HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, March 3, 1986

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3377

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, March 3, 1986 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. James David

Ford, D.D., offered the following prayer:

Our hearts are thankful, O Gracious God, for all the good gifts that You have bestowed upon us. Help us, O God, to respond to Your goodness to us by reaching out to others in prayer for those with special needs, and by deeds of justice and mercy. May we be worthy of the responsibilities and opportunities given to us that Your will may be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Amen.

THE JOURNAL The SPEAKER. The Chair has ex

amined the Journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.

Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate by Mr.

Hallen, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed joint resolutions of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

S.J. Res. 266. Joint resolution to authorize and request the President to designate the month of June 1986 as "Youth Suicide Prevention Month", and

S.J. Res. 271. Joint resolution designating "Baltic Freedom Day."

The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 93-29, as amended by Public Law 98-459, the President pro tempore appoints Mrs. Mary J. Majors, of Iowa, as a member from private life to the Federal Council on the Aging.

The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 99-83, the President pro tempore appoints Mr. Edward Howell Sims, of South Carolina, and Rabbi Morris Shmidman, of New York, as members from private life, to the Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad.

The message also announced that pursuant to sections 276d-276g, title 22, of the United States Code, the Vice President appoints Mr. MATTINGLY, as a member on the part of the Senate to the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group during the 2d session of the 99th Congress to be held in Tucson, AZ, on February 27 to March 3, 1986.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to announce that pursuant to clause 4 of rule I, the Speaker pro tempore signed the following enrolled joint resolutions on Friday, February 28, 1986:

H.J. Res. 499. Joint resolution designating the week beginning March 2, 1986, as "Women's History Week" and

H.J. Res. 409. Joint resolution to direct the President to issue a proclamation designating February 16, 1986, as "Lithuanian Independence Day."

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to announce that pursuant to House Resolution 384, agreed to on February 27, 1986, the Speaker did, on February 28, 1986, make certification to the U.S. District Attorney for the District of Columbia as required by House Resolution 384, of the refusal of Ralph Bernstein and Joseph Bernstein to answer questions of the Subcommittee on Asian. and Pacific Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR OLOF PALME

<Mr. DOWNEY of New York asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOWNEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, assassination, it seems, is reserved for the men who dedicate their lives to nonviolence. Words, not weapons; talk, not targets, were the higher inspirations of Olof Palme. He was sometimes strident and gruff in the pursuit of peace. During the war in Vietnam, his caustic criticism of United States involvement there stung many in our country. Who is this man who presumes to lecture us? We learned later from his work on the Palme Commission that peace was his passion and disarmament his means. The rift between north and south, east and west, was his constant concern.

His latest project, the five-continent peace initiative, is a bold effort of six nations-Sweden, Mexico, Tanzania, Argentina, Greece, and India-to stop nuclear weapons-testing and to prevent the heavens from joining the nuclear arms race. He made Sweden a force for peace. Millions on this planet share his view of the future and grieve this champion of reason. He would want his work continued and while there is no replacement for Olof

Palme, neither is there any substitute for his goal. We will miss and mourn him and honor him by learning to live in peace.

A SECOND CHANCE FOR DAIRY FARMERS

<Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GUNDERSON. Madam Speaker, last Thursday and Friday, this House was involved in a very partisan debate over the leadership's decision to pull from consideration legislation which would allow the dairy farmers of this country to meet their savings under Gramm-Rudman through an assessment rather than a price cut.

Many have suggested that the Republicans won that partisan debate last Thursday, but I would suggest that there is little consolation in winning a partisan debate at the expense of America's troubled farm community.

On Friday, the Department of Agriculture gave this House of Representatives a second chance when they announced that they would not make any purchases of dairy products on Monday or Tuesday of this week, giving us u~til Wednesday to try to correct our mistake of last week.

I therefore now call on the Democratic leadership to, No. 1, show that, yes, this House of Representatives can legislate deficit reduction; No. 2, I call on the Democratic leadership to show that they really are the party of fairness that they claim to be; No. 3, I call upon the Democratic leadership to provide the leadership in the House of Representatives which they believe they have earned by becoming the majority party in the House.

We have until Wednesday to correct that mistake of the Democratic leadership of last week. I beseech you, in fairness to America's dairy farmers, to do just that.

AN APOLOGY BY MR. DORNAN <Mr. YATES asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YATES. Madam Speaker, last Friday I was shocked to hear on a TV news program, a statement made by the gentleman from California CMr. DORNAN] which, while critical of Vladimir Posner, the Soviet spokesman,

0 This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., 0 1407 is 2:07 p.m.

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

3378 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 3, 1986 clearly smacked of anti-Semitism. I gave notice to him I intended to take the floor today to respond to it.

Since that time, I have heard that Mr. DORNAN apologized, and conceded that his remark was poorly phrased. It is unfortunate that his words were conveyed throughout the country by the TV press as he uttered them, but in view of his retraction and his apology I am not disposed to press the matter further at this time.

THE 27TH COMMUNIST PARTY CONGRESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

<Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, the 27th Communist Party Congress is now in progress in Moscow. More than 500 delegates have traveled to Moscow from all parts of the Soviet Union to endorse a new agenda for programs that will guide them through to the end of the 20th century.

As General Secretary Gorbachev implements his new programs and consolidates his leadership, it is important for him to realize how important human rights are to the United States. How Gorbachev implements Soviet human rights policy over the next year will have a major influence in the future relationship between our two countries.

I urge my colleagues to join me in sending a message to the delegates at the Party Congress emphasizing that improvements in human rights and emigration policy must be a focus of their foreign policy initiatives. It is time that the Soviet Union recognize and live up to its international human rights

The delegates to the Party Congress must realize that they are not only setting a future agenda for themselves, but also for the future of United States-Soviet relations and thereby, in large measure, the future of the world.

U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE DEFICIT SETS ANOTHER RECORD <Mr. ECKART of Ohio asked and

was given permission to address the House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ECKART of Ohio. Madam Speaker, one of our President's most recurring campaign themes of 1984 was, "You ain't seen nothin' yet." And this, unfortunately, is painfully true, as the case for our Nation's continued trade deficit grows.

Last Saturday, the international trade deficit figures for the month of January were released, and with great anguish I read that we once again set another new record.

·In January alone, our deficit was $16112 billion, far surpassing the previous 1-month record of $15.1 billion, and setting this Nation on a course of an international trade deficit of $198 billion annual if continued unabated for 1986; or an amount equal to the Federal budget deficit.

The Reagan administration continues to cry wolf when it comes to our Nation's trade status. The administration continues to claim that good and prosperous times are indeed just around the corner and that there is light at the end of the tunnel; but these continued dismal trade statistics seem to indicate the contrary, and indeed, the light at the end of the .tunnel in terms of international trade is a freight train headed squarely toward the jobs of Americans all across this Nation.

THE LONE STAR STATE CELEBRATES ITS SESQUICENTENNIAL <Mr. CHAPMAN asked and was

given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CHAPMAN. Madam Speaker, yesterday my home State of Texas paid tribute to 150 years of independence. The day's festivities were part of what has been, and will continue to be, a year-long celebration and commemoration of key dates in Texas' history.

The spirit and legends that live in Texas today contributes an important chapter in the history books for all Americans.

The only State in the Union to have once been its own nation, Texas has followed history down an unbridled path of self-determination and destiny.

As we remember 150 years of independence, we should reflect on the accomplishments of our heroes, the legacies they have left us, and look forward to a future that recognizes no bounds.

In his last letter from the Alamo 150 years ago, Col. William Barrett Travis closed with a prosphetic refrain: "God and Texas-Victory or Death!"

To Travis and his 187 defenders of liberty who lost their lives at the Alamo, death was preferable to disgrace.

In the 6 weeks following, their memories inspired a garrison of Texans to victory at San Jacinto, winning freedom and independence for the newly formed Republic.

It is the spirit of Colonel Travis, Sam Houston, Stephen Austin, and the authors of our Texas Constitution that inspires us again today throughout some 3,000 cities and towns across the Lone Star State as we celebrate our sesquicentennial.

For tomorrow and beyond, the special people who have contributed to

Texas' greatness will remind us of the legends lived and the legends yet to come.

D 1210

DEMOCRACY SHOULD START AT THE BOTTOM AND WORK ITS WAY UP <Mr. SCHUMER asked and was

given permission to address the House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam Speaker, during the next few days, Secretary Shultz will come to Capitol Hill and renew his full-court press to see that this Congress gives $100 million of military aid to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Flush with victory from its stand in the Philippines, the administration is now going to make the argument that, if we must aid democracy when authoritarians of the right are in charge, then we must also aid democracy when authoritarians of the left are in charge.

But there are three questions that this administration has never fully answered, questions which must be answered before we vote a single nickel of military aid to the Nicaraguan Contras. First, who are we aiding? The Contras, as our own studies have shown, have an uncomfortably high percentage not of democrats in their ranks but of former Fascists from the Somoza regime. These are not people we want to put into power.

Second, when should we use armed force?

We certainly did not in the Philippines. The will of democracy came from the bottom up, from the people, and that is what toppled Marcos, not a ragtag army funded by U.S. aid, covert or overt.

Third, even if the first two questions could be adequately answered, for what end are we doing this? Can we win? For the last 3 years the administration has told us we are near victory. Yet current reports show more than 60 percent of the Contras are ensconced in Honduras, not waging war at all.

Madam Speaker, until these three questions are answered I do not think anyone in this body can vote for military aid to the Contras.

DAIRY INDUSTRY SAYS "DON'T CUT US, CUT EVERYBODY ELSE"

<Mr. LOWRY of Washington asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LOWRY of Washington. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Saturday, the first of March, many, many programs across this Government received a 4.3-percent cut. I have

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3379 in front of me a list of about 60 or 70 low-income and education programs that were cut 4.3 percent on the first of March.

I can only read a few of them. Handicapped education, cut $61 mil

lion; low-income home energy assistance cut $90 million; child abuse protection and care of abused children and spouses was cut $116 million; local antipoverty program, emergency food and shelter cut $16 million; the distribution of surplus was cut $2 million; the program for sexual abuse used with problems in the criminal justice system was cut $3 million, Head Start was cut $47 million. And I have about 70 more that I do not have time to read . .

Then in comes the dairy lobby and says, "Don't give us a 4.3-percent cut that all these other programs are getting." And those Members of this institution that voted for GrammRudman to close the 4.3-percent cut in these programs but do not want it to happen to their dairy farmers, I am saying that is not fair. It has to happen to everybody or we have to have justice back.

MY ADVICE TO THE PRIVILEGED ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. GONZALEZ] is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to continue with a special emphasis on developments that have been headlined and registered in the newspapers otherwise over the weekend, the line of thought that I had attempted to outline to my colleagues last week.

Last week I spoke twice. The last half of last week's presentation had to do with the fact that the President has embarked on what I consider to be a catastrophic course of action with respect to those countries south of the border. At this point, two of our most immediate neighbors, the Republic of Mexico and Guatemala, the one right next to Mexico, are relatively quiescent insofar as our newspaper headlines are concerned. However, there is no question that churning underneath this apparent surf ace of calm are the same situations, the same forces that have erupted and have caused our heavy investment, heavy in treasure up to now and relatively light in blood but unquestionably, as I said last Thursday, if the President persists in his line of action and he has given absolutely no indication that he will change or veer one iota, will be heavy in blood.

I feel it is such a mistaken course of action that it is not difficult to advise my colleagues that should they continue to acquiesce and succumb to the blandishments and threats and the

pressure, at times, depending on the methods and the occasions as they arise, which one the President uses, to this last request of $300 million to be given in direct aid, military and otherwise, the President has stripped himself of this mask of hypocrisy that he put on last year in which he flummoxed out of this Congress about $40 million worth of so-called nonlethal humanitarian aid but which in effect was aiding a motley and unseemly group of assassins, terrorists, rapists, rapists of schoolteachers, innocent and young teenage girls in Nicaragua, all sanctioned by the approval that the President's policy and, up to now, as endorsed by the Congress, have given, a sanction which I think American public opinion would not, once informed of the facts.

Why is it the American people do not have the facts? Well, essentially, why is it the American people do not have facts about who the real decisionmakers are with respect to their very, very vital standard of living or their economic well-being?

I would think for the same reasons essentially. That is that we live in a day and time in which a free society can be just as much manipulated, can be just as much brainwashed as any country that we have always despicably and sort of condescendingly looked down upon. Even the term "brainwash" for example was something that when first used during the Korean conflict was considered alien to any, in any manner, shape, or form, of our thinking. This would be only that which a wily oriental people, devoid of the average feeling for human life, would employ. I recall that phrase was first used and then gained quite a bit of currency during the Korean conflict.

We like to think that we do not think that way. We look upon ourselves from the point of view and a perspective which, regrettably, the external world does not share. This is true with respect to our attitude and our assessments of what is going on in the societies that, of necessity, must share the future and our destiny with us in the New World.

These misperceptions, I believe, and I believe it imperative that they be corrected insofar as it is humanly possible if in no other manner, shape, or form, by the record.

The greatness of our system is, as we review the history even of a body such as the House of Representatives of the United States, that there have always been even in the midst of an overwhelming tide of events a few voices which have been on the record cautioning, advising, dissenting, and then, in retrospect, we are quite impressed when we find that this voice, feeble as it may have been at the time, was nevertheless being expressed in the course

of deliberations of the House of Representatives.

The very fact that an individual Member of this House would resort to what we call special orders, which is the privilege that allows me to address the House in an extended form and which exists for the reason that a member of a numerous body, such as this, will be given an opportunity to extend over and above the limitations of debate that must necessarily prevail during what we call discussion or debate.

But that does not detract from the responsibility of the equally powerful forces in our country, those who collect, garner, and disseminate the facts of occurrences in our country, in and out of our country. It does not absolve them and I do not think history will absolve our much touted free press from actually pursuing, despite heavy pressure from the administration, as it has exerted on some periodicals in our country.

D 1225 It in no way excuses these periodi

cals from pursuing and obtaining the truth and disseminating it to the best of their abilities, because this is the only way that we can redeem freedom of the press in a free society.

We are relatively free. Of course, no society has ever known complete freedom, because freedom bespeaks responsibility and self-restraint and discipline. But when we have the powerful forces, some of which control 95 percent of the viewing time of our American public through the electronic media and in the press, now whose ownership is so concentrated that it represents a concentration unthought of, never quite anticipated even 20 years ago, in which concentration of ownership is interlocking, the same interests that own the printed media, whether journal, magazines or daily newspapers, also are governing the destinies of banks and some of our chief corporations, main corporations in the country.

In just the last 5 years, the concentration of wealth through two main conduits-one, the redistribution through tax policies as of 1981; and two; the absolute abdication of responsibility in enforcing the so-called antitrust laws-have resulted for the first time in our history with less than 7 percent of our segment of society owning and controlling over 80 percent of the wealth of this Nation.

If that does not give almost total power to determine the key issues, I do not know what could.

This is reflected in our assessment in the coverage of our media of the events that are churning and broiling right now in countries that have not yet erupted into crisis, but who will present in their essential form the

3380 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 3, 1986 same type of crisis problem that we have confronted unsuccessfully for the last 5 years especially in the smallest country in the Western Hemisphere, El Salvador. Rather, we have opted for the same tactics that I think, for a while at least, we saw in blazing headlines in the case of the Philippines. The essential issues involved are no different.

If the administration and the President can successfully P.R. the situation, at least for the time being, into thinking that somehow, somewhere, it had a policy that won something in the Philippines, let me dispel that notion from my colleagues' minds. Let me disabuse your minds of that. No matter who would win in the Philippines, the problems are endemic, they are profound, unresolved, and we have developed no policies with which to address them. If we think for the moment the fact that Ferdinand Marcos was ejected from the Philippines is even a step toward a solution to these problems, let me disabuse my colleagues.

Let me also point out the national interest involved, truly involved, in the case of the principal bases that we must depend on in that part of the world, at least up until now. Right before the events took the turn that they did in the Philippines just less than a week ago, we had some newspaper references to military experts saying, well, they are not indispensible, these bases in the Philippines, Subic Bay, the naval base and the other.

But the fact is that this is the argument we have always heard after we lost. I want to point out to my colleagues that nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. Your insistence on calling failure a success is piling up the day of reckoning for us, in which we will be asked to pay a price that I do not think the American people ought to be asked to pay or that they will willingly pay without further devisiveness in our society, which will be costly and detrimental to our own development.

Why do I say this? Well, just look at the facts. When we poured millions of dollars into the construction of Cam Ranh Bay on the Vietnamese coast, there was no thought ever given that we would lose possession of those waters and control. Why, we had the powerful fleet, the Pacific Fleet, just like we have the powerful Mediterranean Fleet; just like we have piled armament on the Caribbean and Pacific sides of the isthmus like never in the history of that part of the world.

But who are we kidding? Cam Ranh Bay is right now used daily in operational functions by the Russian Navy, the Russians; the Communists, if you please. These are the ones that we went in there to build Cam Ranh Bay against.

How could it happen? Well, we deluded ourselves into thinking that we had won something when we were kicked out of South Vietnam, rushed pell-mell, and lost far more than just physical possession of some bases we had built at great cost. Had we not had things develop in that form, I can assure you, my colleagues, we would not have had the hostage situation in Iran, nor would we now presently have been, for all intents and purposes, ejected from any serious presence in the Middle East itself.

When a people and their leaders insist on deluding themselves, and the leaders have the ability to delude the people, it does not take a prophet, it does not take an expert to know that that society is in trouble. If we are callous to what has been going on south of the border in which, in the name of fighting communism, or Marxist-Leninist whatever, we equip those who rape, who pillage, who plunder, if we insist through our military technicians in forming armies that use the techniques that did not win for us in Vietnam, how else are we going to end up but in a catastrophic def eat, a costly one in blood and treasure.

I have from a newspaper, USA Today, for today, March 3, because I think events speak far more eloquently than any words or verbal speeches one may make, an article.

On the one hand, I would like to place in the RECORD at this point, this article, and then I will develop the interconnection between these events with what I have been saying and what I will try to say in the remaining portion of my time.

The articles follow: NEIGHBORS TRY To SAVE FARM COMMUNITY

<By Chuck Raasch> WETMORE, KANSAS.-On the road leading

into town is a faded red sign. "Wetmore, the Modern City of Opportuni·

ty," It boasts. "Build More with Wetmore." Guy Stedman knows differently. "Hasn't

been opportunity here for years," the businessman says softly, as if his hometown of 376 people is a sick friend.

In many ways it is. Powerful forces are clashing here and in

hundreds of other small USA towns where the 1980s farm crisis has become a test of spirit and survival.

Families are leaving, businesses are closing, rumors of bankruptcies blow like ill winds. A fire last month wiped out Stedman's hardware store and two other businesses, adding to the woes.

Yet townsfolk take shelter in hometown pride and resilience. "I like the values of a small town," says Mayor Dan Maltby, 50, a father of five. "I can drive down the streets and know pretty much everybody who lives in the houses."

"A lot of people who have resided here and have gone through hard times still feel this will be home," says resident June Carson. "Maybe things will come back."

Stedman, 40, isn't so sure. "We're being plunged into poverty," says the man who two years ago started Help the Farmers, an aid and referral service for needy families.

"It's that lack of control over their own lives that bothers people the most," says Bill Persinger, director of a mental health center in nearby Hiawatha. "A general sense of foreboding, that 'I don't know what is going to happen.' "

Wetmore sits astride Highway 9 in the broad, fertile lap of corn and wheat where Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri fold together. Church steeples and grain elevators pierce the USA's geographical heart.

Agriculture dominates this region-from Kansas to the Canadian border-more than any other area, making it vulnerable to depression. One-fourth of all small-town businesses in seven Midwestern states could fail by 1988, according to a survey of 950 bankers earlier this winter. And a 1984 Nebraska study declared farm towns with populations under 500 an endangered species.

The exodus is nothing new, as the gray winter landscape bears out. In one 50-mile stretch, there are 40 long-abandoned farmsteads.

Crumbling barns and houses now teeter in the wind, their vacant windows peering out like eyes with hollow stares.

In its heyday 80 years ago, Wetmore had three grocery stores, two banks, a cannery, two grain elevators and twice as many people. Today, it has one bank, one grocery store, a telephone company, a school, and a manufacturing firm . that employs 11. A beauty shop closed last fall. Its operator moved to California, leaving a ring of unswept hair on the floor.

A bright note: Little Chef Restaurant, which closed about the same time <its calendar is stuck on October> will be reopened Tuesday by a Topeka businessman.

The Wetmore Lions Club, as owner of the building, had offered the place-dishes and all-rent-free for several months in an effort to attract business.

"It seems like the town is just dead" without a restaurant, says Carson, who co-owns JBN Telephone Co., with husband, Robert. "It's like every day is a holiday or a Sunday.''

Banker John Morrissey says most new businesses probably are unmarketable because you couldn't pay off a loan and clear the $15,000 it takes to raise a family here. The domino theory worries many.

"You have to spend $15 to drive to another town to get a 15-cent bolt, you say, 'I might as well get my groceries there,' " says Mayor Maltby. "If that happens, there goes your grocery store, too.''

Stedman would like to rebuild-"This town needs a hardware store" -but doesn't know if he could get a loan. He was falling behind on his $800-plus-a-month business mortgage before the fire, which investigators blamed on electrical wiring, and says insurance won't cover all his losses. <Help the Farmers has relocated to the old beauty shop.)

Tax preparer Eddie Porter, 67, and dentist Phil Lapham, 82-who also lost businesses in the fire-won't rebuild.

"It makes the crossroads we were coming to a lot closer,'' says Maltby. "Before, it was 'if, if in two or three years it didn't get better.' But right now, it is today, tomorrow.''

Townsfolk faced a crossroad two years ago when a tornado destroyed the American Legion Hall. Despite talk of not rebuilding, residents later donated money and labor for a new brick hall on Second Street. The building was seen as a confirmation of Wetmore's future.

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3381 But many say the things you can't see

the mental strain people are experiencing inside their homes-are the most destructive forces here.

The number seeking counseling in Persinger's clinic, which covers four rural northeastern Kansas counties, has tripled in three years.

People who are outwardly strong, often pillars of the community, are ripped apart by the prospect of going bankrupt in front of the tight circle of friends and families.

Persinger, who helped talk one farmer out of suicide this winter, says even if the economy improves overnight, some of the hardest-hit towns face a "delayed stress syndrome" similar to what veterans go through after wars.

Some farmers, wary of rumors, stay out of town.

Despite the hurt, the pulses of life in Wetmore continue in a steady beat. The Modem Study Club, Sunny Side Club, Golden Age Club-all social organizations-meet monthly. Glynda Noe's weekly column of local social events in area newspapers is spiced with reports like Dorothy Scott's 80th birthday, when 150 people came calling.

Residents gather and gossip daily over coffee and doughnuts at the American Legion Hall.

Wetmore High School's annual plays are a big success. The First Methodist Church has a turkey dinner every Thanksgiving. The ham and chicken dinner at St. James Roman Catholic Church in June draws hundreds, as does its soup supper and bazaar before Christmas.

More than 100 people turned out to celebrate Herb Kling's lOOth birthday in November, even though the reclusive manrarely seen outside his ramshackle house on the edge of town for 30 years-didn't show because he hates crowds.

Overall, people are cordial and caring. During February's big fire, Lyle Whitaker, owner of the Machine Design factory in town, stuck a $1,000 check in Stedman's pocket to cover living expenses. Others gave him $20 and $50 bills and food. One neighbor bulldozed the rubble and refused payment.

"I found out that I had hundreds of friends," says Stedman, who returned to his hometown from Chicago five years ago after a divorce because, he says, it was the most comforting place to go.

"I really don't want Wetmore to be a ghost town," he says. "There are a lot of people across this land who . . . want to be able to go home, they want their homes to keep on living. It's the roots, that basic American feeling of knowing where they come from."

WEAKER DOLLAR GIVES STRENGTH TO U.S.A. FIRMS

<By Constance Mitchell) USA companies doing business abroad fi

nally are feeling the effects of the falling dollar.

A survey compiled by Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. estimates that foreign earnings of USA multinationals rose between 20% and 25% in the fourth quarter of 1985 from the same period a year earlier, after declining for 16 of the past 17 quarters.

Most gains resulted from currency translations, which made sales and earnings of foreign subsidiaries worth more because they are converted into more dollars.

"The change has been surprisingly strong," said Rein van der Does, Drexel's director of international research. "The dollar

is helping tremendously," and will boost foreign earnings by at least 35% in the current quarter, he said.

For example, Dow Chemical Co. operates plants in 30 countries, and derives 55% of its total revenues outside the USA. In the fourth quarter, Dow's European sales were $1.09 billion, up 22% from $891 million a year earlier.

Strong demand for chemicals contributed to part of the gain, but currency conversions boosted Dow's European operating income to $62 million, up 38% from $45 million in the same period a year earlier.

A pound of industrial-grade plastic, for example, made by Dow's Swiss subsidiary and priced at 100 francs, brought home $40 in late 1984 when one dollar converted into about 2.5 francs, said Pahyne Ha.nsen, a spokesman for Dow Chemical in Horgen, Switzerland. Friday, when one dollar was worth 1.88 francs, the plastic fetched $53.

But currency translations might not eliminate the USA's $150 billion merchandise trade deficit or shift the competitive balance in the USA's favor. To improve on those fronts the dollar needs to fall another 15% to 20%, experts say. When that happens:

Exporters of steel, computers, machine tools and other heavy equipment will benefit as their products become less expensive overseas, compared with their foreign-made counterparts.

"People won't run out and replace their old equipment just because the dollar dropped a little," said Stephen Newhouse of Caterpillar Tractor Co., which ships a large portion of its earth-moving equipment abroad. "It has to fall down and stay down to be significant."

Companies that produce and sell most of their products here-autos, electronic equipment, clothing-will benefit as rising import prices make their products more attractive to domestic consumers. Some of these companies also will be able to raise their prices slightly, and still be competitive with foreign suppliers.

PROFITS FROM ABROAD 1

Company Foreign reve-

Earnings per share estimate

nue 2 1985 1986

Procter & Gamble ...................•............................... 90 $4.34 $5.23 66 5.17 6.27 65 5.20 6.06 ~~~s_::::::::: : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :

Dow Chemical ........................................................ . 54 2.49 3.54 Pfizer ..... ......................... ............... ........................ . 44 3.49 3.93 Merck & Co ........................................................... . 43 7.53 8.70

42 1.36 2.99 40 10.68 12.61 38 1.03 1.57

~:~.::::::: : ::::::::: : :: : ::: :::: :: : : :: ::::::::: : :: :: :: : ::::::::: : :: AMP, Inc ................................................................ . Digital Equipment ................ ................................ .. . 35 8.42 11.31

1 These U.S. companies get a big share of their profits from foreign sales and could benefit from a weaker dollar.

• As percent of total sales in 1985. Source: lacks Investment Research.

Mr. GONZALEZ. The first one, No. 1, is entitled, "Cover Story: Neighbors Try to Save Farm Community." It is datelined Wetmore, KS.

It starts by pointing out that Wetmore, as a faded road sign says at its entrance, "The Modern City of Opportunity," is literally wasting away.

D 1235 It quotes: Families are leaving, businesses are clos

ing, rumors of bankruptcies blow like ill winds. A fire last month wiped out Sted-

man's hardware store and two other businesses, adding to the woes.

Second, I off er for inclusion a very brief, three-line item in the same newspaper, USA Today, Monday, March 3, in what they call the "Moneyline" section, and it says:

Failures up: Business failures in 1985 increased by 9.6%, to 57,067 from 52,078 in 1984, Dunn & Bradstreeet Corp. reported Sunday.

Well, that is just what Dunn & Bradstreet reported.

The third item, same newspaper except on the column entitled "Washington," same date:

SOVIET UNION: SUPPORT PLEDGED FOR CASTRO Moscow.-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorba

chev, who turned 55 Sunday, gave his official blessing to the Kremlin's ally in the Caribbean: Cuban President Fidel Castro_ They met Sunday and Gorbachev pledged continued support for Cuba's fight against what the official news agency Tass called "the threats and acts of provocation of U.S. imperialism." Castro, who had not been in Moscow since the funeral of Yuri Andropov in February 1984, was given the honor of being the first foreigner to address the 27th Communist Party Congress. Castro accused the USA of fighting "progressive patriotic forces" in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola, Namibia, South Africa, Cambodia, Afghanistan and opposing the Palestinian cause.

Also in that same newspaper is another article in which it is reported that today the President will meet with the leaders that he feels that he needs to meet with today in order to sell the Congress on the $300 million that he wants us to give him for the so-called Contras.

This one is on page 2-A for today: REAGAN To MEET 3 "CONTRA" LEADERS

Three top civilian leaders of the U.S.backed "contras" meet with President Reagan today-continuing a White House push for $100 million in aid for those fighting Nicaragua's Marxist regime.

Adolfo Calero is one. Now, Calero, yes, he fought or did something against Somoze, the dictator, but he also happened to have been the Managua Coca-Cola franchise holder of the bottling plant in Managua.

Arturo Crus; Considered the most prominent leader of Nicaragua's opposition. Before joining the anti-Sandinista forces in 1981, he was the Sandinistas' ambassador in Washington as well as head of Nicaragua's Central Bank.

But there is a little disclaimer. It says: "* • • Cruz opposes the U.S. trade embargo against Nicaragua . . .,,

The complete article is as follows: REAGAN To MEET 3 "CONTRA" LEADERS

Three top civilian leaders of the U.S.backed "contras" meet with President Reagan today-continuing a White House push for $100 million in aid for those fighting Nicaragua's Marxist regime:

Adolfo Calero: A leader of the political opposition during the Anastasio Somoza years, Calero now heads the 15,000 to 20,000-member Nicaraguan Democratic Force, the

3382 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 3, 1986 largest of several groups fighting the Sandinistas.

Educated at Notre Dame and Syracuse universities, Calero was general manager of the Managua Coca-Cola bottling plant until 1983-when he joined the fight against the Managua regime.

He is the most conservative of the rebel leaders who meet Reagan today.

Arturo Cruz: Considered the most prominent leader of Nicaragua's opposition. Before joining the anti-Sandinista forces in 1981, he was the Sandinistas' ambassador in Washington as well as head of Nicaragua's Central Bank.

Despite his prominence within the contra movement, Cruz opposes the U.S. trade embargo against Nicaragua, calling it counterproductive.

Cruz is a graduate of Georgetown University.

Afonso Robelo: Was one of two non-Sandinista anti-Somoza activists who joined the junta established in July 1979 when Somoza fell. He and Violeta Chamooro left the junta in 1980.

Robelo, a prominent businessman, was jailed by the Sandinistas after he resigned from the junta.

Well, this is what President Reagan says was a national emergency, because the President cannot invoke that section of the law which we have delegated him power unless he first determines there is a threat to the national interest in an emergency.

Nicaragua, then, has been declared as a serious threat, emergency status, to our security. Yet we have an Ambassador in Managua. We have not called him back. All during the time we have been having the CIA invest millions of dollars in trying to knock out the Sandinista leaders, blow up their wharves and docks and their public buildings and try to assassinate some of their leaders, we have had our Ambassador there grinning and shaking hands and going to ambassadorial functions, meaning that we recognize the regime that the President says we have got to knock out.

So if we were to say that this is the way the Russians operate, everybody would say, "Oh, sure." But nobody wants to look at ourselves, when we work the same way, in fact, in a far more despicable way, because at least there is no pretence, in the case of an authoritarian regime. Then the third person will be Alfonso Robelo, "One of two non-Sandinista anti-Somoza activists who joined the junta established in July 1979, when Somoza fell. He and Violeta Chammorro left the junta in 1980."

Well, if we can try to imagine, from the point of view of the Nicaraguan people who held an election in November 1984, and in which they had the overwhelming, preponderant number of Nicaraguan citizens participate, and which, for the information of my colleagues, that the American papers did not publish, the official Communist Party candidates did not even get 6 percent of the vote, so that this is where Marxist-Leninist concepts,

jargon, and the like, really go, even in El Salvador, where you have five different rebel groups, the weakest up to now. Of course, the way we are going, in desperation, the people are going to make them strong, just as we have Fidel Castro. Fidel Castro has not been what I would consider to be the topnotch type, but we made him. Through our calamitous misunderstanding and assessments, we have made leaders. We have given communism credit that I would hardly give communism. I would say that we failed in realizing that unless we join the forces, correct an injustice, unless we take positions that show clearly that we are not on the side of the oppressors and unjust regimes, we are leaving room open for anybody, even if it is the devil with pitchfork and tail, who says, "I want to help you, I want to give you employment, I want to give milk for your children, I want to give you bread for your tables, I'll find a way to employ you, where you won't be in idleness here, as useless members of this society."

Well, I will guarantee you that if you get human beings desperate enough, they do not care if the devil himself comes in person, much less a Marxist-Leninist. How else do we think Hitler gained power? Do we think it was the charm of his personality, or what he first promised with the desperate situation prevailing in that Germany of starving children, of high rates of unemployment, high rates of homelessness, which, incidentally, we are beginning, and have gone for the last 3 years a long way, to produce a growing army of homeless Americans. If anybody here can tell me that we can look with equanimity and complacency on these forces, we better look at ourselves first, before we think that we can go out and impose regimes in other countries. If we think we can do that and get away with it, I am afraid history is going to be a very sorrowful record for us. It has, up to now, and at great pain do we ignore it.

What is the connecting link between all of these four items I have included in the RECORD? Because there is.

First, the very forces and elements that today have complete power of determining our economic well being in our country are the ones who are also shaping the policies south of this country. But who are they? Well, they are the great J. Peter Grace who own the great conglomerates, he is one of those great plutocrats we have developed, who also happens to own now, as one of the little parts of their empire, what used to be called United Fruit, which has and continues to pretty much dominate a little country like Honduras. In Honduras the railroad is owned by United Fruit, the dwelling houses of the workers are owned by United Fruit, the pay is dictated by

United Fruit, everything else is dependent upon United Fruit.

We are in Honduras in a heavy military way not because the people of Honduras want us. In fact, they do not. At no time has their duly elected body, known as the assembly, ever passed any resolution welcoming us there or even inviting us there. But Honduras is the second poorest country in all of that area. They have been desperate. We have in the immediate past tried to use "divide and conquer" tactics, because the interpretation given by our plutocrats of the developments in that part of the world are labeled as Communist or Marxist-Leninist because these individuals that will be meeting with the President today will look upon it that way.

Of course, the Coca-Cola bottling plant manager or concessionaire went along when he saw the tide rising, but he was not about to go, when, all of a sudden, a labor leader in power said, "Hey, you are not paying enough".

Now, whether it is in Mexico, which by far is far more advanced than these countries south of Mexico-but it is true there, too, whether it is Mexico, Guatemala, or, especially, in El Salvador, where you had 12 or 14 families ruling absolutely in total control for generations.

As a matter of fact, all we have to do is read a little bit of history and see that in 1930 you had similar uprising, and it was put down at great cost of blood, too, and again with the tacit aid of the United States because of our commercial links who do business with those who rule and in this case happen to be the people who have become accustomed, after 250 years of total and absolute rule.

What I am saying is that all that world, not only the rest of the world, but particularly this part of the world, has radically changed. It is no longer the Latin America that we used to speak of as a somnolent, guitar-strumming, romantic-speaking people. They never were. But that was our concept. And now, especially in view of the churning events of history, it is far more imperative that we understand this than perhaps it was in 1961 when President Kennedy announced the Alliance for Progress.

So the connection is there. We cannot, in our own country, sink ourselves in a frozen indifference on the part of our Government to the needs for food of many of our citizens and then go out and say that we can expect those same leaders to do more for some alien people. Of course not.

So where has the Reagan administration ever offered any kind of a policy development, any kind of a program, to aid the needs of those people south of the border? It is nonexistent, except and unless it is based on military aid.

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3383 0 1250

That, I say, is not only counterproductive, it is a tragic mistake.

Somebody asked me in speaking this way back home in my district, because I do not speak differently anywhere else. They said, "Well, what would you do?"

I said, "Well, it isn't what I would do, because I don't have the power; but I think what you are asking is sort of a rhetorical question, like, 'if you did have the power, what would you do?'"

I said, "Well, No. 1, if I had the power, I would pull out all our military, lock, stock and barrel. Instead of a heavy tank down in Honduras, I would send a watertank and go from there."

Of course, by now, almost through self-fulfillment and in total need to def end, because the President's policy toward Nicaragua has been, in sort and in plain language, "drop dead or we will kill you."

Well, you cannot do that to people in the 20th century like you used to do it in 1930 and as we have done, not any longer, because one, they are not going to drop dead; and second, they are going to fight for their revolution.

If the British Crown in the l 770's and l 780's had done the equivalent of what they would have done, they would have called Benedict Arnold and said, "Hey, we want to help you. We want to give you aid."

How did we look on Benedict Arnold? A great traitor.

Well, this is exactly the same way those people down there look on these people that the President is going to receive today to see in what way, what method, what kind of a format, what kind of a scenario can be developed that can pressure the Congress.

Well, I will tell the President-he does not have to call those three Nicaraguans. I will tell him, because this is the way it is going to be. We will see screaming headlines in which they will find Mig's or something else in Nicaragua, or else some of our servicemen, some of whom, as I have said before, have been illegally deployed and immersed them into the civil war raging down there, will get killed, and that is all it will take, and unfortunately some loss of life there.

Say the headline tomorrow is, "Sandinistas kill six American soldiers in Honduras." There is not a man in this body that will not rise to the plea of the President.

I ought to know. I was here when we had the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and that was no different, and that was a wholesale delegation of power to the President.

The President is not asking for $100 million because he cannot find ways to send $100 million. He is asking for the Congress to give him the imprimatur of approval of a bankrupt policy.

My colleagues, when you do that, history will be inexorable. You will not be pardoned. It will be inexorable in its judgment because you are now charged with knowledge. The threats of 2, 3, or 4 years ago that if we did not, why, the Communists were going to take over, and we had floor speeches in which one or two of my colleagues said, "Why, the next stop of those forces will be at the Texas border." This is how far we have gone in the past, so I can tell you that it will not take much to stir that up again.

Now, how is all of that connected with these other dismal pictures of our situation at home?

Well, in the same newspaper this morning, the big story was about how interest rates have fallen below 10 percent. Well, that has happened once before, not too long ago, shortly for a while; but the real fact is that when some of us have tried to get an accountability from the powerful factotums, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and I noticed recently there was a cover story in the Newsweek magazine which has a glorious picture of h im as the second most powerful man in America.

Well, I have news for Newsweek. He is the most powerful man in America, because he does not have to account to the President, and he has not. He does not have to account to the Congress, and he has not, neither have his four predecessors with whom I have had the opportunity to work with as a member of the Banking Committee for almost 25 years.

Now, what does that mean? That sounds like something you cannot connect up, but it does. It has everything to do with what is happening internally and externally.

Why? Because at this point, of course interest rates will fall; of course you will have a little surge of employment.

Where? Well, in the construction area, because if you have a lowering of interest, you are going to have a spurt in home purchases, maybe some home construction, but what we have had in the immediate past is that you had home construction, but not at affordable prices where the average American family could buy a new home.

The sanie thing is true today; but just a scant few years ago, not even more than 2112, all these august chairmen were coming before us and saying, "Well, you are not going to have any drop in interest rates until you control inflation," and then saying that the Congress was to blame for inflation.

Well, at this point, the Federal Reserve Board has cranked the printing presses, because it is the Federal Reserve that prints our money now, not the Treasury, not, like they used to say, the politicians. It is the biggest

banker in our country. They have just ordered the printing presses to go on out.

Well, you cannot do that, though, no matter who does it, without having some what they call hot activity or inflationary pressure.

So as of the week before last, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board began to say, "Well, now, the thing we have to fear right now is a little flareup of inflation."

Well, why should we not? Last autumn in the third quarter the money supply was a little better than 3112 percent. As of today, it is 15 percent.

Why? Well, could it be a little bit of politics? Let me assure my colleagues, it is all politics.

It was all politics in 1972 when Mr. Nixon wanted to get reelected and Chairman Arthur Burns was the Chairman and all of a sudden those printing presses at the Fed were churning out the money in the summer. At the same time, they were breaking in at Watergate, they were cranking up the printing presses, so that at least by election time, there could be some economic activity.

This year the President has the bulk of his Senators over in the Senate that have to get reelected.

Now, is that a happenstance connection? Of course not .

Now, maybe the theorists, maybe the civics books will not tell you that, but let me assure you, that is what it is.

So what have we done, though? In this same newspaper of today, in an inside page, there is a story on Buffalo, NY, where they had 10,000 people applying for about 200 jobs.

Where is the story that over 200,000 of our ex-automobile workers are still unemployed?

Who worries about those 9-plus million unemployed Americans?

Well, not now, anymore than anybody worried about interest rates in 1966; but let me tell you, we ought to be, because there will be a day of reckoning, just as sure as we are here.

So all those forces add up, because those same people that are in control of the economic destinies of our country are the ones who are doing this. J. Peter Grace has more to do with shaping our Latin American policy than does Secretary Shultz, let me put it that way.

So what I hate to see is a bunch of our kids in the not-to-distant future fighting and dying in the jungles of Central America, for whom? For Chiquita Banana, that is for whom. It will not be for democracy, because the President is asking us to give $100 million out-and-out to this group of men that by all accounts-not only American, but other nations' accounts-are

3384 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 3, 1986 over 80 percent ex-Somasistas who were kicked out of the country.

None of these three men that the President will see today, even if they were to come in and conquer Nicaragua, will be able to govern Nicaragua. So who will govern? It will be the United States having to occupy Nicaragua and for decades and decades having our troops there, our Americans there, sniped at and killed. That whole area, not just Nicaragua, will be engaging in surreptitious guerrilla warfare.

When I first spoke out on this, as I said before, it was on April 1, 1980, and I pointed out then, and the President was not Ronald Reagan, it was Jimmy Carter, so those who would like to make some partisan issue out of this I would ask to examine the record.

At that time, I also pointed out, because I had been unable to have access to the President, who as inaccessible as he was, was a little bit more accessible than this President. This President, as I have said repeatedly, does not even answer a Congressman's letter. Even Richard Nixon would do that much.

So that with that inaccessibility, I was impelled to take the floor on April 1, 1980, and I pointed to an interrelationship between the fact that the United States had dropped its investment rate; its business intercourse rate with Latin America, from about 40 percent to just about 17 percent. That is something was happening in those markets in which America was losing somewhere, somenow.

Whoever discussed that? Why, not even in the halls of academia did I ever hear anybody say anything.

We must remember that Central America was the scene of what was considered and touted to be, at least in Latin America, a very progressive step, and that was the Latin Central American Confederation of Nations, who tried to erect an economic community among those countries, and therefore reached a good point of maturity and then, of course, without some real moral support from the United States, it could hardly be expected; but our investors in their greed could not see that if we not only offered, but gave, the leadership, that we would not have to worry about competitive foreign sources such as the European producing nations, or for that matter, Japan; but we have lost those markets.

I want to tell my friends that we are not going to win the hearts, we are not going to shoot ourselves into the hearts of the Latin Americans, and this is what we are trying to do.

We are not going to enhance our trade, which is a tragedy, because the United States is ideally set up to do it. I think we had two Presidents who showed what could be done with policies of friendship and cooperation: Franklin Roosevelt with his good

neighbor policy, his rejection of the bankrupt Calvin Coolidge policy of unilateral military intervention; in fact, in Nicaragua in 1929 where we put in the Marines for 13 years and imposed the Samosa regime and built up their so-called national guard, which were finally kicked out in 1979, so that no matter how much we fool ourselves, from 1929 and 13 years thereafter, it was certainly made clear that once Franklin Roosevelt began to grasp policy formation that we had better try the other.

Then under the brilliant stewardship of Sumner Wells, who for years was our Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs and one of the most brilliant we ever had in that capacity, if not the most brilliant, but who was very well aware of history. He wrote one of the best histories of Santo Domingo, an exhaustive history, that anybody has ever written in or out of the halls of our colleges and universities; but we have not had that kind of mentality in charge of either State Department areas of action or of the Treasury. We have not had a Secretary of the Treasury that has had the slightest of international finance since Morganthau, and that is going back some years.

So all of this ends up in a failure of diplomacy, which then means that Presidents become obsessed with resorting to force or military.

D 1305 No nation, no nation ever resorts to

the military unless and until it has failed diplomatically, no country, no country in the history of the world. Ours is no exception.

If that is the case, then, it is absolutely imperative that we understand, one, our potentials, and two, our limitations. We have been unwilling to do that in the case of other areas of action in the world in which, as I say and repeat, the loss of Treasury and life has been immense. But we must do it now.

I say that even at the risk of having the President condemn us for aiding and giving solace and comfort to the Communists that we stand up to the President and compel him to give us the leadership that a modern-day President ought to in this most vital of matters. We cannot afford business as usual as it as been the last 5 years.

By their fruits you shall know them. What are the fruits of President Reagan's policies? Failure. We do not have any presence in the Middle East. In the Philippines, we are just beginning to face the dimension of the problems that will be fundamental to our own national interests now.

South of the border, we cannot get one country, big or small, from Canada on down to the Cape of Good Hope, we cannot get one industrialized nation in Europe or Japan to side with

us in the policies that thus far have been announced and carried into effect with congressional help, I might remind my colleagues, thus far by the President with respect to Latin America. So would we not say that then by the fruits, we shall know them? I know that I have always said that a politician, despite all the PR and the rhetoric and everyday modern campaigning, once given power is going to be judged like a farmer, not by the amount of fertilizer he spreads, but what he produces. And this is the same thing. Mr. President, what have you produced in your policies with respect to Latin America? You have placed us in the position of arming those that have perpetrated genocide in the case of the poorest of the poor Indian tribes in the mountains and hills of Guatemala. It is our bayonets, it is our rifles, it is our equipment. Up to now, there is not a person that can say that whatever it is, this rebellion in Guatemala has received guns from the Communists, Cubans, Castro, Russians.

So where are we there, Mr. President? When Mexico develops, and you do not have to be an expert, you have an inflationary rate of about 50 percent with the drop in the oil prices which are catastrophic to the Government of Mexico who told us week before last that they cannot meet their payments to our bankers, not to our Government, to the bankers. This is what we are fighting for.

So what are we going to do? We have already helped without there being any real accounting because when the crisis developed up and down the Mexican border with us in 1982, what did our great Federal Reserve Board do? What did our great President and Secretary of the Treasury do? Nothing.

We had suggestions. I have never taken this forum and assailed any President or any other member of the Government without, one, defining the basis for it, and two, if possible, offering constructive suggestions or alternatives, and they are all in the record. It is not me saying it. In that case, the record will show I put it in the RECORD, that I addressed myself to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, I addressed myself to the Secretary of the Treasury, and I suggested that instead of having these bailouts through the swap fund or stabilization fund, as they call them, the Secretary of the Treasury was trying to tell me in his answer that they had no such in the Treasury.

Well, all that did was reveal and confirm what I already knew about his absolute incapacity as Secretary of the Treasury. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, in his nonanswer, was not only nonresponsive, he just as much said, well, we do not care what you come up with, we ain't going to do

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3385 it. So as a result, we have 23 percent continuing unemployment on our side of the border. We have had literally thousands of businesses that have gone and dropped by the wayside.

Now the issue is inescapable as I see it. Either we are going ahead and totally bailing out Mexico; that is, with our principal banks who are on a clique with Mexico and Argentina and Brazil, and got so foolish and irresponsible that they loaned out, under impossible circumstances to pay back, more than the entire capitalization structure of these banks.

You say we are in fine condition. Well just remember that less than a year and a half ago, we had Continental Illinois go under, and we had to nationalize it. We do not call it that. If Mexico did it, we would say that was nationalizing. We do not call it that. But it cost you, the taxpayers, 6 billion bucks which we sorely need for our domestic programs, which we sorely need for these farming communities that are being told as of March 1, too bad, buddy, it is the law of the jungle. Every man for himself and let the devil take the hindmost. That has been the creed and the motto of the people in power in this administration.

The President, I do not mind saying it for the record, I have said it back home, I have said it in public, I have said it in private, I see no reason why I should not say it in the RECORD, I consider the President to be totally inept. The President has not lied to us. He never pretended to be anything else but an actor. Unfortunately, he is an actor that has to have a script, and our trouble stems when his scriptwriters cannot agree among themselves. The President is not smart enough to pick the right script. That is why we are in trouble.

I say that we in the Congress have, under these circumstances, a greater responsibility than ever not to abdicate, not to convey or delegate constitutional power, but to rise to-the independence and coequality and separation of our three basic orders of Government, and as never before, because involved there are the very basic liberties of our country. A people, all history shows, seldom lose their liberty and freedom by external invasion. We have gone a long way in doing it. President Reagan la.st year, just about some 10 months ago, issued an Executive order that gives him total power. He can at this moment declare an emergency and have every dissident who has given shelter to some Salvadoran refugee arrested and imprisoned.

0 1315 He has evoked, basically, the 1917

Espionage Act, but more than that, there was not a whimper from anybody in the Congress. It took a lowly administrator who, repelled by the

extent of this power, said something in the summer of la.st year.

Has anybody in the Halls of Congress addressed this? Well, perhaps over in one of our subcommittees of the Judiciary, somebody might have said it, but not in the RECORD, and not in any deliberation of the committees; and yet, it is a most awesome, awesome development thus far.

If we think that other countries are the only ones that can have political prisoners, let me point to this Executive order of la.st year, and what it does, and how far the President can go. He can make a single-handed determination overnight. He did it in the case of Nicaragua when he invoked the so-called embargo. Has he reported to the Congress what good the embargo has done? No, he has not, and he will not.

In order for him to announce the embargo, he first had to declare a state of national emergency. I do not think the majority of my colleagues; I do not think even 35 percent of the American people felt there was any cause for that kind of an emergency and yet, we are living under that defined status, and the action the President called.

So all of these matters are interrelated as long as the powers that be, that have the controlling decisionmaking power through the judgmentmaking valuations have that power.

DEALING WITH MEDICAL MAL-PRACTICE-PROPOSING AC-TIONS BY THE STATES The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PORTER] is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I do not often avail myself of the opportunity of addressing the viewing public and the Membership through the RECORD, but I wanted to do so today because I think we are facing, in our country, a crisis of major proportions. I ref er to the liability explosion that is occurring throughout America.

I am wearing a button that says, "Liability-Recovery Depends on Reform." I think that is exactly what recovery, in both the medical sense and the legal sense, depends upon. We need reform in the approach to compensation of personal injuries in our society, not only with respect to medical malpractice and product liability, but also with respect to its impact on every unit of local government throughout our country.

I address the liability problem today because the General Accounting Office has just released the first report of five installments on medical malpractice. This 2-year study was requested by Senator JOHN HEINZ and myself a year ago, and results have just begun to be issued by GAO.

I think the study will help us address the malpractice problem in a very thorough and intellectual way with hard data. I want to express my appreciation to the General Accounting Office for the fine work they are doing in bringing before the Congress the essence of this very serious problem of medical malpractice.

Coincidentally, Congressman PETE STARK of California and I today are introducing a resolution that urges the States, not the Federal Government but the States, to take specific actions in addressing medical malpractice. We ask them to take those actions in four basic areas:

One, in identifying, controlling, and bringing to account incompetent medical providers. Second, in making certain that the insurance industry is regulated in a way that protects consumers. Third, in reforming State tort systems, the legal systems under which personal injuries are compensated; and fourth, in providing an environment for the patient and the doctor where mutually agreed contractual arrangements that avoid use of the courts can be validated and encouraged.

This is, Madam Speaker, a real crisis. In the beginning when doctors were the only ones affected, their premiums were going up and they had problems with their coverages, but no one else paid much attention. When businesses were getting hit with huge increases in their product liability insurance coverage, nobody paid a great deal of attention. Nothing conclusive has happened here in Washington on that problem, either. Now, however, for the first time the problem is reaching municipalities, school districts, park districts, and fire protection districts. All the units of local government seem to be facing huge increases in the cost of their liability coverages, and they are looking at the curtailment of services. In my own district, in Illinois, the toboggan hill in the village of Northbrook was threatened with closing because coverage could not be obtained. Paramedic services in the town of Zion were no longer going to be provided because insurance could not be obtained for them, putting the town into the catch 22 of possibly being sued for lack of prompt emergency medical services.

In New Trier, one of the preeminent high schools of our country, located in my district of Winnetka, the entire sports program was going to be completely eliminated because liability insurance coverage could not be obtained.

We think the resolution that we are introducing, on medical malpractice would, if followed by the States, also address the other liability problems that are part of this great crisis that faces our country.

3386 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 3, 1986 Medical malpractice has led, as I

said earlier, to higher insurance premiums for medical providers. It has also led to some doctors going bare; that is, not having any insurance coverage. That means their patients are left, if the doctor is found guilty of negligence, with no recourse. The patient has no chance to recover from that doctor for his negligence because the doctor has taken his own personal assets and protected them from lawsuits and then not provided any medical liability insurance coverage.

Defensive medicine is being practiced, by doctors and other medical providers, like hospitals and laboratories. They are all running tests that are really not necessary in their medical judgment and doing medical procedures that really are not necessary, solely to protect themselves from the possibility of lawsuits. The American Medical Association has estimated the cost of defensive medicine to our society to be at least $15 billion, and some estimate it as high as $40 billion. That money could be far better spent on providing medical procedures that are needed, rather than ones that are not.

We have, in addition, lost talented physicians who say they will no longer perform surgery or offer their talents to solve high-risk medical problems because they must pay such huge premiums for medical malpractice.

The high judgments that have been handed down repeatedly by juries have really created a social welfare system for victims, and that part is certainly fine, but it is one that has become entirely unpredictable, without any control on the costs; and that part is certainly far less than fine.

Insurance companies are accused of making huge profits, but when you see an insurance company that has been in the field providing coverage for many years refusing any longer to provide any coverage, withdrawing from the field as it were, then we have to admit to ourselves that there is a real crisis. When insurance availability contracts drive up costs, this is a crisis for the American people.

Our resolution focuses on what the States ought to do about it. Why the States? Because insurance regulation has always been a subject for State action, because the resolution and compensation of personal injuries has always been a subject for State, not Federal, jurisdiction, and that seems to me the place where it ought to stay.

Let us today warn the States that if they do not take sensible actions that can really address this liability problem, then the pressures on Washington to do something about it will be great indeed.

Our resolution in that respect is a "shot across the bow" for State governments and State legislatures throughout our country, to warn them that they must take charge of this

problem and make the sensible policy judgments that will solve it. If not, Washington will be intervening a year or two from now.

I do not think that what we ask in terms of changes are massive at all; they are really modest reforms.

For example, in respect to the tort system, we ask that the States consider a cap on recovery for noneconomic loss.

D 1325 We are not talking here about pre

venting people from being compensated for their actual economic losses, their medical bills, their loss of income. What we are talking about is that, if a person gets injured, the jury can only add to their recovery for economic loss a certain additional maximum amount, say $250,000 or $500,000, for pain and suffering and other noneconomic losses. That cap makes the system predictable. The insurer can then say what its exposure would be and is able to set its premiums and take on the risk. Today these risks are not predictable.

We also ask that the problem of joint and several liability be addressed, the so-called deep pocket problem. Under the joint and several doctrine, minor parties with a tiny proportion of fault are potentially liable for 100 percent of the financial recovery. Over and over again municipalities that are responsible for maybe 5 percent of an injury have been held to pay 100 percent of the recovery, all out of the funding available in their "deep pocket." Those who are responsible for a relatively small proportion of the injury should only be paying a proportionately small amount of the cost.

We are asking for information on those in the medical profession who are not living up to medical standards, for information from malpractice complaints and actions, and for insurance settlement information to flow to those agencies at the State level that can strengthen the standards of the profession and weed out the incompetent people. We ask also for exemption from antitrust prosecution for those who would discipline their peers for malpractice. Peer-review panels today, Madam Speaker, are being accused of violating antitrust laws when they refuse to seat on a hospital staff a physician whom they have identified as incompetent. That is certainly something that was never intended by the antitrust laws and also allows the incompetent physician to be where he should not be.

I think we should realize finally, Madam Speaker, that there are ideas already afloat in Washington to federalize the entire insurance industry, with all the regulation coming in the future out of Washington. There is an additional idea, Madam Speaker, that I think is the most outlandish one I

have heard. That is to create a Federal reinsurance pool for risks that other insurers would or could not cover. This would put the Federal Government into the insurance business and make available to juries who want to tap it a huge pool of money that could be reached without any controls. What is more, if we think the recoveries for pain and suffering are now large, wait until there is an unlimited pool of Federal reinsurance resources on which to draw.

That is the kind of idea I think we should guard against, rather than encourage, but it is the kind of idea being floated. We ought to be saying to the States, "Look out; if you don't do something about this problem, such undesirable Federal actions are going to be the result."

I want to announce for the record also the cosponsors of this resolution. Congressman STARK, as I said, and I are the cosponsors. He is, of course, chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means.

We also have the ranking minority member of that committee, Mr. GRADIsoN of Ohio. We have the ranking member on the Republican side of the Health and Environment Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, Mr. MADIGAN, as a cosponsor. We have two further members of the Committee on Ways and Means: Mr. GEPHARDT of Missouri and Mr. MATSUI of California. We also have Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. SILJANDER of Michigan, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, and Mr. DORNAN of California. These are supporting this resolution at the very beginning just as we have begun to circulate a letter asking for cosponsors.

We also have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which endorsed our resolution. This morning on "Good Morning, America" on which I appeared, the American Medical Association, through its executive vice president, Dr. James Todd, has also indicated that it is the kind of legislation they believe would do a lot to help solve the medical malpractice problem.

I might say that we welcome cosponsors here in the Congress. Congressman STARK, my colleague on this resolution, has promised that he would be holding hearings on this matter very soon. We think that the resolution can go a long way toward sending a message to the States that action is needed, it is needed now, it is needed to be responsible, it is needed to be responsive to the problem. We need, not cosmetic solutions, but real changes; not radical changes but only those that make good sense in protecting the individual who in fact is injured and in weeding out the incompetent physicians as we must do. We need to make certain that we have a system that, while compensating injuries, is predictable, understandable, and will

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3387 encourage insurance coverage that is needed to protect the consumer and the patient and ensure their recovery in case of negligent injury.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of ab

sence was granted to: Mr. ACKERMAN <at the request of Mr.

WRIGHT), for this week, on account of official business.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED By unanimous consent, permission

to address the House, following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was granted to:

<The following Members <at the request of Mr. PORTER) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. BARTON of Texas, for 15 minutes, March 11.

Mr. JEFFORDS, for 60 minutes, March 3.

Mr. PORTER, for 15 minutes, March 3. Mr. BEREUTER, for 60 minutes, March

6. Mr. HILLIS, for 60 minutes, March

11. <The following Members <at the re

quest of Mr. SCHUMER) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. GONZALEZ, for 60 minutes, today. Mr. DYMALLY, for 60 minutes, March

4. Mr. GONZALEZ, for 60 minutes, March

4. Mr. GONZALEZ, for 60 minutes, March

6.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS By unanimous consent, permission

to revise and extend remarks was granted to:

<The following Members <at the request of Mr. PORTER) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. LOWERY of California. Mr. DORNAN of California. Mr. PORTER. Mr. COURTER. <The following Members <at the re

quest of Mr. SCHUMER) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. BEDELL. Mr. ANDERSON in 10 instances. Mr. GONZALEZ in 10 instances. Mr. LLOYD in five instances. Mr. HAMILTON in 10 instances. Mr. BROWN of California in 10 in

stances. Mr. ANNUNZIO in six instances. Mr. JONES of Tennessee in 10 in

stances. Mr. BONER of Tennessee in 10 in-

stances. Mr. DE LA GARZA in 10 instances. Mr. CoLEMAN of Texas. Mr. MARKEY in two instances.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTIONS Joint resolutions of the Senate of

the following titles were taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

S.J Res. 266. Joint resolution to authorize and request the President to designate the month of June 1986 as "Youth Suicide Prevention Month"; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

S.J. Res. 271 Joint resolution designating "Baltic Freedom Day"; to the Committee on

Foreign Affairs and Post Office and Civil Service.

ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTIONS SIGNED

Mr. ANNUNZIO, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee had examined and found truly enrolled joint resolutions of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker pro tempore:

H.J. Res. 409. Joint resolution to direct the President to issue a proclamation designating February 16, 1986, as "Lithuanian Independence Day," and

H.J. Res. 499. Joint resolution designating the week beginning March 2, 1986, as "Women's History Week."

ADJOURNMENT Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Speaker, I

move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accord

ingly <at 1 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, March 4, 1986, noon.

EXPENDITURE REPORTS CONCERNING OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL Reports and amended reports of var

ious House committees and delegations traveling under authorizations from the Speaker concerning the foreign currencies and U.S. dollars utilized by them during the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 1985 in connection with foreign travel pursuant to Public Law 95-384 are as follows:

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 1985

Name of Member or employee

Hon Ciene Chaw.ie·············· ... ..... . Commemal transportatlOll . .... . ...

Date

Arrival Departure Country

Per diem I Transportation Other purposes

Foreign currency

U.S. dollar equivalent Foreign

or U.S. currency currency 2

U.S. dollar U.S. dollar equivalent Foreign

or U.S. currency equivalent Foreign

or U.S. currency currency 2 currency 2

Total

.... ~~'..~~ ............. 1 ~ :.~~···· - ~~~~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... ~ :~~~:~~~ .......... ~:~~~ :~~ .. ::::::::::::::::::::::::···········974:00 ............................... :::·· ··········::::::::::::::::::::::::: Committee totals ....................................................................................................... .. ................ ........ ............. ..... ........................................ . 1,527.00 .. ..................... . 974.00 ............................... ...................................... .

1 Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.

U.S. dollar equivalent

or U.S. currency 2

1,527.00 974.00

2,501.00

2 11 foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended. E de la GARZA, Chairman, Jan. 31. 1986.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 1985

Date Per diem 1 Transportation Other purposes Total

Name of Member or employee Country U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency

currency• currency• currency•

Freemar!n~~i""ai.ifaie :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... ~~'..~~ ............ ~~'.. ~.~ ···· .~~~::::::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :::::::::::::::::::: ::: ::::::: :: :: :: ........... ~~~:~~ .. ::::::::::::::::::::::::········w7:oo :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Kitzmit;:'cia~afifaie:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : ::::::::::::::::::: .... ~~'..~~ ............ 1. ~.'.. ~. ~ ···· . ~~~.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ........... ~~~:~ .. :::::::::::::::::::::::: .. ·········s9i6f:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: westmore1and. nmothy.................................. .................. tt~~l ttm ~~:an<c:::::::::: : :::::::::::::::: ::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: ::::::::::::::: ~~~:~~ :::::::: ::::: ::::::::: :: :: :: :::::::::: :::::::: ::::::: ::: : : ~:::: : ::: ::: : : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

!:.onference fee ............................................................. ~ .~ '.. ~~ ............ ~~'..~ ....... ~~'.~.~.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :::::: ....... ...... ~~:~~ .. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ........... 100:00·· :::::::::::::::::::::::: Commercial airfare................................................................ .... .................... .................................................................................................................................................... 1,561.00 .....................................................•................


or U.S. currency 2

400.00 1.147.00

950.00 893.67 288.00 190.00 96.00

100.00 1,561.00

Committee total ............................................................................................................................................................................. . 1,924.00 ........................ 3,601.67 ... .................... . 100.00 ........................ 5,625.67

1 Per d"iem constitutes lodging and meals. 'If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.

JOHN D. DINGELL, Chairman, Feb. 24, 1986.

3388 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 3, 1986

AMENDED REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, DELEGATION TO BRAZIL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN AUG. 14 AND AUG. 22, 1985

Date

Name of Member or em'*11ee Arrival Departure

Country

Per diem I Transportation Other purposes

U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar Foreign equivalent Foreign

currency or U.S. currency equivalent Foreign

or U.S. currency equivalent Foreign

or U.S. currency currency 2 currency 2 currency 2

Total


or U.S. currency 2

William V. Alexander..................... ................................... 8/14 8/22 Brazil. ..................... ..................... ....................... 3,477,300 519.00 ........................ 3 6,820 ·...................... .................................................. 7,339.00 William J. Miles ............................................................... 8/14 8/22 Brazil .................................................................. 3,477,300 519.00 ........................ 6,820 ........................................................................ 7,339.00 Dorothy L Thomas........................................................... 8/14 8/22 Brazil............. ...... ............................................. 3,477,300 519.00 ........................ 6,820 .................................................. 7,339.00 Dwight TabJrt ...................... ......................................... 8/14 8/22 Brazil............ .................................................... 3,477,300 519.00 ........................ 6,820 ............ 7,339.00

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

f.ommittee total .......................................................................................... ...................... ...................... .. .. ......................................................................................................... ....................................................................................... 29,356.00

1 Per diem constitutes lodging and meals. 2 If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.

• 3 Based on estimates total cost of military transportation per Member or em~ on a pro rata basis less shares attributed to Executive Branch personnel on the trip and reimbursement made by Ambassador Motley at commercial air rates. Air Fuce Accounting Procedures place the cost of operating a C9 aircraft at $2,310 per hour.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

2878. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting his determination that continued nuclear cooperation with the European Atomic Energy Community CEuratoml is needed in order to achieve U.S. nonproliferation objectives and to protect our common defense and security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2155Ca)(2) CH. Doc. No. 99-170); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed.

2879. A letter from the Chief Immigration Judge, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice, transmitting copies of orders and applications concerning each alien whose deportation has been suspended, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1254<c>; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

2880. A letter from the Secretary of State, transmitting a report on the steps taken for the inclusion of the Office of Inspector General at the Department of State under the Inspector General Act of 1978, pursuant to Public Law 99-93, section 150(c); jointly, to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Government Operations.

2881. A letter from the Acting Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the 16th annual report on Medicare for fiscal year 1982, along with reports on the End Stage Renal Disease Program and the Medigap Voluntary Certification Program, pursuant to SSA sections 1875Cb), 1881(g), and 1882(f)(2); jointly, to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce.

REPORTED BILLS SEQUENTIALLY REFERRED

Under clause 5 of rule X, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills ref erred as follows:

Mr. DE LA GARZA: Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 4079. A bill to amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to modify the definition of nonprogram crop to discourage any increase in the production of any commodity that would adversely affect the income of producers of that commodity; with an amendment; referred to the Committee on Appropriations for a period not to exceed 15 legislative days with instructions to report back to the House as provided in section 401Cb) of Public Law 93-344, as amended <Rept. 99-479, pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. DE LA GARZA: Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 4105. A bill to provide for an equitable method of establishing 1986 and 1987 farm program payment yields for the purposes of the wheat, feed grain, upland cotton, and rice programs; with an amendment; referred to the Committee on Appropriations for a period not to exceed 15 legislative days with instructions to report back to the House as provided in section 40l of Public Law 93-344, as amended <Rept. 99-480, pt. 1>. Ordered to be printed.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 5 of rule X and clause 4 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally ref erred as follows:

By Mr. BEREUTER: H.R. 4289. A bill to amend the Federal De

posit Insurance Act to authorize the issuance of net worth certificates by banks which recognize losses on portions of agricultural loans as part of a restructuring of such loans to the extent of the recognition of such losses; to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.

By Mr. BONER of Tennessee: H.R. 4290. A bill to provide that the Ad

ministrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration may accept gifts and donations for construction of a space shuttle orbiter, and that such orbiter shall be named Challenger II; to the Committee on Science and Technology.

By Mr. GARCIA <for himself, Mr. SMITH of Florida, Mr. REID, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. ROYBAL, Mr. BusTAMANTE, Mr. LEVINE of California, Mr. DE LUGO, Mr. RICHARDSON, Mr. FuSTER, Mr. COELHO, and Mr. TORRES):

H. Res. 385. Resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that both Spain and Israel should be congratulated for their recent decision to establish full diplomatic relations; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr. PORTER <for himself, Mr. STARK, Mr. DORNAN of California, Mr. GEPHARDT, Mr. GRADISON, Mr. LEWIS of Florida, Mr. MADIGAN, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, and Mr. SILJANDER):

H. Res. 386. Resolution to recommend to the States measures for medical cost and quality control; jointly, to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce.

WILLIAM V. ALEXANDER.

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, spon

sors were added to public bills and resolutions as follows:

H.R. 1356: Mr. HAMILTON. H.R. 1438: Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. BATEMAN,

Mr. DYSON, and Mr. THOMAS of Georgia. H.R. 2075: Mr. BUSTAMANTE and Mr.

UDALL. H.R. 2353: Mr. QUILLEN. H.R. 2583: Mr. STUMP. H.R. 2943: Mr. OWENS, Mr. COATS, Mr.

BADHAM, and Mr. BONIOR of Michigan.

H.R. 2952: Mr. EDGAR. H.R. 3000: Mrs. LLOYD, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr.

CLINGER, Mr. GEJDENSON, and Mr. HUGHES. H.R. 3521: Mr. ROBERT F . SMITH, Mr.

RIDGE, Mr. COATS, Mr. BUSTAMANTE, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. LIGHTFOOT, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. SMITH of Iowa, Mr. DARDEN, Mr. STANGELAND, Mr. TAUKE, Mr. MAVROULES, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. HILER, Mr. CHAPPIE, and Mr. BOULTER.

H.R. 3646: Mr. SWINDALL. H.R. 3647: Mr. SWINDALL. H.R. 3648: Mr. SWINDALL and Mr. DELAY. H.R. 3649: Mr. SWINDALL. H.R. 3897: Mr. LAGOMARSINO, Mr. COBLE,

Mr. THOMAS of Georgia, Mr. TAUKE, Mr. DWYER of New Jersey, Mr. NIELSON of Utah, Mr. ARMEY, and Mr. EVANS of Iowa.

H.R. 4003: Mr. SMITH of Florida and Mr. BEDELL.

H.R. 4057: Mr. McGRATH, Mr. DEWINE, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. LEWIS of California, and Mr. BENNETT.

H.R. 4090: Mr. HUTTO, Mr. FuQUA, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. CHAPPELL, Mr. MACKAY, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. IRELAND, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. MICA, Mr. SHAW, Mr. SMITH of Florida, Mr. LEHMAN of Florida, Mr. PEPPER, and Mr. FASCELL.

H.R. 4194: Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. BURTON of California, Mr. MAVROULES, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. MILLER of Washington, Mr. Russo, Mr. SOLARZ, Mr. TowNs, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. FuSTER, Mr. FRANK, Mr. BEILENSON, Mr. HEFTEL of Hawaii, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. STARK, Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. LIVINGSTON, and Mr. SMITH of Florida.

H.J. Res. 492: Mr. RosTENKOWSKI, Mr. MOODY, Mr. VENTO, Mr. ROTH, Mr. SAVAGE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. FAZIO, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. GREEN, Mr. STRANG, Mr. HORTON, Mr. LANTOS, and Mr. ASPIN.

H. Con. Res. 224: Mr. SWINDALL. H. Res. 183: Mr. MARTINEZ.

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE

SENATE-Monday, March 3, 1986 3389

<Legislative day of Monday, February 24, 1986)

The Senate met at 12 noon, on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the President pro tempore [Mr. THURMOND].

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The prayer today will be offered by the Reverend Monsignor John Murphy, St. Joseph's Church, Washington, DC.

PRAYER The Reverend Monsignor John

Murphy, St. Joseph's Church, Washington, DC, offered the following prayer:

Heavenly Father, Who art in Heaven, praised be Your name. We ask You, at this moment, to bless those gathered here, with the consciousness of Your presence, so that whatever they are asked to do in behalf of mankind, may reflect Your good and gracious purpose. Bless them with an enthusiastic encouragement that comes from colaboring with You in a stewardship of excellence.

And finally, Lord, bless too their families whose love and understanding empowers them to labor and serve with singular dedication.

And in the words of the psalmist, "Let all the Earth cry out to God with joy. Blessed be God who refused me not my prayer or His kindness." Amen.

RECOGNITION OF THE ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

distinguished assistant majority leader is recognized.

THE PRAYER OF THE VISITING CHAPLAIN

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank Monsignor John Murphy for his thoughtful prayer. My colleague from Wyoming, the senior Senator from Wyoming, is on the floor also. We know of the Monsignor's great friendship with our Catholic bishop in Wyoming, Bishop Joe Hart.

We will communicate to him, that Monsignor Murphy was the Chaplain of the Senate on this day. I know he would send his warmest wishes to the Monsignor.

SCHEDULE Mr. SIMPSON. Under the standing

order, the two leaders have 10 minutes each. This morning there is a special order in favor of the Senator from Wisconsin CMr. PROXMIRE] for not to exceed 15 minutes. Routine morning

business will not extend beyond the hour of 1:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for not more than 5 minutes each.

Following routine morning business, the Senate may return to the technical corrections package to the farm bill, or the committee funding resolution, or possibly the balanced budget amendment.

The Senate may also turn to the consideration of any legislative or executive items which have been previously cleared for action. Rollcall votes could occur during the session today.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the leader's time.

RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. WALLOP). Under the previous order, the distinguished minority leader is recognized.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may reserve the remainder of my time throughout the day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield the floor to

the distinguished acting majority leader or the distinguished President pro tempore, should they need some time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished minority leader. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished President pro tempore.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro. tempore is recognized.

JANUARY 1986 TEXTILE IMPORT FIGURES

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I have some terrible news to report to my Senate colleagues. This news is being felt in all 50 States. Most American families can relate to its disappointment. The news I am referring to is the latest textile and apparel import figures. Yes, Mr. President, they continue to get worse. For the month of January 1986, textile and apparel imports soared up an astonishing 42.4-percent over January of 1985. That is correct, a 42.4 percent increase.

Mr. President, the American people cannot take this much longer. They deserve better. It is our duty to correct this horrible situation. Last spring and summer we were told that things had turned around. We were told that a

lower dollar would slow the growth of imports. We were told that actions had been taken to prevent foreign textile products from flooding our markets. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

For 2 months in a row, textile imports have increased by over 40 percent. From September 1985 through January 1986, imports of textiles were up over 31 percent. The year 1985 marked the fifth consecutive year that textile and apparel imports have reached new record levels. No wonder plants continue to close and workers continue to lose their jobs.

Mr. President, the closing of a textile plant in many towns can be almost as shocking, disruptive, and awesome an experience as the loss of a loved one. The pain, hurt, unsettlement, and sheer fright can be devastating and have a permanent impact. The scars on workers and their children are lasting. Yet, we hear about the creation of jobs as if every new job is filled by a displaced industrial worker. The truth is that these new jobs bring about as much comfort to victims of a plant closing as the daily birth announcements bring to a mother who has just lost her child.

Mr. President, our domestic textile industry is the most modem and productive in the world. However, it cannot survive if these import surges continue. I remind my colleagues that the Defense Department ranks textiles second only to steel in importance to national security. One out of every 10 manufacturing jobs in our country is in this vital industry.

Tens of thousands of hard working Americans are being affected by the decline of our industrial base. The human suffering caused by the uncontrolled growth of imports is tragic. We cannot stand idly by and watch our status as a world power deteriorate. I urge my colleagues to continue to fight to save American industry, and to preserve American jobs.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I thank the acting majority leader.

RECOGNITION OF SENATOR PROXMIRE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Wisconsin CMr. PROXMIRE] is recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes.

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

3390 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 CONGRESS SHOULD STOP THE

$30 MILLION FOR STAR WARS' THINK TANK Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, in a

story in the Washington Post on Saturday, March 1, Fred Hiatt reported that the Defense Department is planning to establish a "think tank" to support the strategic defense initiative-SDI or star wars. How much would the taxpayer have to pay for this new SDI propaganda initiative? The Post reports it could cost $30 million every year, or more. The Defense Department describes it as a Pentagon version of the Rand Corp. Mr. President, this is outrageous. Here we are coming off a recordbreaking $212 billion deficit in 1985, the fourth mammoth deficit in 4 years. We have just instituted the first step in GrammRudman's long path toward fiscal responsibility. We know we must cut spending at every and all levels. The Defense Department and our national security will have to bear a very heavy share of these reductions-maybe too heavy. And now Secretary Weinberger will support the SDI request for a multimillion-dollar taxpayer-supported office to bedazzle the taxpayer into the illusion that this most futile, most costly, and most wasteful expenditure in the history of the world will somehow be worth its cost.

Just think of the arrogance of this proposal. The Defense Department is not content with the enormous power the President has to advance any weapons program. In this Senator's more than 28 years in this body, I have yet to see the Congress refuse to fund even one major new weapons program supported by any of the seven Presidents who have served since I came to this body. President Reagan has a special capacity to give to whatever foolish, vain, or worthless weapons system he may choose to champion a special force because of the remarkable Reagan popularity. Is that enough for star wars? No. The Defense Department recognizes that the merit of the Star Wars Program is so weak that even the President of the United States, for all his power and popularity, cannot save it without help. And they are right. The Star Wars Program is such a transparently foolish fiasco that even the most popular and articulate President in this generation cannot sell it without a $30 million propaganda machine to overwhelm the critics. What a confession of lack of faith in star wars.

Does the country really need another conservative pro-military think tank? In the past few years, the country has seen a proliferation of conservative military-oriented foundations of this kind. The moderate Brookings Foundation stands almost alone as a group of scholars who are not kneejerk. automatic champions of rightwing economic and foreign policy

dogma. The Rand Corp. would, according to the Defense Department, provide a kind of model for this new star wars office. The Rand Corp. has been operating for a number of years. but it is a prime example of the new think tanks. It is a champion of more and more defense spending. It has been critical of arms control. But there is a crucial difference. Like the Heritage Foundation and other new conservative think tanks, the Rand Corp. is privately funded. It has an institutional integrity, because it is privately funded-I repeat. Mr. President. privately funded. It is independent of the Government or Government agencies, or Government direction or discipline.

But how about this new star wars think tank? The taxpayer would pay for it. It would be under the control of the Defense Department. Result: No matter how respected the management of this new agency might be, the agency itself would have no credibility. Could Congress trust a Government agency under the thumb of the Secretary of the Defense to tell Congress the truth about this highly controversial Star Wars Program? Whom are we trying to kid? Of course not. But the agency would spend tens of millions of dollars annually to "snow" the press and public under a constant. unrelenting barrage of self-serving propaganda about the wonders of this new technology.

In the Hiatt story, a Defense Department spokesman is quoted as saying that the new agency would insure that the Defense Department would make decisions on star wars "that would hold no allegiance to any particular sector or organization." That means to this Senator that the Defense Department is proposing to create an agency that could impose absolute discipline, as only a military organization can, on all the decisions on the course of the program. It means that SDI will be more insulated from independent. external, expert criticism of this most costly project ever.

Think of it. Here we have a program that may become the first trilliondollar Government project anywhere in world history. It will not only absorb massive amounts of our financial resources at a time when the Federal Government is plunging deeply in debt, it will sweep tens of thousands of our limited number of scientists and engineers away from other vital national projects, including defense programs, into this impossible dream. Can any Senator think of a Government program that more clearly calls out for independent, outside criticism? This proposed $30 million star wars propaganda machine is wrong. This Senator intends to do everything he can to stop it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I have ref erred, from the March 1 issue of

the Washington Post by Fred Hiatt and headlined, "Pentagon Plans To Create a Think Tank for SDI," be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection. the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

PENTAGON PLANS To CREATE A THINK TANK FOR SDI

<By Fred Hiatt> The Defense Department is planning to

establish a government-funded think tank to support the Strategic Defense Initiative <SDI>, its $3 billion-a-year effort to develop a space-based defense against nuclear missiles, officials said this week.

Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, chief of the SDI office, has won Defense Secretary Caspar W. Wenberger's support for a "Star Wars" version of the Rand Corp., a Pentagon spokesman said in response to inquiries.

The center-"essentially a governmentowned, high-technology company doing systems analysis," as one industry source saidwould be based in the Washington area and might cost $30 million per year or more, officials said.

The proposal has drawn strong opposition from some persons in industry, who say the proposed think tank would compete unfairly with private firms while being almost immune from congressional scrutiny.

Other opponents portrayed the effort as a means to help entrench the controversial SDI program while the Reagan administration remains in power.

"There are some high emotions on it," one industry consultant said.

Abrahamson's spokesman decline to discuss the proposal, but the Air Force general has told others that a nonprofit think tank could offer impartial advice. Private firms may be biased when evaluating programs that could yield large profits in the future, officials said.

Robert B. Sims, chief Defense Department spokesman, said Weinberger believes the new think tank would help "insure over the long run that we make good choices and that we have technical support that would hold no allegiance to any particular sector or organiztion."

"He has been briefed on the concept, and thinks it's a good idea," Sims added. "He has not signed off on any paperwork yet. It is in the works, as far as ironing out the various details of the paperwork."

Military and civilian science agencies support 36 federally funded research and development centers <FFDCs, as the bureaucracy calls them>.

The centers and laboratories, many managed by private firms or universities, receive more than $5 billion in sole-source, noncompetitive contracts each year, according to the Professional Services Council, a trade association.

The Defense Department sponsors nine centers, including Rand's Project Air Force in California and the equivalent Center for Naval Analyses in Alexandria; the Logistics Management Institute in Bethesda, and the recently formed Software Engineering Institute in Pennsylvania, which studies military applications of computer programs.

A new think tank dedicated to SDI resreach would expand the program without as much red tape as expanding the SDI organization or letting more competitive contracts would entail, industry officials said.

"Obviously, Abe CGen. Abrahamson] has got to be motivated by a desire to institu-

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3391 tionalize the program, and this may be one of the ways to do that," one industry source said.

The ease of dealing with such centers has prompted many agencies to use them when private firms could do the work for less money, said Virginia Littlejohn, executive director of the Professional Services Council, which represents private firms that compete with federally supported think tanks.

"These FFRDCs tend to be among the highest priced-if not the highest priced-of the independent and high-quality research firms," Littlejohn said.

"We have been watching with increasing concern the degree to which they are expanding their mandates. There is no real sunset provision, there is no real oversight. So they just continue," she said.

THE MYTH OF THE DAY Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the

myth of the day is that the administration's underestimate of defense spending is merely a technical question-a dispute between the "green eyeshade sets." In fact, it is the keystone of the administration's strategy on the budget.

Here is the issue. The administration estimates that the Pentagon will spend $282 billion in fiscal year 1987. But the Congressional Budget Officethe CBO-says that we will have to spend almost $297 billion to buy what the administration wants. The administration is busy downplaying this dispute, arguing that making these estimates is an inexact science.

Is this true or nothing more than a useful myth? Look at the record. This difference between CBO and the administration, almost $15 billion, is more than double the biggest spread before this year. Before this year, the biggest difference came to $6.5 billion.

What is the explanation for this sudden dispute among the experts? Until this year, both the CBO and the administration had used historical data to estimate Pentagon spending; that is, if it took 3 years from the time Congress appropriated the money until the Pentagon paid the bill, then it would again take 3 years to spend the money. But this year the administration decided that this historical pattern was no longer valid, that the Pentagon would spend slower.

Anyone who believes that the administration made this change for technical reasons should start shopping for a good buy on the Brooklyn Bridge. It allows the administration to argue that it complied with the Gramm-Rudman deficit target while maintaining the defense buildup and the social safety net-all without raising taxes. And the administration is not bashful about saying to Congress: If we can do it, why can't you?

Suppose the administration had not made this change. Then it would have had to make another $15 billion cut in domestic spending to comply with the $144 billion deficit target. Administra-

tion officials are smart enough to know that if their current budget is dead on arrival, then one with another $15 billion cut in domestic spending would be mummified on arrival.

No wonder the administration wants us to swallow the m·yth that this dispute is only technical. If we do not, then their finely crafted, house-ofcards budget comes tumbling down.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, there will now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 1:30 p.m., with statements therein limited to 5 minutes each.

TVA'S UNTAMED WILDERNESS SURPRISE

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to call my colleagues attention to an article that recently appeared in the Washington Post's Sunday travel section. "TV A's Untamed Wilderness Surprise" described the Tennessee Valley Authority's unique national demonstration program that is going on in the beautiful land between the lakes region in southwestern Kentucky and neighboring Tennessee.

Known simply as LBL, this parcel of public land, one of the largest Federal holdings east of the Mississippi, is run in a manner that is different from any other in the country. Its lands, forest, water, wildlife, fish and facilities are managed to provide optimum benefits from seemingly conflicting purposes. There is farming at LBL, and timber harvesting, wildlife restoration programs and hunting, environmental education for children and adults, cultural and historic preservation, interpretive trails and scientific research. This is all in addition to hiking, boating, fishing, backpacking, and camping.

Integrated resource management, the key to the success of land between the lakes, has been in effect since its inception 23 years ago. It is a national laboratory, a model for every State and for other countries, too, of how a wilderness area can flourish with a small amount of funding and a great amount of enthusiasm and careful planning.

I hope Senators and staff alike will take the time to read the story of land between the lakes. Last year as many tourists came to LBL as went to Yellowstone National Park, and I extend an invitation to all of you to come down and visit.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Washington Post of Sunday, January 26 be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Jan. 26, 19861

TV A's UNTAMED WILDERNESS SURPRISE

<By Arthur H. Purcell) Winding roads and mist-shrouded woods

and ponds. Miles of unspoiled shoreline. Unlimited camping. Year-round fishing on two giant lakes and a dozen little ones. This is Land Between the Lakes, 170,000 untamed acres in the Tennessee River Valley and a wilderness getaway for all seasons.

Land Between the Lakes <or simply LBL, as it is locally known> is an off-the-interstate <Western Kentucky .Parkway) surprise-an unexpected adventure on a major east-west route through the mid-South. LBL is one of the country's least crowded and best preserved natural areas. You can hike through its forest and along its waters for hours and encounter few signs of human intrusion.

Paradoxically, though, LBL exists because of massive-albeit carefully planned-intervention. It was a creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Started by the Roosevelt administration in the early 1930s, the TV A has built hydroelectric dams and artificial lakes across the South. One of its most ambitious projects resulted in LBL. The Reagan administration is expected to propose a 50 percent budget cut for TV A, including a zero LBL budget, for the coming fiscal year; and there is little indication that another federal agency or Kentucky and Tennessee would take over operations. So LBL's status as a federal recreation area may be in danger. For the present, however, Land Between the Lakes is open and free.

Western Kentucky is an almost wholly rural land and very likely looks much the same as it has for the past two centuries: Small farms dot the landscape and tobacco patches bloom bright pink in the summer. Retired farmers in their obligatory covera.Ils and plaid shirts gather at the county courthouses to play checkers. Art Deco movie theaters face town squares and people sit on their front porches after dinner. The Land Between the Lakes seems a part of this timelessness, even though it is new and man-made-and subject to the whims of economic development.

A quiet, forested strip covering 265 square miles, LBL is bordered by Kentucky Lake to the west and Lake Barkley to the east. It is remote-accessible by road at only five points over its 40-mile length-and that is a strong point, for it is too far for the daytripping hordes: more than 800 miles from Washington, 175 miles southeast of St. Louis and 200 miles beyond Lexington, Ky. LBL averages under 6,000 visitors a day, or fewer than two people per 50 of its scenic acres.

A pair of hiking shoes is the ticket to a lot of enjoyment here. Two hundred miles of picturesque trails make their way through the area; add a backpack and you can camp for days at a site of your choice-on one of the lakes, near a pond, in a clearing or right in the middle of the woods. Except for the eight family and group campgrounds, there is no charge for camping, and there are 25 designated "informal use" camping areasmany of which have shorelines, boat ramps and even chemical toilets.

If you bring a pole and string, a superlative diminsion of LBL unfolds-its excellent fishing, on Barkley and Kentucky lakes as well as bountiful inland ponds. No matter

3392 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 what time of year, something <besides mosquitoes> will be biting.

For the recreation-minded traveler, Land Between the Lakes is really the land of three B's: backpacking, bicycling and boating. Its 400-mile network of maintained roads <100 miles are paved) means lots of pretty and safe biking terrain. These roads also give you the option to be lazy and drive through wilderness vistas <the Trace is the main north-south road connecting attractions) or to camp within a short walking distance of your vehicle.

Backpacking in LBL offers a lot of pluses and few minuses. The trails are easy and they provide enough variation in terrain and vistas to keep long-hike tedium to a minimum. You are never far from the water if you need to cool off; campsites are seemingly infinite in number. And, with 3,500 miles of shoreline to choose from, finding a strip of private beach to settle on for the night <no need to worry about tides here> is usually not difficult. Serious backpacking should be avoided in summer months, however, as LBL can get very hot and muggy, with temperature and humidity both in the nineties.

Boating, a major drawing card of LBL, is responsible for the largest human concentration within its borders. There are numerous boat launching areas, and rentals are available in adjoining commercial areas such as Grand Rivers at the north entrance. There are few restrictions for boaters, though sailing-growing in popularity on both lakes-and motorboat use occasionally get into competition.

The lakes themselves are large; their surface area within LBL is considerably more than LBL's land area. Kentucky Lake is slightly wider than Lake Barkley <up to two miles as opposed to about a mile). One curious feature of the lakes is a scattering of tiny islands that once were the tops of hills protruding from the now-flooded Cumberland and Tennessee River valleys.

LBL's colorful history has created some of its most popular attractions, including Center Furnace, Golden Pond and The Homeplace. Before President Kennedy signed an executive order in June 1963 making it a federal recreation area, LBL was an iron-producing area with many small farms and <from the Prohibition era until just after World War II> productive moonshine stills.

In the early 19th century, charcoal and iron ore from the area, which was then known as "Between the Rivers," was used to make structural iron. The area soon became a thriving industrial center. The once-impressive Center Furnace in the northern half of LBL was last fired to make iron in 1912. This brick structure is now in ruins.

During Prohibition the LBL region took on a new kind of industry-bootleg whiskey. Golden Pond, now the site of the main LBL visitor pavilion, was the center of this activity; a scattering of crumbled foundations are all that remain of the old hamlet of Golden Pond.

But the area's farming tradition lives on at The Homeplace. LBL serves as a national environmental education, research and demonstration center, and The Homeplace is a featured part of this effort. The Homeplace includes 16 restored period buildings and is staffed by a farm "family" living and working as they might have in the 1850s. LBL guests are invited not only to visit here but to step back into history-at least for a few minutes-and become part of the 19th-century rural South by helping with farm

chores and getting a taste of that era's Kentucky farm life.

In addition to the working farm environment of The Homeplace, visitors can get a glimpse of simple contemporary activities at Empire Farm, in the northern part of LBL land on the shore of Lake Barkley. Empire Farm has been set up to demonstrate modern methods of resource conservationsuch as composting, sorghum making and solar energy use. Silo Overlook at Empire Farm, built on an old silo, provides a sweeping view of the lake and surrounding terrain.

Besides conservation, preservation is another environmental objective at LBL. Efforts are under way to nurture species once indigenous to this part of the country. The American bison has been successfully reintroduced into the area and you can now pass a herd peacefully grazing in a pasture near the southern end. Wildlife as diverse as bobcats and eagles also are found in LBL, and rangers have set up special monitoring and preservation programs for these and other dwindling species.

TV A has set aside portions of Land Between the Lakes for special interest groups ranging from handicapped persons to offroad vehicle users. Duncan Lake, near the Wildlife Restoration Center, is reserved for mobility-impaired users. Four of the campgrounds are accessible to handicapped individuals or groups. Long Creek Trail is a twomile paved path in the Environmental Education Area specially designed for use by the handicapped.

Adjoining the Golden Pond Visitor Center is the 2,350-acre Turkey Bay Off-Road Vehicle Area with nearly two miles of Kentucky Lake shore front.

The visitors centers in LBL are particularly friendly places, where you can find out about current exhibits or special activities. Talk to Fern at the North Information Center and she will try to sell you on the popular North-South Trail. This 60-mile path winds through woods, on top of ridges and along shorelines as it runs the length of LBL and goes back and forth between Kentucky and Tennessee, bordering waters that cover the past.

Old Eddyville, seat of Lyon County, lies under Lake Barkley. The new Eddyville is a textbook "instant" city-town square, courthouse and shops-which was built in the early 1960s to replace the original eclectic town. Civil War battlefields also lie underwater, adjacent to the Kentucky State Prison, an imposing castle-style structure that may be one of the most scenically located reformatories in the nation, on a hill overlooking the sweep of the lake.

Eddyville and Lyon County, home base for LBL, have a tradition of remoteness, like LBL itself. This may well change, however. The opening last summer of the TennesseeTombigbee Waterway, a $2-billion, 234-milelong canal, links the area to the Gulf of Mexico and makes it a port. The county is hoping to take advantage of this new status to attract business and industry. While this may not bode well for those seeking isolation and remoteness, ultimately it may attract more visitors and more attention, thus making the loss of LBL's federal wilderness status less likely.

Today LBL is considered underutilized by the Reagan administration; in comparison with other recreation areas of its size, it has few visitors. Recognizing that underutilization may mean reduced federal funds for maintaining LBL, its managers are currently developing an aggressive marketing campaign.

As federal expenditures for wilderness programs have dropped, areas like LBL have felt the pinch. Hopefully this area will survive the crunch and continue to offer free access to visitors. In the meantime, this is a good time to take advantage of serene public treasures such as Land Between the Lakes and western Kentucky's calm beauty.

PRAISE FOR COLOMBIAN MARI-JUANA ERADICATION PRO-GRAM Mrs. HAWKINS. Mr. President, I

would like to call attention to the dramatic success of the Colombian Government's Marijuana Eradication Program in 1985. The United States can also take some pride in this success because of our substantial narcotics control assistance and encouragement which we provide to the Colombian Government for narcotics control programs.

According to the Department of State's international narcotics control strategy report, mandated by the Congress and released on February 21, 1986, Colombia, through aerial herbicide eradication programs, succeeded in reducing its marijuana crop by 67 percent country-wide including an 85 percent reduction in the key northern growing areas. This success is especially heartening in view of the significant political and economic clout of the traffickers in Colombia and the dangerous collaboration between guerrillas and traffickers.

Who can forget the 1984 assassination of Minister of Justice Rodrigo Lara Bonilla, reputedly ordered by the traffickers, and the violent assualt by insurgent terrorists, the F ARC, on the Palace of Justice in 1985, which resulted in some 100 deaths, including 11 Supreme Court Justices. While this latter incident also had political motives, the destruction of Ministry of Justice records relating to narcotics extradition cases in Colombia may have been at least partial motivation for this armed assualt in the Palace of Justice.

Colombia has borne tragic witness to the deadly and corrupting threat which illicit drugs can pose to a society's basic institutions, if allowed to grow and spread unchecked.

Those who question the efficacy of our Government's narcotics control strategy, which currently stresses the eradication of illicit drug crops in the field, should take careful note of this latest success in Colombia. This success in Columbia's accelerated Marijuana Crop Eradication Program, which began in mid-1984, coincides with the results of the Department of Defense 1985 drug use survey showed a significant decline in the recent use of Marijuana by the youngest junior officer group, down from 22 percent in 1982 to 15 percent in 1985. In addition, the 1985 drug use survey of high

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3393 school seniors in the United States reports a slight decline in marijuana use last year.

While other sources of supply for marijuana such as Mexico, Belize, and even domestic producers have increased their output to adjust to the disruption of supply from Colombia, we should not discount the value of even temporarily disrupting the trafficking distribution network. The bottom line is a decline in marijuana use in the United States in 1985, and I have cites above the evidence that this has occurred.

Attacking the source of supply of illicit narcotics is an important part of any serious strategy in dealing with the drug problem. It is not the only front in this battle. We must also do all we can to decrease demand for illicit drugs in the United States and elsewhere. But going after the source of supply and displaying the willingness to incur the substantial costs of this battle in blood, sweat, and tears, as the Colombian Government and people have done, delivers a powerful prevention message to all that illicit drugs are indeed a deadly menace to decent societies everywhere.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. DANFORTH). The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


REGARDING THE CASE OF MIROSLA V MEDVID

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, over 100 days have passed since the Soviet freighter Konev departed the United States for the Soviet Union. In spite of the passage of almost 4 months, we know little more about the case than we did on November 9, 1985. However, we do have a great many questions about the case today, more than we had several months ago.

We do know that last October a young man desperately attempted to reach asylum in the United States and twice jumped into the waters of the Mississippi River in darkness to avoid returning to the Soviet Union. Yet, for some reason, he was returned to the Soviet Union, quite possibly against his will.

It is clear to this Senator and to many of my colleagues that our Government did not take all of the steps which seemed prudent to ascertain Mr. Medvid's true wishes before allowing him to return to his ship.

The American people were given assurances that Mr. Medvid was thoroughly examined in an interview. However, important medical docu-

ments which were later released make it clear that no such thorough examination was undertaken.

Mr. President, a lengthy article appeared recently in the New York Times which raises even more questions about this case. In the article we learn that there are several pieces of information that support the thesis that the Mr. Medvid who was interviewed by United States officials, first aboard the ship, then aboard a Coast Guard vessel, and even later at a naval station ashore, was not the same individual who jumped from the Soviet freighter.

The New York Times article points to a series of inconsistencies on this point.

From the article we learn that the operator of the launch which returned Medvid to the ship observed "wild fighting, kicking, and punching" when Medvid was apprehended on shore. A little background, perhaps, is in order. We were told that Mr. Medvid jumped off the ship initially, swam to shore, came into contact with one Joe Wyman, who turned him over to local police, who, in turn, took him to New Orleans and he was ultimately placed in the hands of the U.S. Border Patrol who interviewed him.

Then, for some inexplicable reason because he asked for asylum, he was turned over to agents of the shipping company who returned him to the Soviet grain carrier.

Now we are at the point where the operator of the launch who was taking him back to the Soviet grain carrier, says-he jumped into the water, swamp to shore, and then the launch operator observed "wild fightingkicking and punching." In other words, the second time he jumped in, he resisted violently. The launch operator, Mr. Raymond Guthrie, and a representative from the shipping company, Mr. Michael Flad, observed that Medvid "began banging his head against some rocks until he was dragged away and carried back to the ship."

Banging his head against the rocks. He was handcuffed at that point, I note.

Yet, Mr. President, in a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Policy Subcommittee on February 5, I specifically asked the Navy physician who later examined the man who was presumed to be Medvid if the physician had observed any head wounds when he examined this individual. This physician replied under oath, "He had no head injuries."

There is yet another bit of evidence which lends weight to the argument that we were duped, we were had, that the Soviets pulled a switch on us.

Were we duped? I do not know, but it certainly looks that way. A follow-on question may be, if we were duped, were we knowingly duped or unknow-

ingly duped? That focuses back on the concern many have had that there might have been some political shenanigans involved in this case inasmuch as all of these events preceded the summit meeting in Geneva between Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan by about a week's time.

Mr. President, there are many inconsistencies in this case and many questions remain to be answered. Unf ortunately, we are having to rely upon the news media to conduct the investigation. That is unfortunate indeed, because there lies before this body a resolution cosponsored now by 61 Senators who desire to set up a special independent panel to investigate this whole matter from top to bottom. That resolution has lain before us now for days and days and weeks and weeks and months and months and it lies before us now. If an independent investigation is lacking, it is through no fault but our own.

How peculiar it is that 61 Senators desire a certain course of action by this body, yet nothing happens. I presume the leadership is at liberty to call up that resolution at any time. Perhaps the press ought to be inquiring why that resolution, cosponsored by 61 Senators, lies at the table yet. Perhaps there are some who wish this matter would just go away.

I want to say in the same breath that I have discussed this matter many times with the majority leader and he has made some efforts to find some common ground-I should say to find some way of compromising on this issue. I shall not get into the details of why any compromise might be necessary, but it involves matters of jurisdiction, I think it would be fair to say. The bottom line is that nothing has happened, nothing concrete has been achieved so far.

Mr. President, Senator D1xoN and I and our 59 cosponsors desire ardently that an independent investigation be conducted beginning immediately that would get to the bottom of this case, that would establish the facts through an aggressive discovery process-not simply a rehashing by means of a hearing or two of information already provided to us by the administration, but through an aggressive process of discovery involving sworn statements, oath-giving, and subpoenas if necessary of persons and material; that the facts of this case be established once and for all and made public and conclusions be drawn and, if any improprierty be found, persons be held accountable.

I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the new York Times article to which I referred be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

3394 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 CFrom the New York Times, Mar. 2, 19861 WAS SovIET SEAMAN SWITCHED FOR A NoN

DEFECTOR? <The following article is based on report

ing by Clyde H. Farnsworth and Joel Brinkley and was written by Mr. Brinkley.)

WASHINGTON, March 1.-Four months after a Soviet seaman jumped into the Mississippi River and said he wanted to defect, only to be sent home after apparently changing his mind, 60 senators want to reopen the case amid allegations that Soviet officials switched seamen.

Members of Congress and others are saying the man who jumped overboard near New Orleans on Oct. 24 may not have been the man who later told American officials he wanted to return to the Soviet Union.

State Department officials say they are certain there was no switch. And Boris Malakhov, a spokesman for the Soviet Embassy in Washington, said, "It's crazy to think it was not Miroslav Medved who was interviewed."

But several pieces of evidence support the possibility of a switch, at least raising questions about the case of Mr. Medved, whose attempted defection touched off a weekend crisis in Soviet American relations two weeks before the Geneva summit.

A LIEUTENANT'S PHOTOS And caught in the crossfire is Lieut. James

R. Geltz, whose surreptitious photographs of the interviewed seaman are cited as evidence by those who believe he was not Miroslav Medved. As a result of the incident, Lieutenant Geltz was reprimanded and is leaving the Navy.

Also, an official form completed by Border Patrol officers said the man who jumped from the freighter Marshal Konev and then was hauled kicking and screaming back to the ship was 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed 174 pounds. But a Navy doctor who examined a seaman on board the ship less than 24 hours later described the man in his report as "short stature, approximately 150" pounds.

The man who jumped ship spoke fluent Ukrainian in his first evening ashore, according to the first interpreter who spoke with him. The man interviewed later spoke the language with difficulty, the State Department said afterward.

Two independent handwriting analysts concluded that handwriting samples taken on different days probably were written by different people.

Mr. Medved appeared terrified as he pleaded for political asylum after jumping ship, saying, "I want to live in a decent country." But the man who spoke to State Department officials on Oct. 28 and 29 was described as alternately flippant, belligerent and arrogant, and he repeatedly remarked that the Soviet system was superior.

Finally, there are Lieutenant Geltz's pictures, taken Oct. 29, the only known photographs of the man interviewed by the State Department. When the lieutenant showed his pictures to a man who had seen the seaman the day the incident began, both became convinced that the Russians had pulled a switch.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation compared the photos with one taken of the seaman who Jumped ship, a Senate aide said, and found that no firm conclusions could be drawn. In Congressional testimony Feb. 5, William M. Woessner, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, said "The Department of State has no doubt that the individual we interviewed was the same man

who originally jumped from the M.V. Konev on Oct. 24."

Still, nagging questions have led more than half the Senate to co-sponsor a resolution calling for a new inquiry. If the resolution is approved, the Senate would set up an investigative panel.

"Something smells fishy here," said Senator Gordon Humphrey, the New Hampshire Republican who is leading the call for an investigation.

A key part of the controversy is Lieutenant Geltz. He was the public affairs officer at the Naval Support Facility in Algiers, La., where the seaman who was removed from the freighter on Oct. 28 underwent interviews and examinations by American officials.

Lieutenant Geltz said he became convinced that the Russians had "pulled a fast one."

"I decided I sure better tell my superiors," he said. But, he added, "I was certainly not prepared for what happened."

SURPRISE AT REACTION TO OFFICER'S SUGGESTION

In the days that followed, Lieutenant Geltz, a 10-year Navy officer with an unblemished record, found the Government's only reaction was anger. Asked by a commanding officer to relinguish his pictures, he refused, saying he wanted to be sure they were safeguarded. He was arrested briefly and placed under armed guard. Later he was reassigned to a job he considers inconsequential, officially reprimanded and forced to resign from the Navy, effective this spring.

"It was like I was political poison, a leper," the 35-year-old officer said in an interview last month.

Navy officials say his case was handled just as any other would be. But Lieutenant Geltz's civilian lawyer, Mark McTernan, believes the Navy acted "vindictively," and he is appealing the reprimand.

Some suspect that, even so, Lieutenant Geltz is fortunate when compared with Mr. Medved, whom many people believe may be dead or in prison. Mr. Malakhov, however, says the seaman was interviewed by Tass shortly after his return and was quoted as saying he was "amused by the reports in the U.S. press" that he was imprisoned or dead. Instead, Tass reported last fall, Mr. Medved was preparing to enter Lvov State University, adding that he asked Americans not to worry about him because "my freedom is guaranteed by the constitution of the U.S.S.R."

Whatever his fate, Federal officials have acknowledged that the seaman's experience in New Orleans demonstrated major flaws in the way the Government deals with those seeking political asylum.

Federal officials concede that immigration officers acted improperly when, hours after Mr. Medved Jumped ship, they sent him back to the Soviet freighter even though he had requested asylum. As a result, the immigration service reprimanded and demoted two Border Patrol officers, Ernest Spurlock and J.C. Bashaw.

Some details of Mr. Medved's and Lieutenant Geltz's experiences have been reported previously, but new information from interviews in New Orleans and Washington, court transcripts, . Government documents and other sources make possible a comprehensive account of what happened to the seaman and the officer.

TO DRIPPING SEAMAN, "YOU RUSSIAN?" At dusk on Thursday, Oct. 24, Mr.

Medved, a 25-year-old from the western

Ukraine near Poland, Jumped overboard while his ship lay off shore in the lower Mississippi, waiting her turn to load grain. His first sights after climbing the bank were probably the satellite television dishes and power boats in the backyards off Belle Chasse Highway.

Half a mile away, Joseph H. Wyman, who had been a deputy sheriff in suburban Jefferson Parish, was locking his jewelry store when Mr. Medved, dripping wet, came running across the parking lot toward him. The man spoke hurriedly in an unrecognizable language while repeatedly looking over his shoulder, apparently to see if he was being pursued.

"You Russian?" Mr. Wyman asked. "Ukrainian," the seaman answered twice,

pounding his chest with pride. Mr. Wyman asked the seaman if he was

trying to defect but could understand only the words: "Novi Orleans" and "Politsia." Mr. Wyman said he grabbed the seaman's shoulders and shook him to calm him down. "We were eye to eye, the same height," said Mr. Wyman, who is 5 feet 10 inches.

Mr. Wyman turned to his nephew, Wayne Wyman, who was also in the parking lot, and asked him to drive the seaman into New Orleans. The seaman virtually leaped into the car.

At about 9 P.M., Wayne Wyman left Mr. Medved at a small police station in the French Quarter. Mr. Medved tried to apologize for getting the car seat wet and he shook Mr. Wyman's hand and then tried to kiss it. Inside, officers had no idea how to deal with the situation and called the Harbor Police, who turned the seaman over to the Border Patrol.

To communicate with the seaman, the Border Patrol officers telephoned Irene Padoch, a Ukrainian interpreter in New York City who happened to come from the same region of the Soviet Union as Mr. Medved. For 90 minutes she spoke to Mr. Medved and interpreted for Mr. Spurlock of the Border Patrol.

Right away, she said, Mr. Medved pleaded with her several times, "Can you come immediately here," adding, "I am very much afraid what will happen to me."

Repeatedly he told Mrs. Padoch that he wanted political asylum. The two spoke in Ukrainian, and Mrs. Padoch said he spoke fluently.

BACK TO THE FREIGHTER, KICKING AND SCREAMING

After the phone conversations ended, the officers decided to return Mr. Medved to his ship for reasons that still are not clear. They noted on an immigration form, "Subject claims that he jumped ship in the United States for political and moral reasons," an indication they thought he wanted to defect.

The agents measured and photographed Mr. Medved and then turned him over to Mike Flad, an employee for the shipping company that was handling the grain deal with the Soviet ship. The agents gave Mr. Flad a pair of plastic handcuffs, which he lay on the dashboard, and told him to take Mr. Medved back to the ship.

The seaman, still wet, was docile on the drive to the dock, apparently unsure where he was going. But when he saw his ship in the distance, "he put his fingers across his throat," indicating "he thought when he got to the ship they would probably cut his throat," said Raymond Guthrie, who operated the shipping company's launch that would take the seaman back.

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3395 Still, Mr. Medved got into the launch.

When the boat drew beside the Konev, the ship's second mate "looked very shocked" to see Mr. Medved, Mr. Guthrie said. Then the seaman jumped into the river again and began swimming desperately back to shore.

The launch pursued him with the Russian second mate aboard and reached shore at about the same time as Mr. Medved. The Soviet second mate and Mr. Medved began "wild fighting-kicking and punching," Mr. Guthrie said. Finally, with two Americans helping, Mr. Medved was subdued and handcuffed. Left alone in despair, he began banging his head against some rocks until he was dragged away and carried back to the ship. It was early Friday morning.

"I'm sorry this had to happen," Mr. Flad told the ship's captain, V. Tyschenko.

"Oh, no problem," the captain replied. State Department officials said they did

not learn of the incident until that afternoon. Over the weekend, President Reagan said the United States would use force if the Soviet Union did not allow Mr. Medved to be questioned in a neutral environment.

On Friday afternoon Mr. Spurlock boarded the ship and saw Mr. Medved lying unconscious in the sick bay. Later, Soviet officials explained that he had been given a major tranquilizer. Six hours later American officials were allowed to board the ship; among them was a Navy doctor who examined Mr. Medved.

On Monday, the seaman was taken off the ship for interviews, first aboard a Coast Guard cutter and then at the Naval facility where he spent the night.

During this period American officials said he was cocky and belligerent. He maintained that he fell off his ship by accident and wanted to return home. Later American officials speculated that he has been threatened and perhaps drugged to tell this story.

A State Department interpreter who assisted with the interviews was fluent in both Russian and Ukrainian. In Congressional testimony this month Mr. Woessner, the State Department official, said: " It was our interpreter's assessment that Seaman Medved was more fluent in Russian. When he spoke Ukrainian, he made grammatical errors. At no time did he express a wish to have the interview conducted in any other language than Russian.1'

He acknowledged that Mrs. Padoch had "testified that Seaman Medved was fluent" in Ukrainian but theorized that he had come to that conclusion only because she did not speak Russian. Mrs. Padoch said the seaman never asked to speak Russian.

LIEUTENANT DECIDES " I OUGHT TO GET A PICTURE"

Lieutenant Geltz's office was just across from the bachelor officer's quarters where the seaman was staying, and the lieutenant said he spent Tuesday morning " just hanging around because I wanted to see the guy."

When Lieutenant Geltz learned that the seaman was going home, he said, he decided he "ought to get a picture, just to get it on film for historical documentation purposes."

Not sure the State Department would approve, the lieutenant and his civilian assistant, Bernard Cleary, shot 19 pictures through their office windows while the seaman was being led to a car.

The next day Mr. Cleary told Lieutenant Geltz the photos were "not too great, kind of fuzzy." The lieutenant said he forgot about them for a few days.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the New York Times, in a front page arti-

cle yesterday, asked "was Soviet seaman switched for a non-defector?"

This afternoon, the senior Senator from New Hampshire stated on the floor that, "we know little more about the case today than we did on November 9, 1985." That is not quite so.

The fact is that the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policywhich I chair-has conducted a continuing investigation of the case of Miroslav Medvid, since we do indeed have a great deal more information about the case today than we did on November 9, 1985, the day the Marshal Konev sailed out from American waters, with this confused young man aboard.

In fact, Mr. President, the subcommittee has held three hearings on the Medvid case and a fourth one is scheduled for this Friday, March 7. In addition, during the Lincoln day recess, I dispatched the chief counsel of the subcommittee, Richard W. Day, to New Orleans with instructions to make a full investigation of what occurred in New Orleans between October 24, 1985, the day that Miroslav Medvid jumped ship, until October 29, 1985, the day that Medvid returned to his ship after being interviewed over a period of 2 days by U.S. officials.

Included in my instructions was a request that Mr. Day interview any and all persons who had significant contact with Medvid when he was ashore, particularly those who had an opportunity to personally see Medvid. Over a period of 6 days, the chief counsel interviewed most of the people who had important previous contact with Medvid. During those interviews the witnesses who had come into contact with Medvid on his first time ashore were shown the pictures taken by the Navy photographers during Medvid's second trip ashore. Those witnesses who had come into contact with Medvid during his second time ashore were shown a picture of Medvid as taken by Border Patrol agents the first time he was ashore. Nineteen of the 22 persons interviewed positively identified Medvid as being the person who was portrayed in the pictures. The witnesses were also asked to estimate the height and weight of Miroslav Medvid, and the estimates ranged from 5'8" to 6' and from 160 lbs. to 180 lbs. That range of height and weight estimates fits well with the actual height and weight of Medvid as recorded by the Border Patrol: 5'10", 174 lbs.

Mr. President, we do know a great deal more about the case now than we did in November, particularly regarding the possibility of there being "two Medvids." We will know even more after our hearing this Friday. The subcommittee will continue its investigation and I invite any of my colleagues to submit to the subcommittee any evidence they may have or issues they

may wish us to examine or inf ormation about any persons they may wish to subpoena. I intend to hold further hearings and to continue this investigation until we have all of the answers. That is my pledge.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


THE NEW PRESIDENT OF CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the outstanding qualifications of Dr. Max Lennon, who begins his first official day as president of Clemson University in Clemson, SC.

Dr. Lennon becomes Clemson's 11th president, succeeding interim president Walter T. Cox. He was selected unanimously from a field of 200 candidates, and I am confident that he will be an able and effective leader for Clemson. All of Clemson University join me in welcoming him, his lovely wife, Ruth, and his two fine children.

Dr. Lennon comes to Clemson with an extensive background in higher education. A native of North Carolina, he earned his bachelor and doctoral degrees in animal science from North Carolina State University. Upon completing his studies, he became associate professor at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, TX, and was later appointed associate dean and director of research in the College of Agricultural Sciences at that university. He went on to become dean of the College of Agriculture and director of the Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of Missouri. His most recent position was at Ohio State University, where he was executive dean for agriculture, home economics, and natural resources, and vice president of agricultural administration.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming Dr. Lennon to his new position, and I ask unanimous consent that the following remarks from the January 1986 edition of Clemson World magazine be included in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Clemson World, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, January 1986)

"MEET THE MAX LENNON"

Ruth Lennon was not surprised that her husband was chosen to lead one of the nation's foremost land-grant universities. Even with some 300 applicants looking for the job, she said, "I thought they were going to

3396 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 pick him; I think he was more surprised than I was when they did!" She has complete confidence in Max Lennon and what he hopes to achieve for Clemson University.

"When the six-member selection committee of the board of trustees met in Greenville with the four finalists-Max and Ruth were together the entire time-Ruth said, "Things were very positive." Max said, "I thought the interview went extremely well; it felt very good, even though they said they had some other very, very strong candidates-and obviously they did."

Ruth said, "He had had interviews in the past, but this was the first one for me-and I was a little nervous at first, but not for long." She had not even seen the campus until Homecoming Weekend, and the final interview was the following Monday, October 14, and Dr. Max Lennon's approval by the full board and selection as president was announced later that day in a news conference on the Clemson campus. Max said, "Ruth did a good job in the interview, and without question she is part of the reason I'm going to Cemson. She has a terrific personality and enjoys meeting people."

One of the things that interested Max was that earlier-when they had narrowed the search down to 10 or 12 candidates-Clemson did a videotape of the final contenders. The Lennons were on a short vacation to visit their daughter at Texas Tech, and Clemson officials arranged to make the videotape in Dallas, Texas.

The first family-to-be includes two children ... son Daniel, 23, and daughter Robin, who will be 21 in February. Dan is a sophomore at Ohio State majoring in Food Science, while Robin is a junior at Texas Tech majoring in Home Economics <consumer science option>. Dan played baseball in high school, and just missed making the team at the University of Missouri. Robin started teaching exercise classes at her Ohio State dorm before transferring to Texas Tech: she was so successful at it that she was hired by Ohio State to teach these classes. In Texas she is deeply involved with student organizations and her hobby is music. Dan has worked several summers in hotels and restaurants, and is presently working in a restaurant in Columbus, Ohio.

After being named President here, the first person Max Lennon told was his boss, Ohio State's president-with whom he had previously discussed his career move at great length before applying for the job. "While I discussed details with the Clemson board," Max said, "Ruth went into a private office and called my father and her mother to let them know, and she also called my assistant." Ruth couldn't contact the children at that moment, but she told them as soon as they returned to Columbus. "When Robin comes home at Christmas, we will take them down and show them the campus," Ruth said. "Neither of them has seen Clemson."

Max will take over as president March 1. Meanwhile he has several major functions in his present job <including a bowl game in Orlando, Florida), and will spend as much time as he can after his last official function in Columbus on Feb. 7, visiting Clemson and studying its operation.

Clemson's new president has an impressive track record in both the academic and business worlds. Born in Evergreen, N.C., in Columbus County (just north of Horry County and west of Wilmington>. he went to Mars Hill College, at that time a two-year college. "My mother went to Mars Hill," he pointed out. "I was the last of eight children

and all of us went to Mars Hill ... after Mars Hill we could go anywhere we wanted to."

Max and Ruth met while she was still in high school in the town of Mars Hill. She later went to Mars Hill and Meredith College, and they were married in 1961-when Max was finishing his junior year at N.C. State, where he transferred after graduating at Mars Hill.

After he received his B.S. degree at N.C. State. Max immediately began training of another kind-in the real world. He went into partnership with his brother in Columbus County running a 300-acre farm. "I had a lot of fun," he recalled, but a lot of hard work went with it. A diversified operation, with livestock and crops, "it took everything we had to start" ... and Max and his brother found that they needed extra income to keep things going: so they went into the fertilizer and seed business and custom harvesting ventures to raise the necessary resources. "My brother still operates the farm," he said. The two worked on the farm from 1962 to 1966.

Max went back to State for his doctorate in 1966 without getting a master's degree; his degree was Animal Science and his specialty was swine nutrition. He studied ways to increase soybean protein utilization in very young animals, chiefly pigs, and he joined the Texas Tech faculty in 1970. Three years later he put his training to practical use when he joined the Central Soya Company in Ft. Wayne, Ind., one of the world's largest soybean processing and feed companies, as swine feed research specialist; later he became director of the program.

His research took him to many nations throughout the world. "The company had more animals in other countries consuming our products than in the United States," he recalled. He was assigned to Canada on one occasion with the responsibility of developing new products, and worked with several nations with centrally planned economies, where our technology was much in demand-and whenever possible, Ruth went with him. Two years later, in late 1974, he went back to Texas Tech to chair the animal science department where he had previously taught.

Max Lennon has had two major and exciting challenges in his administrative career that he rates as his greatest opportunities thus far. The first occurred in 1980, when he became Dean of the College of Agriculture at the University of Missouri. He came there during a time of economic downturn throughout the country. "As a result," he said, "we had to learn to manage with decreasing resources-it was real challenge." It also gave him a philosophy which he carries with him still.

"We had to focus clearly on what we were going to do, within our limitations, and do it well," he said. "As a result, we developed a program called Food For The Twenty First Century, focusing on the main issues which agriculture would be facing." Because of the program's success, available resources are now increasing at Missouri, he reports, and "it was because of that success that Ohio State became interested in my coming here."

When the Lennons came to Ohio State three years ago, Max faced what he considers the second major opportunity of his life. "When I arrived here," Dr. Lennon said, "they told me, 'We have a wonderful past, but now we want to position ourselves to become one of the finest agricultural units

in the nation in the 1990's' ... that has been my exciting challenge, and we have been marvelously successful!"

He went on, "We are focusing here on new and important issues that will be with us in the year 2000; we call the program Ohio-21 <for the 21st Century), and we've established major priorities to reach this goal." His efforts have been a major factor in the initial success of a $350 million capital campaign now under way at Ohio State. At Clemson, he plans to work with members of the faculty, staff and administration plus regional and state leadership ... "those who are ready to move aggressively into the future."

Ruth Lennon, like Max, is not accustomed to failure, and manages to make the best of a bad situation. "If I bum something that was scheduled for dinner, I just throw it away and start over," she said cheerfully. One time she planned a dinner for 45 at their home; although she managed to put tables together to accommodate this large group, she had no tablecloth large enough for one of the tables ... so she called the University and they promptly supplied one.

"As a student, I know what I expected of my dean and his wife," she observed, "so when I got here I wanted to be good, and was very conscientious about participating in University activities." She has taught piano lessons, worked with foreign students, and hosted distinguished women visitors from foreign nations in her home, as well as many church and student groups.

The Lennons are Southern Baptists, and Max is a deacon and Sunday School teacher for married students . . . and Ruth works side by side with him; she does church work on an average of two days a week. Their church <Lane Ave. Baptist> has a congregation of about 700 ... but Max says, "This is small compared to the First Baptist Church in Lubbock, Texas, where they had a congregation in excess of 10,000!"

Ruth is treasurer of the University Women's Club, which supports scholarship programs, and she also keeps permanent membership records for the 650-member group. Max was active in civic affairs as a faculty member in Texas, but his duties as administrator now leave little time for community activities. He does, however, make an average of seven speeches a week ... "everything from the downtown Rotary Club in Cleveland to a soil and water conservation group in a nearby county." He says, "It's a challenge and I enjoy it."

Max finds it difficult to participate in any sport regularly with his present school commitments. He says, "We walk, jog, whatever we can to work around my schedule." There are good hiking and bike paths around their home in suburban Worthington, and they do a lot of walking. Ruth says, "We have always been very family-oriented, and that's probably why Max isn't a golfer-we like to spend weekends together; when he goes out, I go out with him." But she admits that he really likes to watch football and other sports on television.

She also notes that he's "always putting things together and taking them apart . . . I guess that's his hobby, other than his work." As an example, she says. "He recently repaired an ice machine in the refrigerator, which quit when I needed ice for my jaw <after dental work> . . . but unfortunately, he had to wait for a new part to come in after locating the trouble." Max points out, "When you are brought up on a farm, and then run your own, you have to know how to fix things." Ruth comments,

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE 3397 "I would put off things like that, but he goes ahead and does them!"

Ruth further discloses that the two of them painted the outside of their house last summer . . . "on weekends and holidays." She also confides that Max is an expert at wallpapering. Ruth has done some painting in the past, and enjoys other crafts such as flower arranging, when she has time.

They don't have much time for cooking at home, averaging two or three meals a month there. Max says, "Most of my meals are at meetings, and you consume what's served." But they enjoy cooking outside ... his specialty is a grilled pork dish. In cold weather they like fixing a fire in the fireplace, and cooking spicy dishes like chili. "When we go out, we like to enjoy Chinese foods," he remarks, and notes that Columbus is home for more than 30 food companies, and that there are many good family restaurants.

Ruth says that they enjoy having breakfast together <and sometimes watch the sun come up). She says, "Max likes sausage, grits, eggs and biscuits-typical Southern fare-while I enjoy omelettes and other things." At Clemson, she is planning to make an upstairs bedroom into a sitting room, where they can install a microwave oven and have simple breakfasts without a lot of clean-up afterwards.

Their home contains mostly traditional furniture <"made in the Carolinas," he says proudly). The dining room suite has a French flair, and they have a prized Bombay table they acquired in Texas. They plan very little redecorating in the President's Home at Clemson: Max says, "only minor replacements from normal wear and tear, such as small sections of carpet." During our visit to their home, the Lennons introduced me and my photograher to Sophie, a nine-year-old, cafe au lait poodle who is a long-time family member. During their times away from home, Sophie usually stays with friends or with Ruth's mother in Mars Hill . . . "They're great buddies," Max points out.

Max Lennon does not claim to have any master blueprint for his career-but he and Ruth have obviously made the most of their opportunities. His motto is: "Do the best you can with what you have ... and tomorrow will take care of itself. My basic policy is to do with what one has rather than what one wants." He continues, "We have had ample opportunities to pursue new horizons, but will concentrate on today."

He sincerely believes that there is a major economic and industrial transition under way, and that South Carolina is a major part of it-but that it is world-wide in scope. "The land-grant university has a major obligation in that transition," he says, "and it is to provide quality education." He declares, "The future is going to be an exciting time . . . and I believe universities can really make a major difference in determining the ultimate course of world events."

Going back to the basic word he uses so often, he says, with great intensity, "We have to focus and move ahead aggressively; the challenge of focusing is the large one, and is somewhat difficult ... but we have to do it!"

A final word on Max and Ruth Lennon. They did not accomplish what they have so far in life together by trying to be something they are not. What Clemson folks can expect when they meet the new First Family is a warm, friendly, and genuinely likeable family. Max Lennon can be counted on to do his very best for the University at

all times . . . and if his past record is any indication of what lies ahead, he can be expected to raise Clemson University to new heights of achievement.

EXTENSION OF ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I announce on behalf of the majority leader that it is still very much the intention of the leader to take uf> the committee funding resolution this afternoon. We are awaiting the arrival of certain principals to accomplish that, and when they arrive in the Chamber we will proceed.

It seems appropriate and very important in the meantime that Senator BYRD, the distinguished minority leader, share with us another installment in his remarkable series on the history of the Senate, which at some time will be compiled in book form and will be a single effort that will, I am sure, be part of our history for decades to come, as he has shared with us that remarkable insight into the history of the workings of the Senate and the people who have made its history.

So, accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for a time sufficient to allow Senator BYRD to deliver his remarks. He has indicated every cooperation; at the time we find ourselves prepared to go forward with our business, he will indeed accommodate us. So I thank the minority leader.


Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.


Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank

the distinguished assistant Republican leader, Mr. SIMPSON, for arranging this period of morning business, with permission for me to speak therein.

From time to time, I deliver one in a series of speeches which I have been making since March of 1980 on the subject of the United States Senate. I always make it clear that if any business is to be transacted, I will gladly yield the floor.

Today, a part of that continuing series, the title of my remarks is "Lyndon Johnson and the United States Senate, 1948-1961."

THE UNITED STATES SENATE

LYNDON JOHNSON AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE, 1948-1961 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in his

classic study, U.S. Senators and Their World, political scientist Donald Matthews observed that the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties in the Senate was quite different. "Democratic party leadership is highly personalized, informal, centralized in the hands of the floor leader," Matthews wrote. "* • • Republican leadership is more formalized, institutionalized, and decentralized." 1 That statement, made in 1960, is to a degree still true today, but it described with keen accuracy the years when Lyndon Baines Johnson was Democratic leader.

The saga of Lyndon Johnson and the United States Senate began on the most remarkable election day in modern political history. On November 2, 1948, to everyone's surprise, Harry S. Truman defeated Thomas E. Dewey for the presidency. That triumph was matched in Congress, where Democrats washed away the Republican majorities of the 80th Congress. The "Class of '48," elected that day, included men who would dominate national politics for the next generation. In addition to Lyndon Johnson, the list included Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, Paul Douglas of Illinois, Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, Robert Kerr of Oklahoma, and-the only member of the class still serving in the Senate-RussELL LoNG of Louisiana.

Lyndon Johnson was no newcomer to Washington. He had first arrived in the capital in 1931 as a staff aide to Texas Representative Richard Kleberg. Johnson immediately established himself as a mover and shaker, winning election as speaker of the "Little Congress," an association of House staff members. During the New Deal, Johnson returned to Texas to become state director of the National Youth Administration, where he drew attention as a hard-working and effective administrator. In 1937, at the age of twenty-eight, he won a special election to fill a vacant House seat. His election, as a staunch advocate of the New Deal, occurred in the midst of the monumental fight to "pack" the Supreme Court, which brought the young congressman to the attention of Franklin Roosevelt. Four years later, when Johnson ran for a Senate seat, it was with Roosevelt's blessing and strong support. Lyndon Johnson lost his first Senate race, after some suspicious ballot stuffing by his opponents. He remained in the House, with a

Footnotes at end of article.

3398 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 brief stretch in the Navy during the war, and grew under the tutelage of House Speaker Sam Rayburn. Johnson was among the select group of congressmen invited to join the speaker's afternoon "Board of Education" meetings. He was there on that April afternoon in 1945 when Harry Truman received word from the White House that Franklin Roosevelt was dead.

At that time, I was a welder in a shipyard in Tampa, Florida, and Spessard Holland was Governor of the State of Florida.

In 1948, Johnson made his second try for the Senate, this time winningby the slim margin of 87 votes. 2

When Lyndon Johnson came from the House to the Senate, warnings preceded him, as Darrell St. Claire, the former Assistant Secretary of the Senate recalled. Those who knew Johnson warned, "Wait till he gets here." 3 Johnson's long time aide, Walter Jenkins, noted that "Mr. Johnson took to the Senate as if he'd been born there. From the first day on it was obvious that it was his place-just the right size; he was at his best with small groups, and at that time he was one of only 96 senators, while in the House he had been one of 435, a group in which it was much more difficult to make his influence felt, to be effective. But with only 95 others-he knew he could manage that." 4

Among the first people the newly elected Senator Johnson contacted was the Senate's chief telephone page, a twenty-year old South Carolinian named Bobby Baker, who had a reputation for scouting out the strengths and weaknesses of every senator. Johnson called Baker over to his office in the Cannon Building and questioned him bluntly: "I want to know who's the power over there, how you get things done, the best committees, the works." He wanted information on the senators with whom he was unfamiliar, keeping up the questioning for two hours. Bobby Baker was impressed by Johnson's determination to learn: "He was coming into the Senate with his neck bowed, running full tilt, impatient to reach some distant goal I then could not even imagine. • • • Politics simply consumed the man." 5

Next, Johnson set out to cultivate the Senate's senior leaders in general and Georgia Senator Richard Russell in particular. Although Scott Lucas of Illinois served as Democratic leader in the 81st Congress, Richard Russell was the undisputed leader of the Senate's "Inner Club." Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and of the "Southern Caucus," Russell had political power and respect unmatched in the Senate. As Lyndon Johnson had hitched his wagon to Sam Rayburn's star in the House, he now associated himself with Dick Russell in the Senate. Russell, in return, acceded to Johnson's desire for a seat

on the Armed Services Committee, an appointment normally beyond the grasp of freshmen senators.

In a recent recorded interview with Senator RUSSELL LONG, I was able to capture his perception as to how Lyndon Johnson operated. This is what Senator LONG had to say:

He-Meaning Lyndon Johnson-

was sworn in on the first day of the 8lst Congtess, and he immediately went to work at ingratiating himself to Dick Russell, who was the leader of the southern group, and he managed to have himself assigned to the Armed Services Committee, and in short order, he was working as chairman of the Preparedness subcommittee. This took some doing, but he sold Dick Russell the idea that there should be a subcommittee on Preparedness. It was almost like turning the whole committee over to Lyndon, because what is Armed Services for if it is not for preparedness?

He started getting out these reports by this Preparedness Subcommittee, and, incidentally, he had that subcommittee so structured that not only was he the chairman, but every member of the committee was an ex officio member if not directly a member of the Preparedness Subcommittee. He managed to get himself a small but efficient staff, and he started issuing reports critical of the way the defense establishment was run-criticizing the efficiency, the effectiveness, the readiness. Some of the style of it was clever and some of it amusing. The Pentagon did not find it funny at all, and they resented it, but it was effective.

And he started bringing about some changes in the military. He became a very powerful member of the Armed Services Committee in short order.

Johnson did not follow Russell one hundred percent of the time. When Russell called the first meeting of the Southern Caucus in the 8lst Congress, only two Southern senators were absent: Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and Lyndon Johnson of Texas. Kefauver was known as a liberal, and his absence was expected. But where was Johnson?

We might say that Senator Johnson was suffering from a political identity crisis. Having arrived in Congress with much hoopla as a New Deal liberal from a conservative state, and having publicly embraced Franklin Roosevelt, Johnson had moved to the right during his efforts to win a Senate seat. He explained his situation to Bobby Baker during their first meeting: "I know you count noses and maybe you lobby a little bit to help the Democratic program. Fine. But I gotta tell you, Mr. Baker, that my state is much more conservative than the national Democratic party. I got elected by just eighty-seven votes and I ran against a caveman. • • • I cannot always vote with President Truman if I'm going to stay a senator." s

Despite Harry Truman's spectacular election victory, and · the reestablishment of Democratic majorities in Congress, Truman's "Fair Deal" program had just as little chance of passage in

the Democratic 81st Congress as it did in the Republican "80th Congress." Real power in Congress continued to lie with a coalition of conservative Democrats and Republicans. Within the Democratic majority were several groups. Southern Democrats, led by such men as Richard Russell and Walter George of Georgia, and Kenneth McKellar of Tennessee, chaired the key committees and represented the "Inner Club" which dominated the institution. Border state and Southwestern Democrats, such as Arizona's Carl Hayden and Ernest McFarland, allied themselves with the Southerners. Western Democrats, whether conservative or liberal, had made their peace with the Southerners by not supporting civil rights legislation, and in return received Southern support on water projects and commodity supports dear to their region. Isolated from the rest were the Northeastern liberal senators who had supported Hubert Humphrey's effort to place a civil rights plank in the party's 1948 platform. These liberal senators, while espousing the program of the New Deal and the Fair Deal were, in the words of Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, "at the bottom of the .totem pole of prestige" in the Senate. 7

For the most part, Lyndon Johnson avoided political labels and attempted to steer a middle course between the various factions in his party. He went out of his way to make friends with both Dick Russell and Hubert Humphrey. Johnson recognized the conservative nature of the Senate's power structure, and the conservative demands of his own state, but he had national political ambitions. At first, Johnson's votes in the Senate seemed to locate him in the conservative camp. He began by supporting eff arts to block liberal revision of the cloture rule, intended to make it harder to filibuster against civil rights legislation. Also in 1949, Senator Johnson look the lead in opposing President Truman's nomination to the Federal Power Commission of Leland Oldswho was opposed by Texas oil and gas interests-a fight which led to Olds' defeat by a vote of 53 to 15. Although an impressive victory for a freshman senator, blocking Olds' nomination alienated Johnson from Senate liberals. As Senator Hubert Humphrey noted, "Our little group of twenty-five or so liberal senators was very suspicious of Johnson in those early years, very suspicious. I was maybe the one that looked on him with more friendship, more acceptance. I always felt that he was a lot more liberal than he ever acted." 8

Hubert Humphrey had launched his own long and distinguished career in the Senate with a very bumpy start. On his arrival he found that his support of the civil rights plank in 1948

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3399 had earned him the animosity of many of his colleagues, who overtly snubbed him. He chose his first battles poorly, once rising to demand the abolition of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Non-Essential Federal Expenditures as a non-essential expenditure. Now, this committee had not met in years, but it was chaired by Virginia's Senator Harry Byrd, Sr., a highly respected fiscal conservative, who happened to be absent from the Senate visiting his ailing mother at the time Humphrey launched his attack. Byrd's friends rushed to his defense, and Humphrey found himself even more isolated in the Senate. 9 Lyndon Johnson did not join those who shunned Hubert Humphrey. Instead, he invited Humphrey to his office to advise the voluble Minnesotan how to get along better with his Senate colleagues. whom to make friends with. how to direct his energies most effectively, how to become accepted. 10 This was the beginning of their famous friendship that culminated with Johnson's selection of Humphrey as his vice presidential running mate in 1964.

After only two years in the United States Senate. Lyndon Johnson suddenly and unexpectedly catapulted into his party's leadership. In the election of 1950, both the Senate Majority Leader, Scott Lucas, and Majority Whip, Francis Myers. went down to def eat. Political commentators took these def eats as a sign of public disappointment over the failure to enact Truman's Fair Deal program. worry over the Korean war. and confusion over Senator Joe McCarthy's anticommunist crusade. To fill this double vacancy. Arizona Senator Ernest McFarland became Democratic leader, and Lyndon Johnson became Whip. McFarland never fully grasped the reins of leadership, and his two years in the job were a study in frustration. Johnson, on the other hand, used his new position to broaden his contacts and study how the Senate operated. "At that time the assistant leadership was little more than an honorary degree," Newsweek correspondent Sam Shaff er observed. "But to Lyndon it lifted him out of the rut of a freshman senator, and he would sit in the leadership councils until the majority leader was out in the hustings campaigning, making a speech, and then he would be in charge of the fort. He would be noticed. Other senators would be aware of him." 11

Mr. President, since history these days, is often collected in the form of oral history, that is, the tape recorded personal reminiscences of participants in events, I recently asked Senators JOHN STENNIS and WILLIAM PROXMIRE, in addition to Senator LoNG-three of the six members of the 99th Congress, myself included, who served with Lyndon Johnson in this body-to record some of their memories of

Johnson as a senator. "I remember what a terrific worker he was from the very beginning," Senator STENNIS recalled:

He hadn't been here much more than a few months before he became an active candidate for assistant floor leader ... of the Democratic party which had a majority of the Senate then. He called by telephone in Mississippi and wanted to know if I could and would support him for the position. Well, I told him ... "Lyndon, you might have known that I wasn't just going to promise a whole lot out of the clear sky", and I said "Senator Russell and I are very close and he's put me on committees, I would naturally consult with him before I would give a final answer to anyone." He said, "You must think that I am foolish," and he said that "I wouldn't have been calling you or anybody else about voting for this position unless I already had a firm position from Dick Russell that /I am/ the man." So that's characteristic of him. He was thorough; he was thorough and he knew what he was doing. I have never seen anyone ... have the vigor and the energy and time and everything that he used, working all the time and on worthwhile things.

When Scott Lucas lost as majority leader at the end of 2 years, Dick Russell got behind Ernest McFarland as the majority leader and Lyndon Johnson indicated he would like to be the whip. So Dick Russell helped Lyndon Johnson become the whip, not that Lyndon Johnson wouldn't have had that good a chance just campaigning in his own right, but he knew that about 40 percent of those Democratic votes were Southerners and those people rallied behind Dick Russell. He was the Southern leader in those filibusters that took place and the Southern Senators had enormous confidence in Richard Russell. So when Dick Russell was supporting Lyndon, that pretty well assured that Lyndon would be elected majority whip, just as it pretty well assured that Ernest McFarland would have the votes to be elected majority leader.

Two years later, in the election of 1952, a political newcomer, BARRY GOLDWATER, defeated Senate Democratic Leader McFarland. At the same time, Republicans won narrow majorities in the Senate and House. On the Republican side, as I discussed in a previous address on the Senate's history, the party's long time behind-thescenes leader, Robert Taft, at last agreed to take the formal title of Majority Leader. On the Democratic side, many members hoped that Richard Russell would follow Taft's example. Lyndon Johnson called Russell immediately after the election and urged him to become the party leader, with Johnson as his whip. "I'll do the work and you'll be the boss," Johnson promised. But Russell once again declined the leadership, and Johnson moved quickly to seize the post for himself. As a result of his speedy campaigning, in no time at all Johnson had gathered a majority of the Democratic votes. 12

One holdout was his friend Hubert Humphrey. A small band of liberal Senators planned to nominate Montana's James Murray for leader and Humphrey felt obligated to support them. Johnson called Humphrey to

his office and described how as leader he planned to give liberal Senators more of a voice on the Steering Committee and Policy Committee, promising Humphrey a major role in rebuilding the Democratic party in the Senate. When Humphrey would not cooperate. Johnson warned that the liberals did not have the votes, that several prominent liberal senators were already committed to Johnson's candidacy, and that if Humphrey's group persisted in nominating Murray they would only embarrass him. "You ought to quit fooling around with people you can't depend on," Johnson advised. Humphrey held his ground, but Johnson's predictions came true. When the Democratic conference met, Murray received only three votes. Humphrey then moved to make Johnson's election as Democratic minority leader unanimous. Despite their def ection, liberals still gained by Johnson's ascendancy. He appointed Senator Murray to the democratic Policy Comittee, and Humphrey to the Steering Committee. Humphrey also got a coveted seat on the Foreign Relations Committee. From then on, Hubert Humphrey learned to take Lyndon Johnson's advice more seriously, and to work within the Senate system rather than outside it. As he told a reporter shortly afterwards, "I've stopped kicking the well." 1 a

At forty-five, only four years after entering the Senate, Lyndon B. Johnson sat at the front of the chamber in the Democratic leader's seat when the 83rd Congress opened. He was minority leader by the barest of margins. The Democrats had 47 Senators to the Republicans' 48. Wayne Morse, having recently left the Republican Party, was the Senate's lone Independent, but he had promised to vote with the Republicans to organize the Senate. In July 1953, when Senator Robert Taft died and a Democrat took his seat, the minority Democrats then outnumbered the majority Republicans, but committee chairmanships remained Republican. California's William F. Knowland became Republican majority leader, a post for which he possessed little skill or finesse. The blustery Knowland was a man of principle, to the point of bullheadedness. So often did he cross paths with his president's program, that Dwight Eisenhower soon found he could work more comfortably with the Senate's Democratic leader than with the Republican Knowland. 14

William Knowland had all the burdens of majority leadership, without having the votes. Once, in February 1954, Knowland lamented: "Mr. President, I have presented the case . . . from a position in which no man has heretofore been asked to serve, a position in which I have the responsibilities of being majority

3400 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 leader in this body without having a majority ... I say we cannot have an effective legislative program if the responsibility is here but the power is exercised on the other side of the aisle." To which Lyndon Johnson replied: "Mr. President, the Senator from California frequently refers to himself as a majority leader with a minority; and he has made reference to all the problems that go with that situation. If anyone has more problems than a majority leader with the minority, it is a minority leader with a majority.15

Unlike William Knowland, Lyndon Johnson proved especially adept at Senate leadership. Boldly and imaginatively, he shook the Senate's seniority system by giving each freshman Democrat a seat on one major committee, rather than allowing the party's young talent to wither for years on minor committee assignments. As he promised, Johnson revitalized the Democratic Policy Committee, bringing in such talented staff members as Gerald Siegel, George Reedy, and Harry McPherson.

Mr. President, I came over from the House of Representatives in that 1958 class. Both Jennings Randolph and I ran in the 1958 election. Senator Randolph ran for the unexpired Senate seat which had been left vacant by the late Matthew M. Neely. I ran for the full term, Senator Revercomb having been a Senator from the State of West Virginia a second time.

I can remember when I came here in that big class of 1958. My colleague, Senator Randolph, and I went to see Lyndon Johnson in the leader's offices, just off the floor. Senator Randolph, who had served in the House for 14 years and who after a period of 12 years as vice president of Capital Airlines, reentered politics and had won a Senate seat. Senator Randolph had some seniority over me by virtue of the fact that he had served 14 years in the House, and I had served only 6, and also by the fact that he was sworn the very next day following the general election in November 1958. I became a Senator on January 3, 1959.

Senator Randolph requested the Committee on Public Works, I believe, as an assignment. And I requested the Appropriations Committee as an assignment. I had been on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives before coming to the Senate.

I was told by many that it would be pretty unlikely that I would get a seat on the Appropriations Committee as a newcomer here. I went to see Senator Russell to get his support. I went to see Carl Hayden, who was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. And I also went with Senator Randolph, as I say, to see the then Democratic leader, Lyndon Johnson.

I was somewhat pleasantly surprised a few days later as I sat on the back row, when Lyndon Johnson came up to me and told me that he was putting me on the Appropriations Committee. He told me that he had to face up to the resentment on the part of one or two very senior Democratic Senators whose names had been on the list for quite some time. And it was resented by at least one of those Senators, whose name I will not mention today.

But Lyndon said, "I faced him down. Don't you worry. You will be on the Appropriations Committee."

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Will the distinguished Senator from West Virginia yield?

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I am happy to yield to my distinguished friend, SPARKY.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. I wish to congratulate the senior Senator from West Virginia upon having served as of tomorrow a year longer than any other Senator from the great State of West Virginia, second in beauty only to heaven, although we claim Hawaii to be heaven. So we can still compete with West Virginia in that respect.

It is not so important how long one serves but how he serves. And I must say that in the case of one ROBERT BYRD of West Virginia he has served well, not only the people of the State he represents, but the people of the entire United States, including the people from my home State of Hawaii. And I rise to thank the Senator from West Virginia for having dedicated so much of his life to making this great country great. Congratulations.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator MATSUNAGA, for his very gracious remarks.

I shall always treasure the friendship of Senator MATSUNAGA, and I shall never forget the very nice things he has had to say along the way.

He is the kind of Senator who, if he goes to the hospital, which, thankfully, isn't often, he sends me flowers. His is that kind of warm, engaging personality. He is very much a sensitive and caring human being.

Again quoting from my oral inter-view with Senator LONG:

He was a tremendous salesman. Speaking of Lyndon Johnson. He had a way of putting his attention, and

his warm smile, and his persuasive ways on the person that he chose to persuade, and he could be the most effective person I have ever seen in that respect, in selling his point of view and selling himself. Sometimes, perhaps, he got so enthused in what he was selling that he oversold himself on what he was trying to do. He had a way of getting his troops together and bringing all the points of power together to support what he wanted to do. As a leader, as much as I have ever seen any other leader do it-certainly any Democratic leader-he would call upon those committee chairmen to help him get his job done, and then he would go very much out of his way to accommodate them.

In other words, to the extent that they really wanted something very much, he would just do whatever it took to help them to be effective committee chairmen.

Perhaps the most telling example of Johnson's style as minority leader was his response to Senator Joe McCarthy's rampant "McCarthyism." Many of those both inside and outside the Senate who opposed McCarthy's bullying, smearing, guilt-by-association tactics, hoped that Johnson would take the lead in opposing the Wisconsin Republican. But Johnson held back, calling it "a Republican problem." He feared that any Democratic intervention would only turn McCarthyism into a partisan issue, and he knew how ruthless an enemy McCarthy could be. "Joe will go an extra mile to destroy you," Johnson once observed. Rather than challenge McCarthy directly, Johnson worked behind the scenes for the appointment of a special committee to investigate McCarthy's behavior. It was a blueribbon panel of solid, respected, conservative senators, chaired by Republican Arthur Watkins of Utah and including Democrats John Stennis, Sam Ervin, and Walter George. The Watkins Committee eventually presented the Senate with the charges on which Senator McCarthy was censured. 16

The McCarthy censure took place during a "lame duck" session of the 83rd Congress, in December, 1954. The previous month, presumably as a sign of their disaffection with the behavior of Senator McCarthy and his congressional supporters, voters put the Democrats into the majority in both the Senate and the House. This was the beginning of twenty-six years of uninterrupted Democratic majorities in the Senate, the longest period of one party's dominance in this body's history. When the 84th Congress opened in January 1955, Lyndon Johnson, having just been reelected to his second term, stepped to the front desk as majority leader. He proceeded cautiously at first, with a slim 49 to 47 margin, and with a popular Republican president in the White House, but before long it became eminently clear that Lyndon Johnson was the master of the Senate, and that he would run the show like no other majority leader had before him.

Lyndon Johnson practiced the art of consensus building, persuading other members, coaxing them, cajoling them, simetimes threatening them, listening to them, discovering their weaknesses, respecting their strengths, overpowering them with his seemingly limitless energy. Richard Riedel, who had worked in the Senate Press Gallery since the days when Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr., was majority leader, watched Johnson's performance with awe.

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3401 Lyndon Johnson overwhelmed with a

style of forceful persuasion unique to him. Dashing from one to another, the tall Texan would sit down beside a senator, shift to the edge of the chair, lean forward and twist his neck around in order to look up into the face of his now-captive audience. What could be more fascinating to a senator than a convincing argument coming from beneath his own chin? A senator was compelled to listen to Johnson's earnest pleas which inevitably carried their own weight. Completely absorbed in his own insistent reasoning, Johnson would lock onto the coat lapels of his victim with both hands; and eye to eye, he would hypnotize the senator into a state ranging from enthusiastic cooperation to suspended animation, or possibly. to complete paralysis. 1 7

Nor was Johnson at all hesitant to use his knowledge of the Senate's rules and procedures. Hubert Humphrey recalled how on a slow afternoon during Johnson's first session as majority leader in 1955, he had commented, "I think we'll pass that minimum wage bill now." He called a short quorum call, and then called up the bill and passed it by voice vote. Florida's Senator Spessard Holland, who was leading the opposition to the bill, stormed onto the Senate floor and demanded to know what was going on. "Well, Spessard, I had a little quorum call," Johnson replied. "If you fellows aren't on the job around here, I've got legislation to pass." On the other hand, our colleague John Stennis has recalled that from all his experiences with Lyndon Johnson, "he · never did tell me any fake about /a/ bill or what was in it. Or what he would or wouldn't do." 18

Senator Stennis told me how he once tried to get the floor one morning with remarks he felt he could not postpone. Johnson also wanted the floor. "I was trying to get the floor and he wouldn't help me," Senator Stennis recalled, then "word came from him that he would yield to me if I would finish in twenty minutes, or some time like that, and I said no that I want ... the floor unconditionally."

Well, that is just like JoHN STENNIS. I could have guessed that that would have been his reaction even if he had not told me. ·

"Anyway, he sent me word later that all right, that /I/ would be the next speaker . . . I didn't speak but ten minutes, I just wanted to show him that I didn't have to buy the floor,"again, typically JOHN STENNIS-that a senator is entitled to the floor if he is willing to wait for a reasonable time. But, he wasn't trying to smother me out; he was just anxious to get his own words in. He was a terrific worker all the way down the line."

By the end of that first session, the national press was touting the Democratic majority leader as "The Texan Who Is Jolting Washington," and as a potential presidential candidate. But the months of long hours, missed meals, chain-smoking, and tension

71-059 0-87-13 (Pt. 3)

took their toll on Lyndon Johnson, who on July 2, 1955, suffered his first heart attack. In an ironic way, that illness helped to prolong his life. On doctor's orders, Johnson lost weight, stopped smoking, and began eating regular meals. He also took regular vacations to his ranch in Texas, a ritual which came to affect the Senate's schedule. During Johnson's absences, Democratic Whips Earle Clements and later Mike Mansfield would nominally serve as floor leader, but the Majority Secretary, Bobby Baker, saw to it that no substantive business was conducted in Johnson's absence. There would be long, languid periods of legislative inaction, to be followed by a burst of activity when Johnson arrived back in town to take command. 19

When the second session of the 84th Congress opened in 1956, Lyndon Johnson had recuperated sufficiently to return to the leadership. His grasp of the way the Senate could and did operate increased steadily, and there was no doubt as to who was in command. Dr. Floyd Riddick, our parliamentarian-emeritus, has recalled how Johnson during this period reoriented the work of the Senate by the use of unanimous consent agreements. Previously, unanimous consent had been used at the end of sessions to reach agreements as to how long members would debate various bills. That is, senators would agree to vote on a certain bill on a specified day at a set time. "What Mr. Johnson did was introduce the use of what we call unanimous consent agreements," observed Dr. Riddick, "a detailed agreement as to how you were going to consider or the procedure that you were going to use for the consideration of a specific bill; how long each amendment would be debated; how long the general debate of the bill would last; whether all amendments were to be germane to the bill; and details of that nature. . . . It was almost to the point that hardly any major bill was considered without eventually reaching a general unanimous consent agreement to the final disposition of the bill." What this procedure did was remove much of the deliberation over a bill from public display on the floor and remove it to the cloakrooms, where LBJ the consensusseeker could work his charm.20

Johnson was also credited with devising the current system of quorum calls. Before the 1950's, quorum calls were used, as their title implies, to establish a quorum. LBJ, however, began the practice of calling frequent quorum calls simply to take up time in between other business in the schedule. As Evans and Novak noted: "These abortive quorum calls held the Senate in suspended animation while Johnson worked out his deals in the cloakroom. Soon, nobody answered the quorum calls." While Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson also made effective

use of night sessions, shaking the Senate out of its leisurely routines and keeping the Senators working late into the night until they exhaustedly gave in to his unanimous consent agreements. 21

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. BYRD. Yes; I am happy to yield to my good friend, Senator RussELL LoNG, whom I quoted just a few minutes ago.

Mr. LONG. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I believe it is fair to

state that using quorum calls to hold the Senate in suspense while Senators worked out their arrangements did not start with Lyndon Johnson. He may have done a lot more of it than others did, but my recollection is that that was a procedure that was used back as far as my father's day and maybe long before that. In other words, a quorum call was always a convenient way simply to hold things where they were while Senators either met in the cloakroom or whispered in one another's ears on the floor or in the lobby behind the Senate Chamber to decide what they are going to do next.

It may be that Lyndon Johnson did a lot more of it and I would not be surprised if that were the case, but I really feel that that is a practice that the Senate had used long before Lyndon Johnson became majority leader.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator [Mr. LONG], whose long and effective participation in, and recollection of, the history of the Senate is very valuable. I have been glad to turn to him for his recollections.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, let me congratulate the Senator from West Virginia, the minority leader and my dear friend, for the chore he assigned hiinself in covering the history 0f the U.S. Senate. I have no doubt that in years to come, his will be the most authoritative text anyone will be able to find to say what did happen and what did not happen in the Senate, both while the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD] was a Member and in the years prior thereto. I have enjoyed reading his speeches on the subject and I have been honored on the occasions he has sought my advice about some aspect of it, including some of the things he discussed in connection with the life of Lyndon Johnson and his service as a leader.

I was a great admirer of Lyndon B. Johnson, as the Senator so well knows. He was a human being like the rest of us. He was not perfect, but he had a way of getting things done. In this Senator's mind, he did what he thought was best for the country, and he paid a high price for it.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, Mr. President, I am sure he did pay that high price. It was

3402 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 a very interesting period in American politics. My good friend, Senator LoNG, has spent more time in service here by virtue of his having preceded my coming here by several years; he also spent a longer time than I working with Lyndon Johnson and being able to observe how Lyndon Johnson operated.

It is my opinion that Lyndon would not be able to operate that way today. If he were majority leader at this time, he would not be able to do what he was then able to do in those days.

When I first came to the Senate-I believe the distinguished Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LoNG] will agree with me-each of the old Confederate States had two Democratic Senators. As I have said earlier, Senator Russell was the uncrowned king of the Southern bloc. Lyndon had a very important thing going in his favor in that Sam Rayburn, Lyndon's good friend and mentor from Texas, was the Speaker of the House. Lyndon also had a tremendous advantage at that particular time in having Senator Russell and that Southern bloc of very distinguished and powerful Senators from which to draw support in the Senate.

At the present time, if we could just recall those States, Florida has one Republican Senator, Georgia has one Republican Senator, Alabama has one Republican Senator, South Carolina has one Republican Senator, North Carolina has two Republican Senators, the State of Virginia has two Republican Senators, Texas has one Republican Senator, Mississippi has one Republican Senator. The border States, most if not all of which at that time had two Democratic Senators, are somewhat the same in that, as we look at Oklahoma, Oklahoma has one Republican Senator. Missouri today has one Republican Senator. When I came here and when Lyndon Johnson was majority leader, each of those States had no Republican Senators.

Today, out of the whole kit and caboodle of Confederate States, I believe Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee are the only three States-I include West Virginia, which is a border State-that still have two Democratic Senators. That did, indeed, make a difference; it has to make a tremendous difference in this body. That is one of the reasons why I say that Lyndon Johnson could not be today the leader that he was or the type of leader that he was in his time.

Additionally, I believe it can rightly and truthfully be said that the Southern bloc Senators, as a whole, are younger than they were then. What does that say? Well, Southern Senators in that day had been here a long time, had great seniority.

They revered the institution. I am not saying the younger Senators, the current Senators, do not revere the institution. But those Senators in that

day had an institutional memory. I think of Dick Russell in particular. The Senate was Dick Russell's bride. He had never been married. He was married to the Senate. His whole life, I think, was dedicated to the service of this Nation and to the Senate as an institution.

If the distinguished Senator from Louisiana wishes to comment on this, I welcome his doing so.

Mr. LONG. I thank the Senator for his perspective. The Senator is most thoughtful in his analysis. I will read the part of the Senator's speech that I have not had the opportunity to hear up to this point, and I will be glad to give him some further thoughts on the subject, because I am sure that virtually everything he says in this speech today strikes a chord in my recollection.

The Senator knows so well that there was a time when he and I were part of the Democratic leadership and we would go up to the White House when Lyndon Johnson was President. Both of us, the Senator from West Virginia as well as the Senator from Louisiana, had a way of being very frank and very forthright with the President and now and then saying some things that were not calculated to be popular at all with the President, but we did give him the benefit of our views. I think he was better off for it because so often the man in the White House is handicapped by the fact that a lot of people just will not tell him news that is less than all good, particularly when there are some things out there that there are not going too well; a lot of people just will not tell him.

The Senator from West Virginia was one who was very frank and forthright about matters of that sort. I like to think the Senator from Louisiana also was that way. If something was not the way it ought to be, we would tell him that. And now and then it would be unpopular, too, because that was not what he was hearing from his aides.

I enjoyed working with the Senator from West Virginia as well as Lyndon Johnson during his days as majority leader, Vice President, and President of the United States. He was a great President. Of all the Presidents I served with, I think I would put Lyndon Johnson at the top of the heap because he did so much. In many respects he will not be fully appreciated until later in this Nation's history. But more than any other person, he passed legislation to meet problems. While some of it will need to be changed because it did not meet the test of time, a lot of it did meet the test of time. It was my privilege, for example, to manage the Medicare bill when it went through the Senate, and that is one of those many things he did that has met the test of time.

Clearly, this Nation would be in bad shape, indeed, if we had waited until now to do something for the elderly as they reach their later years without someone having provided for health care for those dear people.

While his war on poverty may be criticized by some who say that he fought a war on poverty and poverty won, he was right and they were wrong. This Nation is a great Nation because together we are strong, and Lyndon Johnson realized that together we could meet any challenge; we were adequate to face any problem if we were wise enough. He was one of those who felt that no one need be hungry, no one need suffer, no one need go without educational guidance because of any failure of this Nation; that the Nation had the potential to provide the very best; that is, the best in the way of opportunities, that any nation had ever provided; that if we had the wisdom and leadership, we could provide an opportunity for everyone to live a meaningful life, to provide well for himself and for his loved ones as well as his Nation.

So I am pleased the Senator is making this speech about Lyndon Johnson, and I await with great interest my opportunity to read this speech in its entirety tomorrow.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LoNG], who is second in seniority only to Senator STENNIS in this body today. I shall never cease to admire Senator RussELL LoNG. We are going to miss him when he retires from this Senate.

He spoke a moment ago about the times when the leadership would be called to the White House to talk with Lyndon Johnson, and about the frank discussions that went on there.

I can remember on one occasion just after the Tet offensive, almost immediately thereafter, we sat around the table at the White House. Lyndon Johnson's haggard appearance-long, deep lines in his face-revealed a very troubled man. I said to the President: "Mr. President, something must be wrong with our intelligence gathering apparatus. It seems to me that we should have known a great deal more about the capabilities of the enemy than we knew. It seems to me that we lost a lot of men because we didn't know enough.''

Lyndon Johnson was furious, and he berated me no end on that occasion. When he had finished, I said, "Mr. President, I did not come down here to be lectured. I thought you wanted us to speak our minds." Whereupon, he gave me a second tongue-lashing. When he finished, I said, "Mr. President, I have spoken my viewpoint. I am very candid to say that that is exactly the way I see it. It just seems to me that we failed to get the kind of in-

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3403 formation that we should have had." And I said a second time that I had not come to be lectured for having expressed my own honestly held views, which I felt were the views of many, many people, not only in the Congress but also outside the Congress, following the Tet offensive.

After the meeting at the White House, I came back to the Senate Chamber, and I felt bad because of the conversation. After all, Lyndon Johnson had made me a member of the Appropriations Committee and had been good to me. Incidentally, I was assigned to the Armed Services Committee to fill the vacant chair that Johnson left when he became Vice President of the United States.

I got to thinking about it all, and I wondered how I might have reacted if I had been in Lyndon Johnson's place in the White House, with all the burden of that war, facing all the criticism that he was getting, realizing that we were very deeply involved in that war and we were not getting any less involved as the days went on, and more and more American boys were being killed. So I put in a call to the President from the cloakroom here, and he came on the line.

I said: "Mr. President, I want to apologize to you for the attitude that I took this morning. I spoke what I thought, but I think I could have done it better and said it more gently, and perhaps I should not have said anything. I realize how this is troubling you, how hard it is for you to bear. You are the President of the United States, and I cannot see it from all perspectives that you have, and I can understand how I got on your nerves. I hope you will forgive me."

He said, "Well, Bob, don't think anything more about it. I was wrong in the attitude that I took. I'm sorry that I reacted as I did. You were saying what you felt you should say, and I guess I just became a little overly wrought. You don't owe me any apology. There is nothing I need to forgive you for. You did your duty."

So, that is the way it went. When the 85th Congress convened

in 1957, Johnson faced a thorny problem. The Eisenhower administration was pressing its Civil Rights Program. In 1956, the House had passed the administration bill, but the measure had died in the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by James 0. Eastland of Mississippi. Johnson had a mixed record on civil rights. In the House he had voted as a conservative Texas Representative against civil rights legislation. In the Senate, especially as majority leader, he had tried to take a national rather than a State position on the issue.

As Senator LoNG has said in speaking of the late Lyndon Johnson:

"He began to separate himself from the southerners on the issue of civil

rights. I believe that he thought that there was no future in that and that eventually the civil rights bills would have to pass, and the more the South could be persuaded to accommodate itself to it, the better it was going to be.

"I think, to be fair about it, he also felt that it was not going to be to his long-term best interests to be involved on the southern side of the southern filibuster, and you could almost see how he, bit by bit, separated himself from southern filibusters that were being waged at that time against the efforts to move the civil rights legislation."

Johnson was one of only three southern Senators who did not sign the so-called "Southern Manifesto" in 1956, in which southern members of the House and Senate denounced the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education and declared their support for racial segregation. Johnson was the pivotal man in the civil rights struggle. If he joined with other southerners or even chose to remain neutral to protect his popularity in his home State, the coalition of Eisenhower Republicans and liberal Democrats who supported the civil rights would lack both the numbers and the expertise to break the expected filibuster on the floor.

Officially, Republican Leader William Knowland served as floor manager of the Civil Rights bill, but in reality Lyndon Johnson was its chief strategist-so much so that he made it more his bill than Eisenhower's. Supporters of the bill won their first victory in a 45-to-39 vote against ref erring the civil rights bill to the hostile Judiciary Committee. Even this victory, however, left the bill subject to possible filibuster on the Senate floor. Recognizing that he led a sharply divided party, with liberal Democrats from the North and West supporting the civil rights bill, and Southern Democrats lined up against it, Senator Johnson did all in his power to avoid a southern filibuster. In addition to creating a Civil Rights Commission, the Eisenhower administration's bill had proposed broad powers for the Attorney General to file civil suits for court injunctions against any deprivation of civil rights. Behind the scenes, Johnson worked to limit the Attorney General's power by requiring jury trials for civil rights cases. This provision mollified Southern leaders, most notably Richard Russell. With the exception of a 24-hour-and-18-minute speech by the Senator from South Carolina, STROM THURMOND, The civil rights bill of 1957 went through the Senate without protracted debate.

Once Johnson had gained assurance that southern Democrats would not filibuster against the bill, he moved his own role from behind-the-scenes to the front-lines of the public debate.

Journalists in the press galleries observed that: "More assured, sensing ultimate victory, Johnson was on his feet now, stalking the Senate floor, correcting extreme statements from both sides, skillfully cooling tempers and disarming angry antagonists • • • In his coat pocket were smudged copies of the Senate roll call, filled in with checks and x's and dotted with notes and reminders, that he constantly pulled out to show this or that Senator. These were his head counts, and the tallies changed day-by-day as he gathered in his majorities on the two key amendments." 22

The victory of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, by a vote of 72 to 18, on August 7, 1957, was largely attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson. New York Times correspondent William S. White commented: "It was actually the most skillful single job of leadership I ever saw, because Johnson of course had to deal with his southern friends who had up to that point formed the basis really of his constituency in the Senate." Johnson, as he himself pointed out, was the first Texas Senator in nearly a century to vote for a civil rights bill. As Johnson told the Senate: "Political ambition which feeds off hatred of the North or hatred of the South is doomed to frustration. There is a compelling need for a solution that will enable all Americans to live in dignity and unity. This bill is the greatest step toward that objective that has ever been made." Of course, the 1957 bill was just the first step, to be followed by much stronger and more effective civil rights legislation in 1964 and 1965. But the 1957 bill led the way. That bill also completed Lyndon Johnson's transformation from a regional to a national political figure, and made him a leading contender for the presidential nomination in 1960.23

While Johnson went to great lengths to avoid filibusters, once they had begun, Warren Weaver noted, "he tended to regard filibusters as a personal challenge to his stewardship. Instead of making an end run around the combatants with the rest of the Senate business, he often pref erred to break the filibuster by keeping the Senate in session for long hours, even around the clock, and forcing the minority ultimately to give up in exhaustion." 24 This was part of what Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, in their penetrating study of Johnson's years as majority leader, termed the "Johnson Procedure." It consisted of night sessions, unanimous consent agreements, and constant head counting, to keep the Senate dancing to Johnson's tune. Evans and Novak also paid tribute to the "Johnson System" of rewarding his friends and elevating them to positions of leadership, building a support staff, and generally

3404 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 making himself the center of all legislative activities. But for all his procedural and structural activities, the "dominant ingredient" in his success as majority leader, they suggested, was his own personality, or what they termed the "Johnson Treatment."

"The treatment could last 10 minutes or 4 hours," wrote Evans and Novak. "It came, enveloping its target, at the LBJ Ranch swimming pool, in one of LBJ's of fices, in the Senate cloakroom, on the floor of the Senate itself-wherever Johnson might find a fell ow Senator within his reach. Its tone could be supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance, scorn, tears, complaint, the hint of threat. It was all of these together. It ran the gamut of human emotions. Its velocity was breath taking, and it was all in one direction. Interjections from the target were rare. Johnson anticipated them before they could be spoken. He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his target, his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos, statistics. Mimicry, humor, and the genius of analogy made the treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the target stunned and helpless." One Senator from that period recalled of Johnson: "He would have his arm around you, and he would say. 'Beloved, can you help me?' You got the feeling you would like to help him." 2s

It sometimes seemed as if Lyndon Johnson disliked the direct approach to anything. He preferred cloakroom maneuvering, back room strategies, and the "The Treatment" to simple, direct, and candid dealings with people. For the most part his unique style succeeded admirably. Sometimes, however, Johnson overdid it. There was his effort, for example, to convince Theodore Francis Green to step down voluntarily as a committee chairman. Senator Green had nominated Johnson for Democratic leader in 1953 and generally supported him on the floor. Green was an intelligent, hardworking, and well-liked gentleman, but he was ninety years old when he reached the chairmanship of the important Foreign Relations Committee. He was simply too old to function effectively, as he soon demonstrated. Johnson would have preferred to see the considerably younger Senator J. William Fulbright as chairman, but had no authority to remove Green. Then, in January 1959, the Providence Journal, in Green's home state of Rhode Island, published an editorial demanding that Green retire as chairman because of his age. Johnson rushed to Green's side to express his outrage over the editorial. A man of Green's distinguished stature and record should not be subjected to such abuse, he insisted. Green deserved some respite. So the argument went

until Senator Green came to the same conclusion: that he did not deserve such abuse and that he would step down as chairman.

Johnson then called a special, closed-door meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee to announce Green's decision. To demonstrate that Green was not being forced out of office, Johnson, who was not even a member of that panel, arranged for the committee to eulogize Green's service as chairman and to vote to ask him to continue in that post. Senator Green, who was extremely hard of hearing, genially thanked them for their expressions of support, but added that he would not reverse his decision. Johnson, unfortunately, did not know when to stop. "The members of the committee said what I said, only more eloquent than I • • •. They voted unanimously to ask you to continue." The official transcript then records this unexpected exchange:

The CHAIRMAN <Senator Green>. Who did? Senator JOHNSON. This committee. The CHAIRMAN. I didn't know that they

had. Senator JOHNSON. Just a few minutes ago.

They now ask unanimously for you to reconsider.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that what you were doing?

Senator JOHNSON. You remember what I told you.

The CHAIRMAN. I certainly would not be brash enough to turn it down if it were put to the meeting here. I appreciate it highly, and I know I ought to give it serious consideration. It didn't occur to me that it would be this way." 26

Johnson now realized that his elaborate orchestration was coming undone. He called a recess of the committee to allow the chairman to retire to an adjoining room to think over the situation. "Go with him," Johnson whispered to the committee's chief of staff, Carl Marcy. "Don't let him change his mind!" Fortunately for Johnson, the staff was success! ul in persuading Green to hold firm to his original decision. The majority leader must have breathed a sign of relief when Green returned to the room to assure them that he was indeed stepping down. The incident, however, remained a favorite story on Capitol Hill of the way the "Johnson Treatment" could sometimes backfire. 21

Mr. President, there were two distinct periods of Lyndon Johnson's majority leadership, determined largely by the size of the majority he led. From 1955 through 1958, the Democrats controlled the Senate by a slim 49 to 47 margin. There are many observers of the legislative process who contend that the closer the margin, the easier it is for a leader to keep his ranks in line. Lyndon Johnson certainly subscribed to that theory. But the election of 1958 caused a dramatic change in party fortunes. In circumstances not unlike those facing the

Senate next year, twenty Republican seats and twelve Democratic seats were at stake in that contest. It was a mid-term election during the second administration of a Republican president. A faltering economy, concern over Soviet successes in space, and a scandal involving White House staff, all contributed to a massive Democratic victory that November. Twenty-four Democrats won election to the Senate, along with only eight Republicans. The Democratic majority in the Senate was 64-to-34. This was the largest majority for any party since World War II, and the greatest transfer of seats from one party to another in the entire history of the Senate.

I have already stated that I was a member of that remarkable class of 1958. I am also the last member of that class still serving in the Senate. At a future date, I expect to devote an entire address in my history of the Senate to that notable class.

The first sign of discontent came immediately after the election when Pennsylvania Senator Joseph Clark protested to Johnson that Northeastern senators lacked-and wanted"proportionate representation" on the Democtratic party committees in the Senate. Johnson rejected Clark's call for a restructuring of the Steering and Policy Committees, which he chaired. But within months the Northern liberal revolt bubbled up again in February 1959, when Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire rose on the Senate floor in opposition to Johnson's leadership tactics. "There has never been a time when power has been so sharply concentrated as it is today in the Senate," said Senator Proxmire. "The typical Democratic senator has literally nothing to do with determining the legislative program and policies of the party. Without frequent caucuses, the individual senator cannot exercise his responsibilities to hold the leadership accountable • • •. The majority in the Senate is generally responsible to a majority of the nation. But the majority leader, under present conditions is not." While a majority of Senate Democrats rose to the majority leader's defense in response to this speech, Proxmire, Clark, Paul Douglas of Illinois, and other Senate liberals has sounded a warning that Johnson's freewheeling style of leadership would not go unchallenged. 28

I asked Senator Proxmire about his first clash with Lyndon Johnson. "I had been here long enough to see how thoroughly Senator Johnson as majority leader dominated the Senate," he told me.

There were no caucuses, no opportuntiy for the leadership to get a consensus so that the party could move together; and I thought that was wrong. So, I rose on the floor of the Senate and I said so • • •. After I gave that speech, the majority )eader obviously was unhappy with what I said. He told

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3405 me so. He didn't mince any words. On the other hand, there was no attempt on his part to wreak any vengeance on me or to discipline or punish me in any way. He accepted the fact that we disagreed, and as a matter of fact he was very helpful in some agricultural measures that affected Wisconsin • • •. I didn't publicly protest out of any disrespect for Lyndon Johnson, who was an extraordinarily able, very intelligent person with a whale of a lot of personal force, and of course he accomplished a great deal. He got a great deal done as majority leader. But, I objected to that kind of dominating conduct. Incidentally, I delivered that attack on the majority leader on Washington's birthday, right after another senator had delivered Washington's Farewell Address. One reporter in the Press Gallery commented: "There were two farewell addresses delivered in the Senate todayWashington's and Proxmire's."

Senator Proxmire continued: I think that the essence of Johnson's

power was brought out by Dick Neuberger when he and I clashed on the floor after my statement. Neuberger said, "After all, look what you're doing. You are biting the hands that feed you. Everything that you've got in the Senate was given to you by Lyndon Johnson. He put you on the Agriculture Committee that you wanted to be on, he put you on the other committees, the Banking Committee that you wanted. After all, don't you have any gratitude for what the majority leader has done for you? Well, Senator Neuberger made my point . Senator Johnson sure did make the committee appointments, he did indeed decide what legislation would come up and what would not, and everybody in the Senate knew that if you wanted to get things done you had to do it through the leader or he could stop you. I think that was the crux of his power.

"There were a lot of strong, inde-pendent-minded people in the Senate," Senator Proxmire recalled.

Wayne Morse, I don't think that there was anybody any more independent or tougher-minded than Wayne was, and of course, he disagreed with the majority leader often. Paul Douglas was another giant in the Senate, in my view, who disagreed with Lyndon, but knew perfectly well that there was no point in his taking him on. Albert Gore was another. It is interesting that after I made my speech criticizing Lyndon, Lyndon critics didn't call me in my office because they figured that somehow Lyndon would hear about it. They called me at home and they said now keep my name under your hat. But you're right. Keep it up, give it to him. But there was nothing open about that because frankly, they were afraid of him. They feared his power.

I asked Senator Proxmire if he did not think there were some other uncrowned kings in the Senate on whose support Johnson really had to count. He agreed that there was not just one powerful senator, but several, and that Johnson had to be careful how he handled those strong personalities in the Senate who had built up influence and power over the years, men such as Dick Russell and Bob Kerr. "I remember," he said,

Douglas used to call Bob Kerr the uncrowned king of the Senate. But obviously the king of the Senate was Lyndon Johnson. . . . I think that it was true that he

had to do that, and there probably aren't the same kind of power senators, now, partly through the work of Senator Byrd and Mike Mansfield, both of whom have made every senator feel that he was equal to every other senator, and that every senator should feel free to speak up and should state his position, and should be given the fullest possible opportunity. The Senate is run far, far better now than it was when I first came here • • •. I think that the Mansfield-Byrd leadership has been far better not only for the typical senator but for the way the Senate has conducted its business in reaching a consensus.

At the same time that Johnson experienced discord within his party ranks, he also found himself more at odds with the Eisenhower administration than ever before. Eisenhower and Johnson had established good relatiohs over the previous years, in part because the president was not a partisan man by nature and because h e needed the cooperation of the Democratic leadership to enact his legislative program. After the 1958 disaster at the polls, Eisenhower found much resentment from congressional Republicans, who blamed him for not campaigning more vigorously for them. As a lame duck president, he found that the Senate was no longer as cooperative as it had been before-especially considering the large number of senators who thought of themselves as potential presidential candidates in 1960.

Mr. President, there is a certain irony to President Eisenhower's lame duck status. It was the Republicancontrolled 80th Congress that originated the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, limiting a president to no more than two terms. No one doubted that this was a response to Franklin D. Roosevelt's election to four terms as president. But since the enactment of that amendment, only Republican presidents, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan have achieved lame duck status. Perhaps this should serve as a warning against hasty revisions of the Constitution.

In any case, after the 1958 election, with his party's shrunken representation in Congress, President Eisenhower exerted more presidential authority vis-a-vis Congress than he had before. This observation is drawn from a fascinating oral history given to the Eisenhower Library by Bryce Harlow, Eisenhower's chief congressional liaison. Harlow also noted that Eisenhower turned "sharply conservative in the last two years, in contrast to the previous years" of this presidency.29 The years from 1959 to 1960 were characterized by Eisenhower's persistent efforts to hold down the budget against any congressional attemps to initiate new domestic or defense programs. In 1959, Eisenhower vetoed public housing bills, public works appropriations, and other domestic bills he considered too costly. The strained relations between the administration and the Senate were symbolized in June 1959,

when the Senate rejected Eisenhower's nomination of Lewis Strauss to become Secretary of Commerce. Over the past six decades, this was the only cabinet nomination to have been rejected by a Senate vote. Johnson, in many ways, regretted the action, since he believed a president should have the ability to choose his own advisors, but he recognized that there was too much personal hostility toward the abrasive Strauss, and too much discontent with the domestic directions of the administration. 30

I remember the very controversial issue of Strauss' nomination. I recall that one day there was a column in the press by Drew Pearson in which Mr. Pearson stated something to the effect that John L. Lewis, the then United Mine Workers leader, the national leader, had my vote and Mr. Randolph 's vote in his pocket. Mr. Pearson stated that the 2 West Virginia Senators would vote for Mr. Strauss's nomination.

I called my senior colleague, Senator Randolph, on the ph one that day. I said to Senator Randolph: "Jennings, I note in the paper that Mr. Drew Pearson's column says John L. Lewis has your vote and mine in his pocket and that we will vote for Strauss."

The truth of the matter was I had not yet come to any conclusion as to how I was going to vote.

I said to Jennings, "Jennings, I will vote against Mr. Strauss because I'm just not going to have people think that Mr. Lewis has my vote in his pocket." And Jennings said, "Well, Bob, I feel the same way." So we both voted against Mr. Strauss. That is an indication of how sometimes on very little things the course of actions is affected.

The Senate was also sharply suspicious of President Eisenhower's defense budgets, particularly in light of Soviet missile and space achievements. Lyndon Johnson chaired the Preparedness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he grilled administration witnesses on reports of a growing "misssile gap" between the United States and the Soviet Union. In addition to the slow pace of American missile development, the Johnson subcommittee also pointed to weaknesses in American conventional forces. Despite these charges, however, the Congress did not substantially increase defense appropriations over Eisenhower's requests. 3 1

As the second session of the 86th Congress opened in 1960, Johnson faced another potentially divisive fight over civil rights. The Civil Rights bill of 1960 was intended to repair some inadequacies in the '57 Act, largely in regard to voting rights. Johnson, who had been successful in staving off a debiliating filibuster three years earlier, could not hold back the tide at this

3406 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 point. Under the leadership of Richard Russell, opponents of the bill conducted a well-organized and effective campaign to block its consideration. Johnson felt he had no alternative but to hold the Senate in continuous, round-the-clock sessions. Those of us who were members of the Senate at that time well recall those sessions, with sleepy, pajama-clad members answering quorum calls in the early hours of the morning, members chainsmoking and gulping down pots of coffee in the cloakrooms to stay alert, and everyone showing the signs of nervous exhaustion.

Around-the-clock sessions were held from February 29 through March 8. The Senate was in continuous session for nine days, or a total of 157 hours and 26 minutes-with two breaks. The first break < 15 minutes) occured on March 2 from 7:14 a.m. until 7:29 a.m. The Senate next recessed at 5:31 p.m. on March 5. As of that time it had been in session 82 hours and 3 minutes. The Senate reconvened on March 7 at 12:00 noon and continued until March 8 at 8:10 p.m.

Thus it is correct to say: As of 5:31 p.m. on March 5, the Senate had been in session 125 hours and 31 minutes, or the Senate was in session for 157 hours and 26 minutes with two breaks, or the Senate was in session for 82 hours and 3 minutes without a break.

Much is said these days about the quality of life, but think how it was then. I presided over the Senate for 22 continuous hours-all night, all dayand I guess I would have sat there longer, had the Vice President, Mr. Nixon, not shown up to claim the chair. Cloture votes failed to end the filibuster. At last, the Eisenhower administration agreed to delete those sections most objectionable to its opponents, and the Senate passed a watered down version of the bill.

For all his efforts, Lyndon Johnson won little support from his liberal critics. "I know the liberals felt I made too many compromises," he said later. "I felt I got the best bill I could with the votes I had, and if they could have gotten a better bill, we would have gotten it. But I know there was a lot of feeling among the liberals that they ought to have the whole loaf. And a lot of us would like to have a whole loaf, but you don't always get what you want." 32

The protracted filibuster demonstrated another of Johnson's problems that year. He was widely regarded as a front-runner for the Democratic presidential campaign, but while such candidates as Senators John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey were out on the campaign trail, Johnson was in Washington leading the Senate through its paces. Johnson found that while being majority leader may catapult a senator into the national limelight, it was not very conducive to campaigning for

the presidency. A leader cannot abandon his responsibilities for long, and modern campaigning for the presidency requires a candidate's exclusive attention over many years, witness the campaigns of John Kennedy, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter as examples. It came, I think, as a profound shock to Johnson when his party passed him by for the nomination in 1960 in favor of young John Kennedy-who at that time might have been called a "back bencher" in the Senate, just as I was. It was a measure of Johnson's commitment to his party, however, that he swallowed his pride and agreed to run as vice president on Kennedy's ticket, a move which many of Johnson's closest advisors urged him to reject. It was also a measure of his insatiable political ambition.

"I remember his candidacy for the vice president," Senator Stennis told me, "and frankly I got to where I could hardly think of the Senate without Lyndon Johnson in it." Senator Stennis was in Johnson's suite at the convention during the discussions over whether to accept Kennedy's off er to take the vice presidential nomination. "I know Senator Johnson's thinking with reference to that matter," he said. "I frankly hated to give him up in the Senate. He took that position and added greatly to the campaign, no doubt about that, and really helped Mr. Kennedy in his race for the presidency."

So it was, when the Congress reconvened in August 1960, after its recesses for the party conventions, that Johnson no longer was the preeminent Democrat in the chamber. How many of us recall that historically unique session? The Democratic presidential nominee, John F. Kennedy, led his party's forces, aided by vice presidential nominee, Lyndon Johnson. And presiding over the Senate was the Republican presidential nominee, Vice President Richard Nixon. Will we ever see such a confrontation again? For Johnson it could not have been an easy session, with Republicans addressing Senator Kennedy as "the majority leader's leader." The politically charged atmosphere of the session was also completely unconducive to legislative accomplishment. The Senate rejected a Kennedy-sponsored Medicare bill, and no action was taken on f ederal aid to education and minimum wage legislation, two important planks in the Democratic platform. When the Senate adjourned on September 1, 1960, nothing of substance had been achieved. It was a totally inappropriate conclusion for Lyndon Johnson's career as majority leader. 33

In November 1960, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson were elected President and Vice President of the United States. They won by the narrowest of margins, and it was clear that Johnson's presence on the ticket

had helped to hold sufficient Southern states and his native Texas to give the needed margin for the ticket.

On January 3, 1961, the 87th Congress convened, Lyndon Johnson resigned his Senate seat, and Democratic liberals revolted against Johnson's leadership in their party caucus. Democrats had just elected Montana Senator Mike Mansfield as their leader to succeed Johnson. Johnson, as outgoing leader, presided over the meeting. In his first act as leader, Senator Mansfield moved that Johnson as vice president be invited to preside over future meetings of the Democratic Conference. Can you imagine that? This action by the new majority leader reflected the quiet and unassuming nature of Mike Mansfield, but it was a mistake. Although in those days the conference rarely met, it suggested that Johnson would attempt to play a leading role in enacting Kennedy's legislative program. Various senators were immediately on their feet protesting that such an arrangement would violate the spirit of the constitutional separation of powers. "We might as well ask Jack Kennedy to come back to the Senate and take his turn at presiding," said Senator Albert Gore, Sr., of Tennessee. Others rose with the same complaint, but it was clear that many were venting their frustration over Johnson's all-powerful style of leadership; they wanted no more of it. Although Senator Mansfield's motion carried by a vote of 46 to 17, Johnson was stunned by the vehemence of the opposition, and the fact that old friends like Clinton Anderson of New Mexico would have risen to object to his election. At the next meeting of the conference, Johnson handed the gavel to Senator Mansfield and never returned to preside. 34

The vice presidency was too small to contain a man as big as Lyndon Johnson. Those who knew him realized how frustrated he felt in such a constitutionally powerless post. There was a delightful story that Johnson liked to tell about his Senate chauffeur, a man who had driven every majority leader since Joe Robinson. When Johnson became vice president, he invited the chauffeur to continue to drive for him. No, the chauffeur replied, he preferred to drive for men with real power. Although he was the second man in our national political structure, Lyndon Johnson realized that he had abdicated real power when he left the majority leadership. Not until tragic events catapulted him into the White House, three years later, would Johnson once again show his full capacities for leadership.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the RECORD footnotes to "Lyndon Johnson and the United States Senate."

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3407 There being no objection, the foot

notes were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

FOOTNOTES TO "LYNDON JOHNSON AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE"

1 Donald R. Matthews, "U.S. Senators and Their World" <New York, 1960), 123-4.

1 For Johnson's early years, see Robert A. Caro, "The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power" <New York, 1982).

3 "Darrell St. Claire, Assistant Secretary of the Senate," Senate Historical Office, Oral History Interview, 130.

4 Merle Miller, "Lyndon, An Oral Biography" <New York, 1980>. 141.

•Bobby Baker, "Wheeling and Dealing, Confessions of a Capitor Hill Operator" <New York, 1978), 40.

8 Baker, "Wheeling and Dealing," 40. 1 Paul H. Douglas, "In the Fullness of Time: The

Memoirs of Paul H. Douglas" <New York, 1972>. 204.

8 Miller, "Lyndon," 142-3. 9 Carl Solberg, "Hubert Humphrey: A Biography"

<New York, 1984>, 143-5. 10 Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, "Lyndon B.

Johnson: The Exercise of Power" <New York, 1966), 54-6.

1 1 Miller, "Lyndon," 150. 12 Evans and Novak, "Lyndon B. Johnson," 51. 13 Ibid., 56-7; Solberg, "Hubert Humphrey," 162-

4. 14 Eisenhower once noted of Knowland: "It is a

pity that his wisdom, his judgment, his tact, and his sence of humor lag so far behind his ambition." Stephen E. Ambrose, "Eisenhower: The President" <New York, 1984), 164.

1 • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 83d Congress, 2d sess., 2218.

18 Evans and Novak, "Lyndon B. Johnson," 81-7; Robert Griffith, "The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate" <Lexington, 1970>. 239, 294-306.

11 Richard Langham Riedel, "Halls of the Mighty: My 47 Years at the Senate" <Washington, 1969), 159-60.

u Miller, "Lyndon," 176,179. 19 Darrell St. Claire Oral History, 134-5. 20 Floyd M. Riddick: Senate Parliamentarian,"

Senate Historical Office, Oral History Interviews, 251-3.

21 Evans and Novak, "Lyndon B. Johnson," 114-6. 22 Ibid., 138. 13 Ibid., 125-40; Miller, "Lyndon," 210. 24 Warren Weaver, Jr., "Both Your Houses; The

Truth About Congress" <New York, 1972>. 116. 25 Evans and Novak, "Lyndon B. Johnson," 104;

Jay G. Sykes, "Proxmire" <Washington, 1972>. 109. 28 "Executive Sessions of the Senate Foreign Re

lations Committee <Historical Series>", vol. XI, 86th Congress, 1st sess., 1959 <Washington, 1982>, 133-50.

21 See Donald A. Ritchie, "Making Fulbright Chairman: Or How the 'Johnson Treatment' Nearly Backfired,'' in The Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations Newsletter, XV <September 1984), 21-8.

28 Sykes, "Proxmire,'' 109-20; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 86th Congress, 1st sess., 2814-20.

29 Bryce Harlow Oral History, Eisenhower Library, Abilene, KS, 45.

3° Charles C. Alexander, "Holding the Line: The Eisenhower Era, 1952-61" <Bloomington, 1975>. 251-2; Baker, "Wheeling and Dealing," 136-8.

31 Alexander, "Holding the Line,'' 253. 32 Miller, "Lyndon", 226-9. 33 Evans and Novak, "Lyndon B. Johnson", 223-4;

Miller, "Lyndon", 230-1. u Miller, "Lyndon", 275-6.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. SYMMS). The clerk will call the roll.


Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. ABDNOR). Without objection, it is so ordered.

EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, after

conferring with the minority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate go into executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Order No. 667, Calendar Order No. 668, Calendar Order No. 669, Calendar Order No. 670, Calendar Order No. 671, Calendar Order No. 673, Calendar Order No. 674, Calendar Order No. 676, Calendar Order No. 677, Calendar Order No. 678, Calendar Order No. 679, and Calendar Order No. 680; and Nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Senior Foreign Service, with the exception of Edwin G. Corr.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, all of the nominations to which the distinguished assistant Republican leader has directed his remarks have been cleared on this side of the aisle and are ready to go.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the nominations be considered en bloc and confirmed en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nominations are considered and confirmed en bloc.

The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

THE JUDICIARY Frank J. Magill, of North Dakota, to be

U.S. circuit judge for the eighth circuit. Danny J. Boggs, of Kentucky, to be U.S.

circuit judge for the sixth circuit. Lawrence P. Zatkoff, of Michigan, to be

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

Ronald R. Lagueux, of Rhode Island, to be U.S. district judge for the district of Rhode Island.

Thomas J. McAvoy, of New York, to be U.S. district judge for the northern district of New York.

David R. Hansen, of Iowa, to be U.S. district judge for the northern district of Iowa.

Miriam G. Cedarbaum, of New York, to be U.S. district judge for the southern district of New York.

INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Larry K. Mellinger, of California, to be

U.S. Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank.

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

Hugh W. Foster, of California, to be U.S. Alternate Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 2 years.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE Gaston Joseph Sigur, Jr., of Maryland to

be an Assistant Secretary of State. Paul Dundes Wolfowitz, of the District of

Columbia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Indonesia.

Arthur H. Davis, of Colorado, to be Ambassador Extraodinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Panama.

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK IN THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE

Senior Foreign Service nominations beginning Stanton H. Burnett, and ending Gerald A. Waters, which nominations were received by the Senate on January 24, 1986, and appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of January 27, 1986.

Senior Foreign Service nominations beginning Peter W. Askin, and ending Richard C. McClure, which nominations were received by the Senate on January 24, 1986, and appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of January 27, 1986.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the nominations were confirmed.

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President be immediately notified of the confirmation of the nominations.


LEGISLATIVE SESSION Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate return to legislative session.


AMERICAN GOODS ARE GOOD FOR AMERICA

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, on February 17, I participated in a very unique news conference in Little Rock, AR, with the management team of one of America's most aggressive and growing companies, Wal-Mart. This unbelievably success! ul retail chain has embarked on one of the most dynamic experiments in the annals of American business. At first I was doubtful but now I am not only enthusiastic, I am downright excited about the possibilities of its success and its spread to other retailers in America. The name of the plan is right on target-"American Goods Are Good for America."

First, this company was founded by a great Arkansan, Sam Walton, in 1962. By 1980, its sales were $1.248 billion, and in 1985, Wal-Mart's sales were almost $8.5 billion. After the amazing press conference, with the Wal-Mart management team and the representatives of American manufacturers who are participating, not only do I believe that it will be successful, but it will be contagious to other retailers in this Nation.

In short, Mr. President, while most retailers buy American where they can, until now, noboby has taken the initiative in trying to "make it happen." Buyers need reliable suppliers and suppliers need reliable buyers. This plan, which was designed to make buying American not only patriotic,

3408 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 but profitable and beneficial to the consumers, is "making it happen." Already, 4,538 jobs have been saved in America by Wal-Mart's purchases of American goods, which were formally purchased overseas. And what is the criterion for buying American? It is simple. Wal-Mart agrees to a 1- or 2-year contract with a manufacturer for a particular line of merchandise. The test is simple. If the quality of the American-made product is as good or better than its foreign counterpart, and the price is equal to or better than its foreign counterpart, then they make the deal. Under this simple formula, American manufacturers can give the lowest price, knowing that there is a reliable purchaser, and in many instances produce better quality at a lower price than their overseas competitors. Some plants, with a 2-year contract under their belts, are even able to buy new high-technology capital equipment, which reduces the price even further.

With the recent decline in the value of the dollar, some American manufacturers are already finding themselves able to compete against foreign goods here, and some are even finding foreign markets open to them which have previously been closed. But the WalMart buy American campaign will add greatly to the amount of American goods that will be sold in American outlets. Jobs will be saved, and the consumers will benefit. How could a formula work better to reduce our trade deficits and restore American pride?

There can be little question that the campaign to strengthen the partnership between retailers and manufacturers to develop increased competition, in price and quality, between American-made goods and imported items is just what America has been needing.

I would like to wax eloquent on the man who founded this company, and whose continuing unique ideas have made this company so successful, but he continually reminds me that there is a gigantic management team and 120,000 "associates" who are the real key to Wal-Mart's colossal success.

Mr. President, I salute Wal-Mart for helping keep America strong, and sincerely hope that this one idea will become contagious throughout America, and that thousands upon thousands of American jobs will be saved.

I ask unanimous consent that three newspaper articles and a flyer from Wal-Mart on this campaign be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

CFrom the Little Rock <AR> Gazette, Feb. 18, 1986]

WALTON TOUTS U.S. GOODS, BUYING PLANPITCH FERVENT, POSITIVE

<By Bob Stover> Using the salesmanship and fervor that

catapulted him to the position of the richest man in America, Sam Walton Tuesday afternoon touted his Wal-Mart chain's Buy American program.

His rapt audience at the Statehouse Convention Center included a United States senator, the governor, three United States representatives, officials of more than two dozen companies that have profited from the program and officials from a dozen economic development departments in other states.

American goods are good for America and Wal-Mart, he said, predicting that the program could save manufacturing jobs and help retailers at the same time. That would help reduce or eliminate the nation's trade deficit, he said.

Walton's rare public appearance was an orchestrated event held in conjunction with Wal-Mart's annual training meetings.

Figuratively, Walton wrapped his program in the flag. Literally, he wrapped himself in a large beach towel. The towel was one of several items that his company is now buying from American companies, but a year ago was purchasing from overseas. To show his enthusiasm, he also waved cooking utensils, held up lawn chairs so the audience could see that the cheaper American-made product was better than its overseas counterpart, tossed wash cloths to a reporter so she could feel the difference and led the press on a brisk walk through a merchandise display area that featured Americanmade products.

Walton announced his Buy American program in March 1985, citing a growing federal trade deficit and a loss of jobs by WalMart customers as two of his motivations.

IMPROMPTU TESTIMONIALS

Representatives of about 30 companies, several of them based in Arkansas, were seated behind Walton as he gave his rambling, loud and consistently positive pitch. Several times he called on the manufacturing company representatives for impromptu testimonials and each time they responded with rousing endorsements. Some of them said Wal-Mart was responsible for keeping their plants operating.

The secret, most of them said, was that Wal-Mart has agreed to give them long-term contracts, large orders and immediate payment when the product was produced. They and Walton said other large retailers should do the same. They said some other companies buy American when they can, but don't co-operate with manufacturers to make it work.

Walton gave an example of a windshield wiper manufacturer in Florida. Wal-Mart imported wipers last year. This year they will buy $1.5 million worth from the Florida company.

Last year Wal-Mart sold a lawn chair made overseas for $6.99. This year the American-made product, which Walton sat in to demonstrate, will sell for $4.93. "This year we'll do $3 million worth of business with them and they did us a favor," Walton said, "Folks, that can be done time and time again."

He had similar accounts about microwaves, candles, shirts, boots, shoes and caps for toy cap guns.

One manufacturer, Whitney Stevens of J.P. Stevens, said he was a little worried about Walton. Stevens said his company was selling Walton a beach towel that will retail two for $7. "And he's bought so many beach towels that if he doesn't sell some of them by summer, he's going to be up to his • • •in beach towels," Stevens said.

Walton, wrapping one of the blue towels around his waist and showing it off for the audience, asked Stevens how many towels Wal-Mart had ordered. Eight million dollars worth at retail, he was told.

"We'll sell them," Walton said. Walton admitted that at one time he looked at his suppliers as adversaries. "That's got to change," he said. "We've got to have a partnership and be supportive of each other."

Governor Bill Clinton, United States Senator Dale Bumpers and United States Representatives John Paul Hammerschmidt of Harrison and Bill Alexander of Osceola each were given a couple of minutes to comment, and naturally they praised Walton. Walton insisted they give the credit to the company, not him. Mr. Clinton said that when Walton first talked to him about the campaign last year he never dreamed it would have the impact it has. United States Representative Tommy Robinson of Jacksonville also attended the presentation.

Walton fielded some questions from reporters. He said several reasons caused companies to buy overseas, including that it was easier and buyers probably liked the trips to the Orient. He said although his top officials were opposed to any protectionist bills, he personally probably would support some mild protectionist legislation if it had a time limit.

He also said that he "could care less about Japan at the moment" and was interested in seeing trade diverted from the Orient to Central and South American countries where the United States "has a tremendous interest and responsibility."

Walton and David Glass, Wal-Mart president, said the company was going to expand the Buy American program this year to try and persuade some large manufacturers that have some or all work done overseas to move operations back to the United States.

[From The Arkansas Democrat, Feb. 18, 1986]

"BUY AMERICAN" PLAN PAYS OFF, WALTON SAYS

<By Dave Wannemacher> Amid a circus-like atmosphere, "Sales

man" Sam Walton, head of the Bentonvillebased Wal-Mart Stores Inc., briefed businessmen, politicians and reporters Monday on his company's "Buy American" program that he said has put 4,538 people to work in the last 12 months.

Several hundred people jammed Little Rock's Statehouse Convention Center to listen to Walton, who was speaking as part of his company's annual Spring Merchandising Seminar.

The charismatic Walton, a billionaire as a result of building his company to its current size, wore $29.84 shoes manufactured in Wynne and sold at Wal-Mart as he led reporters and businessmen on a tour of the convention center, which was converted to look like one of his company's stores.

Along one wall was an array of products, mostly clothing, that Wal-Mart formerly imported, but which now are being manufactured by American companies. It is WalMart's commitment, he said, to put Americans back to work and reduce a foreign

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3409 trade deficit that has swelled to more than $140 billion.

Holding up a child's size 2 T-shirt, manufactured by Pixie Playmates of Florida, Walton said, "They say we can't do it in the United States, but we're going to have these in our stores for two for $5."

Sitting behind Walton during a 1112-hour press conference were executives from 28 companies across the country whose manufacturing operations were increased as a result of the "Buy American" program. At a table next to them sat the politicians: Gov. Bill Clinton, Sen. Dale Bumpers, D-Ark, Reps. Tommy Robinson and Bill Alexander, both D-Ark, and Rep. John Paul Hammerschmidt, R-Ark.

All sat quietly and briefly conversed among themselves while Walton presented his sales pitch for the "Buy American" program.

In many ways, Walton resembled a preacher extolling the virtues of good versus evil, with the company representatives giving testimonials on how much better off they were because of Wal-Mart.

Walton, meanwhile, even went so far as to sling a wire deck chair over his shouldermissing Clinton by inches-to prove a point that the American product was superior to the one manufactured overseas.

But Walton's message was clear: at no time did the company compromise quality or price just to put Americans back to work. The program is successful, Walton said, because Wal-Mart has worked closely with American manufacturers to see that a product can be developed at a cost equal to or better than the foreign competition.

About the only concessions, he said, were in Wal-Mart's profit margin.

David Glass, president of the discount chain, said Wal-Mart currently buys 5 percent of its merchandise directly from companies overseas. Another 25 percent is manufactured overseas by American-owned companies, which will be the target of Phase II of Wal-Mart's program, Glass said.

This year, the second of the "Buy American" program, Wal-Mart will try to arrange purchasing contracts that will allow American companies that produce overseas to bring the jobs back home, Glass said.

Walton also unveiled three new television commercials to be shown in Wal-Mart's trade area beginning today. One was filmed in Brinkley featuring Farris Fashions.

The goal for Wal-Mart in 1986 is to reach $11 billion in sales, and the company's newest slogan is "Yes, We Can."

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 15, 19861 WAL-MART HEAD To PusH BUY-AMERICAN

PROGRAM

<By Caroline E. Mayer> The richest man in America is determined

to make America even richer. Sam Walton, the chairman of Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc., plans to step up his Buy-American campaign next week, calling a major news conference to ask other retailers publicly to join his efforts to prove that American manufacturers can be as competitive as their increasingly popular foreign counterparts.

Walton, who last year was named the richest man in America by Forbes magazine, has been engaged for the last year in virtually a single-handed effort to reduce the growing trade deficit and increase jobs here at home.

Since last March, Wal-Mart, one of the nation's fastest-growing and most successful discount chains, has set out to prove that American manufacturers can make quality

goods that will match or beat the prices of imported goods.

Among other things, Wal-Mart offered favorable terms-including longer lead times and more advantageous financial agreements-to domestic manufacturers to make it possible for them to compete with foreign firms whose labor costs are far less than companies in the United States.

In addition to helping reduce the deficit, the campaign also serves Wal-Mart, which is based in the rural areas in the Southeast and Midwest. Many of the manufacturers that have signed up with Wal-Mart are based in the Wal-Mart marketing area. Without the Wal-Mart contracts, some of these companies may have gone out of business, reducing business as well for the discount chain, which is second only to K mart Corp. in size.

Wal-Mart says it has been able to save some $200 million from being spent overseas by finding American manufacturers to do the same job. That savings, in tum, has translated into creating or retaining some 4,500 jobs, Wal-Mart contends.

But with the U.S. merchandise deficit totaling $148.5 billion for 1985, Walton realizes he cannot solve the problem alone. As a result, he now is trying to enlist other retailers, including the giants such as Sears, Roebuck & Co. and K mart to join his battle.

So far, only one has agreed: Venture Stores, a discount chain owned by May Department Stores Co.

Walton hopes to change all that next week, however, when he calls manufacturers and government officials together in Little Rock to explore ways to form a stronger partnership between American manufacturers and retailers. AMERICAN Goons ARE Goon FOR AMERICA-A

SOLUTION WITHIN THE SYSTEM On March 15, 1985, Sam M. Walton,

founder and chairman of Wal-Mart stores sent a message to his merchandise managers: "Find products that American manufacturers have stopped producing because they couldn't compete with foreign imports." This mandate is a result of Mr. Walton's concern for the economy's high balance of trade deficits and the attendant loss of jobs and dollars flowing out of the country.

<In one year 1983-1984, non-oil related imports grew $70 billion, a 33 percent increase, while the balance of trade deficit grew by 78 percent to $123.3 billion, in that same period.)

That concern was translated in a letter to Wal-Mart's 3,000 domestic suppliers stating that between 1981and1984 an estimated 1.6 million American jobs were lost to imports. In one year, 1983-1984, non-oil related imports grew $70 billion, a 33 percent increase, while the balance of trade deficit grew by 78 percent, to $123.3 billion, in that same period.

Said Walton, "Something can and must be done to reverse this very serious threat to our free enterprise system."

Wal-Mart initiated the "Buy American" program. It is designed to work toward a long range goal strengthening that free enterprise system. The "Buy American" effort is not an anti-import campaign. Wal-Mart is not suggesting trade regulation legislation, tariffs or controls on imported items. Mr. Walton is the first to state that certain lines of merchandise will continue to be bought overseas, and necessarily so. The "Buy American" program is a cooperative effort between retailers and domestic manufacturers to re-establish a competitive position in

price and quality, American made goods to the market place.

Wal-Mart has taken the initiative of working and planning with American manufacturers and suppliers to obtain goods that are competitive in price and quality with foreign imports. Wal-Mart is making great strides to make the partnership work. The "Buy American" plan gives select American manufacturers some of the same terms and cooperation that are extended by many to foreign manufacturers. This involves providing manufacturers long term commitments and guaranteed orders which in some cases act as domestic letters of credit for smaller companies.

<American producers will have to be more "market driven" instead of continuing to be traditionally "product driven.">

Sam Walton expects manufacturers to make an equal commitment. "In tum, our American suppliers must commit to improving their facilities and machinery, remain financially conservative and work to fill our requirements, and most importantly, strive to improve employee productivity: This means that American producers will have to be more 'market driven' instead of continuing to be traditionally 'product driven.' "

Pricing of any merchandise is determined on its own merit. But Wal-Mart's overriding concern is the maintenance of its competitive edge by offering quality merchandise at the most affordable prices. <Sine~ March, 1985, Wal-Mart converted

or retained $197.3 million in purchases, at cost, that otherwise would have been placed or produced off-shore.>

The Wal-Mart program has realized great success in the short time it has been in effect. Since March, 1985, Wal-Mart converted or retained $197.3 million in purchases, at cost, that otherwise would have been placed or produced off-shore. That meant creating or retaining 4,538 jobs for Americans. 1

Wal-Mart has shown and top management believes American retailers and manufacturers can make a difference if they provide the leadership for American workers. Changes in the economy can occur if:

Retailers are willing to give manufacturers in the United States the same advantages provided to overseas vendors.

Manufacturers are committed to improve facilities and machinery, remain financially conservative and strive to improve employee productivity.

Retailers and manufacturers have realistic profit goals. High levels of unit volume movement provide most effective use of available production.

Retailers and manufacturers are committed to deliver quality and value superior to imports to our American consumers.

Retailers and manufacturers form a partnership based on mutual needs and recognize and address the needs of each.

The foundation of this program rests in securing additional members in the retail and manufacturing industry to work cooperatively within the system toward a mutually beneficial goal; more jobs and a reduced trade deficit.

To date, Wal-Mart's "Buy American" buying position has gained momentum in Mr. Walton's goal of working with vendors in "bringing production back to our shores." A few examples include:

1 Based on United States Department of Commerce statistics equating each $1 million of lost merchandise production to a loss of 23 Jobs.

3410 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 <l> Wal-Mart ordered 207,000 portable

electric fans from Lasko Metal Products and the more than $2.6 million worth of fans will be produced predominantly in Fort Worth, Texas. In the process, the Lasko employment rolls in the Texas plant will grow by 18 percent.

<2> In 1983, Wal-Mart imported most of its dress shirts; however, in 1985, 50 percent of the dress shirts sold at Wal-Mart were produced domestically. Capital Mercury Shirt Company has, as the result of Wal-Mart's drive, brought back to the continental, United States some of its production and even hopes to expand some of its facilities to meet the needs of other retailers.

<3> Wal-Mart is also selling more domestic flannel shirts, as it has been learned that men's flannel shirts can be produced on a competitive basis in price and quality in the continental United States. Farris Fashions, Inc. in Brinkley, Arkansas, has a $3,741,000 order for 864,000 flannel shirts. The plant has updated its equipment, increased it of employees from 85 to 210.

<4> Julie Girl, a manufacturer of ladies' sportswear and loungewear, has received new Wal-Mart orders which will create about 200 more jobs, as Wal-Mart has extended a longer lead time allowing the manufacturer to fulfill orders. The result has been better production planning and more efficient plant operations through the lowering of costs and overhead.

<5> Outdoor stacking chairs had been purchased from Taiwan. Flanders industries, a Fort Smith, Arkansas based manufacturer of casual furniture, received a $459,000 commitment from Wal-Mart. The company, which employes 100 people was able to create 13 new positions because of the order and stay in production year 'round.

Wal-Mart executives realize the long range commitment needed for eventual, successful results of their program. They are asking fellow retailers to join their efforts in a conscious buying effort to help ensure continued growth in domestic manufacturing. Success and change will be realized to an even greater capacity with full industry cooperation. One man and one company can not achieve effective deficit reduction alone. It will require a concentrated, conscious effort on the part of manufacturers, retailers and consumers alike. But the guidelines have been set and the initial results have been encouraging.

Mr. Walton expressed his goal in a column of the company's employee publication, Wal-Mart World:

"Our Wal-Mart can and should set an example for others in helping the United States out of the very difficult financial situation that we're in ... We should initiate an all-out campaign to cooperate with our industries and manufacturers to buy everything possible in the U.S. We should assist them to be competitive and more efficient in many ways, and that should be our intent and objective. If done correctly, I am very certain that U.S. workers, if provided the proper equipment, incentives and participation, can produce merchandise in these United States that will be as good a value, or better, than anything we can buy offshore."

Al Johnson, Executive Vice-President, Merchandise and Sales or Jim Von Gremp, Director, Corporate & Public Affairs, WalMart Stores, Inc., Corporate Office, P.O. Box 116, Bentonville, AR 72712, C501> 273-4000

VENDORS A'ITENDING "BUY AMERICA" NEWS CONFERENCE

HOME/SEASONAL

Vendor, Representative, and Title: Belton-John McGovern, President. Cannon Mills-Bill Heitman, V.P./Nat'l

Sales Mgr /Monticello. Cannon Mills-Bob Dillinger, V.P./Terry

Products. Cannon Mills-Bill Purdue, V.P./Regional

Sales Manager. Cannon Mills-Dana Folsum, V.P./Kitch

en Products Manager. Cannon Mills-Jeff Gregg, V.P./Regional

Sales Manager. Fieldcrest/St. Mary's-Charles Horn,

President. Fieldcrest/St. Mary's-Kevin Finley, V.P./

St. Mary's. Fieldcrest/St. Mary's-John Wallace,

V.P./Regional Sales Manager. Fieldcrest/St. Mary's-Clyde Harr, Ac-

count Manager. Flanders, Ind.-Don Flanders, Chairman. Flanders, Ind.-Dudly Flanders, President. J.P. Stevens-Whitney Stevens, Chair-

man. J.P. Stevens-Davy Tracy, Vice Chairman. J.P. Stevens-Marvin Crow, Manager/Di

rector /Fabrics. J.P. Stevens-Mike Cannon, Regional

Sales Manager. Mirro-Leonard Raskin, President. Mirro-Mark Bittner, Territory Sales

Manager. Welby-Elgin-Sidney Swislow, President. Welby-Elgin-Richard Griffin, V.P./

Sales/Marketing. Wire Company-Larry Strodtman, Presi

dent. Wire Company-Steven Housefield, V.P./

Sales/Marketing. HARD LINES

Candle-Lite-Bob Staab, President. Emerson-Steve Lane, President. Emerson-Rick Bond, V.P./Sales. Fashion Magic-Jay Kent, President. General Wax-Mike Tapp, President. Hi Lift-Ralph Ternes, President. Hi Lift-Bill Malone, Vice President. Huffy-John Mariatti, President/Manag-

er. Murray Ohio-Richard Sapperfield, Presi

dent/C.E.O. Pylon Manufacturing-Pat Mullarkey,

V.P./Sales. Redball-Svey Cohen, President. Rubber Queen-David Crater, President. Scotch-Jim Appleby, Market Manager. Capital Mercury-Bob Welch, President. Capital Mercury-Dick Bebon, Vice Presi-

dent. Carolina Mfg.-N.C. English, President. Carolina Mfg.-Walter L . . Jones, V.P. of

Sales. Crown-Tex Lingerie-Mel David, Presi

dent. Farris Fashions-Farris Burroughs, Presi

dent. Farris Fashions-Marilyn Burroughs, Vice

President. Garan-Jerry Kamiel, President. Garan-Paul Lipman, V.P. Infant/Tod

dler. Garan-Perry Mullen, V.P. of Manufac-

turing. H.H. Cutler-Hal Smith, President. H.H. Cutler-Fred Rozell, Vice President. Julie Girl-Lou Perlman, President. Julie Girl-Marty Israel, Sales Manager. Pixie Playmates-Kenny Jarkow, Presi-

dent. Pixie Playmates-Jeff Lopatin, Chairman

of the Board.

Sea Weed of Calif.-Stuart Geller, President.

Sea Weed of Calif.-Michael Geller, President/Jrs. Only.

Skyline Ltd. CElkay>-Alvin Friedman, President.

Skyline Ltd. CElkay>-Sonny Robinson, Vice President.

Stone Manufacturing-Jack Stone, Chairman.

Stone Manufacturing-Harold Hendrix, Reg. Sales Mfg./Dallas.

Sutton Shirt-Frank Scuderi, President. Sutton Shirt-Allen Sussman, President. Washington Mfg.-Paul Harris, President. Wrangler-Blue Bell-Varnell Moore, Presi-

dent, Wrangler. Wrangler-Blue Bell-John Sturgis, Na

tional Account Exec. Univ. of Arkansas-Dr. Sarah Jordan,

Home Economics Dept. Head. Univ. of Arkansas-Dr. Mary Warnock,

Assoc. Prof./Clothing, Textiles and Merchandising.

Univ. of Missouri-Dr. Kitty Dickerson, Assoc. Prof./Textiles Dept. Head.

SHOES

Munro & Co.-Don Monro, President. Texas Boot Co.-Harry Vise, President. Texas Boot Co.-Dave Strasinger, Exec.

Vice President. Walker Shoe Co.-Kent Anderson, Presi

dent. Walker Shoe Co.-Leonard Richardson,

Exec. Vice President.

MOTHER OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE SUCCUMBED

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn this morning that Mrs. Kame Imanaga Inouye, the mother of our distinguished colleague from Hawaii, passed away yesterday at the age of 82.

Senator INOUYE has my deepest sympathy and most sincere condolences in his time of grief. But I know that Senator INOUYE will always have the fondest of memories for this loving and caring parent.

Mrs. Inouye was not only the type of parent, but the type of person, of whom this Nation should be proud. Indeed, Mrs. Kame Inouye was the personification of the very finest of both Japanese and American cultures. Although her life was beset with poverty, hardship, and bigotry, it also was filled with joy and success. Her mother died when she was only 6 years old. At the age of 7, she went to work in the Hawaiian cane fields.

In his autobiography, "Journey to Washington," Senator INOUYE touchingly writes of how his father "met a small, bright-eyed girl named Kame Imanaga. She was a nisei, an orphan, living in the home of a Methodist minister • • •. My father fell in love with her, and they were married in September 1923."

Married to this former plantation worker who was the child of Japanese parents, she raised a family in a onebedroom cottage just across the way from the fashionable Pacific Club, which barred all Orientals.

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3411 "We struggled to bring up a family,"

Mrs. Inouye said, "but we were always happy."

When asked how she brought up her children, Mrs. Inouye responded: "Half permissiveness, half strict discipline," and that discipline involved teaching her children the traditional Japanese virtues of honesty truthfulness, and respect for one's elders.

She obviously knew what she was doing, for one of her three sons became a U.S. Senator-the first Member of this Chamber of Japanese ancestry.

I know that these loving memories will comfort the Senator during these very difficult days, along with the knowledge that his mother is now in the embrace of an all-loving God: Do not stand at my grave and weep. I am not there. t do not sleep. I am a thousand winds that blow; I am the diamond glints on snow. I am sunlight on ripened grain; I am the gentle autumn's rain. When you awaken in the morning's hush, I am the swift uplifting rush Of quiet birds in circled flight. I am the soft star that shines at night. Do not stand at my grave and cry. I am not there. I did not die.

<Author Unknown).

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Saunders, one of his secretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session, the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.

<The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate proceedings.)

EXECUTIVE AND OTHER · COMMUNICATIONS

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were ref erred as indicated:

EC-2571. A communication from the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission transmitting, pursuant to law, the 1985 SEC Annual Report; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

EC-2572. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Energy transmitting, pursuant to law, notice of delays in completion of the Wind Energy Technology Comprehensive Program Management plan; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

EC-2573. A communication from the Secretary of Energy transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual report and 1985 fourth quarter report on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

EC-2574. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State transmitting, pursuant to law, a determination to authorize continuation of certain assistance to Haiti; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

EC-2575. A communication from the Chairman of the D.C. Council transmitting, pursuant to law, D.C. Act 6-138; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-2576. A communication from the Acting Archivist of the United States transmitting, pursuant to law, the final set of regulations governing access to the Nixon Presidential materials; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-2577. A communication from the Vice Chairman of the Export-Import Bank transmitting, pursuant to law, the Bank's 1985 Freedom of Information Act report; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-2578. A communication from the Director of Administration, DOE, transmitting, pursuant to law, the DOE Freedom of Information Act report for 1985; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-2579. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury transmitting, pursuant to law, the Treasury's 1985 Freedom of Information Act report; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC- 2580. A colliIIlunication from the Vice Chairman of the Export-Import Bank transmitting, pursuant to law, the Bank's 1985 Freedom of Information Act report; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-2581. A communication from the Director of. the Federal Emergency Management Agency transmitting, pursuant to law, the Agency's 1985 Freedom of Information Act report; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-2582. A communication from the Secretary of Education transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to improve teaching and administration in the public and private nonprofit schools; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

EC-2583. A communication from the Secretary of Education transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the Bilingual Education Act; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

EC-2584. A communication from the Director of the National Science Foundation transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the implementation status of the President's private sector survey on cost control recommendations affecting the Foundation; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

EC-2585. A communication from the Secretary of Eduction transmitting, pursuant to law, final funding priorities for innovative programs for the severely handicapped children's program; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

EC-2586. A communication from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on Competition Advocacy; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-2587. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on an amended Privacy Act system of records; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-2588. A communication from the Special Counsel, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 1985 Freedom of Information report; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-2589. A communication from the President of the National Endowment for Democracy transmitting, pursuant to law, the 1985 report on activities under the Freedom of Information Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-2590. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual report on the Refugee Resettlement Program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-2591. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Defense transmitting, pursuant to law, a report for 1985 on the Freedom of Information Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-2592. A communication from the Chief Immigration Judge, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on grants of suspension of deportation under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees

were submitted: By Mr. THURMOND, from the Commit

tee on the Judiciary, without amendment and an amended preamble:

S.J. Res. 246: Joint resolution to designate May 25, 1986 as "Hands Across America Day," for the purpose of helping people to help themselves, and commending United Support of Artists for Africa and all participants for their efforts toward combating domestic hunger with a 4,000-mile human chain from coast to coest.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. THURMOND <for himself and Mr. BINGAMAN) <by request):

S. 2132. A bill to authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1987, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. DOLE, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. PELL, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. STAFFORD, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. BAucus, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. INOUYE, and Mr. HEFLIN):

S.J. Res. 286. Joint resolution to designate the week of April 20, 1986, through April 26, 1986, as "National Reading Is Fun Week"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BOREN: S.J. Res. 287. Joint resolution designating

September 29, 1986, as "National Teachers Day"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. THURMOND <for himself and Mr. BINGAMAN) (by request):

S. 2132. A bill to authorize certain construction at military installations

3412 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 for fiscal year 1987, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, by

request, for myself and the junior Senator from New Mexico CMr. BINGAMAN], I introduce for appropriate referral a bill to authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1987, and for other purposes.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter of transmittal requesting consideration of the legislation and explaining the purpose be printed in the RECORD immediately following the listing of the bill.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

s. 2132 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the "Military Construction Authorization Act, 1987".

TITLE I-ARMY SEC. 101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND

LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS (a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.-The Secre

tary of the Army may acquire real property and may carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations inside the United States.

UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Camp Dawson, West Virginia, $8,700,000. Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $24,600,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $21,240,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $11,300,000. Fort Devens, Massachusetts, $20,800,000. Fort Drum, New York, $615,000,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $13,350,000. Fort Irwin, California, $2,870,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $25,980,000. Fort McPherson, Georgia, $2,900,000. Fort Ord, California, $6,550,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $27,000,000. Fort Richardson, Alaska, $11,200,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $12,500,000. Fort Sam Houston, Texas, $3, 700,000. Fort Sheridan, Illinois, $2,050,000. Fort Stewart, Georgia, $1,550,000. Fort Wainwright, Alaska, $126,700,000. Presidio of San Francisco, California,

$5,100,000. UNITED STATES ARMY WESTERN COMMAND

Hawaii Various, $12,000,000. Wheeler Army Air Field, Hawaii,

$2,900,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE

COMMAND Carlisle Barrack, Pennsylvania, $800,000. Fort Belvoir, Virginia, $5,600,000. Fort Benning, Georgia, $16,180,000. Fort Eustis, Virginia, $2,050,000. Fort Jackson, South Carolina, $1,300,000. Fort Knox, Kentucky, $3,200,000. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, $1,100,000. Fort Lee, Virginia, $17 ,600,000. Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, $43,200,000. Fort McClellan, Alabama, $540,000. Fort Rucker, Alabama, $44,500,000. Fort Sill, Oklahoma, $3,050,000. Fort Story, Virginia, $2,700,000.

MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Fort Myer, Virginia, $3,800,000.

UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,

$42,750,000. Anniston Army Depot, Alabama,

$1,950,000. Badger Army Ammunition Plant, Wiscon

sin, $980,000. Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas,

$10,550,000. Detroit Arsenal, Michigan, $1,350,000. Dugway Proving Ground, Utah,

$12,900,000. Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, $4,900,000. Fort Wingate, New Mexico, $350,000. Harry Diamond Laboratory, Maryland,

$680,000. Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant,

Nevada, $7,000,000. Letterkenny Army Depot, Pennsylvania,

$1,900,000. Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity,

Kentucky, $540,000. Navajo Depot Activity, Arizona,

$3,900,000. Pueblo Depot Activity, Colorado, $600,000. Red River Army Depot, Texas, $1,350,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, $19,500,000. Savanna Army Depot, Illinois, $320,000. Seneca Army Depot, New York,

$1,100,000. Sierra Army Depot, California, $2,450,000. Tooele Army Depot, Utah, $1,850,000. Umatilla Depot Activity, Oregon,

$1,050,000. Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, $820,000.

AMMUNITION FACILITIES Holston Army Ammunition Plant, Tennes

see, $11,280,000. Indiana Army Ammunition Plant, Indi

ana, $1,560,000. Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, Kansas,

$1,050,000. Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, Mis

souri, $370,000. Milan Army Ammunition Plant, Tennes

see, $610,000. Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Virgin

ia, $19,750,000. UNITED STATES ARMY INFORMATION SYSTEMS

COMMAND Fort Huachuca, Arizona, $17,200,000.

UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY U.S. Military Academy, New York,

$28,500,000. MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT COMMAND

Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal, North Carolina, $650,000.

ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ENGINEERS Classified, United States, $7,400,000. (b) OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.-The Sec

retary of the Army may acquire real property and may carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations outside the United States:

UNITED STATES ARMY, JAPAN Kawakami, Japan, $1,200,000.

EIGHTH UNITED STATES ARMY Camp Carroll, Korea, $1,740,000. Camp Casey, Korea, $24,940,000. Camp Castle, Korea, $4,800,000. Camp Essayons, Korea, $3,000,000. Camp Greaves, Korea, $3,990,000. Camp Hovey, Korea, $9,000,000. Camp Howze, Korea, $5,850,000. Camp Humphreys, Korea, $16,800,000. Camp Jackson, Korea, $1,800,000. Camp Laguardia, Korea, $2,970,000. Camp Libby, Korea, $1,100,000. Camp Liberty Bell, Korea, $780,000. Camp Long, Korea, $5,600,000.

Camp Market, Korea, $540,000 Camp Nimble, Korea, $1,950,000. Camp Page, Korea, $1,400,000. .Camp Pelham, Korea, $2,280,000. Camp Red Cloud, Korea, $4,550,000. Camp Stanley, Korea, $4,700,000. H220, Korea, $2,750,000. K-16 Army Airfield, Korea, $2,520,000. Pusan, Korea, $12,940,000. Second Infantry, Korea, $5,150,000. Taegu, Korea, $4,900,000. Yongsan, Korea, $8,760,000

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS COMMAND Kwajalein, $20,600,000.

UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND, OVERSEAS

Panama, $420,000. Classified, $4,000,000. Various, $4,900,000.

UNITED STATES ARMY EUROPE AND SEVENTH ARMY

Ansbach, Germany, $1,790,000. Aschaffenberg, Germany, $7,000,000. Bad Kreuznach, Germany, $10,200,000. • Bamberg, Germany, $18,000,000. Baumholder, Germany, $30,850,000. Bitburg, Germany, $19,920,000. Einsiedlerhof, Germany, $4,750,000. Frankfurt, Germany, $3,500,000. Fulda, Germany, $1,000,000. Giessen, Germany, $22,570,000. Goeppingen, Germany, $1,850,000. Hanau, Germany, $26,150,000. Heidelberg, Germany, $1,600,000. Heilbronn, Germany, $2,100,000. Hohenfels, Germany, $8,800,000. Kaiserslautem, Germany, $1,400,000. Karlsruhe, Germany, $10,000,000. Manheim, Germany, $2,450,000. New Ulm, Germany, $26,050,000. Nuernberg, Germany, $5,500,000. Rheinberg, Germany, $35,610,000. Schweinfurt, Germany, $39,000,000. Stuttgart, Germany, $820,000. Various, Germany, $19,350,000. Vilseck, Germany, $69,620,000. Wildflecken, Germany, $3,800,000. Wuerburg, Germany, $1,900,000. Drama Remote Site, Greece, $730,000. Katsimidhi Site, Greece, $560,000. Zelo, Italy, $610,000.

UNITED STATES ARMY INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMAND, OVERSEAS

Location 177, $1,950,000. Location 276, $3,700,000. Location 280, $2,100,000.

SEC. 102. FAMILY HOUSING. The Secretary of the Army may construct

or acquire Family Housing units <including acquisition of land) at the following installations in the number of units shown, and in the amount shown, for each installation:

Fort Wainwright, Alaska, one hundred and fifty units, $33,000,000.

Fort Irwin, California, thirty-eight manufactured home spaces, $730,000.

Fort Ord, California, three hundred and eighty-five units, $34,000,000.

Crailsheim, Germany, forty units, $4,100,000.

Darmstadt, Germany, forty units, $3,150,000.

Erlangen, Germany, one hundred and six units, $9,400,000.

Herzo Base, Germany, thirty-four units, $3,300,000.

Mainz, Germany, twenty units, $1,850,000. Schweinfurt, Germany, ninety units,

$8,400,000. Vilseck, Germany, two hundred and

twenty-four units, $21,000,000.

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3413 Wildflecken, Germany, twenty-four units,

$2,050,000. Various Locations, Germany, one hundred

and twenty units, funded under section 103. Livorno, Italy, ninety units, $7,700,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, five hundred and

eighty-three units, $37 ,000,000. Kwajalein, Marshall Island, one hundred

and thirty-six units, $23,000,000. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, one

hundred and forty units and seventy manufactured home spaces, $10,800,000.

Fort Drum, New York, one thousand and two hundred units, $91,000,000.

Seneca Army Depot, New York, thirty units, $2,900,000. SEC. 103. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY

HOUSING UNITS (a) AMOUNT AUTHORIZED.-Subject to sec

tion 2825 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of the Army may make expenditures to improve existing military family housing units in an amount not to exceed $146,000,000 and may make additional expenditures not to exceed $10,460,000 for energy conservation projects using funds generated from prior years' savings.

(b) WAIVER OF MAxIMUM PER UNIT COST FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.-Notwithstanding the maximum amount per unit for an improvement project under section 2825 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of the Army may carry out projects to improve existing military family housing units at the following installations in the number of units shown, and in the amount shown, for each installation:

Fort Huachuca, Arizona, thirty-eight units, $1,710,000.

Aschaffenburg, Germany, one hundred and forty-four units, $4,240,000.

Aschaffenburg, Germany, forty-eight units, $2,640,000.

Bremerhaven, Germany, twenty-four units, $1,320,000.

Karlsruhe, Germany, twenty-four units, $1,320,000

Kitzingen, Germany, one hundred and two units, $5,610,000.

Mainz, Germany, one unit, $60,000. Worms, Germany, six units, $330,000. Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, one

hundred and sixty-six units, $4, 753,000. Pusan, Korea, forty-eight units,

$2,237,000. Yongsan, Korea, one unit, $70,000. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, six

units, $166,000. Fort Sam Houston, Texas, twenty-three

units, $930,000. Fort Myer, Virginia, three untis, $140,000.

SEC. 104. FORT DRUM, NEW YORK The Secretary of the Army may, in ad

vance of the availability of the appropriations authorized to be appropriated by subsection 60l<b), enter into one or more contracts for the military construction projects authorized by section 101 to be accomplished at Fort Drum, New York, provided that such contracts limit the government's liability to the appropriations then available for obligation under each contract. Such construction may be accomplished by using one-step turn-key selection procedures, or other competitive contracting methods.

TITLE II-NAVY SEC. 201. AUTHORIZED NAVY CONSTRUCTION AND

LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS (a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.-The Secre

tary of the Navy may acquire real property and may carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations inside the United States:

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS Headquarters Marine Corps, Arlington,

Virginia, $3,020,000. Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort,

South Carolina, $4,990,000. Camp H. M. Smith, Oahu, Hawaii,

$2,070,000. Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North

Carolina, $39,120,000. Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendle

ton, California, $10,410,000. Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, Cali

fornia, $37,140,000. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point,

North Carolina, $15,510,000. Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, Cali

fornia, $13,450,000. Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay,

Hawaii, $40,720,000. Marine Corps Air Station, New River,

North Carolina, $21,710,000. Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris

Island, South Carolina, $1,870,000. Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego,

California, $8,440,000. Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, Califor

nia, $14,910,000. Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center,

Twentynine Palms, California, $37 ,630,000. Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona,

$8,410,000.

SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND Naval Electronic Systems Engineering

Center, Portsmouth, Virginia, $1,870,000.

CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland,

$2,660,000. Navy Tactical Interoperability Support

Activity, Long Beach, California, $510,000. Naval Legal Service Office, Norfolk, Vir

ginia, $1,080,000. Naval Legal Service Office Detachment,

Oceana, Virginia, $540,000. Commandant Naval District, Washington,

District of Columbia, $26,000,000.

COMMANDER IN CHIEF, ATLANTIC FLEET Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine,

$3,320,000. Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Florida,

$8,640,000. Naval Station, Charleston, South Caroli

na, $1,400,000. Naval Ocean Processing Facility, Dam

Neck, Virginia, $540,000. Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida,

$9,030,000. Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida,

$10,140,000. Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Vir

ginia, $6,970,000. Naval Station, Mayport, Florida, $880,000. Naval Supply Center Detachment, May

port, Florida, $3,730,000. Naval Submarine Base, New London, Con

necticut, $16,880,000. Naval Station, New York, New York,

$62,200,000. Fleet Intelligence Center Europe and At

lantic, Norfolk, Virginia, $1,880,000. Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Virginia,

$1,570,000.

COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PACIFIC FLEET Naval Air Station, Adak, Alaska,

$24,400,000. Naval Facility, Adak, Alaska, $5,700,000. Naval Air Station, Alameda, California,

$18,625,000. Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Washing

ton, $15,230,000. Trident Refit Facility, Bangor, Washing

ton $1,570,000.

Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii, $25,300,000.

Naval Facility, Centerville Beach, California, $1,370,000.

Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, California, $16,070,000.

Naval Station, Everett, Washington, $95,400,000.

Naval Air Station, Fallon, Nevada, $35,200,000.

Naval Air Station, Lemoore, California, $980,000.

Naval Station, Long Beach, California, $10,990,000.

Naval Magazine, Lualualei, Hawaii, $4,350,000.

Naval Station, Mare Island, California, $470,000.

Naval Air Station, Miramar, California, $21,900,000.

Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $3,240,000.

Naval Submarine Base, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $690,000.

Naval Station, San Diego, California, $19,460,000.

Naval Submarine Base, San Diego, California, $9,100,000.

Naval Station, Seattle, Washington, $2,950,000.

Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Washington, $5,180,000.

CHIEF OF NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas,

$690,000. Fleet Combat Training Center, Atlantic,

Dam Neck, Virginia, $820,000. Naval Guided Missile School, Dam Neck,

Virginia, $3,140,000. Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illi

nois, $5,300,000. Naval Construction Training Center,

Gulfport, Mississippi, $1,180,000. Naval Air Station, Kingsville, Texas,

$3, 780,000. Combat Systems Technical Schools Com

mand, Mare Island, California, $5,200,000. Naval Air Station, Memphis, Tennessee,

$17,380,000. Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi,

$4,660,000. Naval Submarine School, New London,

Connecticut, $9,540,000. Naval Education and Training Center,

Newport, Rhode Island, $11,700,000. Surface Warfare Officers School Com

mand, New port, Rhode Island, $8,840,000. Fleet Training Center, Norfolk, Virginia,

$5,400,000. Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida,

$15,170,000. Naval Diving and Salvage Training

Center, Panama City, Florida, $2,850,000. Naval Technical Training Center, Pensa

cola, Florida, $7,360,000. Naval Construction Training Center, Port

Hueneme, California, $4,710,000. Fleet Intelligence Training Center, Pacif

ic, San Diego, California, $4,220,000. Fleet Training Center, San Diego, Califor

nia, $3,930,000. Naval Training Center, San Diego, Cali

fornia, $12,870,000. Naval Technical Training Center, San

Francisco, California, $9,820,000. Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida,

$2,120,000.

NAVAL MEDICAL COMMAND Naval Hospital, Camp Lejeune, North

Carolina, $1,670,000. Naval Hospital, Pensacola, Florida,

$690,000.

3414 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL

Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, South Carolina, $16,500,000.

Naval Air Station, Miramar, California, $22,500,000.

NAVAL OCEANOGRAPHY COMMAND Naval Observatory, Washington, District

of Columbia, $980,000. NAVAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMAND

Naval Communication Area Master Station, Eastern Pacific, Honolulu, Hawaii, $1,080,000.

Naval Communication Station, Stockton, California, $2,750,000.

NAVAL SECURITY GROUP COMMAND Naval Security Group Activity, Adak,

Alaska $14,600,000. Naval Security Group Detachment, San

Diego, California, $1,570,000. NAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS COMMAND

Naval Supply Center, Bremerton, Washington, $500,000.

Naval Supply Center, Jacksonville, Florida, $830,000.

Naval Ships Parts Control Center, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, $1,670,000.

Naval Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia, $3,140,000.

Naval Supply Center, Oakland, California, $3,490,000.

Naval Supply Center, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $11,820,000.

Naval Supply Center, San Diego, California, $3,820,000.

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking

Sands, Kauai, Hawaii, $8,260,000. Naval, Air Rework Facility, Cherry Point,

North Carolina, $37,200,000. Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River,

Maryland, $21,140,000. Naval Air Rework Facility, Pensacola,

Florida, $8,050,000. Pacific Missile Test Center, Point Mugu,

California, $590,000. NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

Naval Air Station, Adak, Alaska, $500,000. Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, Cali

fornia, $5,100,000. Naval Construction Battalion Center,

Gulfport, Mississippi, $17,650,000. Navy Public Works Center, Norfolk, Vir

ginia, $8,740,000. Navy Public Works Center, Pearl Harbor,

Hawaii, $25,690,000. Navy Public Works Center, Pensacola,

Florida, $2,120,000. Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port

Hueneme, California, $7,120,000. Naval Submarine Support Facility, San

Diego, California, $300,000. Naval Training Center, San Diego, Cali

fornia, $8,250,000. Navy Public Works Center, San Francisco,

California, $450,000. Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona,

$450,000. NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND

Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina, $10,810,000.

Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, South Carolina, $6,130,000.

Naval Weapons Station, Concord, California, $790,000.

Naval Weapons Support Center, Crane, Indiana, $6,880,000.

Naval · Weapons Station, Earle, New Jersey, $54,760,000.

Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Maryland, $4,180,000.

Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, Keyport, Washington, $5,890,000.

Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California, $3,630,000.

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, $5,900,000.

Naval Sea Combat Systems Engineering Station, Norfolk, Virginia, $980,000.

Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Mississippi, $4,120,000.

Naval Ship System Engineering Station, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, $400,000.

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine, $23,170,000.

Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California, $6,100,000.

Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia, $4,220,000.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL RESEARCH Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, Cali

fornia, $14,120,000. Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren,

Virginia, $15,960,000. Naval Coastal Systems Center, Panama

City, Florida, $880,000. Naval Research Laboratory Annex, Quan

tico, Virginia, $1,500,000. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington,

District of Columbia, $8,730,000.

STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROJECT OFFICE Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, Geor

gia, $132,390,000. (b) OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.-The Sec

retary of the Navy may acquire real property and may carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations outside the United States:

MARINE CORPS Marine Corps Air Station, Futenma, Oki

nawa, Japan, $4,270,000. Marine Corps Base, Camp Smedley D.

Butler, Okinawa, Japan, $8,950,000.

COMMANDER IN CHIEF, ATLANTIC FLEET Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,

$2,600,000. Naval Air Station, Keflavik, Iceland,

$27,140,000. Naval Facility, Keflavik, Iceland,

$1,570,000. Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility,

Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, $4,415,000. Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto

Rico, $7,080,000.

COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PACIFIC FLEET

Administrative Support Unit, Bahrain Island, $2,550,000.

Naval Air Station, Cubi Point, Republic of the Philippines, $5,300,000.

Mobile Construction Battalion, Camp Cov-ington, Guam, $15,500,000.

Naval Facility, Guam, $820,000. Naval Supply Depot, Guam, $400,000. Naval Station, Subic Bay, Republic of the

Philippines, $1,710,000. Naval Supply Depot, Subic Bay, Republic

of the Philippines, $290,000. Naval Ship Repair Facility, Subic Bay, Re

public of the Philippines, $1, 770,000.

COMMANDER IN CHIEF, UNITED STATES NAVAL FORCES EUROPE

Naval Activities, London, United Kingdom, $1,180,000.

Naval Support Activity, Naples, Italy, $25,070,000.

Naval Station, Rota, Spain, $4,600,000. Naval Air Station, Signonella, Italy,

$1,370,000. Classified Locations: $15,700,000.

NAVAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMAND Naval Communications Area Master Sta

tion, Western Pacific, Guam, $480,000. Naval Communications Station, Harold E.

Holt, Exmouth, Australia, $2,180,000. Naval Communications Area Master Sta-

tion, Mediterranean, Naples, Italy, $8,250,000.

Naval Communications Station, San Miguel, Republic of the Philippines, $470,000.

Naval Communication Station, Thurso, United Kingdom, $350,000.

NAVAL SECURITY GROUP COMMAND Naval Security Group Activity, Edzell,

Scotland, $2,250,000. Naval Security Group Detachment,

Guam, $2,150,000. Naval Security Group Activity, Sabana

Seca, Puerto Rico, $790,000.

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND Navy Public Works Center, Guam,

$1,570,000. Navy Public Works Center, Subic Bay, Re

public of the Philippines, $2,100,000.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL RESEARCH Naval Underwater Systems Center,

Andros Island, Bahamas, $3, 730,000.

HOST NATION INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT Various Locations, $300,000.

SEC. 202. FAMILY HOUSING The Secretary of the Navy may construct

or acquire family housing units <including land acquisition> at the following installations in the number of units shown, and in the amount shown, for each installation.

Naval Station, Long Beach, California, three hundred units, $22,900,000.

Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, California, one hundred and twent y-six units, $11,600,000.

Navy Public Works Center, San Francisco, California, three hundred units, $26,450,000.

Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, three hundred and ninety-two units and seventy-five mobile home spaces, $35,300,000.

Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California, one hundred mobile home spaces, $1,800,000.

Naval Station, New York, New York, three hundred units, $28,330,000.

Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, seventy-five mobile home spaces, $930,000.

Marine Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico, Virginia, fifty mobile home sp~es, $790,000.

Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland, two hundred and fifty units, $48,642,000.

SEC. 203. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS

(a) AMOUNT AUTHORIZED.-Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of the Navy may make expenditures to improve existing military family housing units in an amount not to exceed $51,580,000.

(b) WAIVER OF MAxIMUM PER UNIT COST FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.-Notwithstanding the maximum amount per unit for an improvement project under 2825Cb> of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of the Navy may carry out projects to improve existing military family housing units at the following installations in the number of units shown, and in the amount shown, for each installation:

Naval Station, Mare Island, Vallejo, California, one hundred units, $5,200,000.

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3415 Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany,

Georgia, one unit, $33,300. Navy Public Works Center, Great Lakes,

Illinois, two hundred and ten units, $9,400,000.

Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine, forty-four units, $1,274,600.

Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi, one unit, $28, 700.

Naval Air Station, Fallon, Nevada, fortyfour units, $1,868,500.

Naval Station, New York, New York, one hundred and twenty units, $9,600,000.

Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, Pennsylvania, six units, $256,800.

Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island, one hundred and eighty-six units, $10,200,000.

Navy Public Works Center, Guam, one unit, $64,700.

Navy Public Works Center, Guam, one hundred and nine units, $10,360,000.

Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam, one hundred units, $9,517,000.

Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam, one unit, $58,600. SEC. 204. ACQUISITION OF EXISTING HOUSING

UNITS ON GUAM The Secretary of the Navy may acquire,

without reimbursement, eighty-nine existing family housing units constructed and used by the Federal Aviation Agency on land in Finegayan, Guam, held by the Navy under the provisions of section 1158 of title 49, United States Code.

TITLE III-AIR FORCE SEC. 301. AUTHORIZED AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION

AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS <a> INSIDE THE UNITED STATEs.-The Secre

tary of the Air Force may acquire real property and may carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations inside the United States:

AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND Hill Air Force Base, Utah, $20,550,000. Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, $49,900,000. McClellan Air Force Base, California,

$28,900,000. Newark Air Force Station, Ohio,

$3,000,000. Robins Air Force Base, Georgia,

$16,055,000. Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma,

$32,900,000. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio,

$19,500,000. AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND

Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee, $3,530,000.

Edwards Air Force Base, California, $16,400,000.

Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, $2,370,000. Fort MacArthur, California, $3,000,000. Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts,

$4,000,000. Patrick Air Force Base, Florida,

$2,600,000. Sunnyvale Air Force Station, California,

$2,600,000. AIR TRAINING COMMAND

Chanute Air Force Base, Illinois, $11,300,000.

Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas, $10,000,000.

Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, $1,970,000.

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, $21,500,000.

Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas, $3, 700,000.

Mather Air Force Base, California, $740,000.

Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, $2,250,000.

Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, $8, 700,000.

AIR UNIVERSITY Gunter Air Force Station, Alabama,

$2,900,000. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama,

$5,310,000. ALASKAN AIR COMMAND

Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, $20,790,000.

Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, $8,170,000.

Galena Airport, Alaska, $11,600,000. King Salmon Airport, Alaska, $4,050,000. Shemya Air Force Base, Alaska,

$22,300,000. MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND

Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, $310,000. Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland,

$45,430,000. Charleston Air Force Base, South Caroli

na, $6,290,000. Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico,

$11,800,000. Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas,

$2,750,000. McChord Air Force Base, Washington,

$11,300,000. McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey,

$13,595,000. Norton Air Force Base, California,

$1,450,000. Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina,

$3,400,000. Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, $8,900,000. Travis Air Force Base, California,

$8,200,000. PACIFIC AIR FORCES

Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, $5,850,000.

SPACE COMMAND Cape Cod Air Force Station, Massachu

setts, $4,300,000. Cavalier Air Force Station, North Dakota,

$2,820,000. Falcon Air Force Station, Colorado,

$6,400,000. Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado,

$8,630,000. SPECIAL PROJECT

Various Locations $37 ,056,000. STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND

Base 18, Classified Location, $29,970,000. Base 43, Classified Location, $5,500,000. Beale Air Force Base, California,

$9,516,000. Blytheville Air Force Base, Arkansas,

$4,410,000. Carswell Air Force Base, Texas, $490,000. Castle Air Force Base, California,

$2,630,000. Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, $4,130,000. Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota,

$5,410,000. Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington,

$7 ,520,000. F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming,

$8,550,000. Grand Forks Air Force Base, North

Dakota, $23,130,000. Griffiss Air Force Base, New York,

$1,590,000. Grissom Air Force Base, Indiana,

$3,850,000. Holbrook Radar Bomb Score Site, Arizo

na, $630,000. K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Michigan,

$1, 730,000.

La Junta Radar Bomb Scoring Site, Colorado, $5,460,000.

Loring Air Force Base, Maine, $13,500,000. Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana,

$3,800,000. March Air Force Base, California,

$14,440,000. McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas,

$35,740,000. Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota,

$33,100,000. Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska,

$24,970,000. Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire,

$2,200,000. Plattsburgh Air Force Base, New York,

$9,610,000. Vandenburg Air Force Base, California,

$2,700,000. Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri,

$10,700,000. Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan,

$11,740,000. TACTICAL AIR COMMAND

Avon Park Auxiliary Air Field, Florida, $4,100,000.

Bangor International Airport, Maine, $1,250,000.

Base 37, Classified Location, $14,950,000. Base 38, Classified Location, $14,710,000. Base 39, Classified Location, $2,300,000. Bergstrom Air Force Base, Texas,

$5,250,000. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona,

$15,830,000. England Air Force Base, Louisiana,

$2,300,000. George Air Force Base, California,

$14,550,000. Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico,

$14,760,000. Homestead Air Force Base, Florida,

$6,550,000. Indian Springs Auxiliary Field, Nevada,

$1, 700,000. Langley Air Force Base, Virginia,

$9,640,000. Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, $9,190,000. MacDill Air Force Base, Florida,

$3,730,000. Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, $900,000. Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho,

$14,760,000. Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, South Caro

lina, $3,000,000. Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, $23,800,000. Seymour-Johnson Air Force Base, North

Carolina, $2,760,000. Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina,

$3,700,000. Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, $600,000. Various Locations, CONUS, $2,300,000. WESTCONUS, $18,500,000.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY Air Force Academy, Colorado, $5,820,000.

VARIOUS LOCATIONS Various Energy Conservation Investment

Projects, $10,000,000. (b) OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.-The Sec

retary of the Air Force may acquire real property and may carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations outside the United States:

MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND Lajes Field, Portugal, $15,750,000. Rhein-Main Air Base, Germany,

$1,300,000. PACIFIC AIR FORCES

Kadena Air Base, Japan, $7,365,000. Misawa Air Base, Japan, $10,300,000.

3416 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 Totsuka Air Base, Japan, $700,000. Yokosuka Air Base, Japan, $600,000. Yokota Air Base, Japan, $4,900,000. Camp Humphreys, Korea, $8,300,000. Camp Red Cloud, Korea, $1,450,000. Kimhae Air Base, Korea, $3,620,000. Kunsan Air Base, Korea, $11,020,000. Kwang-Ju Air Base, Korea, $600,000. Osan Air Base, Korea, $17,800,000. Suwon Air Base, Korea, $3,850,000. Taegu Air Base, Korea, $5,170,000. Diego Garcia Air Base, Indian Ocean,

$4,700,000. Clark Air Base, Republic of the Philip

pines, $61,270,000. Saipan, $5,200,000.

SPACE COMMAND Sondrestrom Air Base, Greenland,

$5,860,000. Thule Air Base, Greenland, $9, 790,000. Woomera Air Station, Australia,

$2,300,000. STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND

Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, $7 ,600,000.

TACTICAL AIR COMMAND Keflavik Naval Air Station, Iceland,

$1,600,000. Masirah, Oman, $3,500,000. Thumrait, Oman, $3,400,000.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCES IN EUROPE Florennes Air Base, Belgium, $8,820,000. Bitburg Air Base, Germany, $5,350,000. Hahn Air Base, Germany, $15,720,000. Hessisch Oldendorf Air Station, Germany,

$2,000,000. Lindsey Air Station, Germany, $1,200,000. Pruem Air Station, Germany, $1 ,150,000. Ramstein Air Base, Germany, $73,620,000. Sembach Air Base, Germany, $7,400,000. Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany,

$9,360,000. Wueschheim Air Station, Germany,

$310,000. Zweibrucken Air Base, Germany,

$10,290,000. Iraklion Air Station, Greece, $320,000. Aviano Air Base, Italy, $4,200,000. Camp Darby, Italy, $270,000. Comiso Air Station, Italy, $4,010,000. San Vito Air Station, Italy, $6,240,000. Morocco, $25,400,000. Camp New Amsterdam, The Netherlands,

$5,250,000. Woensdrecht Air Base, The Netherlands,

$34,300,000. Torrejon Air Base, Spain, $1,450,000. Zaragoza Air Base, Spain, $540,000. Ankara Air Station, Turkey, $6,780,000. Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, $16,160,000. Pirinclik Air Station, Turkey, $3,000,000. Martlesham Health, United Kingdom,

$1,650,000. RAF Alconbury, United Kingdom,

$19,520,000. RAF Bentwaters, United Kingdom,

$10,450,000. RAF Chicksands, United Kingdom,

$950,000. RAF Croughton, United Kingdom,

$630,000. RAF Fairford, United Kingdom,

$4,450,000. RAF Greenham Common, United King

dom, $2,100,000. RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom,

$1,700,000. RAF Mildenhall, United Kingdom,

$4,700,000. RAF Molesworth, United Kingdom,

$2,430,000. RAF Upper Heyford, United Kingdom,

$14,000,000.

RAF Welford, United Kingdom, $1,590,000.

RAF Wethersfield, United Kingdom, $650,000.

RAF Woodbridge, United Kingdom, $5,050,000.

Base 30, Classified Location, $2,950,000. Base 33, Classified Location, $4,470,000. Overseas Classified Location, $11,500,000. Various Location, Europe, $3,953,000.

SEC. 302. FAMILY HOUSING

(a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary of the Air Force may construct or acquire family housing units <including acquisition of land) at the following installations, in the number of units shown, and in the amount shown, for each installation:

Bitburg Air Base, Germany, three hundred and thirty-two units, $26,415,000.

Hahn Air Base, Germany, one hundred and fifty units, $11,300,000.

Osan Air Base, Korea, one unit, $160,000. La Junta Air Force Station, Colorado,

forty units, $4,000,000. Beale Air Force Base, California, family

housing maintenance shop, $180,000. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona,

family housing management office, $300,000.

McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, family housing management office, $325,000.

Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina, family housing management office, $300,000.

Edwards Air Force Base, California, twenty-four mobile home spaces, $376,000.

(b) OSAN AIR BASE, KOREA.-Notwithstand· ing the space limitations of section 2826 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of the Air Force may construct one family housing unit at Osan Air Base, Korea with a maximum net floor area of 3,000 square feet at a cost not to exceed $160,000. SEC. 303. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY

HOUSING UNITS (a) AMOUNT AUTHORIZED.-Subject to sec·

tion 2825 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of the Air Force may make expenditures to improve existing military family housing units, including energy conservation projects, in an amount not to exceed $58,644,000.

(b) WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PER UNIT COST FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.-Notwithstanding the maximum amount per unit for an improvement project under section 2825Cb) of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of the Air Force may carry out projects to improve existing military family housing units at the following installations in the number of units shown, and in the amount shown, for each installation:

Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, eightyeight units, $6,186,000.

Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, twelve units, $760,000.

Air Force Academy, Colorado, one unit, $120,000.

Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, four units, $149,000.

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, one hundred and fifty-eight units, $4,430,000; seven units, $553,000; seventy-one units, $2,103,000.

Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, one hundred and twelve units, $4,690,000.

Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, one hundred and fourteen units, $5,342,000.

Bangor Air Force Station, Maine, one unit, $30,000.

Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, seven units, $518,000.

Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire, two-hundred units, $7,177,000.

Plattsburgh Air Force Base, New York, twenty-nine units, $2,272,000.

Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, one hundred and twenty-five units, $4,385,000; seventy-four units, $2,598,000.

Carswell Air Force Base, Texas, two hundred and three units, $7,478,000.

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, sixty-four units, $1,920,000.

Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, five units, $402,000.

Reese Air Force Base, Texas, one hundred units, $2,895,000.

Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, five units, $441,000.

Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, two hundred units, $14,517,000.

Kadena Air Base, Japan, one hundred units, $5,054,000; three units, $240,000.

TITLE IV-DEFENSE AGENCIES SEC. -101. AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

AND LAND ACQUISITION FOR THE DEFENSE AGENCIES

(a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.-The Secretary of Defense may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations inside the United States:

DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, $7 ,600,000. Pentagon, Virginia, $2,300,000.

DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE Defense Language Institute, Monterey,

California, $5,400,000. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

Defense Fuel Support Point, Estero Bay, California, $680,000.

Defense Construction Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio, $860,000.

Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, $1,290,000.

Defense Fuel Support Point, Charleston, South Carolina, $460,000.

Defense Fuel Support Point, Naval Supply Center, Charleston, South Carolina, $5,130,000.

Defense Depot, Memphis, Tennessee, $1,160,000.

Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah, $10,400,000. Defense Fuel Support Point, Mukilteo,

Washington, $6,360,000. DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY

Aerospace Center, St. Louis, Missouri, $16,700,000.

DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES OFFICE Fort Wainwright, Alaska, $8,800,000. Edwards Air Force Base, California,

$3,950,000. March Air Force Base, California,

$2,350,000. Fort Ord, California, $530,000. Vandenberg Air Force Base, California,

$1,900,000. Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $9,700,000. Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho,

$30,500,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $2,650,000. Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland,

$2,000,000. Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi,

$3,100,000. McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey,

$3,800,000. Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico,

$25,550,000. Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, $3,900,000. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, $1,850,000.

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3417 Fort Hood, Texas, $3,450,000. Randolph Air Force Base, Texas,

$13,700,000. DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY

Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of Columbia, $3,200,000.

Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, $790,000.

Field Command, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, $900,000.

JOINT TACTICAL COMMAND, CONTROL, AND COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY

Fort Huachucha, Arizona, $9,890,000. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

Fort Meade, Maryland, $9,570,000. Classified Location, $3,000,000. Classified Location, $4,000,000. Classified Location, $1,000,000.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Classified Location, $3,000,000. Pentagon, Virginia, $2,500,000. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SECTION 6 SCHOOLS Fort McCellan, Alabama, $2,830,000. Fort Benning, Georgia, $1,080,000. Robbins Air Force Base, Georgia,

$2,440,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $1,340,000. Fort Knox, Kentucky, $4,350,000. Governors Island, New York, $2,600,000. Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, $1,190,000. Dahlgren, Virginia, $1,130,000. Quantico, Virginia, $420,000.

STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE Edwards Air Force Base, California,

$4,140,000. Pacific Missile Range, Kaui, Hawaii,

$2,890,000. White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico,

$1,930,000. UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH

SCIENCES Bethesda, Maryland, $900,000. (b) OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.-The Sec

retary of Defense may acquire real property, and may carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations outside the United States:

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Defense Reutilization and Marketing

Office, Bitburg, Germany, $650,000. Defense Fuel Support Point, Chimu Wan,

Japan, $6,640,000. Defense Fuel Support Point, Tsurumi,

Japan, $3,520,000. Defense Reutilization and Marketing

Office, Bupyong, Korea, $1,290,000. Defense Fuel Support Point, Toegeywon,

Korea, $1,010,000. DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES OFFICE

Boeblingen, Germany, $3,650,000. Grafenwoehr, Germany, $3,950,000. Karlsruhe, Germany, $6,800,000. Vilseck, Germany, $5,600,000. Naples, Italy, $29,300,000. Camp Edwards, Korea, $1,800,000. Camp Long, Korea, $1,850,000. Camp Pelham, Korea, $720,000. Camp New Amsterdam, The Netherlands,

$6,000,000. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENT SCHOOLS Florennes, Belgium, $1,260,000. Naval Air Station, Bermuda, $4,280,000. Aschaffenburg, Germany, $6,600,000. Bad Kissingen, Germany, $1,330,000. Baumholder, Germany, $1,600,000. Dexheim, Germany, $2,430,000. Erlangen, Germany, $3,220,000. Gelhausen, Germany, $1,130,000.

Grafenwoehr, Germany, $2,500,000. Hahn, Germany, $3,470,000. Heidelberg, Germany, $3,190,000. Hessisch-Oldendorf, Germany, $2,310,000. Hohenfels, Germany, $1,190,000. Kaiserslautern, Germany, $7,880,000. Nuernberg, Germany, $8,580,000. Schwaebish Gmuend, Germany,

$1,640,000. Stuttgart, Germany, $4,530,000. Wuerzburg, Germany, $7,760,000. Naples, Italy, $19,590,000. Seoul, Korea, $510,000. Woensdrecht, The Netherlands,

$7,420,000. STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE

Pacific Missile Range, Kwajalein, $1,340,000. SEC. 402. FAMILY HOUSING

The Secretary ·of Defense may construct or acquire three family housing units <including land acquisition> at classified locations in the total amount of $270,000.

TITLE V-NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE

SEC. 501. AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF DE· FENSE TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS

The Secretary of Defense may make contributions for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure program as provided in section 2806 of title 10, United States Code, in an amount not to exceed the sum of the amount authorized to be appropriated for this purpose in section 605 and the amount collected from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a result of construction previously financed by the United States. TITLE VI-AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIOI~s AND RECURRING ADMINISTRA 'l"'JVE PROVISIONS

SEC. 601. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. ARMY

(a) IN GENERAL.-Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1986, for military construction, land acquisition, and military family housing functions of the Department of the Army in the total amount of $3,445,216,000 as follows:

< 1) For military construction projects inside the United States authorized by section lOl<a>. $927,770,000.

(2) For military construction projects outside the United States authorized by section lOl<b), $551,160,000.

(3) For military construction projects inside the United States authorized by section 101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1986, $51,000,000.

(4) For military construction projects outside the United States authorized by section 101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1986, $17,000,000.

(5) For unspecified minor construction projects under section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $20,000,000.

(6) For architectural and engineering services and construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United States Code, $131,640,000.

<7> For military family housing functions-

<A> for construction and acquisition of military family housing and facilities, $463,380,000; and

 for support of military family housing <including the functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United States Code), $1,277 ,266,000, of which not more than $31,246,000 may be obligated or expended for the leasing of military family housing units in the United States, the Common-

wealth of Puerto Rico, and Guam, and not more than $142,639,000 may be obligated or expended for the leasing of military family housing units in foreign countries, and

<C> for the Homeowners Assistance Program as authorized by section 2832 of title 10, United States Code, $6,000,000.

(b) ADVANCE AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION FOR FORT DRUM, NEW YORK.-Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated in advance for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1986, for the construction authorized to be accomplished at Fort Drum, New York, by subsections lOl<a> and 104 of this Act as follows:

<1> $221,000,000 in FY 1988; and <2> $162,000,000 in FY 1989 (C) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF CON

STRUCTION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED IN TITLE !.-Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section 101 of this Act may not exceed the total amount authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs (1) and <2> of subsection <a> and subsection (b). SEC. 602. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

NAVY.

<a> IN GENERAL.-Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1986, for military construction, land acquisition, and military family housing functions of the Department of the Navy in the total amount of $2,588,293,000 as follows:

< 1) For military construction projects inside the United States authorized by section 201<a), $1,428,855,000.

<2> For military construction projects outside the United States authorized by section 201<b), $156,905,000.

<3> For military construction projects at Kings Bay, Georgia, authorized by section 201<a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1986, $45,450,000.

< 4) For unspecified minor construction projects under section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $15,000,000.

(5) For architectural and engineering services and construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United State Code, $143, 770,000.

<6> For advances to the Secretary of Transportation for construction of defense access roads under section 210 of title 23, United States Code, $5,400,000.

(7) For military family housing functions-


CB) for support of military housing <including functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United States Code), $562,591,000 of which not more than $5,214,100 may be obligated or expended for the leasing of military family housing in the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and Guam, and not more than $17,244,900 may be obligated or expended for the leasing of military family housing units in foreign countries.

(b) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED IN TITLE IL-Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, any any other cost variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section 201 of this Act may not exceed the total amount

3418 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs <1> and <2> of subsection Ca>. SEC. 603. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

AIR FORCE.

<a> IN GENERAL.-Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1986, for military construction, land acquisition, and military family housing functions of the Department of the Air Force in the total amount of $2,563,229,000 as follows:

<1> For military construction projects inside the United States authorized by section 301Ca>, $993,032,000.

(2) For military construction projects outside the United States authorized by section 301Cb), $533,828,000.

<3> For unspecified minor construction projects under section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $16,000,000.

(4) For architectural and engineering services and construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United States Code, $127,260,000.

(5) For advances to the Secretary of Transportation for construction of defense access roads under section 210 of title 23, United States Code, $32,700,000.



CB> for support of military housing (including functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United States Code), $751,409,000, of which not more than $5,600,000 may be obligated or expended for the leasing of military family housing units in the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and Guam, and not more than $74,176,000 may be obligated or expended for the leasing of military family housing units in the foreign countries.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF UNOBLIGATED FuNDS FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION INVESTMENT.Military Construction funds appropriated to the Department of the Air Force for fiscal year 1987, and prior years' funds that remain available for obligation for Air Force energy conservation projects, are hereby authorized to be made available for obligation for Air Force energy conservation projects, are hereby authorized to be made available for energy conservation projects authorized in section 301 of this Act at various locations in the amount of $10,000,000. The Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be notified prior to the obligation of funds for such projects.

(C) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED IN TITLE 111.-Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853 of title 10 United States Code, and any other cost vari: ation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section 301 may not exceed the total amount authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs < 1 > and (2) of subsection Ca> and the amount specified in subsection Cb>. SEC. 604 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. DE

FENSE AGENCIES

<a> IN GENERAL.-Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1986 for military construction, land acquisition, and military family housing functions of the Department of Defense Cother than the military departments>, in the total amount of $692,200,000 as follows:

<1> For military construction projects inside the United States authorized by section 401Ca), $241,160,000.

<2> For military construction projects outside the United States authorized by section 401Cb), $166,540,000.

<3> For military construction projects at Fort Meade, Maryland, authorized by section 401Ca> of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1986, $53,700,000.

<4> For military construction projects at Fort Lewis, Washington, authorized by section lOHa> of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1985, $72,100,000.

(5) For unspecified minor construction projects under section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $4,000,000.

<6> For construction projects under the contingency construction authority of the Secretary of Defense under section 2804 of title 10, United States Code, $5,000,000.

<7> For Conforming Storage Facilities under the construction authority of section 804 of this Act, $21,400,000.

<8> For architectural and engineering services and construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United States Code, $110, 700,000.


<A> for construction and acquisition of military family housing and facilities, $270,000; and

CB> for support of military housing <including functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United States Code), $17 ,300,000, of which not more than $14,027,000 may be obligated or expended for the leasing of military family housing units in foreign countries.

(b) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED IN TITLE IV.-Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2858 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section 401 may not exceed the total amount authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs < 1 > and <2> of subsection Ca>. SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

NATO Funds are hereby authorized to be appro

priated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1986, for contributions by the Secretary of Defense under section 2806 of title 10, United States Code, for the share of the United States of the cost of construction projects for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Infrastructure Program as authorized by section 501, in the amount of $247,000,000. SEC. 606. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORIZATIONS: EX

TENSION OF CERTAIN PREVIOUS AUTHORIZATIONS

(a) EXPIRATION OF AUTHORIZATIONS AFTER Two YEARS.-( 1 > Except as provided in paragraph (2), all authorizations contained in titles I, II, III, IV, and V for military construction projects, land acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, and contributions to the NATO Infrastructure Program <and authorizations of appropriations therefor contained in sections 601 through 605) shall expire on October 1, 1988, or the date of the enactment of the Military Construction Authorization Act for fiscal year 1989, whichever is later.

<2> The provisions of paragraph Cl> do not apply to authorizations for military construction projects, land acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, and contributions to the NATO Infrastructure Program <and authorizations of appropriations

therefor>, for which appropriated funds have been obligated before October 1, 1988, or the date of the enactment of the Military Construction Authorization Act for fiscal year 1989, whichever is later, for construction . contracts, land acquisition, family housmg projects and facilities, or contributions to the NATO Infrastructure Program.

Cb) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 607Ca> of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1984 <Public Law 98-115, 97 Stat. 780>, authorizations for the following projects authorized in section 101 to that Act, as extended by section 606Cb) of the Military Construction Authorization Act 1986 <Public Law 98-167, 99 Stat. 983> shali remain in effect until October 1, 1987 or the date of enactment of the Military Construction Authorization Act for fiscal year 1988 whichever is later: '

< 1 > Unaccompanied Personnel Housing in the amount of $1,400,000 at Argyroupolis, Greece.

<2> Operations Building in the amount of $370,000 at Argyroupolis, Greece.

<3> Multi-Purpose Recreation Facility in the amount of $480,000 at Argyroupolis, Greece.

< 4 > Unaccompanied Officer Housing in the amount of $600,000 at Perivolaki, Greece.

(5) Operations Building in the amount of $410,000 at Perivolaki, Greece.

(6) Multi-Purpose Recreation Facility in the amount of $620,000 at Perivolaki Greece. '

<7> Physical Fitness Training Center in the amount of $1,000,000 at Elefsis Greece.

(C) EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR 1985 PROJECTS.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 607Ca> of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1985 <Public Law 98-407, 98 Stat. 1515), authorizations for the following projects authorized in sections 101, 201, 301, and 401 of that Act shall remain in effect until October 1, 1987, or the date of enactment of the Military Construction Authorization Act for fiscal year 1988, whichever is later:

<1 > Barracks with Dining Facility in the amount of $11,400,000 at Presidio of San Francisco, California.

(2) Child Care Center in the amount of $1,980,000 at Presidio of San Francisco, California.

<3> Barracks in the amount of $6,600,000 at Presidio of San Francisco, California.

<4> Multi-Purpose Recreation Facility in the amount of $1,150,000 at Koropi, Greece.

(5) Multi-Purpose Recreation Facility in the amount of $960,000 at Katsimidi Greece. '

(6) Unaccompanied Personnel Housing in the amount of $1,100,000 at Yiannitsa Greece. '

<7> Barracks Modernization in the amount of $660,000 at Argyroupolis, Greece.

<8> Unaccompained Personnel Housing in the amount of $1,800,000 at Drama, Greece.

(9) Barracks Modernization in the amount of $660,000 at Perivolaki, Greece.

ClO> Barracks with Dining Facility in the amount of $2,350,000 at Elefsis, Greece.

< 11 > Multi-purpose Recreation Facility in the amount to $1,050,000 at Yiannitsa, Greece.

<12> Contingency Facility in the amount of $4,300,000 at Palmerola, Honduras.

<13> Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel Housing in the amount of $10,740 000 at the Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona.

<14> Antenna Support Facility in the amount of $320,000 at the Naval Security Group Activity, Adak, Alaska.

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3419 (15) Data Processing Center in the

amount of $6,160,000 at the Naval Supply Center, Bremerton, Washington.

(16) Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel Housing in the amount of $12,130,000 at the Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Wash-ington. -

(17) Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel Housing in the amount of $6,600,000 at the Naval Station, Mare Island, Vallejo, California.

(18) Mountain Warfare Training Facility <Bridgeport) in the amount of $1,490,000 for the Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California.

<19) Medical/Dental Clinic <Bridgeport) in the amount of $1,410,000 for the Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton, California.

<20) Hospital Modernization in the amount of $29,140,000 at the Naval Hospital, Oakland, California.

<21> Facility Energy Improvements in the amount of $5,770,000 at the Navy Public Works Center, San Francisco, California.

<22) Cadet Gymnasium in the amount of $10,000,000 at the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado.

(23) GLCM-Clothing Sales Store in the amount of $300,000 at Comiso Air Base, Italy.

<24) GLCM-Library in the amount of $570,000 at Florennes AB, Belgium.

(25) Anti-Satellite Facilities in the total amount of $16,500,000 at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia to include: Integrated Maintenance Facility for $9,870,000; Missile and Motor Storage Facility for $3,870,000; Administrative Building for $645,000; Hydrazine Storage for $370,000; Control Center for $860,000; and Cryogen Storage and Procurement Facility for $955,000. SEC. 607. ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS

REQUIRED TO BE SPECIFIED BY LAW

For projects or contracts initiated during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the date of the enactment of the Military Construction Authorization Act for fiscal year 1988 or October 1, 1987, whichever is later, the following amounts apply:

< 1) The maximum amount for an unspecified minor military construction project under section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, is $2,000,000.

(2) The amount of a contract for architectural and engineering services or construction design that makes such a contract subject to the reporting requirement under section 2807 of title 10, United States Code, is $300,000.

(3) The maximum amount per unit for an improvement project for family housing units under section 2825 of title 10, United States Code, is $30,000.

(4) The maximum annual rental for a family housing unit leased in the United States, Puerto Rico, or Guam under section 2828(b) of title 10, United States Code, is $10,000.

<5><A> The maximum annual rental for a family housing unit leased in a foreign country under section 2828Ce)(l) of title 10, United States Code, is $16,800.

 The maximum number of family housing units that may be leased at any one time in foreign countries under section 2828<e><2> of title 10, United States Code, is 34,500.

(6) The maximum rental per year for family housing facilities, or for real property related to family housing facilities, leased in a foreign country under section 2828<f) of title 10, United States Code, is $250,000.

TITLE VII-GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

SEC. 701. AUTHORIZATION FOR GUARD AND RESERVE FACILITIES

There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1986, for the costs of acquisition, architectural and engineering services, and construction of facilities for the Guard and Reserve Forces, and for contributions therefore, under chapter 133 of title 10, United States Code <including the cost of acquisition of land for those facilities), the following amounts:

< 1) For the Department of the Army-< A> for the Army National Guard of the

United States, $121,100,000, and for the Army Reserve, $86,700,000. (2) For the Department of the Navy, for

the Naval and Marine Corps Reserves. $44,500,000.

(3) For the Department of the Air Force<A> for the Air National Guard of the

United States, $140,000,000, and CB) for the Air Force Reserve, $58,900,000. TITLE VIII-GENERAL PROVISIONS

CONSTRUCTION OF POSTAL FACILITIES

SEC. 801. <a> Section 4779 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by (1) striking out subsection (b), and <2> changing subsection <c> to subsection Cb).

(b) Section 9779 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by (1) striking out subsection (b), and <2> changing subsection Cc) to subsection Cb). Renovation of facilities

SEC. 802. <a> Chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of subchapter I the following new section: "§ 2810. Renovation of facilities

" (a) The Secretary concerned may carry out renovation projects that combine maintenance, repair, and minor construction projects for an entire single-purpose facility, or one or more functional areas of a multipurpose facility, using funds available for operations and maintenance.

" Cb) The maximum amount authorized to be obligated on each such renovation project shall not exceed the maximum amount specified by law for a minor construction project.

" (c) Construction of new facilities or additions to existing facilities may not be carried out under the authority of this section."

Cb> The table of sections at the beginning of such subchapter is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item: "2810. Renovation of Facilities.".

OVERSEAS FAMILY HOUSING

SEC. 803. Subsection 2828Ce)(l) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by deleting the number "200" and inserting in lieu thereof, the number "220".

HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE

SEC. 804. <a> In order to meet the pressing need for the storage of hazardous and toxic materials and wastes on miltiary installations, the Secretary of Defense may, using funds available for military construction, carry out military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law for the construction of hazardous waste storage facilities.

Cb) When a decision is made to carry out a project under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall notify in writing the appropriate committees of Congress of that decision, of the justification for the project, and of

the estimated cost of the project. The project may then be carried out only after the end of the 21-day period beginning on the date the notification is received by the committees.

Cc) The cost of a hazardous waste storage facility project authorized by this section may be increased by not more than 25 percent of the estimated cost of the project as contained in the notification provided to the committees pursuant to subsection (b) if the Secretary of Defense determines <A> that such an increase is required for the sole purpose of meeting unusual variations in cost, and that such variations in cost could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the project justification was originally submitted to the Committees.

Cd) As used in this section, the term hazardous waste includes both excess hazardous materials and hazardous wastes as defined by applicable laws and regulations.

Ce) A project for the construction of hazardous waste storage facilities under this section may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not limited to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended <42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.), be commenced at the time the Secretary of Defense files an application for a permit to conduct the storage of hazardous wastes with the appropriate Federal or State agency, provided, that t h e operation of any facility constructed under the authority of this section may not commence until the issuance of appropriate permits.

(f) No military construction project for the erection of a hazardous waste storage facility may be commenced under the authority of this section after September 30, 1991.

INCREASE CONTRACT THRESHOLDS

SEC. 805. Contracts awarded by the Department of Defense estimated to cost $25,000 or less for the maintenance, repair, and construction of facilities need not meet the requirements for publication mandated by < 1) section 18 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended by section 303 of the Small Business and Federal Procurement Competition Enhancement Act of 1984, and (2) section 8 of the Small Business Act 05 U.S.C. § 637), as amended by section 404 of the Small Business and Federal Procurement Competition Enhancement Act of 1984.

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

SEC. 806. Ca) Subsections (g) (7), (8), and <9> of section 2828 of title 10, United States Code, are hereby repealed.

Cb) Subsections (f), Cg), and Ch) of section 802 of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1984, Public Law 98-115, as amended, are hereby repealed.

TITLE IX

SEc. 901. There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1988 such sums as may be necessary for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to establish or develop military installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities and equipment.

3420 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Washington, DC.

Hon. GEORGE BUSH, President of the Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Enclosed is a draft of legislation "To authorize certain construction at military installations for Fiscal Year 1987, and for other purposes." The Office of Management and Budget advises that enactment of this legislation would be in accordance with the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 1987. Appropriations in support of Title I through VII of this legislation are discussed in the Budget.

This proposal would authorize appropriations for new construction and family housing support for the Active Forces as follows: $3,445,216,000 for the Department of the Army, $2,588,293,000 for the Department of the Navy, $2,563,229,000 for the Department of the Air Force, and $692,200,000 for the Defense Agencies. Included in Title I is authorization for construction of production base support at Army Ammunition Facilities. Title V would authorize $247,000,000 for the United States' share of the NATO Infrastructure Program. Title VII, totaling $451,200,000 would authorize appropriations for the Guard and Reserve Forces.

In addition to the authorization for appropriations, Title VI contains recurring administrative provisions applicable to the Military Construction Program in accordance with chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code. Title VIII contains nonrecurring general provisions. Title IX provides authorization for Fiscal Year 1988 to meet the basic requirements of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended.

The projects that would be authorized by this proposal have been reviewed to determine if environment impact statements are required by Public Law 91-190; required environmental statements will be submitted to the Congress by the Military Departments.

Sincerely, H. LAWRENCE GARRETT III.

By Mr. HATFIELD <for himself, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. DOLE, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. PELL, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. STAFFORD, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. INOUYE, and Mr. HEFLIN):

S.J. Res. 286. Joint resolution to designate the week of April 20, 1986, through April 26, 1986, as "National Reading is Fun Week"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

NATIONAL READING IS FUN WEEK e Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am introducing "National Reading Is Fun Week" to help focus attention on the destructive forces of illiteracy which threaten our Nation. This is an effort coordinated by the National Reading Is Fundamental organization, which includes approximately 100,000 volunteers who fight for a fully literate America.

There are vast numbers of people who communicate without the ability to read. Some 66 million individuals under the age of 18 will need to be taught to read if they are to become informed adults able to function eff ectively in our complex society.

Illiteracy drains billions of dollars from America's marketplace due to job incompetence, welfare expenses, remedial education expenses, as well as prison costs. An estimated 50 percent of our Nation's prison population is illiterate; 36 percent of the unemployed are categorized as reading incompetent. "National Reading Is Fun Week" will help to combat illiteracy which contributes to these problems. It will help bridge some of the social gaps which often divide our Nation.

Literacy allows people to perform such simple tasks as deciphering maps and filling out job applications-things which many of us take for granted. The reader is warned of emergency while the illiterate may be left to wallow in confusion, unable to read the warning message.

More importantly though, the ability to read nurtures feelings of selfworth in the individual. Having to depend on the reading skills of others to communicate cultivates feelings of inadequacy and being intimidated. Learning to become self-reliant allows people to enjoy a healthier selfesteem.

"National Reading Is Fun Week" is designed to contribute to the development of lifelong reading and learning skills which will enable individuals to enjoy fulfillment in life as educated, well-rounded citizens. This effort will broaden awareness of the importance of reading at a time when our Nation ranks 49th in literacy among the 158 members of the United Nations. I urge you to join in the cause of a fully literate America by supporting this legislation designating the week of April 20-26, 1986, as "National Reading Is Fun Week."

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed into the RECORD.

There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

S.J. RES. 286 Whereas reading for pleasure contributes

to the development of lifelong reading and learning skills;

Whereas the lack of those skills is a pervasive and destructive force in America, and millions of adults cannot read well enough to function in our society;

Whereas it is essential that the sixty-six million youngsters in America under the age of 18 grow up reading in order to become literate, informed adults; and

Whereas "National Reading Is Fun Week" will be a nationwide literacy effort encouraging millions of young people to read:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep

resentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the week of April 20, 1986, through April 26, 1986, is designated as "National Reading Is Fun Week" and the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon Federal, State, and local government agencies and the people of the United States to observe the week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.e

By Mr. BOREN: S.J. Res. 287. Joint resolution desig

nating September 29, 1986, as "National Teachers Day"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

NATIONAL TEACHERS DAY •Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today to offer a Senate joint resolution designating September 29, 1986, as "National Teachers Day." This day will call attention to the importance of education in our communities and will honor the many individuals who influence the lives of students all across our country. These teachers deserve recognition by Congress for their important and vital work in education.

I have chosen this particular date for several reasons: Appropriately, school students all over the country return to the classrooms each September for another year of new opportunities and some second chances. Also September 29, 1986, will be the 94th birthday of Mrs. Minnie Canada, a dedicated public school teacher in Oklahoma for 54 years.

Nothing is more essential to the quality of education than the quality and commitment of the teacher. Few persons outside of our own immediate families exert such an influence on our lives. Few make such a mark on our total culture and society as do our teachers. Minnie Canada's life is a testimony to all of us of a life well spent developing the minds of the children that will influence the course of our great Nation.

We cannot assume that the future will take care of itself. We must take actions now to assure that the incentives are in place for these students to learn, as well as to encourage more students to pursue teaching as a promising career. And as any teacher or parent knows, seeing the children grow up and begin applying these experiences to the lessons of life is truly rewarding.

I am pleased to join my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman MICKEY EDWARDS, in this effort to designate September 29, 1986, as "National Teachers Day." I hope that all of my colleagues here in the Senate will also join with me on this occasion to honor and support our teachers, and to off er special thanks and birthday greetings to a dedicated Oklahoma educator, Mrs. Minnie Canada.

Mr. President, I request that the full text of this joint resolution be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

S.J. RES. 287 Whereas teachers are the primary link be

tween school systems and community resources;

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3421 Whereas teachers and the public recog

nize the strategic role of education in this Nation's continued development;

Whereas teachers are increasingly required to possess special skills and expertise beyond a teacher's degree;

Whereas teachers are committed to programs to promote professional development in their own careers;

Whereas teachers and students return to school in September;

Whereas teachers deserve recognition for their significant accomplishments, community service, experience, and dedication;

Whereas Minnie Canada, who was a public school teacher in Oklahoma for 54 years, exemplifies such dedication; and

Whereas on September 29, 1986, Minnie Canada will be 94 years old: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That September 29, 1986, is designated "National Teachers Day". The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.e

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS s. 524

At the request of Mr. ARMSTRONG, the name of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. DENTON] was added as a cosponsor of S. 524, a bill to recognize the organization known as The Retired Enlisted Association, Inc.

s. 869

At the request of Mr. MITCHELL, the name of the Senator from Florida [Mr. CHILES] was added as a cosponsor of S. 869, a bill to provide that the pensions received by retired judges who are assigned to active duty shall not be treated as wages for purposes of the Social Security Act.

s. 945

At the request of Mr. THURMOND, the name of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. DENTON] was added as a cosponsor of S. 945, a bill to recognize the organization known as the National Association of State Directors of Veterans' Affairs, Incorporated.

s. 1134

At the request of Mr. COHEN, the names of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. HEINZ] and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. DECONCINI] were added as cosponsors of S. 1134, a bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide administrative civil penalties for false claims and statements made to the United States by certain recipients of property, services, or money from the United States, by parties to contracts with the United States, or by Federal employees, and for other purposes.

s. 1154

At the request of Mr. MATSUNAGA, the name of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. CocHRANl was added as a cosponsor of S. 1154, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide direct Medicare reimburse-

ment for services performed by registered nurse anesthetists.

s. 1562

At the request of Mr. GRASSLEY, the name of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DoDDl was added as a cosponsor of S. 1562, a bill to amend the False Claims Act, and title 18 of the United States Code regarding penalties for false claims, and for other purposes.

s. 1743

At the request of Mr. KENNEDY, the name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1743, a bill to amend section 810 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, and section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, to establish a special program for housing for the chronically mentally ill.

s. 1744

At the request of Mr. KENNEDY, the name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1744, a bill to require States to develop, establish, and implement State comprehensive mental health plans.

s. 1745

At the request of Mr. KENNEDY, the name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1745, a bill to amend titles XVI, XVIII, and XIX of the Social Security Act with respect to services and benefits for chronically mentally ill individuals.

s. 1747

At the request of Mr. ROTH, the name of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS] was added as a cosponsor of S. 17 4 7, a bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to protect tropical fores ts in developing countries.

s. 1748

At the request of Mr. ROTH, the name of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS] was added as a cosponsor of S. 17 48, a bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to protect biological diversity in developing countries.

s. 1793

At the request of Mr. KENNEDY, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1793, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a grant program to develop improved systems of caring for medical technology dependent children in the home, and for other purposes.

s. 1900

At the request of Mr. ROTH, the names of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SPECTER], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. RIEGLE], and the Senator from Florida [Mr. CHILES] were added as cosponsors of S. 1900, a bill to amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 by providing for the 5-

year suspension of exemptions provided to an agent of . a foreign principal convicted of espionage offenses.

s. 1901

At the request of Mr. RoTH, the names of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SPECTER], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. RIEGLE], and the Senator from Florida [Mr. CHILES] were added as cosponsors of S. 1901 a bill to amend the Foreign Missions Act regarding the treatment of certain Communist countries, and for other purposes.

s. 1923

At the request of Mr. THURMOND, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. NICKLES], was added as a cosponsor of S. 1923, a bill to provide for additional bankruptcy judges.

s. 1980

At the request of Mr. THURMOND, the names of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. PRYOR], and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. ABDNOR], were added as cosponsors of S. 1980, a bill to amend title 17, United States Code, regarding the conveyance of audiovisual work, and for other purposes.

s 2129

At the request of Mr. KASTEN, the name of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. PRESSLER] was added as a cosponsor of S. 2129, a bill to facilitate the ability of such organizations to establish risk retention groups, to facilitate the ability of such organizations to purchase liability insurance on a group basis, and for other purposes.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 275

At the request of Mr. D'AMATO, the name of the Senator from California [Mr. WILSON] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 275, a joint resolution designating May 11 through May 17, 1986, as "Jewish Heritage Week".

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 282

At the request of Mr. MOYNIHAN, the name of the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. BRADLEY] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 282, a joint resolution ot express the disapproval of the Congress with respect to the proposed rescission of budget authority for the general revenue sharing program.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 105

At the request of Mr. GRAMM, the name of the Senator from Virginia [Mr. TRIBLE] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 105, a concurrent resolution to express the sense of the Congress that any tax reform provisions relating to taxexempt municipal bonds take effect no earlier than January 1, 1987.

3422 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 NOTICES OF HEARINGS

SUBCOMllrlITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, RESERVED WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public, the scheduling of a hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, reserved Water and Resource Conservation on Saturday, March 15, 1986 in Rock Springs, WY.

The hearing will be held at the Rock Springs City Hall, 212 D Street, Rock Springs, WY, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

The subcommittee will hear testimony in panels from invited organizations and groups on:

First, the assessment, identification and definition of public and private land access policies, laws, and practices;

Second, the private and commercial users of private and public lands who need or desire access and how the patterns of access develop;

Third, the identification of access problems, the need to resolve or reduce conflicts, current strategies and agreements for providing access on public and private lands; and

Fourth, the solutions and recomendations for resolving problems and the recommendations for administrative or legislative change.

The public is invited to attend the hearing and questions to the panelists and members may be submitted at the hearing. Testimony from the public concerning specific complaints or problems should not be given at the hearing but can be directed toward organizations gathering that data.

For further information regarding this hearing - please contact Senator WALLOP's offices at 261-5098 in Casper, 772-2416 in Cheyenne, 332-2293 in Lander, 38z.::5127 in Rock Springs or 672-6456 in Sheridan or Kate DuPont in Washington, DC at 202-224-6441 or Tony Bevirletto of the subcommittee staff at 202-_?24-5161.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

THE RISK RETENTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1986

e Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor S. 2129, the Risk Retention Act Amendments of 1986, with my colleagues, Senators KASTEN, DANFORTH, and HOLLINGS. This measure provides municipalities, professionals, associations, and businesses with an alternative way to insure themselves against property/ casualty losses.

It's undeniable, Mr. President, that we are in the midst of an insurance crisis. Buyers are being turned away by their insurers. Those that are fortunate enough to find insurance coverage are faced with astronomical insurance rates. The issue for many insur-

ance consumers is: do we pay the sky high rates or do we run the risk of unprotected legal liability?

The bill we are introducing today may not be a cure-all for everyone seeking affordable insurance, but it should provide relief for some. The Risk Retention Act Amendments of 1986 would make it easier for businesses, associations, professionals, and governmental organizations to join together to form insurance groups outside of the traditional commercial path.

Expanding the Product Liability Risk Retention At of 1981 with the 1986 amendments would give businesses, governmental entities, associations, and professionals the same insurance options that manufacturers now have. First, they can self-insure through insurance pools called risk retention groups. By choosing this insurance option, groups can avoid what is now a limited and expensive insurance market and can benefit through their own insurance groups' claims experience. Second, they can join together to form "purchasing groups," which will buy insurance collectively, from either a broker or an insurer.

This bill simply broadens the concept Congress enacted in 1981. Prior to 1981, most States had some type of antigroup insurance laws on the books. The 1981 act preempted many of those State laws but only for products' manufacturers; thus, enabling groups of manufacturers to purchase insurance and allowing insurers to give preferential treatment to groups seeking product liability insurance.

The 1986 amendments recognize that some States have not yet abandoned their antigroup insurance laws. Furthermore, varying State requirements still pose an insurmountable barrier to those who wish to form risk retention or purchasing groups. In these times of insurance crisis, it's imperative that we leave as many options open as possible to insurance buyers.

I know that the Senate Commerce Committee and many other congressional committees are examining the insurance situation. The problem is too important to ignore. There seems to be plenty of blame-placing going on, yet one one has come forward with the necessary answers. For our cities, towns, and small businesses insurance is not a luxury-it's a necessity in order to operate. I believe that we should work to understand the causes of the insurance problem, but we should then move on to find some practical ways to ease the crisis.

This bill is a sound first step in that direction.•

CONGRATULATIONS TO KING HASSAN II OF MOROCCO .

e Mr. BOSCHWITZ. Mr. President, today marks the 25th anniversary of

the accession to the throne of King Hassan II of Morocco. I am sure my Senate colleagues would not want this day to pass without joining me in extending our congratulations to one of America's closest friends and consistent supporters in the Arab and African world.

In many large and small ways, the King of Morocco has, like his father during World War II, made his friendship visible and tangible to us. During the past 25 years he has, on many an unheralded occasion, worked to increase understanding between East and West, Africa and America, Arab and Israeli, Christian and Muslim.

Most recently, Hassan has invited and authorized the construction of our largest Voice of America station in the north of his country. He has also offered to NASA the use of Casablanca airport as an emergency alternate shuttle landing site-an offer warmly welcomed.

The King has ruled now for 25 years-an extraordinary record of stability during which he has nurtured the growth of a multiparty political system and safeguarded the richness of a vigorously pluralistic society.

The kingdom of Morocco was the very first nation to recognize the United States upon our independence. Next year will mark the 200th anniversary of the Moroccan-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce, the basic provisions of which constitute our oldest ongoing treaty relationship with any nation. This remarkable bilateral relationship, as old as it is and as vibrant as it remains today, is most deserving of our recognition and support. The treaty is framed and is displayed in the Foreign Relations Committee room here in the Capitol.

As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I speak on behalf of several other Senators in recognition of this milestone for King Hassan and extend the wish that his reign continue to provide stability to Morocco and friendship between our two peoples.e

NATIONAL ANTHEM DAY •Mr. D'AMATO. Mr President, today is a day to renew the beliefs and tenents of basic human rights and individual freedoms espoused by our Founding Fathers. It is a day to strengthen our national committment to liberty, to freedom, and to representative government. It is a day to bolster our confidence in our national capacity to perpetuate these principles.

Today is National Anthem Day, and one of the best ways we can pay tribute to our anthem and pay homage to this great Nation is to reflect on its true meaning and the heritage it symbolizes: national and civil rights and liberties, freedom, justice, and the pur-

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3423 suit of happiness. As we take time today to pause and consider our shared past, I would like to recount briefly the circumstances which surrounded one man's inspiration to put the meaning of this Nation to verse.

On September 14, 1814, as morning dawned on Fort McHenry on Chesapeake Bay, Francis Scott Key was held captive aboard a British frigate for fear that he would alert Americans on shore of their impending bombardment. From that ship, Key had witnessed a night of violence and assault as British guns flailed in their purpose.

But the next morning, when the Sun illuminated the battered shoreline, he saw a woundrous sight: the American flag was still waving in the breeze. His emotions swelled as he "versed" through the rocket's red glare to announce that the American flag was, and is still, there for all to see.

The very day after the poem was written, it was brought to the attention of a Baltimore printer who ran it off on handbills, entitled "Defense of Fort McHenry." The name was later changed to "The Star-Spangled Banner," and on March 3, 1933, the Senate agreed to a measure designating the "Star-Spangled Banner" as our national anthem. It was signed into law the same day by President Herbert Hoover.

I commend the words of "The StarSpangled Banner" to the attention of the Senate, and I ask that they be printed in the RECORD.

The material follows: THE STAR-SPANGLED BANNER

Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,

What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?

Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,

O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?

And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.

Oh! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,

Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,

·what is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,

As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,

In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream.

'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion

A home and a country should leave us no more?

Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.

No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of

the grave, And the star-spangled banner in triumph

doth wave O'er the land of the free and the home of

the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever when freemen shall stand

Between their loved home and the war's desolation,

Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n-rescued land

Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto, "In God is our trust."

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, many Americans have tried to capture in verse the spirit and patriotic emotions felt by Americans through the singing of "The Star Spangled Banner." One such song readily comes to mind when I think of all this Nation has gone through since its birth in 1776, and that is "The Ragged Old Flag" by Johnny Cash.

On June 14, 1977, Johnny Cash stood before the Senate in celebration of Flag Day to tell us his story about how it was that he wrote "The Ragged Old Flag." It was a very moving story for those in attendance, almost as moving as the song which he wrote. I commend the words of that song to the attention of the Senate as well, and I ask that they be printed in the RECORD.

The material follows: RAGGED OLD FLAG

walked through a county court house square; on a park bench an old man was sitting there.

said, "Your court house is kinda run down." He said, "Naw it'll do for our little town."

I said, "Your old flag pole has leaned a little bit, and that's a Ragged Old Flag you got hanging on it."

He said, "Have a seat," and I sat down. "Is this the first time you've been to our little town?"

I said, "I think it is," he said, "I don't like to brag, but we're kinda proud of that Ragged Old Flag.

You see, we got a little hole in that flag there when Washington took it across the Delaware.

And it got powder burned the night Francis Scott Key sat watching it writing "Say Can You See?"

And it got a bad rip in New Orleans with Packinham and Jackson tuggin' at its seams.

And it almost fell at the Alamo beside the Texas flag, but she waved on through.

She got cut with a sword at Chancellorsville and she got cut again at Shiloh Hill.

There was Robert E. Lee, Beauregard and Bragg, and the south wind blew hard on that Ragged Old Flag.

On Flanders Field in World War I she got a big hole from a Bertha gun.

She turned blood red in World War II, she hung limp and low by the time it was through.

She was in Korea and Vietnam, she went where she was sent by her Uncle Sam.

She waved from our ships upon the briney foam, and now they've about quit waving her back here at home.

In her own good land here she's been abused: she's been burned, dishonored, denied, and refused.

And the government for which she stands is scandalized throughout the land.

And she's getting threadbare and wearing thin, but she's in good shape for the shape she's in.

'Cause she's been through the fire before, and I believe she can take a whole lot more.

So we raise her up every morning, take her down every night; we don't let her touch the ground, and we fold her up right.

On second thought, I do like to brag, 'cause I'm mighty proud of that "Ragged Old Flag."

Mr. D' AMATO. This recitation has a simple, but important, message, that because we, as a people and as a Nation, have had to negotiate a road to strength and prosperity that has involved many twists and curves, and that we have done so successfully, we have reason to boast. This message has been the focus of many literary works throughout our Nation's history, and it is part of our celebration today.

Another American patriot, Henry Holcomb Bennett, born in 1863, lived during a time when America was recovering from that most twisted curve of all: the Civil War, a war which tested the bonds of our national unity. From it, we emerged a people more committed to the national and civil freedoms we all enjoy so dearly. Mr. Bennett saw this revitalized national spirit, and he wrote about it in one of his most famous poems, "The Flag Goes By." I ask that the words of this poem also be printed in the -RECORD.

The material follows: <From: "Breathes There the Man," edited

by Frank S. Meyer, 1973>

THE FLAG GOES BY

<Henry Holcomb Bennett> Hats off!

Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums; A flash of color beneath the sky:

Hats off! · The flag is passing by! Blue and crimson and white it shines, Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines.

Hats off! The colors before us fly; But more than the flag is passing by. Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great, Fought to make and save the State: Weary marches and sinking ships; Cheers of victory on dying lips; Days of plenty and years of peace; March of a strong land's swift increase; Equal justice, right, and law. Stately honor and reverend awe;

3424 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986

Sign of a nation, great and strong To ward her people from foreign wrong Pride and glory and honor,-all Live in the colors to stand or fall.

Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums: And loyal hearts are beating high:

Hats off! The flag is passing by!

Mr. D'AMATO. The spirit of America is embodied in that poem, the same spirit which many of us will remember, that filled our hearts during the 1920's and 1930's. During those years, patriotism was a virtue all shared, a virtue that touched every American home.

There are countless Americans to cite who have inspired us and blessed us with their ability to capture the American spirit in verse. Among them, I have named but a few. But before I mention one of my favorites, I would like to call attention to an individual whose music I remember from long ago when I was growing up on Long Island. I am certain we all remember the music of John Philip Sousa and his famous composition, "The Stars and Stripes Forever."

Sousa composed the march while aboard a ship from England to the United States in the fall of 1896. It is said that he paced the deck with a mental brass band playing the march fully a hundred times during his voyage home. "The Stars and Stripes Forever" was copyrighted for piano the following year. Since that time, it has been the hallmark of school-band performances across the Nation. Perhaps many of us remember the days when our own school bands played this piece during concert recitals. While there are no words to this music, it serves us well at this time to recall its captivating melody, which almost compels us to stand up and march to its crashing cymbals and drum-beating rhythm.

Finally, I would like to commend to the attention of the Senate the words to "God Bless America," written by a man who has composed many of the most famous American popular songs. I speak, of course, of Irving Berlin, who composed it for his Army show, "Yip, Yip, Yaphank" in 1918, but did not publish it until 1938. This song immediately became popular, and rightfully so. The words to this song speak for themselves. They paint an image in our minds of a beautiful and majestic land that has been our home for more than 200 years. I ask that the words to this song also be printed in the RECORD.

The material follows: GOD BLESS AMERICA

While the storm clouds gather Far across the sea, Let us swear allegiance To a land that is free; Let us all be grateful For a land so fair,

As we raise our voices In a solemn prayer.

<Chorus) God Bless America, Land that I love, Stand beside her and guide her Through the night with a light from above; From the mountains, to the priaries, To the oceans white with foam, God Bless America My home sweet home.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the celebration today of our national anthem will involve many community activities and programs throughout the country. I am certain that the spirit of this occasion will never cease to rouse the deepest patriotic emotions we all harbor toward this great Nation.

In celebration of National Anthem Day, I sat down over the weekend in an attempt to author a modest ode of admiration, honor, and appreciation for my flag and my country. As I pondered several ideas, I asked myself a question, a question to which I began to search for an answer: Why do we rise for the National Anthem? I ask that these humble words of mine be printed in the RECORD at this point.

The material follows: WHY Do WE RISE FOR THE NATIONAL

ANTHEM?

Why do we rise for our National Anthem, A song with Key's lyrics 'bout 01' Glory, our

emblem? Why do we sing this, and to where do we

look For an answer to these questions-in a his

tory book? If this is the case, then just look to the day, Through our annals of history for Chesa

peake bay. T'was aft Fort McHenry was pounded from

the sea, When Francis Scott Key wrote "Oh, say can

you see ... " Why do we rise for our National Anthem, A song of a sovereign and free 01' Glory.

our emblem? Should we look farther back than Key's ci

tation, To the time when our fathers began a new

nation? If the answer's here, finding it's no chore, Yet it is more than driving the British from

our shore. After winning our freedom during the Revo

lution, Our fathers gathered to form our constitu

tion. Why do we rise for our National Anthem, A song of a proud and strong 01' Glory, our

emblem? Do we look 'yon when we and the British

collided And closer to when our house was nearly di

vided. If here lies a clue, we must search through

the fields, When brothers and sisters to each other

held shields. The slavery of men, we all learned to abhor, But only after the bloodshed of our Civil

War. Why do we rise for our National Anthem, A song of the future of or Glory, our

emblem?

Why do we sing this, we know where to look,

For all of these answers-not just in a book, We rise when we sing for the red, white, and

blue, Because we love you 01' Glory, to you we

are true, That is why we rise for our National

Anthem, And never shall others hold you for ransom. All of our emotions are captured in verse, By a man who saw his country at its very

worst. Today is the day that we thank Francis

Scott Key, But also a Nation, which spans sea to shin

ing sea.e

CHARLES A. HALLECK • Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, at 4:30 a.m. today, this Nation and the Hoosier State lost one of our greatest leaders. Charles A. Halleck passed away at the age of 85.

I had the good fortune to know Charlie Halleck, who shared with me the wealth of his experience as a Hoosier who brought common sense to national decisionmaking for over three decades. He began his public service in 1924 as prosecuting attorney for the Jasper-Newton County Circuit. In 1935, he was elected to the first of 17 consecutive terms as Indiana's Second District Congressman. When he retired from the House of Representatives in 1959, he had served in Congress longer than any other Hoosier, had been the House majority leader and minority leader and served his constitutents and America in such a way that Dwight D. Eisenhower called him " the greatest legislator I have ever seen."

The history of Congress during the "Halleck Era" will continue to show the daily successful efforts of Charlie Halleck to maintain national security and fiscal prudence. He served his constituents in the Second Congressional District of Indiana and all Americans with the skill and style of a great Hoosier gentleman.

He was the pride of Indiana as the last Republican to be the majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. Halleck was able to show again and again through his political career the ability to win the respect of his House colleagues and his constituents. He was a close friend of Everett Dirksen, Wendell Willkie, and President Dwight Eisenhower. He gained considerable fame in those days for joint press conferences with Senator Dirksen, known as the "Ev and Charlie Show."

I remember listening to the 1948 Republican Convention on the radio when Halleck was the Hoosier favorite son candidate for President. He would later give the seconding speech for Governor Dewey. I vividly remember Halleck's legendary rhetorical style. His style made him a favorite on the

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3425 Lincoln day dinner circuit in Indiana and throughout the country.

That convention and the leadership of Halleck during those years as the great Republican from Indiana had a great impact on me. When I became the keynote speaker at the 1972 Republican Convention in Miami, I thought about the night that my father and I spent listening to Charlie Halleck. I felt in Miami that I was following in the footsteps of a truly great Hoosier.

Halleck's impact on Indiana politics will be remembered for many years. His impact on Congress and politics of this country were historic. The legacy of this great citizen from Rensselaer will be remembered for many generations. In 1983, a bill I introduced was signed by the President to name the Federal building in Lafayette, IN. the Charles A. Halleck Federal Building.

Mr. President, I ask that the statement of another great Hoosier Congressman from the Halleck Era, the late Ambassador E. Ross Adair, which appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on September 18, 1968, be printed again.

The statement follows: HON. CHARLES ABRAHAM HALLECK

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the subject of my special order, the Honorable Charles Abraham Halleck.

Mr. Speaker, when the House of Representatives adjourns sine die it will bring to a close the career of a man who has served in the Congress longer than any other Hoosier in the history of Indiana-Charles Abraham Halleck, who has served 17 consecutive terms in this body.

I could not hope, at this time, to enumerate adequately, let alone assess, his achievements and his contributions during what amounts to an adult lifetime of service to his district, his State, and his Nation. One book has already been written on that subject. I suspect there will be others. But I do at this time want to spread on the RECORD some highlights, at least, in the career of Indiana's all-time "Mr. Republican," and, in my book, one of the all-time truly great Members of this body:

Charles A. Halleck, Republican, of Rensselaer, was born in Jasper County, Ind., August 22, 1900, and has resided there all his life; attended grade and high schools in Rensselaer; was graduated from Indiana University with an A.B. degree in 1922 and with an LL.B. degree in 1924; elected a member of Phi Beta Kappa and Order of the Coif, and is also a member of Beta Theta and Phi Delta Phi; served in World War I and is a member of the American Legion; married to Blanche White, of Indianapolis, and they have two children, Charles W. and Mrs. Walter R . Litchfield; was elected prosecuting attorney of the Jasper-Newton circuit in 1924, and was reelected four times; was elected to the 74th Congress at a special election held on January 29, 1935; reelected to 75th and succeeding Congresses; majority leader in the 80th and 83rd Congresses; minority leader in the 86th, 87th and 88th Congresses.

Committee assignments have included Rules, Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

Select Committee on Small Business, Investigation of the National Labor Relations Board, Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Lobbying Activities, House Administration, Public Works, and, currently, Armed Services and Standards of Official Conduct-ranking Republican member.

Other offices: Chairman of the National Republican

Congressional Committee, 1945-46, which helped elect Republican House.

Republican majority leader, House of Representatives, 80th Congress.

Chairman, subcommittee which drafted Republican Statement of Principles and Objectives, adopted February 6, 1950.

Cochairman, National Committee Speakers' Bureau, 1952.

Majority leader, House of Representatives, 83d Congress.

Minority leader, House of Representatives, 86th, 87th, and 88th Congresses.

Placed the name of Wendell Wilkie in nomination as candidate for President of the Republican ticket, 1940.

Seconded the nomination of Thomas Dewey, 1948.

Placed the name of Dwight D. Eisenhower in nomination for his second term, 1956.

Served as permanent chairman of the Republican National Convention, 1960.

Seconded the nomination of Barry Goldwater as the Republican candidate for President, 1964.

Mr. Speaker, many people have expressed themselves concerning Charlie Halleck and his abilities. I quote from some of these:

Joe McCaffrey of the Capitol Radio Correspondents' Gallery said:

Halleck is one of the handful of men to come to the surface of the big manpower pool of the House of Representatives ....

Halleck is no Daniel Webster. His oratory is far from the flowery style that placed the old New Englander in oratorial history. With a lawyer-trained mind, Halleck goes to the heart of the issues under discussion. He has a wonderful capacity for sensing the mood of his audience, for being able to feel what arguments will be most effective, and knowing that, he passes very lightly over other arguments that to many may seem more vital. ...

Halleck can "will" his audience to listen to him ...

Ben Cole, Washington correspondent for the Indianapolis Star said:

John Barrett thought I ought to be a little entertaining and a little sentimental tonight, seeing this is kind of a celebration for Charlie Halleck. But, except for my wife, I can't think of anybody who thinks I'm very entertaining when I'm sentimental.

I've been a Charlie Halleck watcher for a long, long time. I used to stand in the wings with Blanche waiting for Charlie to finish a speech so I could have the lone copy of his text. He usually didn't follow the script, but that didn't make too much difference. I reported it anyway.

When I got to Washington, Charlie was nice to me. He didn't give me many scoops, you understand. Old Dan Kidney got those. But he was pleasant, and I must say Charlie never ducked a reporter and he would answer the question on the record.

I have a collection of memories of Charlie. Winning the Congress for the GOP in

1946. Losing it again after Harry Truman

kicked the 80th Congress all the way from Yonkers to Walla Walla in 1948.

Charlie helping get the Marshall Plan through Congress. It sounds so orthodox

today. But remember we Hoosiers hadn't even recognized New York City.

Saving Indiana from its open-record welfare law. That was a little trouble we newspapermen cooked up for him.

Leading the GOP-Dixiecrat majority against the Administration in Harry Truman's day.

Leading the GOP-regular Democrat majority against the Dixiecrats in Dwight Eisenhower's administration.

Ducking Puerto Rican bullets in the House Chamber.

Treating the Indiana Republican delegation to duck in his Capitol hideaway he called the "Clinic." They all swore they never found a single bird-shot in the duck.

Being Indiana's favorite son in 1948. I'll bet he can give Roger Branigan some solid counsel on that vice presidency bit.

Having Cale Holder slam the door in his face when he wanted to be a national convention delegate in 1952.

Nominating Wilkie; nominating Ike; running the convention that nominated Nixon; seconding Barry Goldwater-boy, Charlie, that was a good one!

And all the time, I reckon, Charlie was aiming at being Speaker of the House one day, but the day never came.

The Republicans gave his leadership post to Jerry Ford. I think some of them would give it back now, Charlie, if they could.

But Lyndon Johnson never forgot him. Remember the first thing he did after he got to be President? Had Charlie over to his house-he wasn't even in the White House yet-for some of that thick bacon that Charlie likes.

I suppose President Johnson is a little bit like me. I'm Charlie Halleck, Democrat. Of course, I haven't been able to afford any of that thick bacon, prices and taxes being what they are. And you saw just part of the Federal payroll here tonight.

I know the reason why Charlie has friends on both sides of the aisle. He has always played the game by the rules. He has observed the white lines of the political skirmish. I've. heard him blister the Democrats on the Floor and watched them afterward go over and shake his hand. Above all, he has been a patriot first and a partisan second.

You know, you can tell a whole lot more about a man's patriotism by the way he observes a traffic sign than by the ostentatious way he wraps himself in the flag on the Fourth of July. I'd call Charlie a 365-day-a-year man.

And he 's got a good kid, too. young Chuck Halleck is the most prominent General Sessions Judge Washington, D.C., has ever had. He has the startling notion that poor people's courts are supposed to be places of justice. And he insists on following the law. On a few occasions, this has resulted in Chuck's turning the defendants loose and putting their lawyers in jail. It makes great stuff for the newspapers. And I'm told on high authority that when President Johnson reads abut it in the papers, he says, "That's my boy."

Charlie and Blanche will be going back to Rensselaer at the end of the year. They will take a lot of affection from this place with them.

Why, by the time Charlie gets out of Congress, so many parties will have been he1d for him that there won't be a healthy liver left in the capital.

The Press Club's having a shin-dig for him. The friends of Charlie Halleck are having a clam-bake. There are receptions

3426 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 and cocktail parties and banquets. And you name it.

I think the list of organizations starts with the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee's Charlie Halleck Chapter down to the Brotherhood of Duck Baiters and Dune Hoppers ...

All Hoosiers-Democrats and Republicans alike-are proud of Charlie Halleck. He has served his country, his state, and his party well. Those of us who toil here in Washington shall miss him.

Thank you, Charlie, for being a wonderful Hoosier. And thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the fine humor in which you have accepted this small effort of mine.

A news release from General Eisenhower's office reads:

First copy of a newly-published biography of Rep. Charles A. Halleck [Charles Halleck: A Political Biography by Dr. Henry Z. Scheele] is presented by the veteran Hoosier Congressman to Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who wrote a foreword to the book. Author is Dr. Henry Scheele of Purdue University. Presentation was made recently at General Eisenhower's headquarters on the campus of Gettysburg College.

General Eisenhower broke precedent in agreeing to Dr. Scheele's request that he write a foreword.

"It has been my rule since entering public life to avoid writing prefatory remarks for or an endorsement of another person's publication," General Eisenhower writes in the foreword to the book, Charlie Halleck.

"Here," the former President continues, "I deliberately and happily break that rule. I do so out of an abiding personal affection, a high respect, and a deep sense of obligation to the able, hard-working and loyal Charles A. Halleck whose counsel and leadership in his field I found indispensable throughout my service in the presidency . . . I salute him as one of the finest men I have known in the top councils of government."

"Charles A. Halleck has been an exemplary public servant. He has been a foremost patriot. He has demonstrated many times not only political courage but a high order of selflessness in service to our nation. He has been faithful to friends, a hard-hitting but fair partisan, a dynamic and effective leader, and always a respected advocate of his views."

The new book also carries an introduction by Senate Republican Leader Everett McKinley Dirksen.

GETrYSBURG, PA, September 17, 1966. Fred A. Sabatini of Logansport, Ind., said

of him: A great American author, John Steinbeck,

once said, "If anywhere in your travels you come on a man with guts, mark the place . . . This used to be a nation of giants. Where have they gone ... Where are they now?"

The Second Congressional District of Indiana found its giant. It found him thirty-four years ago.

A giant who dined at the White House in Washington with kings and Presidents ... and who ate fried chicken with his people in Jasper County, Indiana.

A giant who advised and guided Presidents, Secretaries of Defense and of State . . . and who took the time to advise and guide a young man from Cass County, Indiana.

There are those here who say this giant needs no real introduction, but maybe he does . . . for there are young people here who may not know.

He came from Indiana University in 1924, armed with a law degree and a lot of courage. He returned to his hometown, ran for Prosecuting Attorney and won ... and has run and won every two years since.

He was Majority Leader of the 80th and 83rd Congresses, and Minority Leader of the 86th, 87th and 88th.

There are also those who say that he was unlucky-for he just missed being Vice President and Speaker of the House. But there are others who say he was the President for several years in the mid-50s. Crucial years, but years when no American boy was killed anywhere in the world.

And no man with the number of friends Charlie Halleck has can be called "unlucky."

We are honored to have here tonight the man who made it possible for all of us to have been able to use five words which open doors from Walton, Indiana, to Washington, D.C. To me they are the five proudest words in politics-"I'm from Charlie Halleck's District."

Charlie, we're sorry you will not be our Congressman ... But we're proud to have had you. And we're proud of the fact that like the true champion you are, you chose to take the high road home.

I guess, friends, the first time I remember seeing Charlie Halleck was in 1956 on television. His words at that time were, "I now place in nomination as the candidate of the Republican Party for President of the United States, the name of the most widely beloved, the most universally respected, the most profoundly dedicated man of our times-Dwight David Eisenhower."

And a few years later, in Rensselaer, Indiana, many of us here heard Ike say, "And I am deeply grateful that in the office I held, you provided me with a loyal fighting and deeply patriotic legislative leader, Charlie Halleck. In security affairs, foreign affairs, strengthening our ties abroad, forging bulwarks against the probings of Communistsindeed Charlie Halleck has put America above every other consideration.

My friends in Cass County, I now present to you the man we know to be the best Congressman in the United States, the name of the most widely beloved, the most universally respected, the most profoundly dedicated man of our times-Charles Abraham Halleck.

An editorial by John Scott of the Lafayette, Ind., Journal & Courier, of February 3, 1968, follows:

ON OUR "TRAVELS WITH CHARLEY" WE FOUND A MAN WITH GUTS

In his book "Travels With Charley" John Steinbeck wrote "If anywhere in your travels you come on a man with guts, mark the place . . . This used to be a nation of giants. Where have they gone? . . . Where are they?"

Indiana's Second Congressional District found its giant, all right, more than thirty years ago, and Charlie Halleck has notched his gratitude ever since-by marking the place.

So well, in fact, did he mark it that this little comer of America was lighted up because he left here and kept returning. Imagine. Rensselaer, Indiana-famous for nothing. Except growing a giant.

Once he made it to the Congress, there never was a doubt that his people would send him back for as long as he wished it. The closest a Democrat came to beating him was during a Roosevelt landslide and, even then, Halleck's margin was almost five thousand votes, which in hundreds of other con-

gressional districts would have been a Republican landslide. Finally in resignation the opposition ran mostly hacks against him. His last opponent, persuaded that he had a chance, fled the district after the debacle, hopefully to fashion a new life free of terror.

With such comfortable employment security, Halleck could have paid less attention to the home folk. They would not have complained very much because he adorned their residency. "I'm from Charlie Halleck's district" was enough to open a door in Washington. "I'm a Republican county chairman from Charlie Halleck's district" would not only open the door; it would induce a free drink in a capital saloon, a chance to clutch a famous hand and find out what really was holding up Aunt Nellie's social security.

The reason for his influence in the world never really got across to the people in the Second District. This was because of a duality that permitted him to shift gears when he crossed Highway 31. It was there with regularity he changed from a national power-packed politician to a Jasper county dirt farmer as quickly as he could say "Now, I'm agonna tell ya, folks." A few hours ago it would have been "If it please the chair, Mr. Speaker, I should like to invite the attention of my distinguished colleagues .... "

It is hard to realize that, starting from ground zero, he could amass such influence. His desk drawers were stacked with IOU's from cronies of both parties. Presidents relied upon him or feared him, depending upon the time or the issue. He mastered parliamentary politics the way some men coach teams or maneuver troops in the field. What he did not know about the behaviour of his contemporaries he could sense or intuit.

Back in time there was a tip-off. His brilliance was the Phi Beta Kappa kind that is easily recognizable. But that was way back and, in later years, those who were awed by his skills didn't realize that the skills could have been placed about anyplace with equal success. Politics, it turned out, provided more than the normal satisfactions of achievement. It was seeing America first-in everything. And it was fun.

And Halleck kept coming home, home to the chicken suppers and the county fairs. From the international amphitheater to the high school gymnasium was only a rumpled overnight trip, and a safe one, because Charlie knew all the ruts in the road.

Often he would bring back with him the great Republicans of his era, showing them off to his district, and his district to them. Once he brought Eisenhower through the area in a massive campaign appeal prior to an election so easy for him that he could have died and been reelected posthumously. He called this "running scared."

There are those who say that Halleck was unlucky, that he missed the vice-presidential nomination, missed being Speaker of the House, and was ousted as Minority Leader.

Actually, these episodes were part of a pattern of good fortune that involved most of his public life. Had he won the nomination for vice president with Dewey his name already would be in the oblivion that contains Charles McNary, John W. Kern, Henry G. Davis, and other unsuccessful nominees for the job of listening for heartbeats in the White House.

Had he been Speaker of the House under Eisenhower he would have won neither his renown as a gut-fighter nor his enormous prestige with the old man who loved him be-

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3427 cause he knew how to use the tools of minority power and coalition. Ike's legislative victories were manufactured by the underdogs in the corridors, not by the titled gentry in the aisles. Halleck's last defeat in the Congress when he was ousted as minority leader by Gerald Ford, was a superb display by a dying lion. He roared and bit and fought and finally keeled over. Ford had a narrow victory and has become a colorless substitute who has made Halleck look exciting in contrast.

Had he not been what he was in the point of time that he appeared in, Charlie Halleck would not have had television to illuminate his role. While the "Ev and Charlie Show" offered two aging free enterprisers, he and Senator Dirksen gave America a new insight into constitutional government. Their rasping, nagging eloquence made them famous. The battle lines were always clear, if only on their rutted faces.

It was typical of Halleck's unusual sense of timing that he chose this year as his last. No descent to the dungeon, no ignominous anticlimax to a career stuffed with grandeur, no wilting among the embarrassed new breed. Instead Halleck · is taking the high road home, back to the people who are grateful, along with the Republic, for their travels with Charlie.

So, Mr. Speaker, a friend, a great Hoosier, and a great American is terminating his service as a Member of the House of Representatives. But he is not, and never will be, terminating his love and his devotion to our beloved country.

Mrs. Adair joins me in extending best wishes to Blanche and Charlie Halleck.•

BUDGET SCOREKEEPING REPORT

e Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for this week, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office in response to section 5 of the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1986. This report also serves as the scorekeeping report for the purposes of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended.

This report reflects congressional action on the fiscal year 1986 budget through March 1, 1986. It also incorporates the reductions in budgetary resources and outlays required by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 Public Law 99-177, which took effect on March 1, 1986, pursuant to the Presidential order of February 1.

All budget authority, outlay, and revenue estimates in this report have been revised to be consistent with estimates required by section 251(a)(l)(A) of Public Law 99-177. While we do not normally make such revisions until a subsequent budget resolution is adopted, it is necessary at the present time in order to reflect accurately the effect of the Presidential reduction order under Public Law 99-177.

I ask that the report be printed in the RECORD.

The report follows:

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, March 3, 1986. Hon. PETE v. DOMENIC!, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The attached report shows the effects of congressional action on the budget for fiscal year 1986. The estimated totals of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are compared to the appropriate or recommended levels contained in the most recent budget resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 32. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of section 5 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 and is current through March 1, 1986. The report is submitted under section 308 and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended.

Since my last report the Congress has cleared for the President's signature H.R. 4130, increasing the guarantee loan level for veterans' home purchases.

At your request this report incorporates the latest Congressional Budget Office economic assumptions and estimating procedures of February 1986 and reflects the effects of reductions in budgetary resources required by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, Public Law 99-177. Reductions under Public Law 99-177 are reported in a Presidential order dated February 1, 1986 and are effective on March 1, 1986.

Sincerely, RUDOLPH G. PENNER.

CBO WEEKLY SCOREKEEPING REPORT FOR THE U.S. SENATE, 99TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION, AS OF MARCH 1, 1986

[Fiscal year 1986-in billions of dollars]

Reve- Debt nues su~~~ to

Current level 1 . 1,061.1 986.6 777.8 1,964.8 Budget resolut100, "seiiaie ... Concur-

rent Resolution 32 . . .. .. 1.069.7 967.6 795.7 2 2,078.7 Current Level is:

Over resolution by ......... """"''8:6".. ... 19.0 Under resolution by ....... 17.9 113.9

1 The current level represents the estimated revenue and direct spending effects (budget authority and outlays) of all legislation that Congress has enacted in this or previous sessions or sent to the President for his approval. In addition, estimates are included of the direct spending effects for all entitlement or other programs requiring annual appropriations under current law even though the appropriations have not been made. The current level excludes the revenue and direct spending effects of legislation that is in earlier stages of completion, such as reported from a Senate committee or passed by the Senate. Thus. savings from reconciliation action assumed in Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 will not be included until Congress sends the legislation to the President for his approval. The current level of debt subject to limit reflects the latest U.S. Treasury information on public debt transactions.

2 The current statutory debt limit is $2,078.7 billion.

FISCAL YEAR 1986, SUPPORTING DETAIL FOR CBO WEEKLY SCOREKEEPING REPORT, U.S. SENATE, 99TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION, AS OF MARCH 1, 1986

[In millions of dollars]

Enacted in previous sessions:

Budget authority Outlays Revenues

Revenues ................. .. .............. .. .................................. 777,832 Permanent appropria- 710,401 629,773

lions and trust funds.

Other appropriations .... 538,575 544,873 Offsetting receipts ....... -188,561 - 188,561

Total enacted in 1.060,415 986,085 777,832 previous ses-sions.

FISCAL YEAR 1986, SUPPORTING DETAIL FOR CBO WEEKLY SCOREKEEPING REPORT, U.S. SENATE, 99TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION, AS OF MARCH 1, 1986-Continued

[In millions of dollars]

Budget authority Outlays Revenues

II. Enacted this session:

Ill.

IV.

v.

Commodity Credit ............................. . Corporation Urgent Supplemental ~ propriation, 1986 (Public Law 99-243).

Federal Employees .............. .. Benefits Improvement Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-251 ).

Total ............................................ ..

4 .................... ..

Continuing resolution au- .................................. lhority.

Conference a~reements ratified by bot Houses: VA home loan guarantee amendments (H.R. 4130) .

Total ........................... - 51 ......................

Entitlement authortiy and other mandatory items requiring further appro-priation action:

Veterans compensa- 272 185 lion.

Veterans readjust-ment benefits.

91 91

Compact of free as- 205 205 socialion.

Family social services .. 100 75 Guaranteed student 6

loans. Payment to the civil

service retiremenl (37) (37) ........

Total entitlements .. . 674 555

Total current level 1,061 ,089 986,594 777,832 as of March 1, 1986.

1986 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 32) .

1,069,700 957,600 795,700

Amount remaining: Over budget

resolution. 18,994

Under 8,611 ........... ... 17,868

~~~~ion . Nole: Numbers may not add due to rounding.e

S. 2059-FRANKING COSTS CONTROL ACT

•Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in cosponsoring S. 2059, the "Franking Costs Control Act," introduced by my colleague from Indiana, Senator QUAYLE.

At a time when so many Americans are being asked to sacrifice in dealing with our disastrous, budget deficit crisis, it is hypocritical for the Congress to continue spending millions of dollars on mass mailings. By reducing next fiscal year's allocation by 10 percent, saving $14 million, we will begin to make an impact in one of the most abused privileges of Congress.

I had decided some time ago, to only send out one statewide newsletter annually to those who had contact with my office over the years. It was used primarily to poll the views and opinions of my constituents. Just a couple weeks ago, I announced that for 1986, I would not send a mass mailed news-

3428 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 3, 1986 letter in an effort to save the taxpayers money.

I hope the rest of my colleagues will agree that this is one area where the Congress must practice some restraint and do our part to help cut the deficits that have plagued our economy.e

DEDUCTIBILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL TAXES

e Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues the final of a recent series of articles in the Washington Times by nationally syndicated economics columnist Warren Brookes concerning the deductibility of State and local taxes. In his column of February 20, entitled "A Different Tax Deduction Climate in the Senate," Mr. Brookes demonstrates clearly how an overwhelming majority of States would benefit from the repeal of this unfair deduction.

In this column, Mr. Brookes discusses how some States lose by retaining this deduction while others are clear winners. Mr. Brookes points out that this deduction basically amounts to a direct subsidy of 13 high-tax States by 13 low-tax States. Using a regression analysis done by former Joint Economic Committee economist, Richard Vedder, Mr. Brookes concludes that "the 13 highest-taxed States now suck in some $5.6 billion in Federal income tax subsidies, almost all of it from the 13 lowest-taxed States, which lose $5.5 billion on this deduction." Such an arrangement, Mr. President, is blatantly unfair. Mr. Brookes goes on to point out that 31 States would be clear winners if deductibility were eliminated in favor of lower rates. Another study, which appeared in the National Journal on June 29, 1985, shows 34 States as winners. This should then translate into at least 62 Senate votes, Mr. Brookes concludes.

Mr. President, Mr. Brookes has clearly demonstrated the fairness issue involved in repealing deductibility. I would urge my colleagues to strongly consider the points made by Mr. Brookes in these columns as the Senate continues consideration of the tax reform issue.

Mr. President, I ask that both the article and the table ref erred to above appear in the RECORD.

The material follows: CFrom the Washington Times, Feb. 20,

1986] A DIFFERENT TAX DEDUCTION CLIMATE IN THE

SENATE

<By Warren Brookes> Behind the scenes, a consensus is building

among some Senate Finance Committee members that all or a major share of the state and local tax deduction should go. This consensus reflects the much different political dynamics of the Senate and the House.

Even though there are only about 13 high-tax <but mostly very populous) states

for which this issue is crucial, in the House they very nearly constitute a bipartisan majority, while in the Senate, they constitute less than 30 of the 100 votes.

There is also, unfortunately, terrible ignorance about this issue among politicians from states that would be real "winners" from the dumping of this deduction in return for much lower tax rates.

When House Ways and Means Chairman Daniel Rostenkowski, Democrat of Illinois, capitulated to liberal Democrat Rep. Tom Downey of New York and agreed to retain the full deduction <thus raising President Reagan's marginal tax rates for all Americans by 10-20 percent>, he was selling out his own state's taxpayers.

The same could be said for congressmen from New Jersey, Connecticut, and Ohio, who were also eager to "save" a deduction which is "costing" their taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

A careful regression analysis of the state and local tax deduction, and how getting rid of it in favor of lower rates would affect individual states-an analysis made by former Joint Economic Committee tax economist Richard Vedder-shows far more "winners" than "losers" from dumping it, or vice versa from keeping it. <See table.>

For example, Rosty's Illinois now "loses" about $20 per capita <almost $232 million> a year on this deduction, because the state's tax burden, especially its income tax, is about 13 percent below the national average. This is a whopping 31 percent below spendthrift New York, which siphons more than $2 billion a year <$117 per capita> away from other states. So Illinois' average taxpayers are paying about $60 in extra taxes per family just to help keep New York's richest <top 20 percent) taxpayers from fleeing that high-tax state.

The same thing is happening, in spades, to low-tax New Jersey. That state is losing $373 million a year <about $150 per family) because its tax burden is nearly 30 percent below New York's. Connecticut, with a 24 percent lower tax burden, chips in $341 million to neighboring New York, and Pennsylvania gives New York almost $200 million, even though its income level is 14 percent below the Empire State's. <See table.>

Similarly, low-tax Ohio is losing $428 million a year, most of it <$365 million> to neighboring high-tax and more-affluent Michigan, while high-tax Wisconsin and Minnesota are jointly siphoning almost $850 million out of low-tax states like Texas, which loses $1.9 billion a year, and Florida, which loses close to $1 billion.

Meanwhile, Senate Finance Chairman Robert Packwood's Oregon is collecting a $210 million subsidy entirely from its neighbor, low-tax, high growth Washington, which is paying $278 million more than it should.

The sad truth is: the 13 highest-taxed states now suck in some $5.6 billion in federal income tax subsidies, almost all of it from the 13 lowest-taxed states, which lose $5.5 billion on this deduction. The remaining 24 states are relatively "neutral."

Ironically, the 13 states losing the most under the present deduction system are those most dependent on the economically benign sales tax; the 13 winning the most are those most dependent on the growththreatening income tax. This explains why the relative job and income growth rates of the 13 biggest "losers" are more than double those of the 13 biggest "winners." The deduction is decidedly anti-growth.

Fortunately, we can count at least 31 states (62 Senate votes) which would be

clear "winners" by eliminating this deduction. We tally another six states 02 votes> where the negative effect is infinitesimal.

Unfortunately, this potential 74-26 Senate majority isn't quite matched in the Finance Committee, since Chairman Packwood, Republican of Oregon, represents a big potential <short-term> loser, as do six other hightax-state senators: Democrat Daniel Moynihan of New York, Republican William Roth of Delaware, Republican Dave Durenberger of Minnesota, Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa, Republican John Chaffee of Rhode Island, and Democrat Spark Matsunaga of Hawaii.

Nevertheless, there are (or should be> 11 solid Finance Committee votes for dumping the deduction, especially those of Republican Bob Dole of Kansas, Democrat Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Democrat Russell Long of Louisiana, Democrat Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, Democrat David Boren of Oklahoma, Republican Bill Armstrong of Colorado, Republican Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming, and Republican John Danforth of Missouri.

Interestingly, the 11 potential yea votes represent lower-tax states whose weighted average real income growth 0970-83> was a husky 73 percent and job growth 0975-83) 27 percent. This is almost triple the 27 percent income growth and 9 percent job growth of the eight states with the likely Finance Committee nay votes.

In short, eliminating this deduction may be the Senate's single most powerful "progrowth" act.

STATE WINNERS AND LOSERS WITH FULL TAX DEDUCTIBILITY I

[In millions of 1982 dollars, except per capita]

1975-83 job growth

Total Per as

Big winners: New York .. .. ... ..................................... . Wisconsin .... .. . Minnesota .. . Oregon ........ . Massachusetts ..... Delaware Utah ................................ . California ... . Iowa Rhode Island ... .. Maine ........................... . Idaho ............. .............................. . Michigan ..

Total ............. .......... .................... .

Big losers: Texas ....... ...................................... . Connecticut New Hampshire Florida... . ... .... ...................... . Nevada ...... .. ..................... .................... . Louisiana ...................... .............. . Washington ........................ . Tennessee ..... . ............................. . North Dakota ... .... .................... . New Jersey .............................. . Oklahoma. Ohio .............. . Colorado .... .

Total. ...... .

taxes capita percent

$2,080 $117.73 473 99.66 372 88.89 211 79.16 438 75.95

33 54.65 84 52.03

1,252 49.7~ 131 45.1 1 37 45.25 51 44.09 42 44.14

365 40.26

5,569 2 73.11

-1,928 - 122.60 -341 - 108.60 - 104 -108.81 -985 - 92.17 - 80 -89.69

- 386 - 86.99 - 278 -64.62 -284 -60. 5~ - 35 -51.07

-373 - 49.87 -137 - 41.49 -428 -39.79 - 113 -36.32

-5,475 2 -78.19

of national average

39.2 60.2 95.3 88.8

102.3 91.8

167.3 155.0 13.5 13.1

104.7 94.2 9.3

2 89.1

224.0 104.7 229.2 244.4 315.8 146.8 168.4 83.0

129.2 97.0

175.4 10.0

217.0

2 155.3

1 Winners and losers are defined as those whose total tax deductions are far enough above or below the national averages so as to constitute a net subsidy or loss as compared with ending full deductibility. For example, New York has relatively low sales taxes and loses on them but very high income and property taxes and gains subsidies from them.

2 Average. Source: Analysis by Prof. Richard Vedder, Ohio University.

March 3, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3429 [From the National Journal, June 29, 19851 WINNERS AND LOSERS IF DEDUCTIBILITY ENDS

If deductibility of state and local taxes were ended and federal tax rates were reduced to ensure that revenues remained unchanged, New Yorkers would pay $1.9 billion in added taxes. But as the table below shows, taxpayers in a majority of states would have reduced their tax liabilities.

New York.. . ...... .. ................... . Maryland .. .................................... .. ........................... . Minnesota ...................... .................. ................. . District of Columbia ... . Wisconsin... ................. . ................................ . Delaware .................. . ............................ . Michigan .... .................... ................ ........ ........ . California ... ............. ... .. .. ................ .......................... . Massachusetts ...... . Oregon ..... . New Jersey ......................... ............ ..... ....... . Rhode Island ....... .. ................... . Utah... . ....... ......................... .

~~\tiiii~:~: ::::::::::: :: :: :: ::·:>· ......... ·················· . Georgia ................. . ............ ..................... . North Carolina. .... . ..... ..................... .. . Vermont ............................ .............. . Idaho .... . Maine .......... ................................................. . Nebraska .... . Kentucky ..... . Colorado Arizona........ . .............................. . Arkansas .............................. ...... ....................... . Iowa..................... . ............................. . Ohio .... ............ . Pennsylvania ...... . Illinois ............... .. Connecticut ............. . Alabama ................. .. Mississippi ... ........................................................ . Oklahoma .................. . Missouri ............. . Kansas. ...... .. ........... ................ .. .................... .. New Hampshire ..... . Montana ......... ................ . Indiana ................................ . .................................. ........ . ~;!t ~~~~a ······································ .......................... .

Tennessee South Dakota ..... Washington. North Dakota Florida .................................. . Nevada ... . Louisiana...... .. ... .. ... .................................... . Texas ....... . ....... ................................... . Wyoming ................................ ..................... . Alaska ............ .

Per capita Statewide tax tax liability liability (millions)

$107 $1,878 54 231 48 200 47 30 42 201 42 25 40 368 38 932 32 183 29 17 22 164 20 19 17 27 16 16 4 24 3 8 1 8

- 1 -4 -4 -2 -4 -4 - 5 - 6 -5 -9

-11 -40 - 12 -36 -13 -37 - 15 - 35 -16 - 45 - 17 -180 -17 -201 -18 -207 - 21 -64 - 21 - 82 - 22 - 56 - 25 -80 - 26 - 129 - 21 -64 - 40 - 38 -40 -33 - 41 -225 -43 -84 - 43 -59 - 45 - 210 - 46 -32 - 46 -197 - 47 -31 - 54 -565 - 60 -52 - 67 -292 - 17 -1,180 - 85 -43

- 153 -68

Sources: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations; congressional Joint Economic Commitlee.e

NEW TRADE DEFICIT RECORD e Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on Saturday, March 1, a new trade deficit record was reached, once again without fanfare, but with serious implications for our economy. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit jumped to $16.5 billion in January. The January trade deficit set a monthly record and was $1.4 billion higher than the $15.1 billion in December, and $4.1 billion higher than the monthly average for last year.

The new deficit level paints an unfortunate picture. First, it shows that American manufacturers are continuing to lose ground to foreign importers. Second, it shows the administration's continued failure to come to grips with our trade problems. And, third, it shows that our continuing inaction in trying to solve our trade problems is leading and will continue

to lead to a loss of economic competitiveness and a reduced standard of living for Americans.

Imports in January reached a record $33.47 billion, an 11.7 percent increase over the 1985 monthly average. Virtually no industry was spared. The largest item was $23.5 billion in manufactured goods, $3. 7 billion in new cars (half from Japan), $16.6 billion in telecommunications equipment, $1.5 billion in electrical machinery, and $1.5 billion in clothing. During January, exports totaled $17 billion, about the same as the month before, but 4.5 percent less than the 1985 average.

The continuing rise in the trade deficit for the month of January means that we are starting the new year on the same unfortunate note that we left off last year, when the trade imbalance reached a new record of $148.5 billion. It was the fourth time in as many years that the deficit set a record. In 1980, the year before President Reagan was inaugurated, the merchandise trade deficit was $36.3 billion. It has risen every year sinceto a new record high in each of the last 4 years.

In 1981, the merchandise trade deficit rose to $39.7 billion, in 1982 to $42.7 billion, in 1983 to $69.4 billion, in 1984 to a whopping $123.3 billion, and in 1985 to $148.5 billion.

This disturbing and harmful trend must be reversed, yet, this administration continues to ignore trade matters. Over the last 5 years the Reagan administration's economic and trade policies have given the United States one record-breaking trade deficit after another.

Because of that the American economy has not reached the heights it should have, or attained the stability we need. With the rising deficit we have seen lost jobs, lower wages, industrial dislocation, and economic turmoil. Further, we have seen the United States become a debtor nation for the first time in more than 70 years.

Add the continued high domestic deficit to the trade imbalance and it means we are not as competitive as we need to be in the new global economy. All American people need to acknowledge the threat to our standard of living that exists. We need modernization by our industries, we need commitment from the United States workforce, and we need action by our Federal Government.

We must begin immediately to implement an effective and coordinated trade policy, we must enforce our trade laws, and we must expand our exports. These are not calls for protectionism. They are calls for realistic action that acknowledges our situation and the eventual harm it will do if left uncorrected. I have introduced legislation in each of these areas, as have many of my colleagues. I am hopeful

that the Congress this year can act on these measures without further delay.e

APPOINTMENT BY THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. ABDNOR). The Chair, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 2211, and upon the recommendation of the chairman of the Committee on Finance, and on behalf of the President pro tempore, appoints the following Senators as official advisers to the U.S. delegation to international conferences, meetings, and negotiations on sessions relating to trade agreements during the second session of the 99th Congress: the Senator from Oregon [Mr. PACKWOOD], the Senator from Kansas [Mr. DOLE], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Ron1J, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. BENTSEN].

ORDERS FOR TUESDAY RECESS UNTIL 11 A.M.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, after conferring with the minority leader, I ask unanimous consent that once the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 11 a.m. on Tuesday, March 4, 1986.


RECOGNITION OF CERTAIN SENATORS

Mr. SIMPSON. Further, I ask unanimous consent that following the recognition of the two leaders under the standing order, there be two special orders in favor of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr PROXMIRE, and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. SASSER] for not to be exceed 15 minutes.


ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. SIMPSON. Following the special orders, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 12 noon with Senators permitted to speak therein for not more than 5 minutes each.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. RECESS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 12 NOON AND 2

P.M.

Mr. SIMPSON. At the conclusion of routine morning business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess between the hours of 12 noon and 2 p.m., in order for the weekly party caucuses to meet.


PROGRAM Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, at 2

p.m., the Senate could be asked to

3430

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE March 3, 1986

turn to any legislative or executive

items that can be cleared.

R ollcall votes can be expected

during the day on T uesday, and could

occur prior to the hour of 12 noon.

Mr. President, it was a good attempt

today to do business. But we found it

impossible with various holds and limi-

tations from this side of the aisle.

T herefore, we will be about our busi-

ness once again on tomorrow.

R EC E S S UN T IL 11 A .M.

TOMORROW

Mr. S IMPSO N . Mr. President, in ac-

cordance with the order just entered, I

move that the S enate stand in recess

until the hour of 11 a.m., on T uesday,

March 4, 1986.

T hereupon, at 4 :26 p.m., the S enate

recessed until tomorrow, T uesday,

March 4 , 1986, at 11 a.m.

N OMINA T IO N S

E xecutive nominations received by

the Senate March 3 , 1986:

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

John A . Pendergrass, of Minnesota, to be

an Assistant Secretary of Labor, vice Robert

A. Rowland, resigned.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Joseph Trippe Nall, of North Carolina, to

be a member of the N ational T ransporta-

tion Safety Board for the remainder of the

term expiring D ecember 31, 1987, vice

Vernon L. Grose.

IN THE COAST GUARD

Pursuant to the provisions of 14 U.S .C .

729, the following-named captain of the

Coast Guard Reserve to a permanent com-

missioned officer in the Coast Guard Re-

serve in the grade of rear admiral, lower

half:

Daniel J. Murphy.

IN THE ARMY

The following-named officer to be placed

on the retired list in grade indicated under

the provisions of title 10 , United S tates

Code, section 1370:

To be lieutenant general

Lt. Gen. Robert L. Wetzel, ,

age 55, U.S. Army.

The following-named officer under the

provisions of title 10, United States Code,

section 601, to be assigned to a position of

importance and responsibility designated by

the President under title 10, United States

Code, section 601:

To be lieutenant general

Maj. Gen. Colin L. Powell, ,

U.S. Army.

IN THE ARMY

The following-named officers for appoint-

ment in the R eserve of the A rmy of the

United States, under the provisions of title

10, United States Code, sections 3353:

MEDICAL CORPS

To be colonel

Robert C. Lim, Jr.,

Theodore S. Roberts,

To be lieutenant colonel

Robert S. Bausch,

William F. Blankenship,

Eloy Caracuel,

Mutaz B. Habal,

Ben C. Harmon,

Samuel R. Heth,

Roger E. Linnemann,

Thomas M. Lunsford,

Byron P. Marsh,

Edward J. McGuire,

Dormond E. Metcalf,

John A. Neufeld,

Louis R. Zako,

C O N FIRMA T IO N S

E xecutive nominations confirmed by

the Senate March 3 , 1986:

INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Larry K. Mellinger, of California, to be

U.S . A lternate Executive D irector of the

Inter-American Development Bank.

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION

AND DEVELOPMENT

Hugh W. Foster, of California, to be U.S.

Alternate Executive Director of the Interna-

tional Bank for Reconstruction and Devel-

opment for a term of 2 years.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Gaston Joseph Sigur, Jr., of Maryland, to

be an Assistant Secretary of State.

Paul Dundes Wolfowitz, of the District of

Columbia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary

and Plenipotentiary of the United States of

America to the Republic of Indonesia.

A rthur H. Davis, of Colorado, to be Am-

bassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary

of the United States of America to the Re-

public of Panama.

The above nominations were approved

subject to the nominees' commitment to re-

spond to requests to appear and testify

before any duly constituted committee of

the Senate.

THE JUDICIARY

Frank J. Magill, of North D akota, to be

U.S. circuit judge for the eighth circuit.

Danny J. Boggs, of Kentucky, to be U.S.

circuit judge for the sixth circuit.

Lawrence P. Zatkoff, of Michigan, to be

U.S. district judge for the eastern district of

Michigan.

Ronald R . Lagueux, of Rhode Island, to

be U.S . district judge for the district of

Rhode Island.

Thomas J. McAvoy, of New York, to be

U.S. district judge for the northern district

of New York.

David R. Hansen, of Iowa, to be U.S. dis-

trict judge for the northern district of Iowa.

Miriam G. Cedarbaum, of New York, to be

U.S. district judge for the southern district

of New York.

SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE

Senior Foreign Service nominations begin-

ning Stanton H. Burnett, and ending Gerald

A. Waters, which nominations were received

by the Senate and appeared in the

CONGRES-

SIONAL RECORD on January 27, 1986.

Senior Foreign Service nominations begin-

ning Peter W. Askin, and ending Richard C.

McClure, which nominations were received

by the Senate and appeared in the CONGRES-

27, 1986.

SIONAL RECORD on January

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

March 3, 1986 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 3431

WESLEY SMITH ON NICARAGUAN HUMAN RIGHTS: PART I

HON. JIM COURTER OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, March 3, 1986 Mr. COURTER. Mr. Speaker, I submit for

the RECORD the first half of an excellent report on the current state of human rights in Nicaragua, compiled by Mr. Wesley Smith, a recent graduate of Brigham Young University. His independent analysis derived from extensive interviews inside and outside of Nicaragua, adds to the abundant evidence of everincreasing repression by Nicaragua's Communist Government.

NICARAGUAN HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES: AN UPDATE

PART I

<By Wesley Smith) INTRODUCTION

This report is an update of an original report entitled Nicaragua which was pub· lished April 1, 1984. Information for this update was collected during the last two years. Interviews were conducted during a recent visit to Costa Rica and Honduras in February 1986 as well as a trip to Nicaragua and Honduras in August 1985.

Over 500 Nicaraguans, inside and outside Nicaragua, have been interviewed. These interviews were conducted without any assistance from relief agencies, government organizations, or international groups. We believe that the interviews were conducted in an unbiased manner and the information we received reflects the true experiences of the people interviewed.

The majority of the interviews were gathered from refugees living in Costa Rica and Honduras. Most of these refugees are farmers who lived in the rural areas of Nicaragua. However, there is a sufficient number of representatives of other sectors of Nicaraguan society to enable us to draw reliable conclusions about the difficulties faced by all Nicaraguans.

The interviews we conducted inside Nicaragua have added support and legitimacy to claims made by Nicaraguans living outside the country. Because so many similar reports were gathered, we believe that the ones which appear in this report accurately represent all Nicaraguans living inside and outside the country. The Nicaraguan conflict is a very complex issue. To include every incident which has taken place over the last three years would be confusing and counterproductive to understanding the reality of the Nicaraguan crisis. Therefore, this report focuses on the major conflict in Nicaragua today. By examining the events in Nicaragua's recent past we can more accurately understand what is happening to the country of Nicaragua and its people.

Many people we contacted did not want their real names to appear in this report fearing for the safety of their families still living in Nicaragua. However, they were willing to give detailed information about

themselves and their experiences. Except for the names, the places, dates, and specific events are printed as they were gathered from the people.

METHODOLOGY

In conducting this report, neither the Sandinista Government nor the rebel groups <known as Contras) were used in obtaining information. Each one of those groups has documented numerous cases of human rights abuses. However, it was our intent to avoid using accounts from interested parties in order to insure the truthfulness and ·impartiality of the accounts. Therefore, Nicaraguan civilians are the sole persons whose accounts appear in this report.

Assuming that either side is systematically involved in human rights abuses, it would be naive to think that Nicaraguans living in those respective areas would criticize the group under which they live. For example, it would be difficult to imagine Nicaraguans living within the control of the Sandinista Government to denounce that government of human rights violations-assuming they were violating such human rights. It would be equally incorrect to think people would denounce the Contra forces while living under control of the Contras.

This is necessary to understand because the overwhelming majority of the people we interviewed spoke of abuses committed by the Sandinista Government. However, none of these testimonies were gathered in areas controlled by the rebel forces. Most were gathered in refugee camps in Honduras and Costa Rica. These camps are directed by the United Nations and are far removed from areas of control of the rebel forces. Therefore, these people were able to speak freely about what had happened to them in Nicaragua. Another 25 percent of the testimonies were gathered inside Nicaragua in areas of complete Sandinista control, such as Managua, Matagalpa, and Masaya. These accounts of Sandinista abuse carry an additional weight due to the fact that these people ran a great risk to their personal safety by speaking out against their government while still under its control. They asked that their names be withheld, but were willing to speak in order to help others understand the severity of the situation in Nicaragua.

The Nicaraguans interviewed in this report were picked at random. While inside Nicaragua we contacted no government agency to help us in our search for people who had experienced violations of human rights. In the refugee camps in Costa Rica and Honduras the refugees were interviewed randomly and most of the accounts were corroborated from other refugees who had lived in the same areas in Nicaragua, but were located in different refugee camps. This insured the independence of the accounts received in the refugee camps. It is important to remember that although there are under 100 personal accounts included in this report they represent tens of thousands of similar abuses. Neither time nor funding permitted a study which would document all cases of human rights abuses taking place in Nicaragua. However, our method of

gathering information on human rights from the Nicaraguan people insures the validity and accuracy of this report.

FINDINGS

The Nicaraguan campesino and the youth have been most affected by changes in Nicaragua since the 1979 revolution. The Agrarian Reform laws of the Nicaraguan Government have displaced large numbers of peasant farmers. The current war with the rebel forces has involved a nationwide military draft and equally encompassing resistance to it among the nation's youth.

The economy has plummetted and all Nicaraguans have felt the difficulty of earning enough to feed and clothe themselves. However, that was not the major concern of the Nicaraguans living inside the country, nor was it the major reason the refugee gave for having left Nicaragua.

Our investigations indicated that the main reason for the mass exodus from Nicaragua and the internal conflict of that nation is that the Nicaraguan people find their condition intolerable. The following conditions were among those most commonly experienced by those we interviewed.

1. Unwarranted imprisonment by the Sandinista Government.

2. Physical and psychological torture while imprisoned.

3. Beating, torture, imprisonment, and summary executions by the Sandinista Government against those not willing to support the policies of the Sandinistas.

4. Relocation of the campesino into guarded internment camps.

5. Confiscation and destruction of land owned by the Nicaraguan peasantry.

6. Forced military recruitment of Nicaragua's youth.

7. Forced labor on government run cooperatives.

8. Harassment, physical threats, and imprisonment for one's religion.

The believe these conditions have not only been instituted by the Sandinista Government, but are supported and perpetuated by it as well.

The people we interviewed seldom blamed the rebel groups for causing the problems which the country faces. Few of those interviewed had any tolerance for the actions of the Sandinista regime, because they see no rationale for their behavior. Although they understand the complexities of war-in which the Sandinistas and Contras are involved-they believe the Sandinistas are the cause of the problems, the war being one of those problems.

IMPRISONMENT-PRISONER MISTREATMENT

According to testimony gathered, it has become the policy of the Sandinista army, and police forces to use systematic means of torture to extract information from prisoners, intimidate those who oppose the government, and weaken the resistance of the opposition.

The subjects of capricious imprisonment, and mistreatment of prisoners are being dealt with jointly, because in nearly all cases people who had been imprisoned for political motives were either physically or psychologically abused by State Security

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

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

3432 forces. Instances of torture and capricious imprisonment are so numerous they could not all be listed here. For that reason we have chosen only those which were satisfactorily substantiated by other independent claims.

Total number of political prisoners It was extremely difficult to formulate an

accurate estimation of political prisoners inside Nicaragua because of the abundance of clandestine prisons spread throughout the country. Approximately 70 percent of all male refugees interviewed had at one time been detained, interrogated, imprisoned, or tortured by officials of the Sandinista military or State Police.

Estimates of political prisoners held by the Sandinistas range from 4,000 to as many as 20,000 at any given time. Due to the nature of some of these imprisonments it is apparent that Sandinista statistics regarding political prisoners are misleading. Most refugees and people who had been imprisoned said that any opposition to the Sandinista regime was considered a criminal act. They were, therefore, treated as other criminals, with additional maltreatment for being "enemies of the state".

We estimate there are from 13,000 to 15,000 political prisoners in Nicaragua. These estimates were calculated from testimony of prisoners, former Sandinista soldiers defense lawyers still inside Nicaragua, and the Nicaraguan Red Cross. These prisoners range from 4,500 former members of the Somoza Guard to people who were imprisoned for selling grain on the open market.

The following is a list of only some of the prisoners and their locations. As mentioned earlier, there is no possible way of telling the exact number of prisoners. Estimates are made based on testimonies of Nicaraguans who had been in specific prison systems.

La Quinta Ye, Leon. La Chacara, Esteli. La Barranca, Esteli. La Zona Franca, Managua. El Chipote, Managua. Palo Alto, Managua. El Sistema, Chinandega. La Tejas, Matagalpa.

Extract information Mauricio Ariola Sequeira, Nueva Guinea,

Department of Zelaya South, left Nicaragua in December 1985. Since his brother had been a member of one of the rebel groups he was taken prisoner and interrogated by the State Security.

"My brother was with the Contras so they accused me of being with them also. They took me to the Central Command post in Nueva Guinea. The first night there they interrogated me and started threatening me. They said if I didn't tell them where my brother was they would kill me. They hit me in the ribs and hit me on the head with the butt of a pistol. After that they put the pistol in my mouth and hit my teeth with the barrel of the pistol. They were very drunk and continued doing this for what seemed like two hours. The next day I was taken to the State Security cell and they put me into 'La Chiquita' with eight others. The cell was about six feet by six feet. They kept us there five days without food. There was no light in the cell. After this first five days they put us into individual cells farther underneath the ground. After about 2 or 3 minutes we thought we were suffocating and began banging on the walls of the cells. They then took us out and once again

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS interrogated me. I was there with another person I knew and so they interviewed both of us in different rooms and tried to get us to denounce the other. When that didn't work I was thrown back into 'La Chiquita' and the next day was put into a larger cell. After two months I opted to join the militia instead of staying in prison. I escaped and hid in Juigalpa where a few days later I fled to Costa Rica."

It is important to emphasize that most of these testimonies are from people who have been imprisoned for not supporting certain policies of the Sandinistas. Vendors in the Eastern Market in Managua have received up to 20 years imprisonment for refusing to buy their goods through channels of the Sandinista government. Peasants are imprisoned for selling their grain on the open market instead of to the government run cooperatives MICOIN, which regulates the flow of food within the country.

We have one instance of a woman from the Eastern Market who has been imprisoned 11 times within the last 9 months for selling prohibited items on specific days, such as milk or cheese. Our information indicates that the Sandinista government has used imprisonment systematically to squelch individual and group opposition to it's policies.

Nicaraguan Permanent Commission on Human Rights

The CPDH estimates that over 95 percent of those convicted by the People's AntiSomoza Tribunals were convicted by accusations against themselves while in State Security prisons. Of that 95 percent nearly all have been tortured into accusing themselves. On the average, those accused spend more than 6 months in prison before going before the Tribunals. Those brought before the Tribunals are condemned by evidence gathered in three ways.

Cl> Confessions of prisoners against themselves while in State Security cells.

(2) Confessions of prisoners against other prisoners.

(3) Testimonies of State Police interrogators who heard prisoners confessions during interrogations.

In the majority of the cases the peasants were accused of giving food or logistical aid to the contras. The following is part of an interview with Lino Hernandez of the CPDH in January 1985.

"In principle every person who arrives at the State Security prisons is declared guilty. They have a method for each person. We have received testimonies of tortures that don't leave marks or scars. While in State Security they are subject to isolation in dark cells without any light. They are not given food either. We have received information that they use both physical and psychological torture."

Accounts we gathered of torture and interrogations of prisoners support the claims made by the CPDH. However, it also becomes evident that very small numbers of prisoners are ever actually being brought before a judge. Refugees imprisoned during 1982 and 1983 mentioned judicial processes of release. The majority of the refugees imprisoned during 1984 and 1985 had neither communication with the outside nor exposure to any aspect of the judicial process.

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

Our investigations show that during 1984 and 1985 religious persecution increased dramatically. Within the last few years nearly all religions not openly professing their support for the Sandinista govern-

March 3, 1986 ment are accused of counterrevolutionary activities. Their churches have been confiscated, leaders imprisoned, and members intimidated.

Since June of 1985 the Catholic church has been under renewed attacks from the government. This more subtle repression of the Catholic Church has not received much media attention, but still represents a violation of freedom of expression and worship.

Sofonias Cisneros was imprisoned on May 14, 1985. As director of a parent-church group called The Assembly of Parents of the Family, involved in selecting the curriculum for the parochial schools in Nicaragua, he had openly criticized the Sandinista regime for their insistence on placing proMarxist materials in the classroom.

Because of his remarks he was taken to prison by State Security police and beaten by the Managua Chief of Police, Lenin Cerna. We were able to secure a personal interview with him to clarify his report made to the Nicaraguan Permanent Commission on Human Rights, CPDH.

"On May 14, 1985 I was arrested by men in uniforms who arrived at my house. I was taken to a place known as 'El Chipote' which is behind the Intercontinental Hotel there in Managua. They took me there in a military jeep. When I arrived there I was made to take off all my clothes. I was eventually approached in a room by several military people. Since I didn't have my glasses on I couldn't tell who they were until one asked me who he was. When I responded that I didn't know he told me he was commander Lenin Cerna and that I was going to die before I ever got out of that place. I was kicked and hit several times while detained. They also hit my head against the wall by grabbing my hair. They finally released me after having tortured me in this way."

In late July 1985, 15 catechists, members of a Catholic youth organization, were doing missionary work in the southern part of Nicaragua in a comarca called San Vicente near the town of Diriamba. There were 7 girls ranging from 15 to 17 years old in the group.

They were raped by eight Sandinista soldiers while they slept in one of the houses in Diriamba. The 8 boys who were with the group were badly beaten and were later accused by the same group of soldiers of having raped the young women. When the incident was reported to the Sandinista authorities it was publicly denied. However, our investigations revealed that a secret investigation was being conducted within the government to find those responsible for the raping incident. Father Pena Rojas is a Nicaraguan Catholic Priest. The neighborhood over which he has jurisdiction is located close to the Eastern Market in Managua. He has personally been the object of Sandinista persecution and has witnessed the persecution of his parishioners.

"The persecution of members of my church has increased dramatically during this year [19851 and last. Since a lot of my members work in the Eastern Market they are subjected to harassment by the government when they attend the masses conducted here or at the Eastern Market. Many times throughout the months of June, July and August of this year [19851 the people who came to my mass were not permitted to buy meat. They must buy their meat from the government who is the sole supplier and they were simply told there was none. We knew they were lying because others were able to get the meat during the same day."

March 3, 1986 Father Pena and Father Mondragon led

large groups of people to see Cardenal Obando y Bravo return from his ordination in the Spring of 1985. They were pushed back by Sandinista police. When they finally arrived at the airport a large group of men were randomly singled out and arrested. They were youth who had been holding anti-communist pro-catholic signs to greet the arrival of the Cardenal.

The most severe religious persecution occurs in the rural areas of Nicaragua, where access to media and communication lines is practically non-existent. Religious campesinos have told us that unless they are willing to fight for the Sandinistas as well as God, then they are accused of counterrevolutionary activities. We have received numerous reports that during mass meetings which the Sandinista Army regularly holds in these remote regions, Sandinista officials threaten those campesinos who openly profess their religion.

Desiderio Centeno (47 years> is from Bana in the department of Jinotega. He fled Nicaragua on April 28, 1984. While in the country he was repeatedly harassed by State Security forces trying to prevent him from preaching the "word" as he called it.

People like Desiderio are common among the peasant class. Over 50 similar accounts like his were collected during our investigations. His story should be emphasized because it represents the religious persecution of the peasantry inside Nicaragua.

"They don't want you going around preaching the word because they say we are just preaching politics and preaching about the counterrevolution. They would gather us together in the town plaza there in Bana Centro and humiliate us about our religious beliefs. They said that if we · really loved God then we not only had to have the bible in one hand but a rifle in the other. We had to attend these meetings because it was a direct order from the State police. We had to attend these gatherings 4 or 5 times a week up until the time I left with my family. The State Security privately interrogated me a total of three times. They always threatened me during these interrogations and on one occasion he struck me in the face with his fist. "

From reports gathered, those religious groups and individuals who openly support the Sandinista government and its policies do not receive threats, intimidation or harassment. However, those who openly or even individually espouse Christian ideals run the risk of Sandinista reprisal.

LITHUANIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

HON. BILL LOWERY OF CALIFORNIA


Monday, March 3, 1986

Mr. LOWERY of California. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Baltic States and the Ukraine, I rise to speak on behalf of the courageous people of Lithuania and their long struggle for freedom in the face of Soviet imperialism. On February 16, 1918, the country of Lithuania became a free and independent state. However, their political and social freedom has since been stripped from them by the Soviets.

After a series of Soviet and German occupations of Lithuania dating from World War I

71-059 0-87-14 (Pt. 3)

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS through World War II, the Lithuanian people fell under the vicious grip of their Communist neighbor on July 13, 1944. Prior to then, the people of Lithuania had adopted a constitution protecting human rights and were allowed admission to the League of Nations.

Today, the people of Lithuania must struggle to maintain their identity. The Communists deny Lithuanians the freedom to travel and the liberty to practice religion in peace. The Soviet policy toward the church is an appalling one which includes repression and intimidation through violence. In the schools, religious and cultural heritage is under assault where the Lithuanian children are indoctrinated in atheism and communism.

The United States has, rightfully, never acknowledged the Soviet conquest of Lithuania. Our country has showed its support by formally recognizing the independent Government of Lithuania and also by our continuing diplomatic relations with their representatives.

Mr. Speaker, although political independence for Lithuania remains to be restored, I wanted to take this opportunity on the 68th anniversary of Lithuanian independence to praise the people of Lithuania for their continuing efforts to achieve freedom.

GAFFNEY AND GARWIN ON RELIABILITY TESTING

HON.EDWARDJ.MARKEY OF MASSACHUSETTS



Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have recently had a very interesting correspondence with the Defense Department regarding the issue of reliability or proof testing of existing warheads. I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the letter, and to an analysis of its contents prepared by IBM physicist, Or. Richard Garwin, a longtime consultant to the Defense Department on nuclear weapons issues.

The letters follow: OFFICE OF THE

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, DC, January 21, 1986.

Hon. EDWARD J. MARKEY, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MARKEY: On behalf of Secretary of Defense Weinberger, I would like to thank you for your letter of 4 December 1985 requesting information regarding the military characteristics CMCs> of nuclear weapons, specifically a " requirement that weapons be designed so that they could be remanufactured in the future without explosive 'reliability' testing." Such a requirement, in your view, is in order given our long-term goal of a comprehensive test ban.

As you correctly point out, a comprehensive test ban, or CTB, that strengthens global stability and enhances security has been a long-term objective of the United States for some time. As you also indicate, for the foreseeable future, the United States will need to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent in order to ensure our national security and that of our allies and friends. In this context, the need for nuclear testing is as valid and recognized today as it was in the 1960s. Indeed, for as long as a

3433 nuclear deterrent is as essential to our security as it is today, a CTB would have quite the opposite effect to that intended. That is, a CTB in the foreseeable future would not strengthen stability but rather lead to a less secure and more dangerous world as the nuclear nations, unsure of the reliability of their nuclear weapons, increased their stockpiles to compensate for this uncertainty and as some non-nuclear nations, unsure of the reliability of the guarantees of the nuclear states, decided their security required them to build independent nuclear deterrent forces.

In 1963 President Kennedy forged a consensus for ratification of the Limited Test Ban Treaty CLTBT> around Safeguards which assured conduct of comprehensive, aggressive, and continuing underground nuclear test programs to add to our knowledge and to improve our weapons in all areas of significance to our military posture for the future. The Safeguards also required maintenance of modern nuclear laboratory facilities and programs in theoretical and exploratory nuclear technology to ensure continued progress in that technology. In part, the Safeguard concept resulted from our experience during and immediately after the 1958-61 moratorium on nuclear testing, which included serious stockpile problems with which Dr. Seaborg should be familiar. Those problems have been described in recent testimony before the HASC by representatives of the Department of Energy and the national weapons laboratories.

The consensus to maintain vigorous nuclear testing and weapons development programs and strong weapons laboratories provided the context for national decisions of the 1960's which determined the structure and characteristics of the nuclear forces we have today. Those decisions did not emphasize aspects of warhead design which would enhance weapon endurance in a no-test environment. In fact, long stockpile lifetimes were generally not envisioned in the mid-tolate 1960s because the changing Soviet threat and the rapid evolution of nuclear technology dictated constant weapon improvements.

The decisions of the 1960s, which included the choice of relatively small ballistic missiles of limited throwweight and MIRVing of those missiles with miniaturized warheads, emphasized enhanced military effectiveness, efficiency, and reliability, as well as safety, security and reduced costs in the design of our nuclear systems. Meeting these requirements has taken nuclear design in the direction of increasing technical sophistication and a stockpile ever more dependent on competent design judgments validated by continued nuclear testing. Despite improvements in calculations and in our general understanding of how nuclear explosives work, nuclear testing is still essential not only for continued development of new weapons, modification of existing designs, and confidence in the reliability of the existing stockpile, but also for confidence in the judgments made by the weapons designers in the performance of these tasks.

If we had placed, or were to place, primary emphasis on stockpile longevity, and today's security requirements were to continue, we almost certainly would need larger, heavier warheads in greater numbers and with larger yields to maintain today's level of deterrence. Hence, we would need larger delivery systems with greater throwweights. That is, we would need a costly and completely new and different nuclear deterrent force.

3434 Today, as in the past, military require

ments determine the characteristics of our nuclear weapons. In a typical case, their order of priority is: nuclear safety <always foremost), size and weight of the nuclear device to ensure compatibility with delivery vehicle requirements, minimum probability of plutonium dispersal in case of accident, operational reliability, yield, conservation of reactor products and enriched uranium, minimum maintenance, and operational simplicity.

In 1982, the DOD added warhead endurance to the military characteristics <MCs), stating the desirability of warheads with an inherent endurance obtained as a result of design considerations. These considerations address maximizing warhead lifetime, maximizing the ability to replicate the warhead at a future date, and maximizing the ability to incorporate the warhead into other delivery systems.

Therefore, the design, development, and production must be well documented and involve processes that to the extent possible allow replication at a future date. Beyond this, however, it would be futile for us to insist in the MCs on weapons whose reliability can be ensured indefinitely in the absence of nuclear tests. This is simply impossible, even if we were to relax all other requirements; without recourse to nuclear testing we would soon lose confidence in the design judgments applied to stockpile-aging and rebuilding problems.

If the MCs result in design conflict, priorities are usually observed in the order listed, giving consideration to tradeoffs which allow high-priority MCs to be attained while minimizing the degradation of the competing lower-priority MCs. Technical feasibility and cost provide the basis against which desired competing characteristics are measured, with nuclear safety the overriding requirement. Lifetime is maximized to the extent possible, consistent with attaining the other MCs.

As a practical matter, we cannot always remanufacture nuclear warheads using original design specifications. First, they might not satisfy current military requirements or meet the evolving Soviet threat. When an existing well-tested design can be adapted for a new application (e.g., the Peacekeeper warhead), modifications are necessary to make the design compatible with the new weapons system and to meet other requirements. The modifications are generally extensive enough to require not only expert design judgment but also further testing. Second, older designs lack what are now considered essential features for safety and security. In addition, production requires monitoring by the weapon designer. For an older design, the original designer might no longer be in the weapons program, forcing reliance on people without firsthand experience in the weapon and competent only to the extent of their current testing experience. Materials, fabrication techniques, and equipment used for older weapons will not necessarily be available or permissible for health and safety reasons. Substitutions often affect the operation of the weapon: they require judgments regarding the need for testing to provide assurance that failure would not result, and such judgments would be increasingly prone to error as testing experience receded into the past. Moreover, as recent hard experience has shown us, not all design problems can be eliminated by extensive non-nuclear testing alone. To rely solely on non-nuclear tests, absent actual proof tests of the weapon,

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS would entail serious risks to the safety and reliability of our nuclear deterrent forces, and would soon reduce our confidence in those forces.

The requirement to test nuclear weapons should not be surprising to anyone. Any sophisticated equipment-airplanes, radar, tanks-requires testing. As complex mechanisms age, they change in ways that cannot be predicted. In the real world of engineering, nothing complex can be remanufactured-even to precise specifications-and relied on without testing.

In sum, I believe there is historical consi.stency in our position that a CTB is a long-term objective to be achieved in the context of broad, deep, and verifiable arms reductions, substantially improved verification capabilities, expanded confidence-building measures, greater balance in conventional forces, and at a time when a nuclear deterrent is no longer as essential an element as currently for international security and stability. As President Kennedy wrote to Senate leaders in 1963 during the LTBT ratification hearings, "While we must all hope that at some future time a more comprehensive treaty may become possible by changes in the policies of other nations, until that time our underground testing program will continue."

Sincerely, FRANK J. GAFFNEY, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Nuclear Forces and Anns Control Policy.

IBM THOMAS J. WATSON RESEARCH CENTER,

Yorktown Heights, NY, February 20, 1986. Hon. EDWARD J. MARKEY, The House of Representatives, Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, DC. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MARKEY: This re

sponse to your request that I comment on the letter of 01/21/86 to you from Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy.

I welcome this opportunity, because there are many interesting points made by Secretary Gaffney, which I address in numbered order.

1. In the second paragraph, Gaffney says " ... as the nuclear nations, unsure of the reliability of their nuclear weapons, increased their stockpiles to compensate for this uncertainty ... " I wish to point out that this argument has quite the opposite sign to the argument that Secretary Gaffney and his superiors have often made in regard to the SDI-that the Soviet Union " ... unsure of the reliability of their nuclear weapons, would decrease their stockpile ... " Now I don't say that either version of this theorem is correct, but surely they cannot both be correct-that uncertainty imposed by the existence of a defense would lead to reductions in the offense, while uncertainty imposed by lack of confidence <because of the Comprehensive Test Ban> would lead to increase in the offensive stockpile. Therefore, I believe that this argument should be given no weight.

2. In the fourth paragraph, Gaffney notes "In fact, long stockpile lifetimes were generally not envisioned in the mid-to-late 1960s because the changing Soviet threat and the rapid evolution of nuclear technology dictated constant weapons improvements." It seems to me, that although many weapons entered the stockpile, they were expected to remain there for a long time. I was never involved with the weapons laboratories in the development or the production of what

March 3, 1986 might be called "junk bombs," by analogy to the financial scene these days.

3. In the fifth paragraph, Gaffney implies that among other reasons, continued testing is essential to maintain confidence in the reliability of the existing stockpile, and that is the point which I want to address further. My response will appear in consideration of other quoted statements.

4. In his sixth paragraph, Gaffney argues, "If we had placed, or were to place, primary emphasis on stockpile longevity, and today's security requirements were to continue, we almost certainly would need larger, heavier warheads in greater numbers and with larger yields to maintain today's level of deterrence." In the first place, if we had "larger, heavier warheads" to provide the same yield and accuracy. I fail to see the reason why we would need also "greater numbers and larger yields." But this same argument holds if we place "primary emphasis" on safety. The program to build nuclear weapons with insensitive high explosive <IHE> indeed requires "larger, heavier warheads" than would otherwise be the case. Yet Secretary Gaffney apparently believes that this is a good idea, and perhaps that is the reason why we need "greater numbers and larger yields to maintain today's level of deterrence." I personally, do not believe this.

It is fundamental to understand that the purpose of a CTBT is not to limit U.S. weapons. It is to improve the security of the United States by limiting Soviet weapons and weapons of other nations. The question for us is whether the limitations on U.S. weapon development are acceptable in view of the security gains.

5. In his seventh paragraph, Gaffney says "Today, as in the past, military requirements determine the characteristics of our nuclear weapons." That is exactly the point which I challenge. It should be that U.S. security requirements determine the characteristics of our nuclear weapons. Of course, a smaller, more accurate, higher yield weapon is more suitable for military use, but it may very well be <and I think it is likely> that the capping of Soviet weapon development and the firm base which a CTBT would give us to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation throughout the world, and the contribution it would make to limiting nuclear weapons among the major powers, far outweigh these "military requirements."

6. In paragraph 9, Gaffney maintains that "without recourse to nuclear testing we would soon lose confidence in the design judgment applied to stockpile-aging and rebuilding problem." I doubt this. People could well study existing test data and correlate these results with performance. One could continue to improve computer programs, but one could frankly spend money to avoid having to apply "design judgment," since one would stay far away from the vague boundary between acceptable and unacceptable changes.

7. To that "lifetime is maximized to the extent possible, consistent with attaining the other MCs." simply means that this is given low priority. But the priority should be assigned from the outside, not set in the Department of Energy weapon program.

8. To say that "As a practical matter, we cannot always remanufacture nuclear warheads using original design specifications," ignores the vast resources available to the program. Furthermore, the arguments given do not support this assertion. It says "When an existing well-tested design can be adapt-

March 3, 1986 ed . . .. modifications are necessary to make the design compatible with the new weapon system and to meet other requirements." In actuality, if the requirement were imposed to use the MX warhead without modification, on the Midgetman missile, that could certainly be done. These "necessary modifications" are not in fact necessary-they are convenient.

To say that "Older designs lack what are now considered essential features for safety and security," is a judgment. These older designs are in the inventory, and they are adequately safe there (else we would take them out of service immediately), and it should be a national judgment whether fewer of these persisting into the future in a CTBT era is better for our security than new, supposedly safer and more secure weapons. To say that "Materials, fabrication techniques, and equipment used for older weapons will not necessarily be available or permissible for health and safety reasons" ignores the exception in the OSHA law for national security programs. It also ignores the fact that in the nuclear weapons program people are accustomed to working with plutonium in controlled atmospheres, and the like, and this can easily be done with spray adhesive or other semi-noxious materials like beryllium.

To say that ". . . not all design problems can be eliminated by extensive non-nuclear testing along" begs the question. I am talking about weapons which have been placed into the stockpile after thorough testing. If there are design problems, then by definition they do not interfere with the initial reliable performance of the weapon, and degradation in the stockpile can be asertained by non-nuclear testing and fixed by remanufacture.

9. In paragraph 12, Gaffney compares a nuclear weapon with the "airplanes, radar, tanks," which require testing as complex mechanisms, but I propose always to test the nuclear weapons by non-nuclear means. They are put through their paces, and only the fissile material is untested after the proof tests associated with the initial phase of weapon deployment.

In all, I think the analogy with President Kennedy's efforts are imperfect. The "changes in the policies of other nations' which President Kennedy called for are reflected in the apparent willingness of the Soviet Union now to have an indefinite moratorium and Cone hopes> a thoroughly verifiable Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Certainly there has been progress since those days in the acceptance of unmanned seismic monitoring stations on Soviet territory, and the demonstration of a satisfactory prototype.

To put a CTBT as a "long-term objective" reminds me of the reputed plea of St. Augustine, in which he asked the Lord essentially to "Make me chaste, but not just yet."

I think that the arguments put forth in the letter of 01/21/86 from Secretary Gaffney, while interesting, do not stand up to analysis.

Sincerely yours, RICHARD L. GARWIN.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS HY-LOND CONVALESCENT HOSPI

TAL REMEMBERS HOSTAGES

HON. ROBERT K. DORNAN OF CALIFORNIA


Monday, March 3, 1986 Mr. DORNAN of California. Mr. Speaker,

made a pledge to my colleagues, to the families of our Americans held hostage in Lebanon, and to myself that I would not let this body, or the American people, forget those held against their will so far from home.

I am proud today to share with this body the outstanding efforts of the Hy-Lond Convalescent Hospital in my district in Westminster, CA, in remembering the hostages and helping their families.

The residents of Hy-Lond have held prayer vigils every day since July for the release of the captured Americans. The program was initiated by Nancy Fontaine, Hy-Lond activities director. The residents have also participated in two ceremonies with the families of the hostages.

I am grateful for their selfless efforts and I am proud to let my colleagues know that HyLond has been recognized by the Freedom Foundation of Valley Forge, PA, for having one of the Nation's best civic programs last year with its "Freedom Day of Prayer." Hostage families, along with former hostage, Benjamin Weir, are flying to California, at their own expense, to pay tribute to the residents at the awards ceremony in El Toro on April 24. Hy-Lond's presentation was judged among the best of the more than 100 entries received nationwide and the ceremony is expected to draw national media attention.

The conviction and perseverance exhibited by the Hy-Lond residents exemplify the best in America and I thank them for their sacrifices and determination.

IN MEMORY OF THE SHUTTLE SEVEN

HON.RAYMONDJ.McGRATH OF NEW YORK



Mr. McGRATH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the RECORD two poems which recently appeared in the Valley Stream, Long Island Maileader. The first entry, "ChallengerUnchallenged," was written as a joint effort by the fifth grade class of the Wheeler Avenue School in Valley Stream, under the guidance of Mrs. Nancy Staib. The second, "Our Sadness," was written by Alison O'Flaherty and Ginty Mata, two fourth graders at the Holy Name of Mary School, also of Valley Stream, NY.

CHALLENGER-UNCHALLENGED

A costly, scary, and dangerous thing hap-pened

People were stunned, sad, and mad The tragedy shocked us all, We were surprised to witness such sorrow The astronauts would not see tomorrow Pow! like a firecracker in the sky We really don't know how or why Halley's Coment will have to wait

Because of Challenger's terrible fate. On Challenger, seven heroes died

3435

Looking, searching for what the future held This was an important mission Why do heroes have to die? Why were seven lives lost over a dream of

space? They did not know what was going on In a minute all was gone The Challenger did not make it into space Sadness is on everyone's face Scobee, Smith, Resnik, Onizuka, McNair,

Jarvis, McAuliffe Heroes All We're sure they're way up high Touching the face of God in the sky The county mourns their terrible fate Families will always remember the date. Special were they who loved to fly Seeking knowledge for all mankind Of the vast beyond-the sky. The future belongs to the Bold and the Brave Not the faint of heart

OUR SADNESS

To All the people on the Space Shuttle who died.

And for their families that cried and cried. I knew quite well, my eyes began to swell. My throut choked up, I could not get up, When I learned they were not here. I pray for them every day, And I know everyone else will pray. I am very sad, And my family is, too. I'm sure everyone else will pray, Including you. I could not bear the sight; When they went up for their final flight. My classmates talk about it every day. I wish this never happened. And could have been stopped in some way. I pray for the children who are very sad. I will try through my prayers, To keep them from feeling so bad. I hope it works, I'm almost sure it will, But until then, I will have to be patient, And sit still.

It has now been over a month since the tragic space shuttle "Challenger" explosion in the skies over Florida's Atlantic coast. The sorrow and disbelief remain in the hearts and minds of all Americans. These feelings will stay with us all in the days, weeks and years to come. However, we must remember that like the shuttle's name, space exploration is a challenge and like all endeavors for the greater good, it can never be free from risk. But we can and will persevere.

VFW ANNUAL MEETING IN WASHINGTON

HON. JAMES J. FLORIO OF NEW JERSEY



Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to once again congratulate the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. The VFW has been a great help to me in my role as a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. This week the national and local leadership of the

3436 VFW are in Washington to meet with their elected representatives and I am looking forward to seeing New Jersey State Commander Edward Fischer of Roseland, NJ.

Mr. Speaker, veterans service organizations perform a very useful role particularly in this era of budget reductions and benefit cutbacks. Many times the veteran first learns of the personal effects of those actions through his service organization. With the executive director of the VFW, Cooper Holt, and the current national commander, John Staum, I know that the VFW and its millions of members are in good hands.

I congratulate Messrs. Fischer, Staum, and Holt and all the members of the VFW for a job well done. I look forward to seeing them all this week.

RESOLUTION ON SPAIN AND ISRAEL

HON. ROBERT GARCIA OF NEW YORK



Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a sense of the House resolution congratulating Spain and Israel for their recent decision to establish full diplomatic relations along with, Representative SMITH of Florida, Representative REID, Representative ORTIZ, Representative ROYBAL, Representative BusTAMANTE, Representative LEVINE, Representative DE LUGO, Representative RICHARDSON, Representative FUSTER, Representative COELHO, and Representative TORRES.

On January 17 of this year, Spain and Israel formally established full diplomatic relations. This historic occasion was the culmination of several years of work on the part of leaders in both nations, as well as the support of many of us who consider ourselves to be friends of Spain and Israel.

In January of this year, Spain also formally became a member of the European Economic Community and established itself as a full member of the community of democratic nations, not only in Europe but throughout the world. The rise of the Spanish democracy is similar to the rise of Israel as an outpost of democracy in the Middle East. That is, both nations have struggled to achieve democracy. Yet, there has never been any question in either nation that the struggle has somehow not been worth it. It has.

This simple resolution is a way of letting the Governments and people of Spain and Israel know that we support them in their efforts to establish a better, more open relationship. Diplomatic relations should not be taken lightly. The exchange of ambassadors is a privilege, not a right. I am certain that Spain and Israel were well aware of this when they decided to establish diplomatic relations.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this resolution so that we can send a positive signal of support to our friends in Spain and Israel.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS H. RES. 385

Resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that both Spain and Israel should be congratulated for their recent decision to establish full diplomatic relations Whereas on January, 17, 1986, Spain and

Israel established full diplomatic relations; Whereas the relationship between Spain

and the Jews is historic; Whereas the contribution of Spanish Jews

to Spanish and world culture is significant, particularly the contributions of individuals such as the 12th century philosopher Moses Maimonides;

Whereas the nadir of the relationship between Spain and the Jews occurred 500 years ago in 1492 with the expulsion of the Jews from Spain;

Whereas the people of Spain and Israel have put behind them that tragic event; and

Whereas the Governments of Spain and Israel are, in keeping with the best traditions of their people and nations, firmly committed to democracy and the democratic tradition: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that-

< 1) both Spain and Israel should be con· gratulated on establishing full diplomatic relations with each other;

(2) full diplomatic relations between Spain and Israel can only be beneficial to bringing about enhanced understanding between all nations committed to democracy and peace; and

(3) the relationship between Spain and Israel should grow and prosper.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 513

HON. DON EDWARDS OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, I recently cosponsored legislation introduced by my colleague and good friend, Mr. GONZALEZ, expressing the strong disapproval of the House to President Reagan's planned deferral and recission of Community Development Block Grant and other housing program moneys. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the President's housing policies.

The administration's strangulation of the CDBG Program will jeopardize the availability of housing for low-income and very lowincome families, single parents and senior citizens. In my district, $2.5 million in CDBG money garnered $5.6 million of private financing to ensure the construction of housing for 4 70 people. Without the capacity to leverage private financing and thus reduce the cost of housing projects, 8 of 10 projects developed in recent years in the Santa Clara Valley would not have been realized.

The CDBG Association of San Jose has prepared an analysis of the impact the President's proposed deferral and recission will have upon services and programs in the Santa Clara Valley. I would like to share this summary with my colleagues, for it is an example of one community's plight that can be extrapolated on a nationwide basis. I urge my fellow House Members to support House Joint Resolution 513, and send a clear message to the President that abandonment of housing

March 3, 1986 and community development programs will not be tolerated.

COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPERS, San Jose, CA, February 19, 1986.

Re Impact of CDBG funding cutbacks on services provided by Non-profits in San Jose.

Congressman DON EDWARDS, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: The CDBG Association of San Jose is very concerned that the proposed cutbacks in CDBG funding will severely curtail critically needed services to low income residents of San Jose and Santa Clara County.

The Association is composed of twentynine CDBG funded nonprofit agencies serving over 34,000 low income persons <see attached roster of member agencies) of these approximately: 11,356 are Seniors and disabled persons; 15,605 are Low income adults; 7,534 are Youth.

The services provided by members of the Association are varied but generally fall into two categories: housing and community services.

The housing services include programs that:

Increase the availability of affordable housing for low income families, seniors and the disabled through new construction, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units and shared housing arrangements.

Improve the existing supply of housing through weatherization, rehabilitation and home modifications for the disabled.

Provide emergency shelter. food and crisis intervention for battered women and their children and emergency shelter for homeless families and adults.

Provide tenant-landlord legal counseling and housing discrimination services.

Place mentally ill adults and seniors in independent living situations.

Programs in the community services category are funded by the City of San Jose to enhance traditional City services for residents earning 80% or less of the County median income by providing:

Free legal services to seniors and low income persons speaking Asian Pacific Languages.

Assistance to small business. Job training to the mentally ill. Recreational activities to seniors, disabled,

mentally ill and disadvantaged youth. Food to supplement the diets of seniors

and handicapped. Consumer advocacy services to elderly

persons in nursing homes, the developmentally disabled and the mentally ill.

If the proposed 30% cutback in 1986 CDBG funding is implemented 70% of the agencies who are members of the CDBG Association would be forced to cut their services by 50% or more. This would mean that 15,000 fewer low income San Jose residents would receive essential housing and community services in 1986. More severe cutbacks would eliminate the services provided by many of the non-profits entirely.

The CDBG Association of San Jose urges you to vote against any cuts in the CDBG program this year or in the future years, including the impoundment of funds already allocated. Cuts in CDBG funding impact the most needy in our society and threaten the "safety net" that the Reagan Administration promised to leave in place for the poor.

We are aware of your past support of Federal Programs benefiting seniors, disabled and low income persons and hope that you

March 3, 1986 will not forget the needs of your low income constituents when Congress makes its budget decisions this year. If we can supply you with any further information regarding the impact of CDBG cuts on services provided by non-profits in San Jose, please let me know. I can be reached at Community Housing Developers, Inc. <408) 292-9969.

Sincerely LINDA SMITH,

President, CDBG Association of San Jose.

REMARKS OF HON. RICHARD GEPHARDT AT IOWA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION ANNUAL MEETING

HON. BERKLEY BEDELL OF IOWA



Mr. BEDELL. Mr. Speaker, recently our colleague, DICK GEPHARDT, spoke to the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation on the urgent need to revamp Federal agricultural policy if we are to reverse the downward spiral in farm income and halt the current exodus from our farms and rural communities.

In his presentation, Mr. GEPHARDT not only accurately identified those agricultural, fiscal, and monetary policies that have brought agriculture to its knees, he also outlined those principles that must guide us as we attempt to correct what is wrong in rural America today.

I commend Mr. GEPHARDT's address to the attention of all those who recognize the need for new leadership and a new direction in agricultural policy.

Text follows: PREPARED TEXT OF U.S. REP. RICHARD A.

GEPHARDT (D-M0) BEFORE THE IOWA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION ANNUAL MEETING DES MOINES, IA

It is a special honor to be asked to give the Democratic view on national farm policy what that policy has been, and what it should be.

In my view, there are few issues of more critical importance on the national agenda.

I say that as the Chairman of the U.S. House Democratic Caucus, as a Member of Congress from an urban district in the city of St. Louis, and as an American whose family has been touched-seared might be a better word for it-by what can happen when things go haywire in rural America.

I want you to know-even though I come from one of the nation's largest citieswhen I see what·s happening in rural America, I do not just see dry statistics and empty numbers.

Like you, I know on a personal level, this farm crisis is real, it is severe, and its consequences are disastrous in human as well as economic terms.

I want to say at the outset I did not come to Iowa to engage in an exercise in Republican farm policy bashing.

But it is impossible to discuss the current farm crisis without discussing current farm policy-Republican farm policy-and the impact those policies have had on our farm families and on our rural communities.

And I am not unmindfull of the fact that--as an organization-the Farm Bureau has generally supported many of those policies.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS If we are serious about getting our farm

economy back on track . . . if are serious about the need to change the failed policies of the past, it is here, in the heartland, in Des Moines, and with America's largest and most influential farm group where that discussion must begin.

I commend you for taking the initiative to fully participate in that debate. And for providing this opportunity, for me to be part of it.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan asked: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

I think that's a pretty fair question to ask farmers today.

Are you better off today than you were five years ago? Are your neighbors down the road better off today than they were five years ago?

The answer is obvious. I can't tell you what Republican farm

policies have done for the farmer over the past five years.

All I know is what they've done to farmers.

I noted with some interest that just a few weeks ago, the Vice President flew out to Iowa and-five years after this Administration came into office-allowed that they might have been a "little slow" in expressing their concern for the farm problem.

Well, I have news for the Vice President. This administration doesn't have a "farm

problem." Farmers have a big problem with this ad

ministration. They promised farm prosperity, but their

Republican farm policies have delivered a Farm Crisis, the likes of which we've not seen since the Great Depression.

In the past five years: The value of farm assets has fallen by $84 billion; 123,000 farmers are technically insolvent; in Iowa alone, one-third of the farmers are in serious financial trouble and another third are barely hanging on.

And even as our nation's economic future depends increasingly on foreign trade, the overseas figures for agriculture are just as bad.

Before the Republicans came to power, farm exports were growing at a rate of 17 per cent a year . . . and had increased in value every year-without interrupiton-for 14 straight years.

What's happened since then? Every year for the last five years, the Re

publicans promised to open new markets for our farmers.

And in those five years, farm exports have dropped by $10 billion. Our agriculture trade surplus has been cut in half.

The final figures for 1985 are not yet in. But the preliminary reports are in and they look no better.

The Department of Agriculture predicts at the end of 1985, the year-to-date total for farm exports will be 19 per cent below what it was in 1984.

That represents a 31 percent plunge from the value of farm exports five years ago.

Do American farmers have a problem with Republican farm policies?

When tens of thousands of farm families watch their lives auctioned off, and then read in the newspapers about a Republican President who: Vetoes the Emergency Farm Credit Bill <as he did last March>; blocks passage of a meaningful Farm Bill <as he did this fall>; and threatens to veto another Emergency Farm Credit Bill <as he did last month> ... You bet we've got a probelm with Republican farm policies.

3437 When Iowa's Governor has to declare an

Economic Emergency-the first since the Depression-you bet we've got a problem with Republican farm policies.

When young people who once dreamed of one day taking over the family farm, now tell me they're trying like the devil to avoid that prospect, you bet we've got a problem with Republican farm policies.

When the President of the United States says we should keep the grain and export the farmers-and thinks it's funny-you bet we've got a problem with Republican farm policies.

And when Willie Nelson and Bob Dylan have to hold a benefit concert to save American farmers within weeks of one to save starving Africans you know we've got a problem with Republican farm policies.

This Administration seems to think losing your farm is like losing your country club membership. You can always go elsewhere.

They believe family farms are nothing but a business. If you fail, it's your problem, not theirs. It's nothing anybody else need be concerned about.

I say-the Democratic Party says-they are dead wrong about that.

What is at stake today is not just the economic survival of a few businesses.

What's at stake is the survival of a democratic nation's basic sy3tem of producing food and fiber-our belief that: 1. Our land and our production will not be controlled by just a wealthy few, but that it shall be held widely in the hands of many. 2. And that it is in the national interest to have many own, live on, and obtain their livelihood from the land ... because doing so builds good citizens by making them full participants in the American Dream.

But, for tens of thousands of American farm families, the American Dream has become a night-mare.

Republican farm policies have now placed in jeopardy the very survival of our most basic American way of life.

I know many of you-in the past-have supported this Administration, the Republican Party, and the farm policies they have given us.

But my message to you today is that I hope you re-think that position.

Don't wonder if you should leave the Party which gave us the farm policy which produced this mess.

The fact is, the Republican Party has already left you.

The question, then, becomes: What's the alternative? Where do the Democrats stand?

We believe American farm policy should rest on several basic principles: First, there must be profitability in agriculture; second, farmers must be paid a fair price for their product and their labor. That requires the government to provide the necessary environment to manage the supply that farmers produce; third, to meet those twin goals, the government has some specific responsibilities:

First-to be aggressive in the search for new markets and new uses for farm products; and

Second-to help not hinder our efforts to sell our farm products abroad.

We believe the federal government has a responsibility to provide stability in agricu:i.ture. To a far greater extent than any other business, farmers must be able to plan for the future.

We reject the idea that farmers should have to cope with the wild extremes the Republicans have given them over the past five years-everything from: The penny

3438 wise & pound foolish 1981 Farm bill; to the wild and wreckless spending abandon of the PIK program which would put an entire fleet of the proverbial drunken sailors to shame.

We believe we must halt and reverse the trend toward concentration of farms and our move away from the efficiencies of medium size and family farms.

We believe we must expand exports & match our food supply with food needs around the world.

And in contrast to what the Republicans delivered, we recognize that exports alone will not save our agriculture industry ... nor will simple talk about increasing exports substitute for a real agricultural export promotion strategy.

Finally-and I know this needs to be said out loud in Iowa-we recognize grain embargoes hurt our farmers more than they help our foreign policy.

But there's something else that needs to be said out loud in Iowa: Jimmy Carter's 1980 embargo of grain sales to the Soviet Union had no more impact on Soviet foreign policy than did Ronald Reagan's leaving it in place for nearly half a year or Ronald Reagan's 1981 embargo on the sale of dairy products to the Soviet Union.

And those who seek partisan advantage in farm forums by pretending as if only one Party ever imposed an embargo do no service to the cause of preventing them.

We Democrats believe we must undertake three important initiatives:

First, we must eliminate the three major deficits in this country-the budget deficit, the trade deficit, and the leadership deficit.

We have to stop the reckless "borrow and spend" policies the Republicans have given us.

The biggest budget deficits in history have buried farmers under high interest rates. And they have over-valued the dollar so badly that those who seek to sell our farm products abroad find themselves at a tremendous disadvantage.

We must reduce the $150 billion trade deficit-graphic and glaring evidence of our increasing inability to compete in world markets.

That means corporations and tax shelters are going to have to pay their fair share of taxes. That means the Pentagon is going to have to settle for hammers that cost seven dollars instead of seven hundred dollars.

And it means our trading partners abroad are going to have to start trading like friends instead of enemies.

The second important initiative we must undertake is a complete overhaul of our farm price support system.

And by a complete overhaul, I don't mean pulling the government out and throwing family farmers to the whims of a market that is not yet fair or the winds of nature.

Far from it. Government has a critical role to play in

agriculture, just as it has in developing our manufacturing and high tech industries.

Our ag research facilities-the ones at Iowa State University in Ames are prime examples-should be strengthened, not cut back.

We should develop new ways to finance agriculture, which encourages capital to find its way into real farms . . . not tax farms.

We should eliminate conflicting goals in federal farm policy which only promote waste and inefficiencies.

We should expand our efforts to take land out of production. A conservation reserve

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS can bring supply more in line with demand and make us better stewards of the land.

We should maintain the diversity of agriculture by nurturing the small family farm.

And we should strengthen the rural community way of life by fostering off-farm economic activities and promoting crisis centers to help farm families in distress.

And in these difficult times, we should be willing to target our farm programs so that they help those who need help. American family farmers.

The final and most challenging initiative is to unchain the productive genius of our farmers to eliminate world hunger.

It is a disgrace that the Republicans would have us believe the American farmers' ability to produce food in abundance is a problem instead of an opportunity. We live in world with widespread hunger here at home and mass starvation in countries around the globe.

It is time to turn the best minds in the country to eliminating hunger in America and hunger around the world.

Not to reduce it. Not to ease it. But to eliminate world hunger.

I propose that the federal government make a pledge to America's farmers that none of their crops will ever sit idle in storage bins while children go to bed hungry at night.

We should continue to maintain our own strategic reserve.

But there is no excuse for excess grain being held in storage bins and left hanging over the market when it is desparately needed to keep human beings from starving to death.

Oh, I know there are those who say the world hunger problem is too big and our ability to use our farm abundance to solve it too limited.

I'm tired of hearing what we can't do. If there's one thing I know about Ameri

cans, it is when we have the will, we will find the way.

I challenge this nation to see what we can do.

If we can boost our arms sales abroad by the hundreds of millions of dollars, we can do the same with our farm products.

If the Republicans can increase U.S. military aid overseas by 111 per cent the past five years, surely we can increase the Food for Peace program by more than the piddling 5 percent they've turned in so far.

And if the Republicans can challenge the Soviet Union to meet us in a race for the most sophisticated outer-space weaponry, we can certainly challenge them to help us eliminate world hunger.

We face a critical choice between two very different futures for our farm communities.

We can choose the Republican future for farming . . . lower prices, more foreclosures, and more lives put on the auction block.

Or we can choose a bright future-one that puts agriculture on the cutting edge of economic change and opportunity and includes the family farmer in the American dream.

The Republicans have taken us into a period of drift and lack of national purpose-especially in agriculture.

They would have us believe we've entered an era of limits.

They say we have too many farmers and that farm prices have been kept at prices artificially too high.

They say the future of agriculture is one of re-trenchment. Restructure. Retreat.

I say-the Democratic Party says-they are wrong.

March 3, 1986 We have a legacy to preserve in this coun

try. We are a nation born of activists-of pioneers, of settlers, of adventurers, questing, striving, reaching new goals and seeking new horizons.

We confront problems. We tell ourselves what we can do, not what we cannot do.

That's the legacy we Democrats cherish, and which we Americans must pass on to our children.

For the frontiers we have yet to explore are boundless.

From the far side of space, to the inside of men's minds, there are breakthroughs just waiting to happen.

I say the future lies in meeting those challenges, not in defining our limits.

We must once again challenge this nation to greatness, challenge it to excellence.

The American dream is not fading, and the family farmer need not go the way of the dinosaur. ·

The federal government must not stand idly by and let American agriculture. . .. the family farm .... wither and die on the vine.

Our hopes, our silent prayers, our vision of a world made better for our childrenand our determination to leave no stone unturned in that quest-that's what makes America the most favored nation on Earth.

We must never allow that light of hope to go out.

We must never allow the dream to die. Thank you.

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February 4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees, subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate Daily Digest-designated by the Rules Committee-of the time, place, and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or changes in the meetings as they occur.

As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on Monday and Wednesday of each week.

Any changes in committee scheduling will be indicated by placement of an asterisk to the left of the name of the unit conducting such meetings.

Meetings scheduled for Tuesday, March 4, 1986, may be found in the Daily Digest of today's RECORD.

MEETINGS SCHEDULED

MARCH5 9:00 a.m.

Commerce, Science, and Transportation To hold hearings on the nomination of

Alfred C. Sikes, of Missouri, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information.

SR-253

March 3, 1986 9:30 a.m.

Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services, Edu

cation, and Related Agencies Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.

SD-116 Judiciary Juvenile Justice Subcommittee

To hold oversight hearings on the activities of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of Justice.

SD-226 Select on Intelligence

To resume closed hearings on proposed legislation authorizing funds for fiscal year 1987 for the intelligence community.

10:00 a.m. Appropriations Defense Subcommittee

SH-219

To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Strategic Defense Initiative.

SD-192 Appropriations HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommit

tee To hold hearings on proposed budget es

timates for fiscal year 1987 for the National Science Foundation, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

SD-124 Appropriations Transportation and Related Agencies Sub

committee To hold hearings on proposed budget es

timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Federal Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.

SD-138 Governmental Affairs Governmental Efficiency and the District

of Columbia Subcommittee To hold oversight hearings on the Dis

trict of Columbia courts. SD-342

2:00 p.m. Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcom

mittee To hold hearings on proposed budget es

timates for fiscal year 1987 for energy and water development programs, focusing on the Tennessee Valley Authority.

SD-192 Budget

Business meeting, to mark up the first concurrent resolution on the fiscal year 1987 budget.

SD-608 Foreign Relations

To hold hearings on the nominations of Morton I. Abramowitz, of Massachusetts, and H. Allen Holmes, of the District of Columbia, each to be an Assistant Secretary of State, and Otto J. Reich, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Venezuela.

SD-419 •Judiciary

To hold hearings on pending nominations.

SD-226

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 3:00 p.m.

Conferees On S. 1078, authorizing funds for fiscal

years 1986, 1987, and 1988 for the Federal Trade Commission.

S-205, Capitol

MARCH6 *9:15 a.m.

Governmental Affairs ·Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga

tions To hold oversight hearings on airline

safety in the United States. SD-342

9:30 a.m. Appropriations Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary,

and Related Agencies Subcommittee To hold hearings on proposed budget es

timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Small Business Administration, Board for International Broadcasting, and the Japan-United States Friendship Commission.

S-146, Capitol Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

To hold hearings to review the farm credit situation.

SD-538 Energy and Natural Resources

Business meeting, to consider pending calendar business.

SD-366 Foreign Relations

To hold hearings to review the current situation in Ethiopia, focusing on forced population removal and human rights.

SD-419 . Labor and Human Resources Children, Family, Drugs, and Alcoholism

Subcommittee To hold hearings on proposed legislation

authorizing funds for child care pro-grams.

SD-430 10:00 a.m.

Environment and Public Works To hold oversight hearings to review the

funding levels and programmatic changes in the Federal-aid Highway Program and the administration's legislative proposal.

SD-406 Judiciary


SD-226 Special on Aging

To hold hearings on the reuse abuse of disposable dialysis devices.

SD-628 2:00 p.m.

Appropriations Interior and Related Agencies Subcommit


timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior.

SD-138 4:00 p.m.

Select on Intelligence To continue closed hearings on proposed

legislation authorizing funds for fiscal year 1987 for the intelligence community.

SH-219

3439 MARCH7

9:30 a.m. Commerce, Science, and Transportation

To hold hearings on the nominations of Paul Lamboley, of Nevada, and J.J. Simmons, of Oklahoma, each to be a Commissioner of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

SR-253 10:00 a.m.

Energy and Natural Resources To hold hearings on the nomination of

Jed Dean Christensen, of Virginia, to be Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.

SD-366 Judiciary Immigration and Refugee Policy Subcom

mittee To resume closed hearings to review

issues surrounding the attempted defection of Miroslav Medvid and the Administration's procedures regarding East bloc defectors.

SD-226 11:00 a.m.

Joint Economic Agriculture and Transportation Subcom

mittee To hold oversight hearings on the state

of agricultural and rural economy. SD-562

MARCH 10 9:30 a.m.



To resume hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.

SD-116

MARCH 11 9:00 a.m.

Labor and Human Resources Employment and Productivity Subcom

mittee To hold hearings on S. 2069, to improve

the Job Training Partnership program stability and lessen burdensome administrative requirements, improve services to youth and the hard-toserve, and strengthen enforcement.

SD-430 9:30 a.m.



To resume hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.

SD-116 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

To resume hearings to review the farm credit situation.

SD-538 Commerce, Science, and Transportation Consumer Subcommittee

To resume hearings on S. 1999, to provide for a uniform product liability law.

SR-253 Small Business Innovation and Technology Subcommittee

To hold oversight hearings on the implementation of the Small Business

3440 Innovation and Research Program <P.L. 97-219).

SR-428A 10:00 a.m.

Judiciary Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks Sub

committee Business meeting, to mark up S. 1543, to

prohibit the importation, use or sale in the country of products made abroad by a U.S. patented process, and S. 1093, to allow an extension of patent life for agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines for time lost in regulatory review procedures at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.

SD-226 2:00 p.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

SD-138 Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcom


timates for fiscal year 1987 for energy and water development programs, focusing on solar and renewable energy, energy research, and environment programs.


Closed briefings on arms control issues. SH-219

MARCH 12 9:30 a.m.



To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, both of the Department of Health and Human Services.

SD-116 Labor and Human Resources

To hold hearings on the nomination of Robert E. Rader, Jr., of Texas to be a Member of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.




SH-219

To hold closed hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for certain intelligence programs.

S-407, Capitol Appropriations HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommit


timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Environmental Protection Agency.

SD-124

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Appropriations Transportation and Related Agencies Sub

committtee To hold hearings on proposed budget es

timates for fiscal year 1987 for the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Department of Transportation, and the Panama Canal Commission.

SD-138 11:00 a.m.

Appropriations Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary,


timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of Commerce, and the International Trade Commission.

S-146, Capitol 2:00 p.m.

Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of the Treasury, focusing on multilateral development banks.

SD-124 Appropriations Treasury, Postal Service, and General

Government Subcommittee To hold hearings on proposed budget es

timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Administrative Conference of the United States, U.S. Tax Court, Committee for the Purchase From the Blind and Handicapped, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of the Special Counsel, Advisory Committee on Federal Pay, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

S-126, Capitol Energy and Natural Resources

To hold closed oversight hearings on the domestic and international petroleum situation.

SH-219 Judiciary

To resume oversight hearings on white collar crime in the United States.

SD-226

MARCH 13 9:00 a.m.

Labor and Human Resources Employment and Productivity Subcom

mittee To resume hearings on S. 2069, to im

prove the Job Training Partnership Program stability and lessen burdensome administrative requirements, improve services to youth and the hard to serve, and strengthen enforcement.

SD-430 Office of Technology Assessment

The Board to hold a general business meeting.

S-205, Capitol 9:30 a.m.



To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Centers for Disease Control, Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration, Office of Inspector General, and Office of Civil Rights, all of the Department of Health and Human Services.

SD-116

March 3, 1986 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

To resume oversight hearings to review Federal deposit insurance programs.

SD-538 Commerce, Science, and Transportation



SR-253

To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for certain Defense programs, focusing on guard and reserve affairs.

SD-192 Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga

tions To resume oversight hearings on airline

safety in the United States. SD-342

Judiciary Business meeting, to consider pending

calendar business. SD-226

Labor and Human Resources Children, Family, Drugs, and Alcoholism


authorizing funds for low-income energy assistance programs.

SR-385 10:30 a.m.


To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for foreign assistance programs of the Department of State.

SD-124 2:00 p.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Office of Indian Education, Department of Education, and the Institute of Museum Services.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for energy and water development programs, focusing on nuclear fission, uranium enrichment, and nuclear waste management.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Financial Management Service, Bureau of Public Debt, U.S. Mint, the U.S. Savings Bond Division, and the Internal Revenue Service, all of the Department of the Treasury.

SD-124 Judiciary

To hold hearings on the nomination of Jefferson B. Sessions III, to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Alabama.

SD-226 4:00 p.m.


legislation authorizing funds for fiscal

March 3, 1986 year 1987 for the intelligence community.

SH-219

MARCH 14 9:30 a.m.

Finance Health Subcommittee

To hold hearings on S. 2121, to revise the method of payment to hospitals for capital-related costs under the Medicare Program.


SD-215

To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for Navy shipbuilding programs.

SD-192 10:30 a.m.

Energy and Natural Resources To resume oversight hearings on the do

mestic and international petroleum situation.

SD-366

MARCH 18 9:30 a.m.



To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Health Care Financing Administration, Social Security Administration, Office of Child Support Enforcement, and refugee programs, all of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Labor and Human Resources Labor Subcommittee

SD-116

To hold oversight hearings on the retirement policy for public safety officials under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.


SD-430

To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for Army modernization programs



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the U.S. Postal Service.

SD-124 2:00 p.m.


To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for international security assistance programs of the Department of State.

S-126, Capitol Appropriations Interior and Related Agencies Subcommit


timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of the Interior.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for energy and water development programs, fo-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS cusing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

SD-192

MARCH 19 9:30 a.m.


cation, and Related Agencies Subcommittee To hold hearings on proposed budget es

timates for fiscal year 1987 for Human Development Services, Office of Community Services, Departmental Management <salaries and expenses>, and Policy Research, all of the Department of Health and Human Services.

SD-116 Appropriations Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary,


timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of State, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

S-146, Capitol Labor and Human Resources





SH-219

To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for Defense programs, focusing on force management and personnel.

SD-192 Appropriations HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommit


timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Veterans' Administration.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the National Transportation Safety Board, Department of Transportation, and the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

SD-138 2:00 p.m.


To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Export-Import Bank.

S-126, Capitol Appropriations Treasury, Postal Service, and General


timates for fiscal year 1987 for the General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service, Executive Office of the President, and National Park Service, Department of the Interior <regarding White House and Vice President residence>.

SD-124

3441 Judiciary

To hold hearings on pending nomina-tions.

SD-226

MARCH20 9:30 a.m.

Commerce, Science, and Transportation Science, Technology, and Space Subcom

mittee To hold hearings on proposed legislation

authorizing funds for fiscal year 1987 for NASA.

SR-253 Energy and Natural Resources

To hold oversight hearings on the implications of fees on imported oil.

Labor and Human Resources Handicapped Subcommittee

SD-366

To hold hearings on proposed legislation authorizing funds for rehabilitation programs.

SD-430 10:00 a.m.

Appropriations Treasury, Postal Service, and General


timates for fiscal year 1987 for the U.S. Secret Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, all of the Department of the Treasury.

SD-124 Judiciary

Business meet ing, to consider pending calendar business.

SD-226 Labor and Human Resources Children, Family, Drugs, and Alcoholism


authorizing funds for the community services block grant programs.

SD-562 2:00 p.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for energy and water development programs, focusing on the Power Marketing Administrations.

SD-192 Governmental Affairs Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Gov

ernment Processes Subcommittee To hold oversight hearings on govern

ment nonproliferation activities for 1985.

SD-342 4:00 p.m.


legislation authorizing funds for fiscal year 1987 for the intelligence community.

SH-219

3442 MARCH21

9:00 a.m. Commerce, Science, and Transportation Merchant Marine Subcommittee

To hold hearings on S. 1992 and S. 1993, bills to preserve the rights of certain parties with an interest in certain vessels or fishing facilities, or with an interest in aircraft, aircraft parts, or vessels.

MARCH25 9:30 a.m.

Labor and Human Resources Handicapped Subcommittee

SR-253

To resume hearings on proposed legislation authorizing funds for rehabilitation programs.

SD-430 2:00 p.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for energy and water development programs, focusing on atomic energ-y defense activities.

SD-116

MARCH26 9:30 a.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Federal Trade Commission, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.


To hold hearings on proposed legislation authorizing funds for the National Science Foundation.

SD-430 10:00 a.m.

Appropriations Transportation and Related Agencies Sub


timates for fiscal year 1987 for Interstate Commerce Commission and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.

SD-138

MARCH27 10:00 a.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

SD-124 2:00 p.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial, and the

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior.

SD-138

APRILS 2:00 p.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for energy conservation programs.

SD-138

APRIL9 9:30 a.m.



To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Office of the Secretary of Education, Departmental Management <salaries and expenses), Office for Civil Rights, and Office of Inspector General, all of the Department of Education.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Office of Attorney General, Department of Justice.



SD-430 10:00 a.m.

Appropriations HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommit


timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation <Amtrak).

SD-138 2:00 p.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Office of Personnel Management, and the Federal Elections Commission.

SD-124

APRIL 10 9:30 a.m.



To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of Education, including elementary and secondary education, education block grants, and impact aid.

SD-116

March 3, 1986 Commerce, Science, and Transportation Science, Technology, and Space Subcom

mittee To hold hearings on proposed legislation

authorizing funds for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, focusing on funds for satellite and atmospheric programs.

SR-253 10:00 a.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Office of Management and Budget.

S-126, Capitol 2:00 p.m.


To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Office of Inspector General, Agency for International Development, Peace Corps, Inter-American Foundation, and the African Development Foundation.

S-126, Capitol

APRIL 14 10:00 a.m.

Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcom


timates for fiscal year 1987 for energy and water development programs.

SD-192 2:00 p.m.




SD-192

APRIL 15 9:30 a.m.



To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of Education, including education for the handicapped, rehabilitation services and handicapped research, and special institutions <including Howard University>.

SD-116 10:00 a.m.




SD-192 2:00 p.m.


To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Agency for International Development.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the National Endowment for the Arts and

March 3, 1986 National Endowment for the Humanities.




SD-192

APRIL 16 9:00 a.m.

Veterans' Affairs To hold joint hearings with the House

Committee on Veterans' Affairs to review the legislative priorities of AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans of America, World War I Veterans, Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A., and Atomic Veterans.

SD-106

9:30 a.m. Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services, Edu


To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of Education, including student financial assistance, guaranteed student loans, higher and continuing education, highr=r education facilities loans and insurance, college housing loans, and educational research and training.

SD-116 Appropriations Commerce, Justice, Stat e, the Judiciary,


t imates for fiscal year 1987 for the Nat ional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Depart ment of Commerce, and the Marine Mammal Com-mission.

S-146, Capitol Energy and Natural Resources


SD-366 Labor and Human Resources

To hold hearings on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

SD-430 10:00 a.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.






timates for fiscal year 1987 for the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation.

SD-138







timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of the Treasury, Postal Service, and general government programs.

SD-124

APRIL 17 9:30 a.m.



To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of Education, including· bilingual education, vocational and adult education, education statistics, libraries, and the National Institute of Education.

SD-116 2:00 p.m.


To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for foreign assistance programs.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.

SD-192

APRIL 22 9:30 a.m.



To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, Prospective Payment Commission, Railroad Retirement Board, National Labor Relations Board, National Mediation Board, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and the United States Institute of Peace.

SD-116 2:00 p.m.


To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of State, focusing on international narcotics control, migration and refugee assistance, and antiterrorism programs.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission, and the Office of Surface

3443 Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior.

SD-192

APRIL 23 9:30 a.m.



To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for ACTION <domestic programs), Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Council on the Handicapped, Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and National Center for the Study of AfroAmerican History and Culture.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-sion.


To hold hearings on S. 1815, to prohibit any employer from using any lie detector t est or examination in the workplace, either for preemployment testing or testing in the course of employment.

SD-430 10:00 a.m.


committ ee To hold hearings on proposed budget es

timates for fiscal year 1987 for the U.S. Railway Association and Conrail.

SD-138

APRIL 24 9:30 a .m.



To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and certain related agencies.

Labor and Human Resources Labor Subcommittee

SD-116

To hold hearings on S. 1018, to clarify the meaning of the term "guard" for the purpose of permitting certain labor organizations to be certified by the National Labor Relations Board as representatives of employees other than plant guards.

SD-430 10:00 a.m.


To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of State, focusing on voluntary contributions to international organizations programs, and for the Office of the U.S. Representative to the United Nations.

SD-138

3444 2:00 p.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Energy Information Administration and the Economic Regulatory Administration, Department of Energy.

SD-192

APRIL 29 9:30 a.m.




SD-116 10:00 a.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and certain independent agencies.

SD-124 2:00 p.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.

SD-192

APRIL 30 9:30 a.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Office of U.S. Trade Representative, and the Federal Communications Commission.


To hold oversight hearings on the human resources impact of reentry of women into the labor force.

SD-430 10:00 a.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and certain independent agencies.

SD-124

MAYl 9:30 a.m.




SD-116




timates for fiscal year 1987 for territorial affairs, Department of the lnteri-or.

SD-192

MAY6 9:30 a.m.




SD-116

MAY7 9:30 a.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. District Courts/Courts of Appeals, and the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution.

S-146, Capitol

Labor and Human Resources To hold oversight hearings on medical

malpractice. SD-430

10:00 a.m. Appropriations Transportation and Related Agencies Sub


timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Department of Transportation, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authorit~.

SD-138

MAYS 9:30 a.m.




SD-116 •10:00 a.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

SD-138 2:00 p.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Smithsonian Institution.

SD-192

9:30 a.m. Appropriations

March 3, 1986 MAY13

Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee


SD-116 MAY14

9:30 a.m. Appropriations Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary,


timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Legal Services Corporation, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.


To hold hearings to review barriers to health care.

SD-430 10:00 a.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Department of Transportation and certain related agencies

SD-138

MAY 15 9:30 a.m.




SD-116 2:00 p.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for fossil energy and clean coal technology.

SD-192

MAY20 2:00 p.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.

SD-192

MAY21 9:30 a.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the U.S. Information Agency. and the National Endowment of Democracy.


To resume oversight hearings on medical malpractice.

SD-430

March 3, 1986 MAY29

2:00 p.m. Appropriations Interior and Related Agencies Subcommit


timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Office of the Secretary and Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Inte-rior.

SD-192

JUNE4 9:30 a.m.



timates for fiscal year 1987 for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and certain related agencies.


To hold oversight hearings to review the imposition of user fees in FDA approval procedures for new drugs.

SD-430

JUNE 11 9:30 a.m.

Labor and Human Resources To hold hearings on pending nomina

tions to the National Advisory Council on Women's Educational Programs.

SD-430

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS JUNE 17

9:30 a.m. Labor and Human Resources

To hold hearings on food safety issues. SD-430

JUNE 18 9:30 a.m.

Labor and Human Resources Business meeting, to consider pending


JUNE 25 9:30 a.m.

Labor and Human Resources To hold hearings on the administration

of the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

SD-430

JULY 16 9:30 a.m.

Labor and Human Resources To hold hearings on the establishment

of generic drug procedures and patent term restoration for animal drugs.

SD-430

JULY 30 9:30 a.m.



3445 AUGUST5

9:30 a.m. Labor and Human Resources

To hold hearings to review the private sector initiatives in human services.

SD-430

SEPTEMBER 10 9:30 a.m.

Labor and Human Resources To hold hearings to review the human

resources impact on drug research and space technology.

SD-430


Labor and Human Resources To hold hearings on pending nomina

tions. SD-430




CANCELLATIONS

MARCH5 2:00 p.m.

Judiciary To resume oversight hearings on white

collar crime in the United States. SD-226

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, March 3, 1986

Documents

Transcript of HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, March 3, 1986