens to make the heavy sacrifices necessary tor us to become once again a hardworking, honorable, proud and freedom-loving nation.

In this matter of leadership, it is fortunate that we now have a superb example in the new Prime Minister of Great Britain. In the current issue of International Background, an excellent English language commentary published in Lichtenstein •, the lead article this month comments upon Mrs. Thatcher:

She believes in what she says and says only what she believes. She is clearly convinced that there exists a great threat to the whole non-Communist world. It is partly a danger emanating from the enormous Soviet armament .. . The danger, however, lies partly with ourselves, too. Unfortunately there is still a strong tendency to ignore realities in the Western World, to indulge in wishful thinking, and to draw false conclusions from the international situation. Politicians in power often act as if the Soviet Union were an inoffensive .power. Simultaneously, the same people conduct a practical policy which is built on the assumption that Russia is a dangerous bear which one should try to keep in the best of tempers by concessions and conspicuous consideration of the Kremlin's real or supposed wishes. It means appeasement in a modern version.

Such a policy is not only a danger, it is even counter-productive. It disregards something fundamental. An ingratiating conduct towards Moscow only produces contempt in the Soviet Union . . . The Soviet attitude demonstrates clearly the necessity for the West to show an unmistakable will to defend itself ...

"An unmistakable will to defend itself," says this European observer. That wlll to defend ourselves is just as critical for our nation's security as is the weaponry for our defense.

What most of our leaders do not seem to understand is that the will to defend ourselves cannot be sufficiently aroused if the basis for asking major sacrifices of the citizens is the protection of their standard ot living. By its own logic, this argument is useless. If the standard of living is presumed by the leaders to be the most important aspect of life in America, then one can't expect the people to give up the very thing which the giving-up is supposed to protect. I invite you to consider the statements of the Presidential candidates and note what part, if any, of their rhetoric has to do with anything other than privileges, rights and benefits. Those are not the stuff of the will to defend a nation. No, that will can only be inspired by a keen sense of the obligations of free citizens and

*I commend this monthly publication to members of the Council. The cost is $30 a year and the American address 1s P.O Box 7-356, West Hartford, Connecticut 06167.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS the transcendent importance of the life lived in dignity and self-responsibllity.

Throughout history, the success of one civilization after another has produced affluence and an increasing attachment to comforts and luxuries and a corresponding disregard for values and principles. Three hundred years ago John Milton identified this pattern in the civillzations before his time: What more oft in nations grown corrupt And by their vices brought to servitude Than to love bondage more than libertyBondage with ease than strenuous liberty.

"By their vices brought to servitude . . . preferring bondage with ease to strenuous liberty." Milton's observation about previous history was also a piercingly accurate prophecy of what has taken place in the United States. Let us begin with a consideration of what is meant by strenuous liberty and then turn to the vices which have made us such slaves to a standard of living that our stature in the world is reduced to a shambles by any nation large or small that has a passionate commitment to a political philosophy, however harsh, uncivilized or depraved that philosophy may be. It is an unequal contest. The erosion and virtual forefeiture of our national commitment to the ideal of liberty has reduced us to an important and stumbling participant in the worldwide battle for the minds of men.

Strenuous liberty. For openers, let us recognize that the definition of a savage is a person who does his own thing. That is precisely what a savage is, a person who does whatever he pleases without any regard for anyone or anything else. In contrast to a bunch of savages, every society must have some means for bringing about a conformity of behavior with regard to those things the society regards as important. If the society prizes human life, there must be some way to keep people from kUling each other. If private property is of importance, there has to be some way to protect it from vandalism, arson and theft. There have to be effective techniques for controlling the behavior of the citizens of every society so that the work can be done and the people can live together.

In a dictatorship, the head man decides what everybody will do and what they wlll not do and he enforces his decisions with armies of compliance officers, terrorism, brainwashing, torture and the various methods of tyranny. It 1s still a society. At the opposite pole of societies is what is called, and I emphasize "what is called", a free society. That doesn't mean every one does his own thing. That would not be a society at all but a jungle where savages engage in rape, arson, theft, vandalism, embezzlement, bribery, burglary, deviant sexual activity and other barbarisms. In the successful free society, human conduct is characteristically controlled by the voluntary observance of a vast complex of informal codes of conduct. They include religious commandments, professional ethics, sportsmanship , manners, morals , patriotism, integrity, the house rules of every organization and many other norms of behavior that are not part of public law. The greater the range of effective voluntary restraints the higher the level of freedom, and the more amicable, cooperative and productive the society. When those codes are no longer respected, the people turn to destructive and harmful activities and the government is then called upon to step in, more and more laws are passed, armies of compliance officers are put in the field, harsh penalties multiply, and the government moves along the spectrum of societies from freedom toward tyranny.

This is exactly what has happened in the United States. Liberty is not free. The one eternal and irreducible requirement of an orderly, agreeable and prosperous free society 1s a highly self-disciplined and self-reliant people. Unfortunately, those qualities

December 20, 1979 do not arise spontaneously in the human breast. Each new generation has to be trained to understand, accept and voluntarily abide by those informal codes of conduct. Until World War II, our familles, churches and synagogues, schools and colleges did a fairly good job of transmitting the values and standards of a free society to the young, and their efforts were generally reenforced, or at least not subverted, by the movies, plays, magazines, books and other cultural forces. A large part of the work of our Institute is devoted to analyzing how the schools and colleges and the other value-forming influences can be reenlisted in the critical role of training our young people in the obligations of responsible citizenship, but that is another speech. The point is, people must be effectively trained and continually reenforced in a commitment to those voluntary codes of conduct. The system for such training has broken down and must be reestablished.

Let us turn now to another fundamental change in our society which also has been eating away at the fabric of freedom and undermining the will to defend our liberty. This has to do with the actual purposes of the government. In every group, the members are subjected to an ever-present push-pull between their individual inclinations and what they are supposed to do as members of the group. The regular meeting of a social club may conflict with your daughter's birthday party. Your business may take you out of town at the time of a golf tournament. The point is that the group has to provide some attraction or benefit that will sufficiently outweigh the individual's contrary inclinations so that the group purposes wlll be fulfilled. This .requirement, which can be called the justifying principle of the group, applies to a school, a business, an athletic team and also to a nation, especially a nation. There has to be a justifying principle for every group or it can't hold together.

At the time the United States became a nation, the justifying principle was the assurance of liberty.. The hope of freedom from unjust taxes and oppressive government was what caused the colonists to fight the long, arduous Revolutionary War. The protection of liberty was the theme woven into the Constitution and it was the substance of the Bill of Rights. As long as the preservation of liberty remained the highest priority of the government, the nation continued to grow stronger, subject of course to the UJPS Sind downs that affect aH. human affairs.

Then in the 1930s there was a second AmeriCMl Revolution which radicaLly changed the nature of the government and its relationship to the people. The American Government of today operates on different premises a.nd is structured to serve a new purpose, with the result that liberty, as it was conceived two centuries ago, has been cast aside as a matter of governme\ll.tal concem. The protection of liberty has been repl81Ced by the granting of privileges, benefits and services. Liberty is no longer the justifying principle of our government. The distribution of gifts and favors has supplanted liberty.

This change of purpose was welcomed by many citizens. The hardships imposed by the Great Depression seemed to justify the use of the vast powers and resources of the central government to assist people in their time of need. The warm-hearted American citizens eventually beca.Ine acdustomed to having the Congress authorize help for an endless list of folks who asked for help. Unfortunately, the voters who supported this change in the role of government did not understla.nd the dynamics of government paternalism; they did not foresee the cancerous interplay between the power of those in office to grant favors and the eagerness of the citizens to receive favors.

The dream of a more humane society> has turned into a nightmare of governmental extravagance and corruption, of unfulfilled promises on a gigantic scale, of ill-conceived,

December 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 37743 counterproductive and costly programs, and a populace increasingly divided into militant groups competing fiercely against each other for the favors granted by the government. We are fast moving into the proverbial war of all against all, everyone trying to obtain special privileges for himself or his group. In this circumstance. where can you find the national unity to be mobilized as a will to defend the interests of a free nation?

The disastrous consequences of the welfare state government as opposed to the government of liberty have damaged all of the systems of our society. but let us register on several of those consequences which ha.ve denatured specific aspects of our government and devastated its relationships with the people.

1. The advent of the welfare state has fundamentally changed and distorted the basis on which the voters judge who is the best candidate for national office. To an increasing extent, honesty, breadth of knowledge, good judgment and the other sound and honorable qualities which one would hope to find in candidates for high office are being set aside in favor of a very di1ferent set of characteristics.

In the new order, the voters are concerned primarily about what benefits the elected officer can provide for them and their group. so that promises, fast footwork, arm-twisting, log-rolling, legislative clout, and even outright deceit are becoming the characteristics of electability. As Harold Blake Walker noted, of twenty-one Congressmen linked in one way or another with political wrongdoing or personal scandal prior to the 1976 election, nineteen were re-elected. Criminal activity and flagrant immorality have become insignificant in the view of the ever-greedier voters of the welfare state. Their main concern is whether the guy can get them their full share of Washington goodies. People elected to high office on that basis can scarcely be counted on for the wisdom, courage and integrity needed to meet tough international crises.

2. Another massive and destructive consequence of the Second Revolution is the change in the purpose of taxation. When liberty was the byword, taxes were collected only to pay to operate the government. Now, a large and rapidly growing portion of the taxes is collected for the express purpose of redistributing the wealth. This concept denies the meaning of private property. Once the redistribution of wealth is accepted as a proper function of government, there is, of course. no logical point at which to stop short of the total equalization of whatever wealth still exists. This confiscation of assets discourages productive people from working hard, and encourages lazy people to loaf. It is the kiss of death to an economy and it is inherently and eternally the enemy of liberty. I am in no way arguing against altruism and charitable activity-these are the marks of civilized society-but there is

a vast difference between providing emergency assistance and a forcible redistribution of private property.

3. The new role of government also brmgs into sharp focus a wasteful self-contradiction of bureaucracy. If people are employed to attend to a problem, the last thing they want to do is solve that problem and put themselves out of work. One can only regard with awe and admiration the great skill of the bureaucrats in nourishing a problem into something of gigantic proportions, generating research, undertaking surveys, holding conferences, traveling to the far corners of the earth to learn if the residents of Oz and Shangri-la have the same problem, preparing reports, holding press conferences, appointing committees, expanding the staff, opening regional offices, hiring consultants, publishing articles, visiting campuses, etc., all intently focussed upon the problem usually without any measurable effect in reducing it. As an example, consider the matter of drug abuse. Before the government problemsolvers got into the act, a number of private service organizations were trying to deal with this troublesome difficulty, operating with a relatively modest amount of money. Once Washington spread its paternalistic arms to embrace this grand problem, a new industry, the anti-drug abuse industry, blossomed into a b1llion-dollars-a-year enterprise virtually overnight. There is no data to indicate that drug problems have abated as a result of this massive spending activity. Indeed, the use of cocaine has been swiftly increasing, and there were some believable reports that even staff members in the White House were involved in the use of illegal drugs. The bureaucracy has a fairly consistent record of not solving the problems it tackles, thus assuring that the jobs of the problem-solvers will be safeguarded and multiplied.

These three points are but a few of the many devastating consequences of the change in justifying principle of our government. When the government turns itself into the great giver of gifts and privileges, the result is an infinite demand for dollars from the finite resources of the U.S. Treasury and an increasingly fragmented citizenry with more and more groups pressing their claims for grants and benefits a.nd privileges and special protection. The government not only becomes increasingly corrupt itself, as the encyclopedia of benefits and privileges it has to bestow invites bribery on a large scale, but it Rilso induces corruption among the citizens who seem to have no recourse against being over-taxed and over-regulated. Liberty is not free. The price of liberty is a highly selfdisciplined and self-relia.nt people.

Now, what is the point of this analysis? What good does it do to paint an unpleasant, but all too familiar landscape in new colors? The point is that if we don't understand the large problems that bedevil us, there is little likelihood that we can unravel them. For the most part, we have not understood how we got into the wel1'are state mess and so our

mUltiplying efforts to get us out aren't doing us much good. We have assumed that these are political and economic problems and have sought to apply political and economic remedies. They aren't working. They cannot work.

You see, the conversion from the land of the free to the land of the free lunch has been a cultural change. It has been a change in the ideals and values and priorities of the citizens. The people have come to value security and comfort more than liberty and self-reliance and inltegrity. The peopJ.e have been persuaded to believe it is their right to have the government provide them with food, clothing, shelter, symphony orchestras, art galleries, medical treatment, reimbursement for every loss and protection against every peril. And this, friends, is the central theme of the political campaign now heating up, a petty bragging contest about which candidate will do the most to serve the special interests of the largest voting blocs. The values and standards of conduct and obligations and genuine privileges of citizenship in a land of true liberty are submerged in an avala.nche of ill-founded or cynical promises and what is worse, much worse, is tha.t a.ny hope of reviving the will to defend the proper interests of liberty is buried under that same avalanche of political opportunism.

The only long-term remedy is a cultural one. We must find the means to alter the balance of persuasion in the marketplace of ideas, so that the wise and intelligelllt voices advocating the civilized and self-reliant and self-disciplined conduct of responsible free citizens will prevail against the self-serving demagogues who thrive on an expansion of the welfare state, and the barbarians who wish to validate their own undisciplined lives by freeing the clltizens from those few standards of self-disciplined and civ1lized conduct still remain. I am convinced that there are responsible, effective and expeditious ways to alter this balance of persuasion in the schools and colleges, the print and broadcast media and the other opinion-making celllters, but that, too, is another lecture or several lectures. My purpose here has been to shed some light on what has gone wrong at the core of things and how it has happened.

In concluding, let me go back to where we started. The importance of liberty to the human soul is in no way diminished by our having permitted the nature of liberty to become clouded and confused in the public mind. The stern realities of our diminished position in the world call upon all Americans of intelligence and good will to become the new freedom fighters who, knowing that liberty is not free, will devote themselves to reestablishing the standards of responsible, self-reliant and virtuous conduct required for an orderly, cooperative and productive free society. The byproducts of success in that undertaking will, I assure you, be a renewed determination by our citizens to defend our liberty and a. renewed respect for the United States of America throughout the world.e

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, December 24, 1979 The House met at 10 a.m. The Chaplain, James David Ford,

D.D., offered the following prayer:

On this Christmas Eve day we again give thanks, 0 Eternal God, for the joy of this season and the promise of hope for our unsettled world. "And while the angels in the sky

Sang praise above the silent field,

To shepherds poor the Lord most high, The one great Shepherd was re

vealed." -COELIUS SEDULIUS.

Bless our Nation, 0 Lord, and be with those dearest to us. At this happy time be with those who do not know our joy and our freedom, and may Your spirit comfort them and their families and

give them Your peace that passes all human understanding.

May the message of peace on Earth and good will to all be sung and said with cheerfulness this day and may we continue to live our lives in praise of You, 0 God, and in service to our neighbor. In the name of the Prince of Peace, we pray. Amen.

D This symbol represents the time of day during the House Proceedings, e.g., D 1407 is 2:07 p.m. • This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by the Member on the floor.

December flO, 1979 - U.S. Government Publishing Office

Documents

Transcript of December flO, 1979 - U.S. Government Publishing Office