8926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

SENATE-Friday, AprillO, 1987 April 10, 1987

<Legislative day of Monday, March 30, 1987)

The Senate met at 10 a.m., on the words of the 23d Psalm are always expiration of the recess, and was strengthening, refreshing, cleansing, called to order by the Honorable and pure. I thank him very much. BROCK ADAMs, a Senator from the State of Washington. THE BUDGET PROCESS

PRAYER Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Con-The Chaplain, the Reverend Rich- gress is now entering the deep waters

ard C. Halverson, D.D., offered the fol- of the budget process; everyone in-lowing prayer: volved in this process should be aware

Let us pray. that the debate about the budget must Gentle Shepherd God, refresh and now take a serious turn.

renew us in the profound promise of For the last several months the po-the favored of all the Psalms: litical debate concerning the budget

"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall deficit has been played out in shallow not want. He maketh me to lie down in waters. Both sides of the debate have green pastures: He leadeth me beside been vigorous in seeking the best poUt­the still waters. He restoreth my soul: ical position on this most important He leadeth me in the paths of right- debate. There has been a great deal of eousness for His name's sake. Yea, splashing in the water. though I walk through the valley of The President has been consistent in the shadow of death, I will fear no calling everything that the Congress evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod has put forward a budget buster. The and Thy staff they comfort me. Thou clean water bill was a budget buster preparest a table before me in the so he said. The highway bill was ~ presence of mine enemies: Thou anoin- · budget buster, so he said. The home­test my head with oil; my cup runneth less bill, a bill that requests a modest over. Surely goodness and mercy shall · $393.2 million for the homeless, is, I follow me all the days of my life: and I am sure, in the President's opinion, a will dwell in the house of the Lord for- budget buster. ever." Amen. But, now Mr. President, we are en-

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the President pro tempore <Mr. STENNIS).

The legislative clerk read the follow­ing letter:

U.S. SENATE, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,

Washington, DC, April10, 1987. To the Senate:

Under the provisions of Rule I, Section 3, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable BROCK ADAMS, a Senator from the State of Wash­ington, to perform the duties of the Chair.

JOHN C. STENNIS, President pro tempore.

Mr. ADAMS thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro tempore.

tering a serious time. The ship of state is moving into deeper waters. The President is the captain of the ship to be sure. The Congress for its part is the pilot; the navigator who has read the charts and knows which reefs to avoid.

When a ship is seeking safe harbor a good captain brings a pilot on board to guide him home. The captain recog­nizes the expertise of the pilot. The pilot recognizes that the captain has the final word; he is ultimately respon­sible for the safety of the ship. And he goes down with it, if it goes down.

When a captain and a pilot work to­gether, a ship is brought home safely to port. When captain and a pilot dis­agree, the ship never makes port; it at­tempts to ride out the storm in open waters even as the waves get bigger. And, that is the danger.

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

Mr. President, for the last 6 years the ship of state has been trying to ride out the storm concerning the Fed­

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- eral deficit. The waves have gotten pore. The majority leader is recog- higher and every year the Federal def­nized. icit has moved us deeper and deeper

THE CHAPLAIN'S PRAYER Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am

grateful to the Chaplain for his having repeated the glorious and beau­tiful words of the 23d Psalm. The

into more dangerous waters. And, while the passengers may not recog­nize the danger, those of us on the bridge can see the coming danger for the generations ahead.

Mr. President, I have sought to find an appropriate metaphor to express

what I believe the proper relationship should be between the President and the Congress as we begin serious dis­cussion of the Government's budget. The captain and the pilot metaphor seems to me most appropriate for it expresses a mutuality of respect and the necessity of cooperation, that, Mr. President, is what is necessary if the Congress and the President are to get the budget process to safe harbor this year.

We are at a time in the debate where nothing is gained by the Director of OMB, James Miller-and I like Jim Miller. I have a great deal of respect for him. I am fond of him. I think he is very bright. Personally, I think he is a fine, fine gentleman-but I do not think anything is gained by his label­ing the budget proposal on the House side as a "blackmail budget." Such a statement does nothing to express the kind of mutuality of respect, at least, and at least the forthrightness that is needed as we talk about this serious problem.

We can all engage in some partisan­ship, and we will, and we do. But, in the final analysis, we have to kind of be honest with ourselves and with the American people as we deal with the budget matter.

The President's comments on yester­day certainly did not move us in the direction of cooperation. Since the President's budget was overwhelming­ly defeated in the House, receiving only 27 votes, I think the need to sit down and work together should be quite obvious.

It is time to stop splashing about in rhetoric. The President needs to be re­sponsible in explaining his own budget and pointing out that his own budget has $22 billion in revenues in it, of which $6 billion is increased or new taxes. And he fails to say this. He should be responsible, as we all should be in describing each other's budgets.

I hope he will be responsible in de­scribing ours but as much so in describ­ing his own. Both of these budgets have revenues in them, as I have said many times. And so it is unfortunate that the President keeps pointing to the congressional budget as the one that has revenues in it when he does not recognize and confess up to the fact that his own budget has revenues increased revenues, and taxes. '

As I have said many times before, there are only four things that can be done to keep the budget deficit gliding downward. We can cut domestic pro-

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

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8927 grams. We can cut defense spending. We can increase revenue. Or, we can do some combination of the three and put together a budget that is real; that has the support of both the adminis­tration and the Congress.

Mr. President, as we enter the deeper waters of the budget debate it would be wise for both sides of the debate to put aside the rhetoric, the talk of blackmail budgets, and get down to serious negotiations about a budget plan for the Nation. As I have said before, and as I say again, it is my belief that this problem will only be resolved through cooperation between the President and leaders of both Houses on both sides of the aisle.

The President showed us last week during the highway bill that he is will­ing to go to extraordinary lengths to work on a bill that he cares about. I would hope that the President would have the same sense of commitment in working with the Congress to resolve the budget dilemma.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

RECOGNITION OF THE REPUBLICAN LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. Under the standing order, the Republican leader is recognized.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

DID MOSCOW EMBASSY RESIST NEEDED SECURITY MEASURES?

ALLEGATIONS OF EMBASSY RESISTANCE TO SECURITY MEASURES

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, yesterday, I received disturbing reports that the American Embassy in Moscow, in late 1984, strongly resisted badly needed improvements in security procedures at the Embassy-on the rather ex­traordinary grounds that such im­provements would somehow "damage" United States-Soviet relations.

According to the reports I have re­ceived, our Ambassador in Moscow at the time sent a harshly worded cable to Secretary of State Shultz; that cable may have succeeded in blocking the proposed new and tougher securi­ty measures.

Now let me stress, Mr. President, that the reports I have are not yet confirmed. But I do have enough con­fidence in the sources who provided me the information that I am deter­mined to get to the bottom of this matter as soon as possible.

URGENT ACTION NEEDED ON DOLE-ROTH BILL As the Senate knows, Senator RoTH

and I yesterday introduced the com­prehensive "Anti-Espionage Act of 1987"-in direct response to the in­credible security problems that have emerged in Moscow in recent months. That legislation-and the problems which generated it-requires urgent consideration here in the Senate.

To do that job right, the Senate has a real and legitimate need to know about the history of the security situa­tion there in Moscow: How the State Department and its overseas personnel acted, and reacted.

DOLE-HEIJIIS LETTER TO SECRETARY SHULTZ For that reason, the distinguished

Senator from North Carolina, Mr. HELMs-who serves as the ranking Re­publican member on the Foreign Rela­tions Committee-joined me yesterday in writing to Secretary Shultz. We asked that he release-to the Senate leadership, and to the Foreign Rela­tions Committee only-a copy of the cable I earlier mentioned. Any such re­lease, of course, would be under the normal procedures protecting any clas­sified information involved.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that a copy of the letter Senator HELMS and I sent to Secretary Shultz be included in the RECORD.

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

U.S. SENATE, OFFICE OF THE REPUBLICAN LEADER,

Washington, DC, April 9, 1987. Hon. GEORGE P. SHULTZ, Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: We request that the following classified cable from the former American Ambassador in Moscow, Arthur Hartman, to the Department of State be re­leased, under the normal safeguards, to the Majority and Republican Leaders and the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate: 051552 November 1984 Moscow 14220 Counter Productive Counter Intelligence SecState 4034.

In light of the fact that the Senate will likely recess tomorrow, we would appreciate your personal attention to and decision on this matter before your departure for Moscow.

Sincerely yours, BoB DoLE,

Republican Leader. JESSE HELMS,

Ranking Members, Committee on Foreign Relations.

SENATE CANNOT "FLY BLIND" Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this is a

serious matter; an urgent matter. The Senate cannot "fly blind" in consider­ing it. We need all the relevant infor­mation. And it appears that this cable may be very relevant, indeed. So I hope the Secretary will be able to con­sider our request before his departure for Moscow; and that he will see fit to provide us with the cable.

BICENTENNIAL MINUTE APRIL 10, 1858: DEATH OF THOMAS HART

BENTON Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on April

10, 1858, 129 years ago today, one of the Giants of the Senate's golden age died after the most desperate race of his career. In the face of a long and painful illness, Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri drove himself to complete

his memories of 30 years in the Senate. His 30 years' view remains one of the most remarkable political memories in American literature.

Benton, a Democrat, was first elect­ed to the Senate in 1820. For the next three turbulent decades, he was in­volved in every major issue that erupt­ed on the Senate floor. His name, like those of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun, was known throughout the land. In 1850, when Benton opposed the Mis­souri Compromise, he failed to win re­election. After one term in the House, he was defeated again. Benton had long considered writing a book on his experiences, and, in retirement, he threw himself into the project. Month after month he labored, cajoling and pleading with colleagues for reminis­cences and critiques. "Scrawl away without restraint," he urged former President Martin Van Buren.

Benton was already suffering from cancer when volume 1 of "Thirty Year's View" was published in the spring of 1854. Enemies labeled it a "huge monument of self-eulogy," but none could deny the grand sweep of Benton's prose and vision. Benton was well into volume 2 when his Washing­ton house burned to the ground, de­stroying his books, papers, and the nearly finished second volume. He had invested too much of himself into the project to stop, and throughout 1855 he furiously rewrote huge passages from memory. In 1856, volume 2 ap­peared.

By then bedridden, Benton drove himself to complete his final project, the monumental "Abridgment of the Debates of Congress." He finished the 16th and final volume on April 9, 1858, and whispered, "I am comfortable and content." The next morning Thomas Hart Benton died at the age of 76 amid the documents of the Congress he loved.

DEPARTURE OF NAVY SECRETARY JOHN LEHMAN

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today is the last day that John Lehman will serve our country as Secretary of the Navy. I know my view is shared by many, many others, that he carried out his duties with intelligence, enthu­siasm, and determination.

If he sometimes seemed impatient, that was a reflection of the energy he brought to running our modern Navy. If he sometimes seemed too aggressive, that was a product of his single desire to get things done.

As he leaves, Secretary Lehman can justifiably feel proud of his record; leaving behind him:

Sailors and Marines that are more prepared than ever.

A combat-capable fleet that has been brought in ahead of time, and under cost.

8928 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 A better deal for our defense dollars,

based on competitive bidding, and smaller, more efficient administration.

A naval strategy that not only sup­ports today's national security strate­gy, but also guides the procurement of tomorrow's fleet.

I believe I speak for both sides of the aisle when I express the Senate's ap­preciation to Secretary Lehman for his untiring services to his country as Navy Secretary.

INTERMEDIATE-RANGE NUCLEAR FORCES

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, during the past few weeks I have spoken on the prospects for a good arms control agreement on intermediate-range nu­clear forces-INF-in Europe. I hope we can reach an agreement, but we should all recall that just any INF agreement won't necessarily be a good INF agreement. I have stressed the importance of effective verification, and of our right to match the Soviet monopoly in shorter range missiles.

The 1987 issue of the Department of Defense's Soviet Military Power un­derscores the vital importance of these shorter range systems. The section on "Soviet and United States Nonstrate­gic Nuclear Forces," for example, in­cludes a map which illustrates the threat to NATO posed by the lethal Scaleboard missiles. From their cur­rent locations in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, these mobile missiles could strike deep into Italy, France, and Great Britain.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that this section of Soviet Mili­tary Power be printed in the RECORD.

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

SOVIET AND UNITED STATES NONSTRATEGIC NucLEAR FORCES

LONGER RANGE INTERMEDIATE-RANGE NUCLEAR FORCES

The Soviets began a vigorous effort to modernize and expand their intermediate­range nuclear force in 1977 with the deploy­ment of the first SS-20 LRINF missiles. Be­cause each SS-20 is equipped with three MIRVs, Soviet LRINF missile warheads have more than doubled since 1977. The SS-20s also have significantly greater range and accuracy and a much shorter reaction time than the missiles they have replaced.

The Soviets have deployed 441 SS-20 launchers west of the Urals and in the Soviet Far East. During 1984, the Soviets began construction of more bases for the SS-20 than in any other year. Some of this construction was to assist the relocation of SS-20 units that had been displaced from their former bases. The former SS-20 bases have now been converted to accommodate the SS-25 mobile ICBM.

The mobility of the SS-20 system, unlike the older, fixed-based SS-4, allows it to op­erate under both on- and off-road condi­tions. As a result, the survivability of the SS-20 is greatly enhanced because of the difficulty in detecting and targeting this system when it is field deployed. Further,

the SS-20 launcher can be reloaded and re­fired, and the Soviets stockpile refire mis­siles. The Soviets are flight-testing an im­proved version of the SS-20, which is ex­pected to be more accurate than its prede­cessor.

In addition to the SS-20s, the Soviets maintain 112 SS-4 LRINF launchers. All of these are located in the western USSR op­posite European NATO.

NATO's initial deployment of Pershing lis and ground-launched cruise missiles <GLCMs> began in Europe in late 1983. The number of LRINF missiles deployed in Europe by 31 December 1986 totaled 316 single-warhead missiles on 160 launchers. These consist of 108 Pershing II missiles on 108 launchers and 208 GLCMs on 52 launch­ers.

OTHER NUCLEAR FORCES

In 1985, a brigade in the Belorussian Mili­tary District became the first operational unit to receive the SS-23 shorter range INF missile. The SS-23, with its 500-kilometer range, is a marked improvement in range and accuracy over the 300-kilometer SS-1c/ Scud B surface-to-surface missile it is re­placing. If the SS-23 follows the same se­quence of deployment seen with the Scud B, the western military districts will receive it first, followed by the Group of Soviet Forces, Germany.

The Scaleboard, another Soviet SRINF system, has a range of 900 kilometers. Each front commander also may . have a brigade of 12 to 18 new Scaleboard launchers avail­able, which are more accurate than the older Scaleboards they replaced.

Over 60 Scaleboard launchers are opposite European NATO. In 1984, the Soviets for­ward-deployed the Scaleboard ballistic mis­sile to Eastern Europe. These front-level weapons, which normally accompany Soviet combined arxns formations, are now in posi­tion to strike deep into Western Europe. Forty Scaleboards are along the border with China. A battalion is opposite Southwest Asia and eastern Turkey, and one battalion is maintained in strategic reserve. Because of their greatly increased accuracy, these new missiles can also be employed with non­nuclear warheads.

Soviet armies and fronts have missile bri­gades equipped with 12 to 18 SS-1c/Scud launchers. More than 500 are located oppo­site European NATO, and over 100 are along the border with China and in the Far East. Additionally, about 75 are opposite Southwest Asia and eastern Turkey, with over 25 launchers held in strategic reserve.

Various SNF consist of tube artillery and missiles of much shorter range than INF. These SNF assets are available to the Soviet division commander. The most prominent such system at division level is the unguided free-rocket-over-ground <FROG>, which is deployed in a battalion of four launchers. The Soviets are replacing FROGs with the more accurate, longer range SS-21s in some divisions opposite NATO. About 500 FROG and SS-21 launchers are opposite NATO. Another 215 FROG launchers are opposite China and in the Far East; some 100 are op­posite Southwest Aria and eastern Turkey; and about 75 are in strategic reserve.

Nuclear-capable artillery tubes are also available to front commanders. Three newer sell-propelled, nuclear-capable artillery pieces are being added to the inventory: a 152-mm gun <which also has a towed ver­sion), a 203-mm gun, and a 240-mm mortar. When fully deployed, these new nuclear-ca­pable artillery tubes plus older 152-mm how-

itzers that are also capable of firing nuclear rounds will exceed 10,000.

The Soviet Union will maintain its sub­stantial numerical superiority in shorter range INF and SNF systems while improv­ing the qualitative characteristics of its forces. The USSR also has a significant nu­merical advantage in INF aircraft and is re­ducing the qualitative advantage NATIO has held. This development is taking place despite NATO's INF aircraft modernization program, in which older aircraft are being replaced by the F-16 and Tornado.

Force Developments. As in all other nucle­ar attack forces, the Soviets will probably continue to seek ways to improve the capa­bilities of their tactical missiles and nuclear artillery. These improvements will be ac­complished through incremental moderniza­tion of existing systems as well as through the introduction of entirely new systems.

The Soviets probably will also work to up­grade their shorter-range ballistic missile force. Advancements in warhead capabili­ties, accuracy, and reliability are likely and tests could begin soon. Combined arxns com­manders would then have enhanced non-nu­clear targeting options and more flexible and survivable ballistic missile assets. These systems will be capable of delivering nucle­ar, chemical, or conventional warheads closer toward the forward edge of the battle area and to greater depth within the mili­tary theater of operation.

The US SNF is made up of Lance tactical missiles and nuclear artillery. Although SNF artillery was once an area of NATO ad­vantage, the balance has shifted in favor of the Soviets in recent years.

Sea-Based Forces. The Soviets operate 13 GOLF 11-Class ballistic missile submarines equipped with 3 SS-N-5 SLBMs each. Six GOLF lis are assigned to the Baltic, where they pose a threat to most of Europe, while the remaining seven are based in the Sea of Japan, where they can be employed against targets in the Far East.

The Soviet Navy also maintains an exten­sive sea-based non-strategic nuclear force comprising both antisurface warfare <ASUW> and antisubmarine warfare <ASW> as well as land-attack systems. The Soviets maintain an inventory of nuclear-armed tor­pedoes as well as ASW depth bombs; the newest versions of both entered service in the early 1980s. The Soviet Navy also de­ploys an extensive array of ASUW and ASW cruise missile systems, ranging from the SS­N-3 to the newer SS-N-19 and SS-N-22; the latter two were also introduced in the early 1980s. Some 288 surface warships, 340 sub­marines, and about 30 other combatant ships carry at least one of these systems.

US sea-based non-strategic programs in­clude continued production of the Toma­hawk nuclear-armed land-attack cruise mis­sile and development of a nuclear depth/ strike bomb <NDSB>. The Tomahawk pro­vides increased range over carrier aircraft and allows dispersal of nuclear strike assets over a large number of naval platforms. The NDSB, combining land-attack and ASW fea­tures in a single bomb, will replace the aging nuclear bombs currently fuUilling this mis­sion.

MORNING BUSINESS The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­

pore. There will now be a period for the transaction of morning business for not to extend beyond 2 hours, with

April 10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8929 Senators permitted to speak therein for 10 minutes each.

The Senator from Wisconsin is rec­ognized.

THE CASE AGAINST NEAR-TERM DEPLOYMENT OF SDI

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, on March 19, James Bruce of Senator BENNETT JoHNSTON's staff, and Doug­las Waller of my staff, submitted their second report on the progress of SDI and the challenges it faces. The report has been declassified by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization [SDIOJ. Here is a report that should shock any Senator who cares about our national defense. It should also startle any Senator who is concerned about the huge deficit that confronts our Federal Government. Waller and Bruce were not just spinning some­thing off the top of their heads. Their report was based on interviews with more than 60 of the top scientists who have been working on the strategic de­fense initiative. This Bruce-Waller report was a followup to the detailed and widely applauded report these same staffers made on SDI last year. Why was this latest report so startling and shocking?

First, the report disclosed for the first time a highly classified project known as a block program. The pur­pose of that program? To develop ar­chitecture for a near-term deployment of strategic defenses. SDIO has been telling Members of Congress and their staffs that no such near-term architec­ture exists. Access to this near-term architecture is compartmentalized so that only a few Members of Congress would be allowed to review it if they knew it existed. General Abrahamson flatly denies that this assertion in the report is true. He charges that SDI does not have a block program devel­oping architecture for a near-term de­ployment of strategic defenses.

Second, the report estimates that at best the SDI near-term deployment would be pathetically ineffective. Waller and Bruce contend that the de­ployment of space-based kinetic kill vehicles in the boost phase would de­stroy no more than 11 percent of the Soviet offensive threat. The maximum expected kill for ground-based inter­ceptors is reported to be 5 percent.

Third, even this grossly inadequate defense is reported to face "tremen­dous engineering and production prob­lems that will require a sizable amount of research talent and substantial funding increases to overcome."

Fourth, the kinetic kill vehicles that might take out as much as 11 percent of the Soviet warheads would be ex­pected to be useful for only 5 or 10 years. After that time, Soviet counter­measures would probably overwhelm it.

Fifth, far more promising long-term SDI research would be sacrificed to pay for the big cost of near-term de­ployment.

So what is to be accomplished by a program that will provide no signifi­cant defense, will swiftly skyrocket costs, and will seriously compromise far more promising strategic defense projects that might develop 25 or 30 years from now? Why would any ad­ministration, especially an administra­tion as obviously devoted to a success­ful antimissile defense pursue such policies? The answer is obvious. The SDI program is in serious trouble.

Last year, after the President had made it clear that SDI was his top military priority, the Congress slashed his request by nearly 30 percent. This year, the Congress is unlikely once again to provide any significant part of the administration's $2.3 billion re­quested increase in SDI funds. Appar­ently it is the administration's judg­ment that the Congress is reluctant to provide big increases for research in a project that will only produce visible hardware in the far-off indefinite future. They seem to feel that the tan­gible appearance of land-based inter­ceptors and the exciting drama of huge space-based battle stations would stimulate public excitement and en­thusiasm. It is a long-shot gamble. If the Congress falls for it, if the Con­gress agrees to provide the tens of bil­lions necessary to make the big, pre­mature hardware commitments to this program, it will be a tragic mistake.

The experts tell us that at best the near-term SDI deployment might, by the mid-1990's, succeed in intercepting a paltry 16 percent of a potential 10,000 strategic nuclear warheads the Soviets could launch at United States' targets. Even that would take a series of remarkable technological successes. Succeed or fail, one absolutely certain Soviet response would be an accelera­tion of the Soviet offensive nuclear force necessary to overcome this half­baked, premature star wars.

If the administration is to insist that the Congress proceed with SDI, it should follow the recommendations of its own scientific experts. It should stay with the most promising long­term research. It should recognize that only patience can pay off. It should recognize that the enormous lead this country enjoys over the Sovi­ets in every technology related to stra­tegic defense permits this patience. Meanwhile we should steadfastly maintain our immensely powerful nu­clear deterrent. We should push hard for arms control limitation on offen­sive, and defensive weapons, and for strengthening of our nonproliferation agreements.

Mr. President, General Abrahamson, the Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization has written a strong rebuttal of much of the staff

report that Bruce from the office of Senator JoHNSTON and Waller from my own office have written.

I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the staff report together with conclusions reached by the staff and the letter and rebuttal comments of General Abrahamson on the report be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

SDI: PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES

EXECUTIVE SU!DIARY

One year ago, the authors of this report produced a study assessing the progress made in Strategic Defense Initiative re­search and the challenges that lay ahead for the program. That study, titled SDI: Progress and Challenges, concluded that while progress had been made in the pro­gram no tremendous breakthroughs had been achieved to warrant a conclusion at this time that comprehensive strategic de­fenses were feasible. Furthermore, the study detailed significant problems strategic defenses faced, such as satellite survivabil­ity, discrimination of warheads from decoys, and space transportation and logistics.

An updated study was requested by Sena­tor William Proxmire and Senator J. Ben­nett Johnston to again examine the progress SDI has made since the release of the last study. Furthermore, this report was tasked with analyzing the current move­ment within the Administration to commit this country to a so-called "near-term" de­ployment of strategic defenses and to assess the considerable reorientation the SDI pro­gram has recently undergone as a result of this movement.

The authors interviewed more than 60 SDI scientists, engineers, project managers, and ballistic missile defense experts for this report. Extensive briefings were held at the nation's three national weapons laboratories conducting SDI research, the Air Force Space Division, and with key defense con­tractors involved in SDI work.

The findings of this study are: If the President publicly announces a de­

cision to commit to a near-term deployment of strategic defense as some have urged, no SDI weapons system is ready for deploy­ment today. There is nothing to deploy today.

The Strategic Defense Initiative Organiza­tion <SDIO> is reorienting its program to pursue vigorously a near-term deployment of ballistic missile defenses, possibly in the 1994-95 timeframe. This reorientation is not awaiting a publicly announced Presidential decision to commit to near-term deploy­ment. The President's FY 1987 budget, FY 1987 supplemental request and FY 1988 budget request for SDI would implement the reorientation toward the near term.

a. The program's directed energy weapons <DEW> budget has been drastically cut while the kinetic energy weapons budget is enjoying a healthy increase. The DEW pro­gram is researching technologies for a far­term defense, while the KEW program has a heavy concentration of near-term technol­ogies

b. In a number of instances, far-term inno­vative SDI technologies are being scaled back to pay for the near-term option.

c. In the ground-based interceptor projects, SDI has cut back on the advanced

8930 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 techonology development while the early technology demonstrations of these inter­ceptors is being heavily funded. The early demonstrations will not produce militarily capable systems; only the far-term research will accomplish that. This appears to be an example of SDI being more interested in the near-term demonstration of a weapon than in developing a militarily capable weapon in the far term.

d. SDI has scaled back research into space-based sensors that would be used for discrimination and tracking of warheads in the midcourse phase. Effective midcourse discrimination was always considered to be unavailable until near the end of the centu­ry.

e. SDI has significantly reoriented its spaced-based kinetic kill vehicle <SBKKV> project to pursue a near-term deployment in the mid 1990's instead of the late 1990's. Under orders from SDIO, the project is now pursuing a SBKKV system of much more limited capability than that previously dis­cussed as essential for SDI boost-phase de­fensive systems.

f. To place the SBKKV system and other sensor satellites in space in the near-term SDI is rushing development of a heavy-lift launch vehicle. Last year, space transporta­tion was not as high a priority for SDI as developing the exotic technologies that would be deployed in the far term. But with the push for a near-term deployment, the SDI space transportation budget has been drastically increased and a hurry-up sched­ule for building a heavy-lift vehicle is being put into place. This push for early produc­tion of a heavy-lift launch vehicle creates a risk of significant distortions in the U.S. military and civilian space programs.

We have been told that SDIO has a "black program" that is developing a reference ar­chitecture for a near-term deployment of strategic defenses-that is, a highly classi­fied program which is developing a blue­print for deploying strategic defenses in the near term. Access to this near-term architec­ture program is compartmentalized so that only a few members of Congress would be allowed to review it if they knew it existed. In fact, it appears that most members of Congress are being kept in the dark about this secret program. While SDI has been telling members of Congress and their staffs that no such near-term architecture exists, it appears that SDI officials have been quietly approaching their contractors to draw up plans for a near-term deployment.

Based on careful review of the reorienta­tion that is under way within the SDI pro­gram and the tasks assigned to contractors, the authors believe that the near-term de­ployment SDIO has in mind for the 1994-95 timeframe would have an effectiveness against Soviet ballistic missile warheads of no more than 16 percent. Such a deploy­ment in 1994-95 would have:

a. no laser or beam weapons, as are popu­larly associated with SDI;

b. a token deployment of space-based ki­netic kill vehicles in the boost phase that would likely be able to destroy no more than 11% of the Soviet offenseive threat;

c. no midcourse kill or discrimination ca­pability to speak of; and

d. 400-1,000 ground-based interceptors, produced on a hurry-up schedule, that might destroy no more than 5% of the in­coming warheads.

Many assume that a near-term deploy­ment could be easily accomplished. They are seriously mistaken. A review of the tech­nologies being considered for near-term de-

ployment revealed that they face tremen­dous engineering and production problems that will require a sizable amount of re­search talent and substantial funding in­creased to overcome.

A near-term deployment of space-based ki­netic kill vehicles would have limited mili­tary utility in space of perhaps 5 to 10 years as the Soviets responded with countermeas­ures, including proliferaton of offensive forces. SDI scientists envision a variety of possible Soviet countermeasures and, in fact, do not agree on which countermeas­ures the Soviets would deploy. They do agree, however, that the Soviets would deploy countermeasures and it would not be too long before the initial fleet of U.S. ki­netic kill vehicles in space, if not augmented with other systems, would be rendered largely ineffective and interceptors on the ground would be swamped by warheads and decoys.

SDI scientists are deeply concerned that critical far-term strategic defense research will be sacrificed to pay for the huge cost of the near-term deployment. If the U.S. pro­ceeds with a near-term deployment, said one scientist, "you can't expect to maintain a robust research program. There will be a big tendency to move ahead by eating your chil­dren." There is evidence that the program already is siphoning off funds from the far­term technology research efforts to pay for increased emphasis on the near term.

If the U.S. proceeds with a near-term de­ployment, the Soviets can develop counter­measures to overcome that deployment, SDI scientists agreed-the only question is when the Soviets can overcome the initial defense. That is why it is critical that if the U.S. de­ploys in the near term it also has the follow­on, more exotic laser and beam technologies ready to defeat the anticipated Soviet coun­termeasures. If that follow-on technology is not available as the near-term defense de­grades, "you may well end up with a more destabilizing situation than before," said one SDI scientist. At this point, however, SDI does not know whether the follow-on technologies would be available at the ap­propriate time. Even if there were, it is un­clear whether there will be enough money to support a near-term deployment and to pursue the follow-on technologies.

Last year, the authors reported that there had been progress made in the SDI pro­gram, but that there were no amazing breakthroughs to settle the question of whether comprehensive strategic defenses were feasible. This year, the authors note that significant progress again has been made in the SDI program. But again, based on the author's interviews with SDI scien­tists and engineers, there have been no tre­mendous breakthroughs. More importantly, the progress made in the program the past year does not appear to serve as a compel­ling justification for a near-term deploy­ment.

CONCLUSIONS

As a result of the extensive briefings and interviews conducted during the past two months, this report comes to the following conclusions:

1. In the past, Congress has appropriated a topline funding figure for the Strategic Defense Initiative and avoided specifying how that money should be allocated within the program. Congress has not wanted to "micromanage" the SDI program and has therefore allowed the SDI Director wide latitude to allocate funds within SDI and determine its priorities. Congress, however, may want to reexamine this policy in light

of the considerable reorientation that is going on within SDI toward a near-term de­ployment. Congress should not assume that this reorientation awaits a public announce­ment of Presidential approval.

2. Members of Congress should require if a "black" program has been set up to devel­op a near-term deployment architecture and, if so, why such a high classification level is required. As one scientist and an SDI contractor pointed out to us, the program is being kept in the black largely because it is too immature at the moment to stand the test of rigid scrutiny. SDI, nevertheless, should be allowed to pursue a program that has such political and diplomatic ramifica­tions without broad Congressional review.

3. Congress should be skeptical of claims that a near-term deployment could be easily accomplished. Our review of the technical and production hurdles involved with a near-term deployment indicate they are sub­stantial and would require significant scien­tific resources and large funding increases. Congress has had a long acquaintance with military programs that run into problems during production and deployment, despite the most optimistic predictions and best in­tentions. Congress, therefore, should assume that a near-term deployment would not avoid the same production delay and cost overrun problems most military pro­grams often face.

4. A near-term deployment in the 1994-95 timeframe, because of its very limited capa­bility, would not significantly enhance U.S. national security and would not only serve somewhat as a complicating factor for Soviet attack plans. Congress should exam­ine carefully whether such a deployment is worth (a) the significant costs that would be incurred, <b> the likely destruction of the 1972 ABM Treaty, and <c> the likely deep di­vision it will cause between the U.S. and its allies.

5. Since its inception, SDI every year has undergone radical shifts in its priorities. Every year for the past three, SDI officials have come to Congress asking for hundreds of millions of dollars targeted at what they claimed were critical priorities, only to change those priorities the next year. More­over, these fluctuations are more the result of decisions made by SDI's own managers rather than congressional budget cuts. Con­gress should heed the warning of SDI's own scientists who say that what the program desperately needs is stability.

6. Congress should not let another year pass with SDI still refusing to provide cost estimates <not cost goals) for strategic de­fenses. In particular, Congress should be wary of any near-term deployment option that does not come with realistic cost esti­mates. Moreover, Congress should ensure that no deployment in the near or far term be made unless it is cost effective at the margin and survivable, per the requirements of current law.

7. A near-term deployment would involve sizeable federal expenditures for <a> the near-term deployment itself and <b> the follow-on technologies that would have to be ready when the near-term deployment capability degrades. Congress must decide early on whether it is willing to commit such large sums of money to both the near­term and the follow-on deployments. Once we start the race, there will be no turning back. Deploying near-term defenses without following up with the far-term technologies would produce highly destabilizing results. In light of the funding caps placed on SDI in years past, Congress must ask itself

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8931 whether it is prepared to make this leap in spending.

8. Congress should raise more questions about what happens with the second move. In other words, what happens after the U.S. launches a near-term deployment. How long will it take the Soviets to respond? Will follow-on technologies be able to counter this response? Will there be a national com­mitment to devote considerable resources to these follow-on technologies? We were struck with how much uncertainty there is among SDI scientists and engineers about what would happen in the second move.

9. For the past two years, senior SDI and Administration officials have claimed tre­mendous breakthroughs in the SDI pro­gram, which demonstrated that strategic de­fenses were feasible. A close examination of these claims invariably reveals that while the program has made progress in numer­ous areas, the progress pales in comparison to the technical hurdles that remain toward achieving a militarily capable system. Con­gress, therefore, should be just as wary this year of inflated claims of success as it was last year. This year, moreover, senior SDI and Administration officials argue that breakthroughs in the program justify, and indeed compel, the movement toward a near-term deployment. We could find little scientific evidence to substantiate these claims, based on our interviews with SDI sci­entists and engineers. Politics-not technol­ogy-is behind the movement toward a near­term deployment.

Congress, therefore, may wish to consider four important questions this year:

Should the SDI program be reoriented to pursue vigorously a near-term deployment of strategic defenses?

What are the implications for SDI re­search overall and for U.S. national security if such a reorientation proceeds?

What are the federal expenditures and strategic uncertainties if Congress decides to accede to the first step of a near-term de­ployment?

Does the progress made so far in the SDI program really justify leaping into a near­term deployment?

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE ORGANIZATION,

Washington, DC, AprilS, 1987.

Hon. WILLIAM PROXMIRE, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR: I have read with interest the Congressional staff report, "SDI: Progress and Challenges Part Two," submit­ted to you and Senator Johnston, and would like to offer you my observations.

I feel that the report does not present an accurate accounting of the SDI research program. The SDI program is an extremely complex set of research efforts. It is a very difficult proposition to analyze all the dif­ferent aspects of the research and summa­rize correctly the progress and challenges. The Congressional staff report contains findings and conclusions which are inaccu­rate and do a great disservice to the efforts of the thousands of individuals involved in the SDI.

As an example, a recurring theme in the report is that a decision has been made to pursue near-term technology, and the SDI research has been reoriented to that goal. While some media have also made the same allegation, it simply is not true. In my testi­mony this year I have attempted to clarify

the issue of "near-term deployment." No de­cision has been made, and the program has not been restructured to implement a de­ployment. My research charter continues to address the spectrum of mature and ad­vanced technology research. We have placed emphasis where I consider it critical, such as the shortfall in space transportation. We have also rebalanced the complicated re­source allocation plan, based on actual ap­propriations and the need to maintain com­petition in technology approaches. Our goal remains, however, to continue to pursue a delicately balanced program. I have at­tached a brief summary of other criticisms of the staff report.

I would like to meet with you at your con­venience to discuss any issues or unan­swered questions you may have. A similar letter has been sent to Senator Johnston.

Sincerely, JAMES A. ABRAHAMSON,

Lieutenant General, USAF, Director.

STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE ORGANIZATION CoMMENTs

Subject: Congressional Staff Report. Submitted to: Senator William Proxmire and Senator J. Bennett Johnston. Titled: "SDI: Progress and Challenges Part Two," AprilS, 1987.

1. General comment: the report does not present an objective appraisal of the progress and challenges of the SDI pro­gram.

We feel the authors did not consult suffi­cient informed technical opinion and accept­ed faulty assumptions which resulted in in­correct conclusions. The report reflects a basic misunderstanding of the current direc­tion of the SDI Program. Unfortunately, most of the report is based on unattributed references which makes it impossible for the reader to verify accuracy or context of quotations.

2. Main findings or conclusions at issue. There is a consistent theme in nearly all

the findings; that SDIO is reorienting its program to vigorously pursue a near-term deployment. The fact is there has been no change in the SDI research goal. The objec­tive is to explore a broad range of strategic defense options, extending from the most mature technology to most advanced tech­nology.

Based upon the progress to date, we remain convinced that the basic goal of the SDI is achievable. In fact, it may be reached much sooner than we had expected. This progress has enabled us to begin now to ex­maine concrete working hypotheses about the defensive options that may be available in the early to mid-1990s. However, the SDI has not progressed to the point where dis­cussion about an imminent "early deploy­ment" would be appropriate.

An example of that theme is the charge that funding has been shifted to deploy­ment of near-term technology. In fact, the SDI research continues to be a finely bal­anced program, with appropriated funds balanced across technology. Changes or shifts from any previously planned funding allocations have been necessary for a varie­ty of reasons:

To accommodate funding constraints To maintain parallel research efforts

where unknowns remain To reduce parallel research when certain

approaches are found inappropriate To follow Congressional guidance. There is another theme which prevails in

the report, and that is that Soviet counter­measures are easy, effective and will render

any initial strategic defense system ineffec­tive. Significant effort is placed on under­standing possible countermeasures, includ­ing tactics such as nuclear precursor bursts. The accepted conclusion is that there are no simple, cheap, quick counter-measures. In fact, the authors of the Congressional staff report were challenged on that theme by qualified individuals, yet persisted. More­over, the SDI program is designed and structured to pursue defenses which would be effective even in the face of Soviet coun­termeasures.

Finally, the report concludes that a near­term deployment will have limited utility and not significantly enhance U.S. national security. The initial phase of any SDI system, no matter when it is deployed, would have a specifically intended utility. That utility would be based upon the mis­sion prescribed and, of course, the threat projected. A phased deployment, with initial and subsequent phases, would be the only possible way to implement a complete, effec­tive system. However, the report basically ignores results which show the potential contribution of even a limited initial phase to stability.

3. We concur with certain findings, but comments are necessary.

The report correctly notes that there is nothing to deploy today. An effective, oper­ational system for defense against attacking ballistic missiles is still several years away­even if a deployment decision were made now. That reality, plus an understanding of the aggressive research program of the Sovi­ets, explains why we must continue our own robust resarch.

<While we agree that no effective system exists today, the report contains numerous errors regarding estimates of availability for certain technologies or systems. For exam­ple, the assessment that a reliable mid­course discrimination capability will not be available before the year 2000 is not valid.>

The report points out that a near-term de­ployment could not be easily accomplished. There are many considerations in addition to the design of an effective defensive system, such as the nations space transpor­tation shortfall, which must be thoroughly understood and resolved to move toward a deployment.

The report points out the need for Con­gressional review of the SDI program. Con­siderable effort is allocated to developing complete reports for the Congress. These are quite complex and require a great amount of time to prepare. Further, we wel­come all opportunities to provide requested information on the research program, so that the Congress will understand the im­portance of the program and the justifica­tion of the budget requests. In fact, visits to SDI-related research activities were ar­ranged for the authors of this Congressional staff report, even with the understanding that their purpose was to update their pre­vious critical report. Every effort was made to satisfy an itinerary, including discussions with only those individuals identified by the authors, exactly as requested to preclude any perception of obscuring information about the SDI program. Obviously, the ac­cepted risk is that such openness will some­times result in impartial or incomplete re­ports.

4. Other specific assertions in the report are challenged.

Claim: "We have been told that SDIO has a "black program" that is developing a ref­erence architecture for a near-term deploy­ment of strategic defenses."

8932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprilJO, 1987 Response: False. The SDIO does not have

a black program developing a reference ar­chitecture for a near-term deployment of strategic defenses.

Claim: "To place the SBKKV system and other sensor satellites in space in the near­term SDI is rushing development of heavy lift launch vehicle. Last year, space trans­portation was not a high priority for SDI as developing the exotic technologies that would be deployed in the far term. But with the push for a near-term deployment, the SDI space transportation budget has been drastically increased and a hurry-up sched­ule for building a heavy lift vehicle is being put into place. This push for early produc­tion of a heavy lift launch vehicle creates a risk of significant distortions in the U.S. military and civilian space programs."

Response: The SDIO is not pursuing a "hurry-up schedule" for the heavy lift launch vehicle effort. The Concept Defini­tion efforts we plan to initiate are a logical follow-on to the combined Air Force/ NASA/SDIO on-going Space Transporta­tion and Support studies and are designed to address the emerging problem of a short­age of space lift capability. If a decision were made to seriously pursue development, this effort would not create the "risk of sig­nificant distortions in the U.S. military and civilian space programs." On the contrary, it would guarantee its future ability to use space for military, civil, and commercial ap­plications.

Claim: "Any boost-phase defense, howev­er, must have key elements based in space, even if they are only sensors or relay mir­rors. Last year's report described why sur­vivability is the ultimate problem any space­based system faces. A sampling of the Soviet countermeasures that might degrade surviv­ability include anti-satellite <ASAT> weap­ons, ground-based lasers, electronic counter­measures, space mines, x-ray lasers and pel­lets in orbit."

Response: The SDIO is assessing the pro­jected threat and countermeasures which could be employed over time. Any defense system architecture which may be recom­mended in the future would be judged on its effectiveness and ability to survive against the threat.

Claim: "Despite the problems the Soviets would have producing them, the communi­ty-wide consensus is that a fast-bum booster is a credible near-term threat."

Response: Any assumptions about the sim­plicity of the Soviet's ability to completely restructure their strategic ballistic missile force to fast burn boosters in order to reduce the effectiveness of SBKKVs is in itself so simplistic it is naive. Such a state­ment reflects a clear lack of understanding concerning the technical and cost require­ments associated with revamping the entire Soviet strategic ballistic missile force.

Claim: "It is clear that some Members of Congress have been told conflicting stories by SDIO about its overall plan for near­term deployment. Some Members and their staffs reportedly are being told such a plan exists, while we were told no plan exists."

Response: Our policy and intent is to pro­vide full and complete information to all members of the Congress. We are not aware that any conflicting reports has been circu­lated. All Members of Congress have been provided and will continue to be provided any information requested and under their purview. There is no plan for deploying a ballistic-missile defense, near-term or other­wise. SDIO is examining what technologies might be deployable for an initial and subse-

quent phases if a decision were made in the future to begin deployment.

Claim: ". . . After examining closely the SDI budget for FY 1987 and FY 1988 and after analyzing the shifts made in key SDI projects, it is clear that this reorientation toward a near-term option is well under way."

Response: The allegation that the SDIO has shifted its budget to support near-term options is erroneous. The SDI research charter continues to address the spectrum of mature and advanced technology re­search. We have placed emphasis where it is considered most critical, such as the short­fall in space transportation. We have also rebalanced the complicated resource alloca­tion plan, based on actual appropriations and the need to maintain competition in technology approaches. Our goal remains, however, to continue to pursue a delicately balanced program.

Claim: "In discussing the cost of assuring survivability, the program director said, "We'll have to adopt the U.S. Navy carrier philosophy of using 80%, of the resources to stay alive more than 20 minutes."

Response: Colonel Hess, SDIO Program Director for Survivability, Lethality, and Key Technologies said: "Because of the af­fordability considerations, we will have to be smarter than adopting the U.S. Navy phi­losophy of using 80% of their resources to stay alive for more than 20 minutes." This type of error, or innuendo, is typical of the context of material attributed to technical expertise which formed the basis for the report.

Claim: " ... What was interesting from our briefings this year and last was how readily some scientists and engineers men­tioned "keep-out" zones as part of the de­fense against space mines, as if we are com­pletely free to establish them unilaterally. What if the Soviet refused to recognize our keep-out zones, especially those that extend over Soviet territory? What if the Soviets turn the tables on us and announced Just as our SDI deployment commenced that they were imposing a keep-out zone against all U.S. SDI overflights of their territory? These are questions that deserve much greater analysis than they appear to have received."

Response: SDIO continues to examine ways to counter space mines and has not adopted "keep-out zones" as the solution, al­though it would be a useful approach. U.S. adoption of keep-out zones to protect U.S. defensive assets against Soviet space mines would be within the bounds of international law. A Soviet adoption of a keep-out zone over the Soviet Union would violate interna­tional law.

Claim: "Shuttle II, a heavy-lift follow on to the space shuttle, could have the capacity to support SDI and perhaps have a low enough cost, but it was not enviSioned to be ready for service until nearly 2005 .... "

Response: Shuttle II, while not totally de­fined by NASA, is not envisioned as a "heavy lift follow on to the space shuttle."

BAN ON ALL TRADE WITH AFGHANISTAN

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, what country has the worst record in the world in terms of human rights violations? What country's govern­ment is considered the least legitimate in the eyes of the majority of the na­tions of the world? What regime, with

the help of 120,000 foreign troops, is directly responsible for the death, or more accurately the genocide of more than 1 million of its own people? What country's brutal civil war has created the largest refugee population in the world? The answer to all four ques­tions is Afghanistan.

Mr. President, today Senator HUM­PHREY, along with myself and 20 of our Senate colleagues, is introducing a bill that would cut off all trade, imports and exports, with the despicable Gov­ernment of Afghanistan. This legisla­tion, in my opinion, is long overdue. While the United States for some time now has exercised strict supervision over trade with Afghanistan, these controls apply primarily to exports which may have military or strategic applications. Ironically, other exports have continued and trade with the Kabul regime more than doubled last year. This legislation would cut off all economic ties with this represssive Soviet puppet. Last year the United States sold 7.3 million dollars' worth of goods to Afghanistan. Shockingly, the United States continues to sell them, among other things, aircraft components, chemical products, and engine parts. Mr. President, the United Nations has described the con­dition of human rights in Afghanistan as: "A situation approaching geno­cide." How can the United States, a model of democracy to the rest of the world, justifiably continue to maintain economic ties with such a nation? It is even more shocking that, despite the U.N. declaration, the United States continues to permit virtually urestrict­ed trade on most products with the Kabul regime.

Mr. President, last year the Presi­dent wisely withdrew most-favored­nation status from Afghanistan. Con­gress is already unanimously on record in condemnation of this evil regime. Senator HUMPHREY's bill would simply prohibit any Afghan product from being imported to the United States. In addition, so far as United States au­thorities have jurisdiction, the bill would permit no American goods or technology to be exported to Afghani­stan.

Mr. President, this legislation makes good, common sense and deserves strong, bipartisan support. While in the past some Members of this body have expressed doubts over the need to cut off trade with Nicaragua, North Korea, and Cuba, this case is crystal clear. If any nation deserves this body's condemnation, the heartless, cruel Afghan regime does. We should do all we can to condemn the near genocidal behavior of the Government of Afghanistan toward its own people.

Just over 1 year ago this Chamber fi­nally had the good sense to ratify the Genocide Convention more than 36 years after President Harry Truman

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8933

asked the Senate to do so. With this in mind, it is only appropriate that the United States no longer conduct normal trade relations with a regime so hell bent on massacring its own people. I urge my colleagues to move quickly on this matter.

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro­ceeded to call the roll.

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT protem­pore. Without objection, it is so or­dered.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall

speak today on the subject of Advice and Consent: the Senate and Treaties. This is one of my continuing series of speeches on the U.S. Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that I may speak outside the limitation of 10 min­utes, but with the understanding that I will yield when other Senators come to the floor and wish to speak, and that no interruptions in the RECORD of my statement will be shown.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. Without objection, it is so or­dered.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I reiter­ate, I want to accommodate other Sen­ators. There is no business that is to be transacted that will require any length of time today. There are a couple of matters on the legislative calendar and one or two items, hope­fully, on the executive calendar, that can be taken care of. But I will not transgress on the patience or the con­venience of other Senators in the course of my remarks.

THE UNITED STATES SENATE

ADVICE AND CONSENT: THE SENATE AND TREATIES

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we cel­ebrate this year the bicentennial of the United States Constitution, I wish to draw attention to certain constitu­tional provisions unique to the United States Senate, which have played sig­nificant roles in shaping the history of this institution. I refer today to the Senate's authority of "advice and con­sent" on treaties and nominations. Today, I shall speak on the Senate and treaties and, at another time, shall continue with remarks on the confir­mation of nominations.

Article 2, section 2 of the Constitu­tion states that the president "shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the

senators present concur." These few words are the cornerstone to a major part of our system of divided powers, checks and balances. Yet, how were they decided upon? And what do they mean?

Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our Constitution, there was no executive branch, so trea­ties were negotiated by agents of the Congress. Even under that arrange­ment, no treaty could be entered into without the consent of nine of the ex­isting thirteen states or approximately two-thirds of the states. When the Constitutional Convention created an executive branch, it raised the issue of whether treaty-making should be a legislative or executive power. South Carolina's Charles Pinckney proposed that the upper house of the legislative branch have "the sole and exclusive power ... to make treaties." Pinckney presumably chose the Senate because under the new form of government, it would most conform to the old Con­federation Congress' system of equal voices for all states, regardless of size. New York's Alexander Hamilton argued that the new executive should take the lead in foreign policy, sug­gesting that the president have the power to make treaties "with the advice and approbation of the Senate."

James . Wilson of Pennsylvania pressed the case for advice and con­sent by the House of Representatives as well as by the Senate. Roger Sher­man of Connecticut, however, argued that secrecy would be required for the deliberation of sensitive foreign policy issues, and that the smaller, legisla­tively elected Senate would be more able than the larger, popularly elected House to conduct its business in secret session. Virginia's James Madison of­fered an amendment to allow treaties of peace to be adopted by less than a two-thirds vote, or to permit two­thirds of the Senate to adopt a peace treaty without the concurrence of the president. Neither of Madison's amendments was adopted. Roger Sher­man then proposed that treaties be ap­proved by a majority of the Senate, rather than a two-thirds vote. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina objected that this would be "less security than two-thirds." Sherman responded: "It will be less embarrassing." How many future presidents would second that opinion! But the Convention retained the two-thirds margin. Finally, after much deliberation, the delegates adopted what was essentially Hamil­ton's proposal for presidential power to make treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate.1

Hamilton defended his proposal in the Federalist Papers, No. 75, which first appeared in the New York Inde­pendent Journal on March 26, 1788. Although the provision had raised some controversy, Hamilton declared

it "one of the best digested and most unexceptional parts of the plan." The essence of the legislative authority was to enact laws, wrote Hamilton, while the execution of the laws was the function of the president. But the power to make treaties was neither the enactment nor the execution of a law. "Its objects are contracts with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obliga­tion of good faith." The power, there­fore, properly belonged to both the ex­ecutive and legislature. The President was the most fit agent for negotiating treaties, "while the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the partici­pation of the whole or a part of the legislative body in the office of making them." 2

Mr. President, Roy Swanstrom, in the United States Senate <1787-1801), said:

The Senate power which aroused the gravest and most widespread apprehension was that associated with the making of trea­ties. Opponents of the Constitution ex­pressed almost pathological fears that the Senate would use the treaty power corrupt­ly and treasonably. A bare two-thirds of a Senate quorum-10 Senators-could in secret conclave sacrifice the dearest inter­ests of the people, alienate the territory and commercial rights of the United States, even dismember the Union. Foreign gold would line the pockets of Senators, hungry for money and power. The Senate would usurp all the powers given other branches of the Government because under the Con­stitution treaties would supersede all laws.

Such fears were especially prevalent in the Southern States. Southerners feared that the Northern and Middle States would combine to pass treaties yielding the inter­ests of the south to some foreign power. At Richmond, William Grayson, afterward a Senator from Virginia, anticipated that if southern Members were absent from the Senate floor for "Just 1 hour," a treaty might be made yielding the navigation of the Mississippi to Spain, thus preventing the development of the Southwest and as­suring the continued dominance of the North.

Virginia and North Carolina so opposed the Senate's treaty power that their conven­tions proposed identical amendments pro­viding that no commercial treaties be rati­fied without the concurrence of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators <to prevent such tricks as Grayson envisioned) and that no treaties yielding any territorial, fishing, or navigation claims of the United States be ratified without concurrence of three­fourths of the whole number of the Mem­bers of both Houses-this in spite of the fact that James Wilson's motion to include the House in the treaty power had been defeat­ed at Philadelphia by a vote of 10 States to 1.3

Mr. President, Mr. Swanstrom, in his informative history of the first four­teen years of the "upper legislative body," which was reprinted as a Senate document in 1985, has pointed out that because so much of the Con­stitution was reached by compromise rather than by plan, it is difficult to be sure of all of the framers' reasons, but he suggests they had three main

8934 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 purposes in giving the Senate a share of the treaty power:

<1> To restrain the president, who might otherwise use the treaty power in a despotic and arbitrary manner-in other words, this was part of the system of 'checks and bal­ances';

<2> To give the president 'advice' in the sense of information and counsel;

<3> To defend the sovereignty of the States, of which the Senate was to be the special representative; giving this great power to the Chamber in which the States were equally represented was thus part of the 'Great Com­promise' of the Convention. •

Another interpreter of the "Advice and Consent" clause was former Sena­tor Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr., who him­self played the leading role in defeat­ing the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and 1920. Senator Lodge took special note of the "carefully phrased sec­tion" of the Constitution which gave the president--absolute and unrestricted right to nomi­nate, and the Senate can only advise and consent to the appointment of, a given person .... Very different is the wording of the treaty clause. There the words 'by and with the advice and consent of' come in after the words 'shall have power' and before the power referred to is defined. The 'advise and consent of the Senate' are there­fore coexistensive with the 'power' con­ferred on the president, which is 'to make treaties,' and apply to the entire process of treaty-making. The states in the convention of 1787 agreed to share the treaty power with the president created by the Constitu­tion, but they never thought of resigning it, or of retaining anything less than they gave.5

Well, Mr. President, it is one thing to interpret the Constitution and an­other to put that interpretation into practice. Neither the first Senate nor the first president was certain how to proceed. On August 6, 1789, the Senate appointed a committee of three <consisting of Senators Ralph Izard, Rufus King, and Charles Carroll> to confer with President Washington on the means of communications between them concerning treaties and nomina­tions. Specifically, should that com­munication be written or oral? Two days later, the committee met with the president and assured him that they sought a system most agreeable to him. But as Washington confided to James Madison <then a leader of the House of Representatives), "I could plainly perceive notwithstanding, that oral communications was the point they aimed at."

Washington held his ground in favor of written communication on nomina­tions. ("It could be no pleasing thing I conceive, for the president, on the one hand to be present and hear the pro­priety of his nominations questioned," Washington observed; "nor for the Senate on the other hand to be under the smallest restraint from his pres­ence from the fullest and freest in­quiry into the Character of the Person

nominated.") But for treaties, he con­ceded, "oral communications seem in­dispensably necessary; because in these a variety of matters are con­tained, all of which not only require consideration, but some of them may undergo much discussion; to do which by written communications would be tedious without being satisfactory." 6

Washington was willing to pursue whatever line of conduct appeared "to be more conducive to the public good," but he still had many unresolved ques­tions. Where should these oral com­munications take place? If in the Senate chamber, should the vice presi­dent continue to preside and the presi­dent take a lesser station? It all seemed awkward to the first president, who was well aware that his every action established precedents for his successors. At a second meeting with the Senate committee, on August 10, Washington speculated that whenever the new government constructed buildings of its own, it should provide an "executive Chamber" for the joint business of the president and the Senate. In the meantime, it seemed that there would be occasions when the president should attend Senate de­liberations to make his propositions orally. The S~nate should therefore accommodate its rules for the giving of advice and consent "in either the presence or absence of the president, leaving him free to use the mode and place that may be found most eligible and accordant with other business which may be before him at the time." 7

The committee's report, which the Senate adopted on August 21, 1789, re­solved "That when the President of the United States shall meet the Senate in the Senate Chamber, the President of the Senate shall have a Chair on the floor, be considered as the head of the Senate, and his Chair shall be assigned to the President of the United States .... That all ques­tions shall be put by the President of the Senate, either in the presence or the absence of the President of the United States; and the Senators shall signify their assent or dissent, by an­swering viva voce aye, or no." That same day, Tobias Lear, President Washington's secretary, arrived with a message that the president would meet with the Senate in the chamber the following day "to advise them on the terms of the Treaty to be negotiat­ed with the Southern Indians." 8

In previous addresses, I have de­scribed the scene in the Senate cham­ber that Saturday, August 22, 1789-and, incidentally, the days of the week and the dates of this year fall as they did in the year of 1789. In other words, August 22 of this year will also be on Saturday-when President Washing­ton and Secretary of War Henry Knox presented the Senate with a series of questions relating to treaties with the

Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Creek Indians. The formal Executive Journals of the Senate do not even hint at what happened, but we know from the diary of that irascible, coura­geous Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania that the reading of these materials was drowned out by the noise of Manhattan traffic on the street below the chamber, and that the suspicious Senator Maclay moved to have the treaty referred to a com­mittee, rather than debate the issue in the presence of the august George Washington, who seemed to overawe many of the senators. Praise God for Senator Maclay. He had the temerity and the courage and the backbone to stand up and say, "I move that the treaties be referred to a committee."

As Maclay sat down, Washington leaped to his feet. "This defeats every purpose of my coming here!" Washing­ton then "cooled down ... by degrees," Maclay observed, and agreed to return on Monday after a committee had studied the papers. The president then left the chamber, as Maclay comment­ed, "with sullen dignity." On Monday, Washington and Knox were back in the Senate, the issues were once again raised, and the Senate gave its advice on each of the questions posed. With that, Washington withdrew, and never again returned to the Senate in person to ask its advice and consent.

Mr. President, I think we owe Sena­tor Maclay a debt for the wisdom and the vision in which he acted. Washing­ton's decision to communicate hence­forth in writing thus set the precedent that all of his successors have fol­lowed.

We cannot help but reflect on how differently our system might have de­veloped had President Washington's first attempt to seek the Senate's advice and consent on a treaty not also been his last. Had the experience been more satisfactory, and the precedent of oral communications established, we might regularly see presidents of the United States visiting this cham­ber to communicate with the Senate directly on treaties and the Senate deliberating in the presence of the President. What would the Panama Canal treaties have been like had President Carter attended some of our sessions? Or would President Reagan appear before executive sessions of the Senate to discuss compliance with the SALT II treaty? It is somewhat hard to imagine. Although some commenta­tors, and some senators, have from time to time expressed regret that we are not a parlimentary system, in which the head of government and his cabinet officers appear in the legisla­tive chamber to answer questions, that notion runs contrary to our two hun­dred years of separation of powers. What did not work for President Washington most likely would not

April 10, 1987 COi~GRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8935 work for President Reagan, and Sena­tor Maclay's suspicions would prob­ably be harbored by senators today, that the president might seek to "tread on the necks of the Senate . . . and to bear down our deliberations with his personal authority and pres­ence. Form only will be left to us. This will not do with Americans." 9

The most important treaty that the Senate considered during the Wash­ington administration was that negoti­ated by Chief Justice John Jay to settle disputes with Great Britain.

Again I refer to Roy Swanstrom's work.

By March 1794, relations between the United States and Great Britain had reached a critical point. Britain's intransi­gent attitude and the activities of the anti­British party in the United States combined to head the two nations toward the preci­pice of war. At this point, Senators Ells­worth of Connecticut, Cabot and Strong of Massaschusetts, King of New York, and later Robert Morris of Pennsylvania, took the initiative in urging on the President ap­pointment of a special envoy to go to London to try to secure recognition of American claims and adjust the differences which were tending toward an armed con­flict. These five constituted the very core of the Federalist leadership in the Senate. They succeeded in convincing President Washington of the advisability of the mis­sion, and after the latter had rejected their recommendation of Hamilton as politically unfeasible, successfully urged upon him, with Hamilton's own support, the selection of Chief Justice John Jay.

• • • • • Appointment of Jay was bitterly assailed

by the Senate's minority-first, on the ground that an envoy extraordinary was un­necessary since negotiations could be con­ducted by our minister resident in London; second, on the ground that a Chief Justice should not be utilized for such a mission, and third, on the ground that Jay had ex­pressed opinions contrary to the just claims of the United States. Perhaps an even great­er practical reason for the Republicans' op­position was the fact that their party was sponsoring retaliatory commercial legisla­tion as the means of protecting American rights. At any rate, this opposition gave the Senate opportunity to debate and pass upon not only the choice of envoy but also the question of the mission itself. However, the Senate as a whole did not have opportunity to pass on the instructions which were to govern the envoy's conduct of the negotia­tions since the Federalist leaders believed­no doubt correctly-that proposals regard­ing such instructions would provoke irrecon­cilable controversy and thus defeat the entire project. Consequently, a small group of Senators, including King, Ellsworth, and Cabot, together with Hamilton, met with Jay to discuss the instructions. Here again expediency dictated the procedure, and what amounted to a 'Senate policy commit­tee' rather than the Senate as a whole served as a 'council of advice' to the Presi­dent.

• • • • • Failure of the President to obtain the

advice and consent of the Senate as a body before sending Jay to London did not pass unchallenged. The heads of the Treasury and War Departments approved the proce-

dure, but Attorney General Edmund Ran­dolph believed that it would abridge the rights of the Senate, following the current rule that a treaty approved by a nation's representative acting in compliance with his instructions must be ratified. The procedure was seized upon by the treaty's opponents as further evidence of bad faith on the part of the President and the treaty's propo­nents.

In 1795, after Jay had returned from Eng­land with the completed treaty and the President had submitted it to the Senate, Senator Aaron Burr moved that further consideration of the treaty be postponed and that the Senate recommend to the President further negotiations with Great Britain on the basis of seven propositions which he then submitted to the Senate. The Federalists defeated the motion-not be­cause they considered it improper to recom­mend that the President attempt to secure a new treaty negotiated in accordance with the Senate's ideas, but only because the seven propositions contained demands so unaccepable to Great Britain as to defeat any prospect of a treaty. Hayden stressed the significance of this motion's defeat: Washington might well have considered pas­sage of such a motion notice that the Senate would in the future expect to partici­pate in framing the conditions under which a proposed treaty would be signed-at least it would have pointed out to him the expe­diency of always consulting the whole Senate before opening negotiations. The precedent might also have led the Senate to expect and demand such consultation in the future. 10

Another significant precedent set by the Jay treaty was its injunction of se­crecy .

When the Senate first received the com­pleted treaty from the President, it adopted an order laying the Senators under an in­junction of secrecy concerning the commu­nications received from the President. After the treaty was approved, the Senate after much disputation adopted a resolution re­moving the injunction of secrecy but forbid­ding the Senators to give out any copy of the treaty or any of its articles. This action was apparently based on the belief that the question of publication was a decision which should be left to the President. However, since the resolution did not forbid Senators from making known the substance of the treaty, its content gradually became widely known. After the appearance of an incom­plete sketch in the Aurora. Senator Stevens T. Mason, of Virginia, sent a copy of the treaty to its editor, an act applauded by his fellow Republicans who had so bitterly fought the treaty, but denounced as a breach of faith by the Federalists.

Despite their scolding, the Senate's Feder­alists, took no steps to call Mason to ac­count for disobeying the injunction. Howev­er. since it was a definite breach of a Senate order involving the secrecy of its proceed­ings, the President could hardly ignore such an act in considering the question of wheth­er or not the Senate could be trusted with highly secret information. Washington as early as 1792 had expressed a low opinion of the Senate's ability to keep state secrets due to allegedly unguarded remarks of Senator Ralph Izard at a dinner party. Such fears became even more natural when the Sen­ate's membership became sharply divided between Federalists and Republicans, be­tween friends of Great Britain and friends of France.

These doubts were shared by the State Department in the Adams administration. In reply to a list of questions posed by Presi­dent Adams in 1797 regarding a possible mission to France, Secretary Pickering re­plied that it would be 'highly expedient• to lay before the Senate for its approval a list of instructions for negotiating a treaty with France, as was done in the case of Spain in 1792, 'if we could trust to the fidelity of aU the members of the Senate.' He explained his fears on that score by adding-

'There was no inducement of passions or interest to betray the instructions to Spain; but any instructions, alike communicated, for negotiating a new treaty with France would reach the Directory sooner than we could send them our minister.' 11

The question of secrecy with regard to Senate treaties remained a problem for an­other century.

Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the Senate attempted to deliberate on treaties in secret session. With regular efficiency. the newspapers managed to breach that secrecy and publish astonishingly complete accounts of the secret nego­tiations, sometimes printing the text of treaties before the senators got their official copies. The Senate inves­tigated, fretted, and howled but proved powerless to stop the leaks, which clearly came from the members themselves. Not until 1929 were execu­tive sessions routinely opened to the press and the public, and today we hold closed sessions only under the rarest of circumstances.

Ratification of the unpopular Jay Treaty brought the Senate under con­siderable public attack from newspa­pers and pamphleteers-indeed, media criticism of Congress in our times pales by comparison to the vitriol that was common in the eighteenth centu­ry press. Copies of the treaty were publicly burned, and the Senate was denounced as an aristocratic bastion. The House of Representatives used this fervor as an attempt to seize a large role in foreign affairs. While the pro-Jay Treaty Federalists held the majority in the Senate, the House was controlled by the anti-Treaty Jefferso­nian Republicans.

Swanstrom says, The Senate faced a running threat to its

treaty power from the House of Representa­tives, which jealously guarded what it con­sidered its share of any authority involving the legislative power.

• • • • • After the treaty had been signed in Eng­

land by the American envoy and the repre­sentative of the British Crown, approved after full debate by a special session of the Senate, signed by President Washington, and officially ratified by representatives of the two Governments, the treaty was not yet ready to be put into full effect. A final obstacle was the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, to which (in addi­tion to the Senate> the administration had to apply for the funds necessary to put cer­tain provisions of the treaty into effect.

• • • • •

8936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April10, 1987 The House was naturally very jealous of

its power over the purse, a power which the antitreaty forces claimed would be a nullity if the lower Chamber were duty-bound auto­matically to vote an appropriation for an object in which it did not have an agency.

• • • • • As the popularly elected body, the House

of Representatives had the same authority over the purse as the House of Commons enjoyed.

• • • • • . . . , the Federalists claimed that the

House was under moral obligation to pass an appropriation necessary to put a legally adopted treaty into effect.

• • • • • The Federalists also claimed that failure

to put a legally adopted treaty into effect would be an act of faithlessness for which Americans would roundly condemn a for­eign power.

• • • • • Finally, the Federalists claimed that if the

House would not perform its plain duty and appropriate the necessary funds to put a constitutionally adopted treaty into effect, the Union would be at an end. The theory was that the Union would only hold togeth­er as each branch of the Government per­formed the duties required of it by the Con­stitution.

• • • • • In spite of the heat engendered by all

these arguments, it should not be forgotten that the one paramount issue was the Jay Treaty itself. Should it, or should it not, be put into effect? The answer to this question depended, in turn, upon many economic, sectional, and social factors which cannot be discussed here. The Senate by a two-thirds vote had put itself squarely behind the treaty. What should the House do?

The constitutional House versus Senate issue was more clear cut in the vote on the resolution calling on the President to fur­nish the papers than on the appropriation issue itself, since many Members who were inclined to support the treaty on its own merits felt that the House had a constitu­tional right to pass upon the question of putting it into effect. Thus the former reso­lution was adopted by the respectable ma­jority of 62 to 37. However, from a practical standpoint, the position of the House was relatively weak; Washington refused to fur­nish the papers and there was little the House could do about it except adopt fur­ther resolutions defining what it claimed were its rights.

The President's reasons for rejecting the call for papers were four:

< 1 > Foreign negotiations require caution, often secrecy. Necessity for such caution and secrecy was a cogent reason for giving the treaty power to the President and Senate, the latter being a comparatively small body.

<2> The papers did not involve any pur­pose under the cognizance of the House, except impeachment, which the resolution did not cite as a purpose of the call. That treaties were fully completed when ap­proved by the President and Senate had been the practice thus far, and had been so understood by foreign powers and acqui­esced in by the House itself.

<3> The treaty power had been confined to the Senate as part of the 'Great Compro­mise' of the Constitutional Convention in the interest of the smaller States.

(4) The Convention had explicitly rejected a proposal to make treaties binding only after being ratified by law.

• • • • • Although this was of necessity only a

statement of position-the House having no practicable way of forcing the President to furnish the papers-the lower Chamber was far less helpless when it came to making or withholding financial provision for putting the treaty into effect. This was the all-im­portant practical issue at hand.

Theodore Sedgwick opened this, the criti­cal stage of the controversy, on April 13, 1796, when he moved that provision ought to be made by law for carrying into effect four recently ratified treaties-with Algiers, the Indian tribes northwest of the Ohio, Spain, and Great Britain. The obvious pur­poses, of course, was to link the Jay Treaty with the highly popular Pinckney Treaty with Spain. James Hillhouse, Federalist stalwart from Connecticut, announced that if provision for one of them were rejected, Federalists would feel justified in voting against provision for the others. Gallatin immediately punctured that bubble, howev­er, by pointing out the obvious inconsisten­cy between this strategy and the very basis of the Federalist position-the claim that the House was morally obligated to put all constitutionally adopted treaties into effect. The Republican majority thereupon quickly approved funds for the Indian, Spanish, and Algerine treaties, and the debate on the question of putting the Jay Treaty into effect was on again. The climax came on April 28, 1796, when Fisher Ames pulled his pain-racked body erect and delivered the ad­dress in favor of the treaty which was for decades remembered as the epitome of con­gressional eloquence-an address which moved to tears even two such old campaign­ers as Vice President Adams and Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, who sat in the crowded gallery. Ames based his arguments both on the merits of the treaty itself and on the constitutional duty of the House. Two days later the House by the narrow vote of 51 to 48 voted to approve the appro­priation.

In spite of the sound and fury accompany­ing this 'great debate,' the final vote in a sense solved no question except that of ap­proving appropriations for this one treaty. In the votes on the call for papers, on the resolutions answering the President's mes­sage refusing to furnish them, and on the Jay Treaty appropriation, the stand of the House majority was perfectly consistent. Its Members had claimed that when a treaty approved by the President and Senate re­quired legislative action to put it into oper­ation, the House had a constitutional right to weigh the treaty on its merits and pass, or refuse to pass, the necessary legislation as it saw fit. They had then weighed the Jay Treaty on its merits and had decided to vote the necessary funds. Among the 51 affirma­tive votes were those of many who claimed that the House had a perfect right to with­hold the funds if it saw fit. Thus from the standpoint of constitutional theory, the vote was not a clear-cut victory for the ex­clusion of the House from the treaty power. The Constitution itself, by grant of powers mutually contradictory, had created the possibility of an impasse, and the theoreti­cal powers of the House in this area were not then determined, nor have they been to this day.

However, from the standpoint of practical accomplishment, the Senate won a great vic­tory. One of its most highly prized prerog-

atives-a prerogative which goes far to make the Senate the most powerful upper Cham­ber in the world today-had been chal­lenged on an issue of the most critical im­portance by the best brains and most per­suasive eloquence of the lower House, and yet had come through unscathed. And the precedent was a lasting one. While the great moral question remains undecided as to how far the House is bound in good faith to carry out by legislation and appropriations the provisions of treaties, the House has never yet failed to support a treaty pledging the good faith of the United States. On the other hand, if the House had successfully utilized this occasion to put into practical application its claim to pass upon treaties involving areas in which the lower Chamber had legislative power, the precedent would have been in the direction of nullifying the Senate's special treaty power, since most treaties would involve in some way at least one such area of legislation.t2

As Roy Swanstrom concluded, "The Senate had survived the ordeal with

unimpaired powers." As the new government evolved, new

precedents shaped the treaty-making process. In 1794, the Senate "suspend­ed" one article of the Jay Treaty as a means of preventing rejection of the whole. In 1803, Great Britain refused to accept an amendment that the Senate added to the King-Hawksbury Convention, a practice which the Brit­ish Foreign Minister grumbled was un­precedented-but it was one which the British and other nations would have to learn to tolerate.

The power to amend treaties rapidly replaced Washington's earlier expecta­tion of Senate advice during the nego­tiations. This power to amend became so significant that, in 1868, the Senate changed its rules to permit amend­ments to treaties by a simple majority vote. As professor Arthur Schlesinger has written: "This enabled senators to alter the text of treaties with greater ease. It also invited parliamentary ma­neuvers which, by uniting opponents of a treaty with a faction of its sup­porters on specific amendments, might produce a document unacceptable to original supporters on the final two­thirds vote." Professor Schlesinger noted that: "The Senate exercised its power in this realm with relish, freely rewriting, amending and rejecting treaties negotiated by the executive. Indeed, it ratified no important treaty between 1871 and 1898." 1 3

In rejecting a treaty with the Wabash and Illinois Indians, the Senate in 1794 for the first time exer­cised its right to refuse its consent to a treaty negotiated by the executive branch.

In 1825, the Senate first rejected an international treaty, turning down by a vote of 40 to 0, a convention with Co­lombia for the suppression of the slave trade. Leading to this defeat was a similar treaty with Great Britain in 1824, which pro-slavery advocates in the Senate had laden down with amendments that the British refused

April 10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8937 to accept. Meanwhile, the United States had invited other nations to help it suppress the slave trade, and Colombia had responded. The Colom­bia treaty, however, was caught in the backlash of the British treaty. Having gutted the British treaty, the Senate flat out rejected the Colombian treaty on the same subject. In all of the hun­dreds of treaties the Senate has con­sidered in its nearly two hundred years of history, it has rejected few. Of course, many have died in committee, or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.

Mr. President, one vexing issue that has surfaced many times in the histo­ry of the Senate's role in treaty ratifi­cation is whether senators should be involved in the actual negotiation of these treaties. The United States has sent some unusual treaty-negotiators in the past. I noted that the Chief Jus­tice of the U.S. Supreme Court negoti­ated the Jay Treaty.

After the War of 1812, the Speaker of the House Henry Clay and Dela­ware Senator James Bayard were members ·of the delegation that nego­tiated the Treaty of Ghent. Bayard's presence raised the question: Will having senators on the negotiating team make the Senate more favorably inclined to ratify the treaty? Or would it violate the separation of powers? That debate has gone on for many generations without being resolved.

Noting the frequency with which the Senate had rejected treaties during the last quarter of the nine­teenth century, President William McKinley shrewdly named three U.S. senators to negotiate the treaty of peace with Spain in 1898. His action was roundly criticized by senators from both parties. Senator Eugene Hale, one of the Republican floor lead­ers, said he did not want to see any more senators appearing as advocates of treaties that they themselves had negotiated. Democratic Senator Benja­min Tillman concurred, reminding the Senate that they had once voted to prohibit the practice-at a time when two senators had been sent to negoti­ate a treaty with Hawaii. That vote was later rescinded so as not to embar­rass the two senator-negotiators.

Democratic Senator Augustus Bacon of Georgia and Republican George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts argued that the practice was blatantly uncon­stitutional-since the Constitution provides that no senator or represent­ative should be appointed, during his term, to any civil office which was cre­ated during his term; and that no one holding such office could be a member of either House. Senator Hoar asked how a senator should discharge his duties "if he has already not only formed an opinion, but acted upon the matter under the control and direction of another department of the govern­ment?" And he added: "If that prac-

tice continues, it will go far, in my judgment, to destroy the independ­ence and dignity of the Senate."14

Now, these sentiments are all well and fine. But it is important to re­member that presidents, quite under­standably, want to do everything pos­sible to see treaties, negotiated during their administrations, approved by the Senate, and they will use every method at their disposal to do so. The peace treaty with Spain, negotiated by the three senators, was approved by the Senate. A generation later, Presi­dent Woodrow Wilson was roundly criticized for not including senators in the delegation that negotiated the Treaty of Versailles, and for years thereafter it became part of the Amer­ican history catechism learned by schoolchildren that this senatorial omission contributed to the defeat of the Treaty of Versailles. One cannot entirely blame President Wilson. In 1918, his party had lost control of the Senate, and the new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was his bitter political opponent, Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr. Had Wilson taken -~Y sena­tors, he could not have avoided taking Lodge. The Treaty of Versailles, as I have discussed at length in another ad­dress, was twice rejected by the Sen­ate.16

With that in rillnd:; Wilson's succes~ sor Warren G. Harding-who had served as a senator during the Treaty of Versailles fight-in 1921 appointed Senator Lodge and Democratic Senate Leader Oscar Underwood as delegates to the Washington Arms Limitation Conference. For very much the same reason, Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman involved the chair­man and ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Commission, Tom Connally and Arthur Vanden­berg, in the creation of the United Na­tions-and unlike the fate of the League of Nations, there were only two Senate votes against the U.N. Charter.

Francis 0. Wilcox, who served as the first chief of staff of the Senate For­eign Relations Committee, and who accompanied Senators Connally and Vandenberg to the U.N. Conference in the spring of 1945, observed in an oral history that: "We came back to Wash­ington and the two senators were rec­ognized as the authorities in the Senate on the Charter; they had been through all the negotiations, they knew the attitude of the Russians and the other delegates there. So there was no real problem getting it through the Senate." But Wilcox acknowledged that such direct senatorial participa­tion had its drawbacks as well. He re­called that "Senator Vandenberg and Senator Connally spent two hundred and thirteen days ... with Secretary of State James Byrnes, negotiating the peace treaties with the satellite countries. I think they found . . . that this took them away from their

Senate duties too long at a time, and after that there was a tendency not to get involved in these lengthy negotia­tions." 16

That would certainly be a problem in today's Senate.

One solution to the problem of sena­tors as negotiators has been for presi­dents to invite whole senatorial dele­gations to visit ongoing negotiations. In March 1957, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles invited a biparti­san delegation of senators to visit the London Disarmament Conference. Ma­jority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson sup­ported the idea, but asked that the request come from President Eisen­hower, with an indication of the ur­gency that required Senators to con­sider the matter in London rather than in Washington. However, by then Dulles had abandoned the idea as pre­mature. In his closed-door testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Dulles ex­plained that "the main objective of going would be to sense the atmos­phere a bit, which is always helpful; but that as far as the substance of the matter, that can be better learned here in Washington than in London." Senator Hubert Humphrey added that sending senatorial advisors "would be like loading extra cargo on a ship." The give-and-take of that candid ses­sion, not published for another twenty years, provides an interesting insight into the pros and cons of senatorial delegations, which have been repeat­edly proposed for subsequent arms limitations talks. 1 7

Mr. President, another aspect of the Senate's advice and consent powers is the constitutional requirement that the Senate consent to ratification of treaties by a two-thirds vote. The effect of that requirement is that treaty-making can never be a partisan affair, since only under the rarest cir­cumstances has a party ever enjoyed a two-thirds majority in the Senate. It makes no difference which party is in the majority. The administration and the treaty's supporters will have to build a bipartisan coalition to win the day. This is as it should be: treaties must reflect a broad national consen­sus. Yet, it certainly adds to the bur­dens of the Senate leadership, and re­quires a good deal of cooperation from the minority party. Looking back over two of the landmark treaties that were enacted during my years in the Senate, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963-which, as I recall, I voted against-and the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, neither could have been enacted without the support and assistance of the Republican Minority Leaders, Everett Dirksen and Howard Baker. Speaking of bipartisanship, I might add another quote from the late Dr. Wilcox, who suggested that bipar­tisanship always worked better when

8938 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 the White House and the Senate were controlled by different parties, "when cooperation becomes absolutely essen­tial." 18

I am not sure I subscribe to Dr. Wil­cox's observation in this instance.

If I might add a few personal obser­vations of my own with respect to the Panama Canal treaties debate, inas­much as that debate occurred the first time during my first term as majority leader of the Senate.

In the summer of 1977, negotiations on the Panama Canal Treaties were completed and they were signed by President Carter and Panamanian leader General Omar Torrijos on Sep­tember 7, 1977. The treaties were to replace the original 1903 Panama Canal Treaty, which had been modi­fied somewhat in 1936 and 1955. Dis­cussions of a new agreement had been underway for 13 years and there has been considerable tension between the U.S. and Panama over the Canal. Al­though the Carter administration indi­cated that it hoped for approval of the new treaties before fall adjournment, as majority leader at the time, mine would be the final judgment about Senate scheduling and I thought it un­realistic and unwise to talk of Senate action on the treaties in 1977. Hear­ings on the treaties would consume considerable time, and the Senate was involved in lengthy consideration of major energy legislation. Further, I believed that all Senators needed ample time to carefully study the trea­ties.

The sentiment at that time through­out the country was overwhelmingly against the approval of the ratifica­tion of the treaties.

After I explained these points to President Carter, the President decid­ed to leave the matter of timing strict­ly to me, the Majority Leader.

I had already begun to consider the content of the treaties and had partici­pated in briefings by Administration officials and had considered staff anal­yses of the treaties. I had also ar­ranged a series of meetings between representatives of the Administration and Senators of differing viewpoints to discuss the treaties.

I knew that considerable and careful groundwork would have to be laid if the Senate were to give its approval to the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties.

Along with other Senators I ex­pressed some early concern about cer­tain ambiguities in the treaties. On October 11, 1977, Minority Leader Baker, and six other Senators and I met with Carter, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and we expressed concern about two major points: (1) U.S. rights to protect the neutrality of the canal; <2> the right of U.S. ships to "go to the head of the line" in the event of an emergency.

The group of Senators warned the President that chances for approval of the treaties seemed remote without some clarifications. As a result of this session, President Carter arranged to meet with General Torrijos a few days later to discuss the concern of Sena­tors. Carter and Torrijos then agreed to a Statement of Understanding on October 14 which clarified the inter­pretations concerning U.S. rights to protect the Canal's neutrality and "head of the line" priority. Although I was consulted about the language of the statement and gave my assent to it, I also made clear that I was remain­ing uncommitted on the treaties until I had the opportunity to consider them more thoroughly and to examine all the related issues.

After the Senate had adjourned for the year, I undertook the first in a series of foreign trips which involved direct discussions with foreign leaders on key issues. I chaired a delegation of seven Democratic Senators who visited Panama November 9-12, 1977. Other Senators in my delegations were Mr. SARBANES, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. METZ­ENBAUM, Mr. HUDDLESTON, Mr. MATSU­NAGA, and Mr. SASSER. I noted that the Senate is charged with the constitu­tional responsibility of providing advice and consent in the making of treaties and this responsibility im­posed upon Senators the obligation to become as knowledgeable as possible about the treaties and related issues. Following our visit to Panama, I said, "We went to that country <Panama) to listen and learn; to discuss the issues directly with Panama's highest gov­ernment officials; to hear all interest­ed parties, including Americans and Panamanians, opposed to and in sup­port of the treaties; and to see for our­selves the Canal and related facilities." I added, "Our object was to analyze, as thoroughly as we could, what the short- and long-term effects of the proposed treaties would be and to become as well informed as possible on this very, very important issue."

At a dinner given by American Am­bassador William Jordan on the first· night of the delegation's visit, I told the guests, which included a group of leading Panamanians, "What you have to understand is that any Senator voting for these treaties will pay a high political price. He will gain abso­lutely nothing personally by doing so. Therefore, you have to be tolerant and patient in bringing people around to understanding these problems and to taking this difficult decision."

The Panama trip set a standard which would characterize my future travel abroad: substantive discussions with high-level leaders, following in­tense advance preparation.

The press went along on this trip to Panama. Those members of the press who went were unanimous in saying that it was indeed a working trip. It

was not a fun trip. It was not a junket. It was a working trip.

We set our own schedule. The State Department did not set our schedule. We went to see what we wanted to see, we went to hear what we wanted to hear, and from all sectors of the Pana­manian population-Americans and Panamanians who were for the trea­ties or against the treaties, and in be­tween, undecided

The centerpiece of the delegation's visit to Panama was the discussion with General Torrijos and a day spent traveling with the Panamanian leader to various parts of the country. How­ever, during its stay the delegation had meetings, briefings, and discus­sions with Panamanian and United States officials and with private citi­zens representing diverse groups and positions. The delegation also had a first-hand look at the Canal facilities and U.S. military installations.

The talks with General Torrijos were frank and wide ranging. I and other Senators expressed concerns about various aspects of the treaties, and Torrijos engaged in an animated exchange with the delegation as we stopped in various locales and talked aboard the aircraft on which we toured the country. In the midst of discussions on the plane, General Tor­rijos, responding to a flurry of ques­tions from the delegation, said he felt "like a catcher catching pitches from seven different pitchers."

The delegation first flew with Torri­jos to the San Blas Islands, which are inhabited by the Cuna Indians. This stage of the trip involved flying to a dirt airstrip on a small island, and then being ferried by small boat to Ai­ligandi, the central island of San Blas. Although San Blas was the only one of the nine Panamanian provinces to vote against the treaties in the nation­al plebiscite, discussions in an im­promptu town meeting with the island residents indicated that the reasons had more to do with dissatisfaction with government services rather than the treaties themselves.

From Ailigandi, the delegation and General Torrijos flew to Los Santos Province, where we observed a festival celebrating the anniversary of Pana­manian independence. Torrijos and the delegation walked along in a lively and colorful parade, mixing freely with the enthusiastic crowd. The last stop, prior to returning to Panama City, was at Farallon, the seaside resi­dence of General Torrijos.

Walking through this massive crowd, Mr. President, told us something. Here was General Torrijos in the crowd with his pistol on his hip. The crowd had us packed in like sardines. Yet, General Torrijos walked freely in that crowd. He showed no fear or concern. To us it was an indication of his strength and his popularity with the

Aprill 0, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8939 people. That was a factor of no little significance in our deliberations on the treaties.

A number of leading Panamanians were also present. After dinner, my delegation and General Torrijos set­tled down, with a number of Panama­nians who were present, to a lengthy discussion, with members of the dele­gation focusing on the questions up­permost in the minds of the American people in regard to the treaties. Among the issues which received major attention were:

-the Panamanian Government's at­titude and conduct in regard to treat­ment of residents of the Canal Zone;

-Panama's relations with Cuba and the Soviet Union;

-the evolution of the Panamanian political system;

-human rights conditions in Panama;

-whether the Statement of Under­standing agreed to by Carter and Tor­rijos on October 14 was adequately un­derstood by the Panamanian people, and whether General Torrijos contin­ued to stand behind the statement.

Among the most significant com­ments from General Torrijos was his reaffirmation of the Statement of Un­derstanding, although emphasizing that United States rights of interven­tion should not imply the right to interfere with the internal affairs of Panama. <This would later become an important issue in regard to the DeConcini reservation.> But, Torrijos said, there was no doubt about the U.S. right to defend the Canal.

Torrijos also commented that he be­lieved that the possibility of Soviet and Cuban influence would increase if the treaties were not ratified. He indi­cated that he was receptive to making changes in regard to human rights and freedom of the press, two subjects which the Senate delegation empha­sized. Subsequently, at a final meeting with the Senators, in a press confer­ence, and in a letter to me on Decem­ber 3, 1977, Torrijos made specific commitments on these points.

In his letter to me, Torrijos conclud­ed by saying, "I am keeping my word. Please transmit this to your colleagues ..

Another major component of the visit to Panama was the helicopter overflight of the Canal, the tour of Canal facilities, and the discussions with United States military officials at the headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command <SOUTHCOM>. The heli­copter trip provided an excellent per­spective on the Canal, and also made clear the potential vulnerability of the Canal and some of the related installa­tions. In a lengthy discussion with the group, Lt. Gen. Dennis McAuliffe, Commander-in-Chief of SOUTHCOM, assessed the military situation in the area and the strategic significance of the Canal. McAuliffe said that in some

respects the Canal was vulnerable to sabotage. When the delegation asked McAuliffe about General Torrijos' comment that he was sitting on a powder keg, General McAuliffe replied that it was, indeed, a highly emotional situation. If the treaty was not rati­fied, there would probably be outrage among the Panamanians and an in­crease in anti-United States demon­strations. Once such demonstrations started, radical elements would at­tempt to take advantage of the situa­tion. They would say, "If we can't have the Canal, you can't either."

On the final night of the Panamani­an trip, the Byrd delegation was given a reception and dinner at the presiden­cia by Panama's President Demetrio Lakas. Ambassador Jordan, in his book Panama Odyssey, described the events this way:

The dinner was sumptuous and lively talk flowed around the long table in the State Dining Room. A small orchestra played softly from the balcony overhead. I had told the president that Senator Byrd's favorite hobby was playing . . . the fiddle. During the meal, Lakas and Byrd got along famous­ly, and, after the toasts had been ex­changed, the President pressed his visitor to honor the others with a tune. Byrd finally relented and a violin was commandeered from the orchestra. The West Virginia statesman played "Turkey in the Straw" and the prolonged applause led to several encores. People were tapping their feet and drumming on the table. The Panamanian presidencia had never seen anything quite like it. When Byrd finally returned the violin to its owner, Lakas took off his neck­tie and handed it to the majority leader as a gesture of thanks, and of friendship. Byrd reciprocated.

In a press conference at the conclu­sion of the delegation's visit, I pointed out that the trip had been a step in the educational process about the treaties. In the discussions with Gen­eral Torrijos, "there was give-and­take, there were not punches pulled." Both Torrijos and the Senators spoke with "forthrightness, candor, and feel­ing."

I said that Torrijos' statements re­flected his responsive interest in the delegation's concerns. I said, "We feel that this interchange of viewpoints, this dialogue, has been an important and progressive step forward . . . I don't see how it could do anything other than improve the atmosphere for ratification in the United States." I particularly noted Torrijos' pledges on human rights.

The intense interest of the Senators in my delegation was evidenced all along the way by their incisive ques­tions. It was a working delegation, as I have said, a highly dedicated delega­tion of Senators, conscientious in their approach to the solemn duty of ap­proval or disapproval of the ratifica­tion of the treaties. Because these Senators went to Panama, in consider­able measure, the outcome of the long debate was assured. They were trusted

Senators, they were knowledgeable Senators, and they spoke with author­ity when they engaged in the Senate debate on the treaties.

Following the trip to Panama, I fur­ther studied the treaties and their ramifications, and determined that, with certain clarifications, primarily those in the Statement of Understand­ing, they were in the best interests of the United States. I began to concen­trate on a strategy for gaining Senate approval of the treaties.

On January 26, 1978, I appeared as the final witness before the Foreign Relations Committee as the committee concluded its lengthy series of hear­ings on the treaties. I had announced on January 13 that I would support the treaties with the proviso that the principles of the Statement of Under­standing somehow be incorporated into the treaties. I had been consistent in my position that these principles needed to be incorporated into the treaty. Shortly after the treaty signing on September 7, 1977, I had said that if the Senate approved the treaties, it would be only after some changes and clarifications on these points. I told the Committee:

Since I first had the opportunity to review the treaties in September, it has been ap­parent to me that it would be necessary to clarify and guarantee at least two important points, and this would need to be done in order to gain public support for, and Senate approval of, the treaties. I stated this posi­tion as early as last September. The two critical points as far as I am concerned are:

One, the right of the United States to guarantee neutral access to the canal at all times beyond the year 2000; and

Two, expeditious or head-of-the-line pas­sage for U.S. military and auxiliary vessels.

I ended my statement with these comments:

The Panama Canal, as David McCullough has written, is an expression of that old and noble desire to bridge the divide, to bring people together. Certainly, the canal has done this in many respects. Now, however, the time has come to bridge the divide be­tween Panama and the United States, and for the two nations to work together in seeing that the canal continues to serve the people of the United States and Panama and the world.

As time for Senate debate drew near, I had conceived a plan, in conjunction with other key Senators, that I hoped would be instrumental in securing eventual approval of the treaties. An important element of this strategy was obtaining agreement from the Foreign Relations Committee that it would not take any formal action on proposed changes in the treaties. Normally, the committee would have reported the treaties with whatever amendments or reservations its members thought ap­propriate.

One of the leading books on Con­gress and foreign policy, Invitation to Struggle by Cecil V. Crabb, Jr. and Pat M. Holt, notes that the focus of execu-

8940 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 tive-Senate contacts on the treaties had been through the office of the Majority Leader rather than through the committee. "Byrd was more asser­tive of his prerogatives as majority leader than had been any of his recent predecessors, with the exception of Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson." Crabb and Holt described part of the approach on the treaties:

Pursuing the strategy of giving senators the maximum opportunity to associate themselves with changes in the treaties, within limits acceptable to Panama, Byrd urged the Foreign Relations Committee not to incorporate changes of its own but rather only to recommend changes to the Senate. This would give senators a way to co-spon­sor amendments in the Senate and thereby have their names identified with specific changes. It was also a sharp departure from the usual practice, in which a Senate com­mittee actually makes the changes it desires and sends the finished product to the Senate. The finished product is, of course, subject to amendment; but if a senator agrees with the changes made by a commit­tee, the only way to identify himself or her­self with them is by making a speech. The senator cannot get into the record as having been one of those suggesting the change.

I was convinced that there were only a few amendments that could be ap­proved without endangering treaty ratification. These few beneficial amendments would, I believed, draw widespread support from Senators, and more political mileage could be gained by giving all senators the op­portunity to co-sponsor such amend­ments.

The amendments that I favored and which would be left open for broad co­sponsorship became known as the "leadership amendments." I had the active support of Minority Leader Howard Baker in this strategy, and discussions between Baker and myself led to the recommendations that the principles of the Statement of Under­standing be the basis for amending Ar­ticles IV and VI of the Neutrality Treaty. Chairman John Sparkman and Senator Clifford Case, the ranking Re­publican member of the Foreign Rela­tions Committee, joined with Baker and me in a letter to all senators asking them to become co-sponsors, and attracted a total of 78 sponsors.

Anther significant move on which Senator Baker and I collaborated was the decision to have the Senate consid­er the Neutrality Treaty first, ahead of the Panama Canal Treaty. The gen­eral assumption had been that the Panama Canal Treaty would be taken up first. But I believed that reversing the order would be vital, given the sig­nificance of the "leadership amend­ments," and the fact that these amendments applied to the Neutrality Treaty.

On February 8, the Senate began its formal consideration of the treaties. Consideration of the treaties contin­ued, to the virtual exclusion of all other business, through April 18, the

longest Senate treaty debate since the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I.

Opponents of the treaties centered their efforts on getting approval for "killer amendments." However, I made it clear that only the leadership amendments (and certain clarifying reservations and understandings) would be acceptable. Opponents at­tempted to circumvent this strategy by offering amendments that were phrased in such a way that Senators would find them very difficult to tum down. At first glance, many of these amendments seemed relatively innocu­ous and "pro-American." However, many of these amendments could have effectively killed the treaties. In all, 145 amendments, 26 reservations, 18 understandings, and 3 declarations, or a total of 192 changes were proposed and 88 were actually voted on. In the final analysis, none were passed that were not acceptable to the joint lead­ership. I adopted the strategy in most cases of moving to have the amend­ments tabled, rather than forcing Sen­ators to cast an up-or-down vote on the proposals. These kept treaty pro­ponents from having to vote against what sometimes appeared on the sur­face to be very desirable amendments.

The Senate agreed to a vote on the Neutrality Treaty on March 16, and after approving the leadership amend­ments, the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification by a vote of 68-32. My own vote was the 67th in favor of the treaty. Describing my final speech before this vote, William Jordan wrote in his Panama Odyssey:

Even witnesses to many Senate de­bates were moved when they heard the quiet senator from the hills of West Virginia say: ". . . nothing can be politically right if it is morally wrong. In my judgement, it is not only eco­nomically right, not only commercially right, not only right from the stand­point of the security interests of our country, not only politically right, but it is morally right that we vote to ratify these treaties, and thus live up to the principles that we have so long espoused amount nations."

In the hours just before the treaty vote, the Senate took an action that would threaten to jeopardize the care­fully structured strategy for approval of the two treaties. With the outcome uncertain and with several Senators remaining uncommitted, the Adminis­tration and I had negotiated with vari­ous Senators to try to find means of satisfying their concerns: in several in­stances this took the form of relatively minor reservations or understandings that were attached to the treaties. However, one reservation which was "okayed" by the White House was of­fered by Senator DENNIS DECONCINI <D-Arizona). The language of the res­ervation provided that either the U.S. or Panama could independently "take

such steps as it deems necessary ... including the use of military force in Panama, to reopen the Canal or re­store the operation of the Canal, as the case may be."

When Senator DECONCINI submitted his reservation to the Senate on March 16, many Senators were hesi­tant about supporting it. I was preoc­cupied with vote counting and the floor debate, and looked to the Admin­istration for its judgment on the reser­vation. I was informed that President Carter, thinking that the outcome might depend upon DeConcini's vote, had reluctantly agreed not to oppose DeConcini's reservation. As word cir­culated that the White House had ap­proved the reservation, I and others assumed that the Administration had considered all the ramifications. The reservation was approved by a 75-23 vote, and a few hours later the first treaty was approved.

Within a few days the Panamanians made clear that the reservation was totally unacceptable to them and, in their veiw, totally inconsistent with the spirit of the treaties. Tension built and angry statements came from Panama. Unless some way was found to modify the action in the second treaty, the whole package was threat­ened. Panama might well reject the treaties if the DeConcini reservation stood; but if it were modified so much as to cause the defection of Senator DECONCINI or others, the package might well be defeated in the Senate.

Senators Frank Church and PAUL SARBANES, of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I determined to find a satisfactory compromise. The White House had been unable to work out a compromise with Senator DECONCINI. In collaborations with Assistant Secre­tary of State Warren Christopher and William D. Rogers, a Washington lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of State with close ties to Panama, Senators Frank Church, PAUL BAR­BANES, and I, working with Senator DECONCINI, were able to find satisfac­tory compromise.

As William Jordan has stated: Byrd, Church, and Sarbanes had to avoid

alienating DeConcini and those who had backed his stand. But they also had to pla­cate more than half a dozen Senators who thought the Arizonian's condition was a ca­tastrophe. The latter were threatening to vote against the second treaty unless the interventionist language was modified. The treaty managers walked a tightrope, and there was no safety net beneath them, only the dark chasm of treaty defeat and the gloomy events they knew would follow.

I worked to keep things calm in both Washington and Panama. On April 8, I told a press conference, "We have to be careful that we don't overreact here or there."

A marathon of meetings ensued as my colleagues and I tried to put to­gether an alternative proposal that

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8941 would be acceptable to all the parties. Finally, at a Sunday morning meeting in room S-208 of the Capitol, with Panamanian Ambassador Gabriel Lewis present. tentative agreement was reached on a new "leadership res­ervation:• By early Monday morning, April 17. word came to me that the Panamanian government approved the language. I then asked Mr. DECONCINI if he could support this clarifying lan­guage, which provided that the action taken by the United States in the ex­ercise of its treaty rights "shall be only for the purpose of assuring that the Canal shall remain open. neutral, secure. and accessible. and shall not have as its purpose or be interpreted as a right of intervention in the inter­nal affairs of the Republic of Panama or interference with its political inde­pendence or sovereign integrity:•

On Tuesday April 18, I called up the leadership reservation. which was co­sponsored by Senator DECONCINI and others. and it was approved 73-27. The biggest hurdle had been overcome, but in those final days we were busy work­ing to keep other Senators from de­fecting and there were several last­minute crises. But at 6 p.m. on the evening of April 18, the roll was called on the Panama Canal Treaty and it was approved by precisely the same vote as the vote earlier on the Neutral­ity Treaty-68 to 32.

Mr. President, the two-thirds re­quirement also places great power in the hands of the minority who oppose a particular treaty. A half century ago, George Haynes wrote in his monumen­tal history and analysis of the Senate that the two-thirds rule's "most calam­itous effects are psychological. In the Senate it heartens any tiny group . . . to attempt delays and bargaining to persuade enough colleagues to join them to make 'a recalcitrant one third plus one: Such an ad hoc bloc in our Senate can and does exercise a 'patho­logical obstruction' in the handling of our foreign relations such as is exer­cised by so small a minority in no other legislative body of the world." 19

In my list of treaties rejected by the Senate, it will be noted that twelve of the twenty-one <the Treaty of Ver­sailles, having been rejected twice is counted twice) received more "ayes" than "nays," but fell short of two­thirds.

The difficulty in obtaining a two­thirds vote was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in ex­ecutive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for instance. the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 exec­utive agreements. This was a larger number of executive agreements than had been reached in all the years be­tween 1789 and 1889 combined. Senate frustration with this situation boiled over into the so-called "Bricker Amendment." Introduced for the first time in 1951 by Ohio Republican Sena·

tor John Bricker, this proposed consti­tutional amendment would have re­quired Senate consent to all executive agreements. Opposed by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. the Bricker Amendment failed being adopted in the Senate by only a single vote. 20 Executive agreements continue to grow at a rapid rate. The Foreign Relations Committee found on Janu­ary 1, 1983, that the United States was a party to 966 treaties and 6,571 execu­tive agreements. 2 1

When discussing the difficulties in winning a two-thirds vote approval in the Senate. and the power of the mi­nority, I do not mean to imply that all treaties deserve to be approved. The Constitution clearly gives power to the Senate to withhold its consent. as well as to grant it. depending upon its in­terpretation of the best interests of the nation. The most recent treaty re­jected by the Senate provides a good example.

On March 8, 1983, the Senate reject­ed the Montreal Protocols by a vote of 50 to 42, twelve votes short of the two­thirds of those members present and voting. This treaty, negotiated during the Ford administration and support­ed by Presidents Ford, Carter. and Reagan, would have set limits on pas­senger damage awards in international air crashes. Supporters of this treaty believe that it would lead to swifter settlement of claims than under the current law. Opponents. led by Sena­tor ERNEST HOLLINGS of South Caroli­na, called it an "outrageous assault on public safety and a sweetheart deal" for the foreign governments that own airlines. Although the thin majority supported the treaty, it fell far short of the two-thirds goal. The Senate would not consent. 22

Finally, Mr. President. while the Constitution explains how treaties must be ratified, it is silent over how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Carter administration stirred contro­versy. In 1978. the president terminat­ed the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan. to facilitate establishing dip­lomatic relations with the People's Re­public of China. In 1977. the new Panama Canal Treaty terminated three previous treaties with Panama. In one case. the president acted unilat­erally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. But clearly it seems that the right to terminate be­longs to the executive, the sole branch of government that communicates with foreign governments. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution: that was a mutual de­fense treaty with France. from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In this case. breaking the treaty was tanta­mount almost to an act of war. and indeed two days later Congress au-

thorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted.

Let me conclude my capsule summa­ry of the Senate's role in the treaty­making and treaty-ratifying process by emphasizing its importance in the American system of shared powers. When the thirteen colonies rebelled against the English king, they rejected the concept of monarchy on our shores. When the Constitution created an executive branch and a president of the United States. it gave him noun­checked or unconditional powers. The English King could make treaties ex­clusively on his own. but this would not be true for the American presi­dent. The Constitution instead made treaty-making a concurrent power. The United States Senate has careful­ly guarded its share of this power for two hundred years. as I trust it will continue to do. perpetually into the future of this Republic.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous con­sent to include in the RECORD Notes To "Advice and Consent."

There being no objection, the notes were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

NOTES TO "ADVICE AND CONSENT" 1 Derma Frank Fleming, The Treaty Veto

of the American Senate <New York. 1930>, 3-15.

2 Jacob E. Cooke, ed. The Federalist <Mid­dletown, Conn., 1961), 503-9.

3 Roy Swanstrom, The United States Senate, 1787-1801, A Dissertation on the First Fourteen Years of the Upper Legisla­tive Body S. Doc. 99-19 <Washington. 1985>.

4 Ibid. 11 Henry Cabot Lodge, "The Treaty­

Making Power of the Senate," in A Fighting Frigate and Other Essays and Addresses <New York, 1902), 231-2.

6 Linda Grant De Pauw, ed., Senate Execu­tive Journal and Related Documents <Balti­more, 1974>, II: 17, 24; John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington <Washington, 1939), XXX: 369-75.

7 Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washing­ton, 375-79.

8 DePauw, Senate Executive Journal, 29-30.

9 Congressional Record, 97th Cong., 1st sess., 8244, 10139-40.

10 Swanstrom, The United States Senate. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 1 3 Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Imperi­

al Presidency <New York, 1974), 87-88. 14 George Frisbie Hoar, The Autobiogra­

phy of Seventy Years (New York, 1903>, II: 47-50.

111 Congressional Record, 98th Cong., 1st sess., 4716-26.

16 Francis 0. Wilcox, Chief of Sta.t/, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1947-1955, Oral History Interviews for the Senate His­torical Office, 1984, 27-9.

17 Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Executive Sessions of the Senate Foreign Re­lations Committee Together with the Senate Armed Services Committee (Historical Series), Eighty-Fifth Congress, First Session, 1957 <Washington, 1979), IX: 701,722- 27.

1 8 Francis 0 . Wilcox, 205.

8942 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 111 George H. Haynes, The Senate of the

United States, Its Theory and Practice <New York, 1938), II: 659.

110 See Duane A. Tananbaum, "The Brick­er Amendment Controversy," Diplomatic History, IX <Winter 1985), 73-93.

21 Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Treaties and Other International Agree­ments: The Role of the United States Senate, S. Print 98-205 <Washington, 1984), 39.

112 "Senate Blocks Treating Limiting Re­coveries in Air Disasters," Congressional Quarterly <March 12, 1983), 516.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcoRD the list of treaties defeat­ed by the full Senate.

There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

TREATIES DEFEATED BY THE FULL SENATE

Date of vote Country Yea Nay Subject

Mar. 9, 1825 ............ Colombia .................... 40 Su~a3:. June 11, 1836 .......... Switzerland ................ 14 23 Personal and

35 Property Rights.

~i lfiilt:::::::: !7:::::::::::::::::::::: 16 Annexation. 26 18 Reciprocity. 18 27 Commercial Rights. 26 17 Cuban aaims

Commission. Apr. 13, 1869 .......... Great Britain .............. 54 Arbitration of

aaims. June 1, 1870 ............ Hawaii... ..................... 20 19 Reciprocity. June 30, 1870 .......... Dominican Republic .... 28 28 Annexation. *: ~~: iHL:::::::: ~~~:::::::: : ::: : :: : ::: 32 23 Interoceanic Canal.

32 26 Mining aaims. Aug. 21, 1888 .......... Great Britain .............. 27 30 =~~~his. Feb. 1, 1889 ............ Great Britain .............. 15 38 May 5, 1897 ............ Great Britain .............. 43 26 Arbitration. Nov. 19, 1919 .......... Multilateral... .............. 38 53 Treaty of Versailles. Mar. 19, 1920 .......... Multilateral... .............. 49 35 Treaty of Versailles.

~~;. 11~. 11~~;.::: ::::::: ~~·::::::::::::::::::::::: 50 34 Commercial Rights. 46 42 St. Lawrence

Seaway. Jan. 29, 1935 ........... Multilateral.. ............... 52 36 Wortd Court. May 26, 1960 .......... Multilateral ................. 49 30 Law of the Sea

Convention. Mar. 8, 1983 ............ Multilateral.. ............... 50 42 Montreal Aviation

Protocols.

IN REMEMBRANCE OF SENATOR EDWARD ZORINSKY

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the passing of a Senate colleague is always a sad event. The unique nature of this deliberative body creates strong affiliations and friendships irrespec­tive of party or regional affiliations. Our sadness is compounded when a colleague is taken from us in the midst of a term-and this is the case with Ed Zorinsky. Ed accomplished much in his years as a Senator, and yet we all know that Ed had many projects on his agenda for the future.

Ed Zorinsky provided tireless leader­ship in the Senate on agricultural issues, and strongly advocated the in­terests of Nebraskans. Moreover, I had the honor of serving with Ed Zorinsky on the Foreign Relations Committee, where his insights and clear thinking made valuable contributions to our work.

Ed's political career was guided by his insistence that he be a responsive elected official. As former mayor of Omaha, and as U.S. Senator, Ed imple­mented the hard and fast rule that his door must always be open to his con-

stituents. His willingness to listen and to be responsive also marked his rela­tionships with those of us who had the pleasure of serving with him in the Senate.

Nancy and I offer our deep sympa­thies to his wife Cece and their family. We will miss his companionship. We will always be guided by his fine exam­ple of public service.

ARTISTIC ENDEAVOR Mr. EVANS. Mr. President, if you

can see the buttons popping off the vests of those of us who represent the State of Washington this week, it is because it has been a remarkable week for the State of Washington and the Pacific Northwest in terms of artistic endeavor.

On four occasions, Washington art­ists Washington troops or Washington personalities have brought to the Washington, DC, area new enterprises, new entertainment, and new exhibits.

To many-including my three young sons-Gary Larson represents one of the best, most interesting, and most amusing of American cartoonists today. He is a resident of the city of Seattle. His cartoons, 'The Far Side," have tickled the funny bone of people across the country for the last several years. He is now exhibiting his original cartoons in the Museum of Natural History, which is probably appropri­ate, since most of the characters in his cartoons are animals of one kind or another.

Jacob Lawrence is one of the finest American painters today. He was born in New York City, grew up in Harlem, joined the armed services of the United States, and after the war, became a faculty member at the Uni­versity of Washington. During his long and productive career, he has painted American life in vivid portrayals. Using vivid colors, he has created striking portraits of America as he has experienced it and as we have lived it over the past half -century.

Jacob Lawrence is not only a re­markable man, but has the privilege now of a retrospective, exhibit, cover­ing the five decades of his career. It is now open at the Phillips Collection in Washington, DC, and will be there until May 31.

At the National Theater, "I'm Not Rappaport" is now playing. It is an im­mensely humorous, and at the same time sad, portrayal of two elderly gen­tlemen on a park bench and their trials, tribulations, and conversations. "I'm Not Rappaport" premiered at the Seattle Repertory Company a couple of years ago. It won the Tony Award last year and essentially the same cast that played in Seattle is now playing at the National Theater.

Finally, this week the Pacific North­west Ballet brought to the Kennedy Center the first of a number of per-

formances of that extraordinary ballet troop. Pacific Northwest Ballet was started by a young couple; Kent Stowell and Francia Russell, who are the artistic directors. Much of their success came from young people. They came to Seattle in 1977 to find what then was a promising Pacific North­west company. They expanded it to the Pacific Northwest Ballet and the company has gained national recogni­tion as one of the finest of the region­al ballet companies in the Nation.

They have toured extensively during the past several years. They have been all over the United States and now they are planning international tours to expand the number of people who can see and enjoy their extraordinary talent.

The Washington Post, in an article the day after their premiere perform­ance, gave them rave reviews and in doing so said it all when the reviewer, Mr. Kriegsman, said, "It is really quite startling to see a company as classy and as distinguished as the Pacific Northwest Ballet for the first time, given its history and location.''

Mr. President, I guess that is why buttons are popping today. In these four instances, residents of the Pacific Northwest and more particularly the State of Washington, have shown that they can be among the very best in each of these quite separate artistic endeavors.

I am pleased and proud that they have brought to the Nation's Capital that talent to share with those of us from the State of Washington who spend most of our time here and those who are residents in Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the review in the Washing­ton Post of Wednesday, April 8, 1987, be printed in the RECORD.

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

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 8, 19871

THE PACIFIC AT HIGH TIDE-SEATTLE TROUPE'S STELLAR D.C. DEBUT

(By Alan M. Kriegsman> It really is quite startling to see a compa­

ny as classy and distinguished as the Pacific Northwest Ballet for the first time, given its history and location. The troupe's Kennedy Center debut, at the Opera House last night at the start of a week's engagement, must have struck most of the audience, as it did me, as a revelation.

One kept hearing delighted spectators ex­claiming during intermissions, "I didn't even know it existed"-"it" meaning the compa­ny. Not surprising. PNB hails from Seattle, and has been led by its present artistic di­rectors-husband and wife Kent Stowell and Francia Russell, both Balanchine proteges­for a decade.

It's within these 10 short years that the 40-member troupe has amazingly skyrocket­ed from a small, provincial entity to one of the nation's outstanding classical compa­nies. This is, however, only its second trip to the East Coast <the first was to New York

April 10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8943 three years ago), though it received some national exposure through a movie version of its "Nutcracker" production <with decor by Maurice Sendak> this past winter.

The film, sad to say, did no kind of justice to the company, but the present visit prom­ises to rectify that, at least for Washingtoni­ans. In recent years especially, the Kennedy Center has been endeavoring to bolster its role as a showcase for the nation's finest in­digenous performing organizations by bring­ing in the major "regional" ballet companies from across the land. PNB thus joins a list that has already included troupes from San Francisco, Philadelphia, Houston and Salt Lake City.

On the basis of the opening night pro­gram alone, the Seattle company must be rated very high in this league. The dancing was never less than splendid throughout the evening, and the dancers were conspicuously attractive and well-trained. The repertory the troupe will be showing in its three Opera House programs, moreover, boasts at least as much, possibly more, choreographic substance and variety as any assortment we've seen from comparable outfits.

It only took one movement of Balan­chine's "Brahms-schoenberg Quartet" to have a reliable measure of the company's stature. This masterwork, dating from 1966, is a sumptuous feat of dancing, classically shaped but clearly reflecting the shadings of romanticism and modem sensibility im­plied by the two composers named in its title <the score is Schoenberg's orchestral version of Brahms' G-Minor Piano Quartet>.

It's not a Balanchine piece one sees that often, and PNB and the San Francisco Ballet <under a joint production arrange­ment> are the only companies besides the New York City Ballet that perform it. It was staged for PNB in 1985 by Russell, who, as one of Balanchine's most widely versed ballet mistresses, has a solidly authoritative command of the material. Stowell partnered Patricia McBride <in the second movement> in early performances of the work by NYCB, during his days with that troupe.

The PNB cast last night contended with the work's thorny difficulties remarkably well. One took note not only of the admira­ble technical rigor of the dancers-the fine turnout, the crisp footwork, the rhythmic acuity-but also of the generous amplitude of the movement and the fresh, unman­nered spirit of the dancing.

On the whole, the women seemed rather tight in the shoulders and upper back, and the performance had its share of minor in­securities and expressive dead spots. On the other hand, for its size the company has an unusual number of individual dancers who catch the eye with special qualities, among them not a few who have been wholly or mostly reared in PNB and its associated school.

Deborah Hadley, for example, who was featured in the first movement of "Brahms­Schoenberg Quartet" and is a dancer of ver­satility and depth <as the program was later to confirm), was trained elsewhere but has been a principal of PNB since 1979. Patricia Barker, who sparkled in the first movement and glowed in the third, is completely a PNB product. Seattle native Benjamin Houk, who helped energize the Gypsy-fla­vored finale, joined the troupe as an appren­tice in 1983. Alejandra Bronfman, so lyrical­ly appealing in the second movement, began her career with the Washington Ballet, but has plainly blossomed in her four years with PNB.

Then there are the veterans the troupe has enlisted from elsewhere, such as the

dashingly piquant Colleen Neary, who led the finale. Neary spent a decade with NYCB, but she's been gone from there since 1980-what's the secret of her youthful look and undimmed virtuosity? <Magali Messac, of ABT fame, was to have danced in the Ba­lanchine, but was injured-we may see her later in the run.> The men were no slouches either. Houk, Wade Walthall and Carey Homme were impressive in their various ways; Vienna-born Michael Ailer lent par­ticular resonance to the rapturous andante movement with his strength and warmth.

That the rest of the program was down­hill was neither a surprise nor a disgrace­when you start with Balanchine, it's almost foreordained <though the program was too lengthy for its own good). The company must be applauded for commissioning post­modernist Lucinda Childs' "Clarion," even if the result proved disappointing. At her lu­minous best, Childs makes highly patterned choreography that's like a diamond turned in the light, mirroring myriad facets and levels; but the synthetically minimalist score by Paul Chihara seemed at odds with the Childs esthetic. Stowell's ambitious. "Hail to the Conquering Hero," to a com­plied Handel score, works reasonably well as a company showcase, and was particularly flattering to Walthall, Mala Rosal, Neary and especially Hadley, in the "Xerxes" Largo. "Seattle Slew," the other Stowell piece, is fun but flimsy, nicely displaying Lucinda Hughey's long legs to music by Wil­liam Bolcom that sounds like a cross be­tween Offenbach and Gershwin-apt enough for the context, a showbiz portrait of the crowds who flock to championship horse races.

ORDER PROCEDURE The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Washington has yielded the floor.

The Senator from Iowa. Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank you, Mr.

President, and I particularly want to thank the Senate majority leader for this opportunity on this Friday just before the Easter recess for us to have this time to present points of view on very important issues that we have an interest in and that we think the entire Nation has an interest in.

EDUCATION CONCERNS FACING CONGRESS

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my purpose today is to discuss a concern facing our Nation, and one that is im­portant to all 100 Members of this body, the education of our youth. This is a matter for consideration that may be even greater today than we realized at the time of the printing of the report called "Nation at Risk," which received so much attention just a few years ago.

A more recent report, "A Nation Pre­pared: Teachers for the 21st Cen­trury" by the Carnegie Forum on edu­cation and the economy, points out that in the past 3 years, the American people have made a good start toward an educational renaissance.

Educational weaknesses have been identified and steps have been taken

by local and State agencies to improve our systems. Measures of accountabil­ity have been put into place for both teachers and students, graduation re­quirements have been made more stri­gent and legislation has been enacted at both the State and Federal level to insure that our Nation's future citi­zens enter the 21st century prepared for the changes that are going to come about in the next 50 years or so.

Communities, business and industry are getting involved. Business and edu­cation partnerships are providing not only financial support making many new programs possible, they are also adding corporate management exper­tise to education, that, in tum, bene­fits the corporation in the form of better educated, more productive workers and more knowledgeable con­sumers.

It has been reported that the nation­wide effort to improve our schools and student achievement rivals that of any period in American history.

However, I wish to call your atten­tion to major problems that loom on the horizon.

Our future work force will be made up of a steadily rising proportion of people who pose new and significant challenges to education. It has been reported that the Ameri­

can work force is expected to grow by 30 million workers over the next 5 dec­ades. Most of the net addition will come from the ranks of teenagers and from adult immigrants, a great many of whom are poor.

In fact, by the year 2000 a full one­third of the Nation's children could be economically disadvantaged.

We know poor children are more likely to suffer from various forms of malnourishment and therefore likely to suffer from learning disabilities.

Many economically deprived chil­dren start school with disadvantages that prevent them from succeeding as they should and later become prime candidates for dropping out of school.

It has been estimated that the cost of private industry-not to the tax payers, but to private industry-of re­training American workers who are not adequately educated in basic read­ing, writing, and computational skills is $2 billion per year.

Each year we also incur an addition­al $26 billion in social program costs as a result of the nearly 1 million stu­dents who leave school prior to grad­uation.

This figure excludes what society loses in tax revenues because of the lack of productivity of these very good American citizens who are not pre­pared for the work challenge that rests out there.

Not only for the personal benefit of these high risk students, but also for our Nation's benefit, it is essential

8944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 that we do a better job of working with these high risk children.

Add to these already stated prob­lems the additional concerns of sub­stance abuse, teen pregnancy. a high dropout rate in some inner city schools and other societal problems, and you begin to see the scope of the challenge facing our Nation today and the need for planning and to be prepared for the problems that confront us just around the corner in the next century.

We must continue to keep the issue of educating all our citizens in the front rank of our concerns. Our job is to identify the national interest in education and provide sound legisla­tion that will maintain the quality of our American way of life for all of our citizens.

Mr. President, I and others in this body want our educational system to be the strongest in the world and we must work to insure hat sound deci­sions and policies are made in this vital area.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. CoNRAD). The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.

WORLD POPULATION AWARE­NESS WEEK TO BE OBSERVED IN HA WAll APRIL 20-25, 1987 Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President,

there can be little question about the urgent need to curb world population growth. Ninety percent of the world's new births occur in the developing na­tions and in some of these nations, populations will double in a single gen­eration. This dizzying population growth undermines the efforts of these developing nations to develop economically and achieve self-suffi­ciency, and is a real threat to peace and prosperity throughout the world.

In light of these consequences, I am pleased that the people of Hawaii have joined the effort to promote world population awareness. Gov. John Waihee III, has proclaimed the week of April 20-25, 1987 to be World Popu­lation Awareness Week in Hawaii. More than 35 other governors have done the same in their States.

In Hawaii, the week will be marked in forums and conferences at Kapio­lani Community College in Honolulu and on the campus of the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Similar gather­ings throughout the Nation will help promote understanding of the issue and spur the development of creative solutions.

I am pleased to bring to the atten­tion of my colleagues the proclama­tion issued by Governor Waihee of Hawaii, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the proclamation be printed in the RECORD.

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

PROCLAMATION

Whereas, the world's population has reached five billion and is growing at the unprecedented rate of 87 million a year; and

Whereas, rapid population growth causes or intensifies a wide range of grave prob­lems in the developing world including envi­ronmental degradation, urban deterioration, unemployment, malnutrition, hunger, re­source depletion and economic stagnation; and

Whereas, 50 percent of the ten million infant deaths and 25 percent of the 500,000 materal deaths that occur each year in the developing world could be prevented if vol­untary child spacing and maternal health programs could be substantially expanded; and

Whereas, some 500 million people in the developing world want and need family planning but do not have access or means to such services; and

Whereas, the United States has been the leading advocate of the universally recog­nized basic human rights of couples to de­termine the size and spacing of their fami­lies;

Now, therefore, I, John Waihee, Governor of Hawaii, do hereby proclaim April 20 through 25, 1987 to be World Population Awareness Week in Hawaii and call upon all the people of the State to reflect upon the consequences of overpopulation.

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON AIDS

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send to the desk a resolution, which we have cleared, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be stated by title.

The legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution <S. Res. 190) to express the

sense of the Senate regarding the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, AIDS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consid­eration of the resolution?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today along with 34 Members of the Senate, I am submitting Senate Resolution 190, which expresses the sense of the Senate on the need for the establish­ment of a Presidential Commission on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syn­drome. The language of this resolution is a compromise reached after discus­sions with Members from both sides of the aisle.

It is especially gratifying that in ad­dition to Senators WILSON and STE­VENS, both of whom have introduced previous legislation regarding AIDS, Senator CRANSTON and Senator KEN­NEDY and a great many others are also cosponsoring this resolution. I am very pleased this resolution has the support of both sides of the aisle. This strong bipartisan support is indicative of the interest and determination of Con­gress to provide direction in the fight against AIDS.

And a fight is precisely what it is. It is a war against a terrible disease that

is the Nation's No. 1 health enemy. It affects everyone, including the young and those who are in the prime of their lives.

It is a matter for business, for the in­surance industry, for the States, for the Federal Government, and for our churches and schools. It is a disease that forces us to think about very basic issues, such as education, em­ployment, and housing.

Clearly, we have to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society as a whole. As a result special attention has to be given to the laws, rules, and regula­tions with respect to immigration, li­ability, and discrimination. We also need recommendations regarding test­ing, counseling, and confidentiality.

We know dissemination of informa­tion is essential in the prevention of the spread of AIDS, and we know we must recognize the special needs of mi­norities and the important role of the family, educational institutions, reli­gion, and community organizations in this effort. Since there is no known cure at present, and the development of a vaccine is several years away, we must consider necessary behavioral changes which must take place, taking into consideration the multiple moral, ethical, and legal concerns involved.

We must deal with this disease soon as time is of the essence. One of the best ways is to gather the finest minds so that an organized plan is developed which will address all the issues, in­cluding the financing of the health care and research needs relating to AIDS.

Our purpose is to create a broad based Commission, not to allow any one interest group to dominate the debate. The problems are being faced by not only those with the disease but also those who are not infected.

The allocation of financial resources to various Federal departments and agencies must be adequate and distrib­uted in a manner that will do the most good for everyone, including those who are not infected. In addition, the distribution of health care manpower is of critical importance. We must make sure that there will be enough providers and beds available to care for those with AIDS and those who re­quire services for other illnesses.

This is not a disease that is confined to the United States. Our frineds in the rest of the world are facing major health problems because of the dis­ease, and our efforts must include international cooperation and coordi­nation, especially with respect to data collection, treatment modalities, and research.

I think it is obvious to all that we are involved in a major threat to public health. I am personally commit­ted to allocating whatever resources necessary and I am equally convinced

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8945 that all Members of Congress are equally concerned. That is clearly demonstrated by the vast number of cosponsors on this resolution, and by the fact that there are many pieces of legislation being developed right now. In the next few days and weeks, Mr. President, we hope to introduce addi­tional legislation that will assist in the fight against AIDS.

Again, I underscore that this resolu­tion is totally bipartisan. There are other ideas, for other commissions. With the President's indication just 2 weeks ago of his concern, it seemed that this was the first thing we should do.

I have had a brief discussion with the Chief of Staff at the White House, former Senator Baker. I have indicat­ed to him that I felt it was important that the President become active in this very real concern in America.

I am pleased to have been joined by so many of my colleagues, many of whom are on the floor today-the dis­tinguished Senator from Massachu­setts [Mr. KENNEDY], the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. MoYNI­HAN], the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. ARMsTRONG], and many others.

I am certain that other Senators, who may not be cosponsors, will be supportive of many of the ideas on AIDS that will be coming forward in the next few weeks and the next few months.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to join the eminent Republican leader in this bipartisan measure.

I wish to make just a few remarks, of which the first, and perhaps the most relevant, is to say that it was just ex­actly 4 years ago that Kevin Cahill, who is an eminent practicing physi­cian in New York City and a professor of tropical medicine at Trinity College, Dublin, called me on a personal basis to say something awful was breaking out in New York.

I asked, "What?" He said, "We don't know what." I said, "What do you call it?" He said, "We don't know what to call

it." Well, now we know what to call it:

AIDS, acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

The AIDS epidemic had begun. Phy­sicians looking at it sensed something tropical in the protocols of the disease and called Cahill, who set the wheels in motion to begin to isolate and iden­tify the virus. Since then, Dr. Gallo, together with his French colleagues, have worked out the complicated nature of this virus.

We are making steady progress in that regard, but the rate of scientific progress is well behind the curve; be­cause by the time we first encountered this disease, we had learned the most important fact of it, which is that it lays dormant, very much like-if I may

say a word that probably could not be used on the Senate floor a century ago-very much as syphilis lays dor­mant. In the case of syphilis, it is often a brief event which soon disap­pears, but 20 years later you get the onset of a debilitating and fatal brain disease, known as paresis, a form of dementia.

In the case of AIDS, the disease may emerge 3 to 5 years after infection, with devastating consequences. It has already spread to an enormous popula­tion. We know nothing at this point of the trigger mechanisms by which it turns from dormancy to become an active disease, but it obviously does; and it does not look as if we can do anything to stop it once it starts.

The Government must respond to AIDS in a number of ways. It has nu­merous agencies at its disposal; one of which is the uniformed Public Health Service. I hope that, as we move quick­ly to respond to AIDS, we do not fail to notice that we created an institu­tion in our Government-the U.S. Public Health Service-comprised of an honorable and extraordinarily able body of physicians who are trained to deal with such events.

I would hope that they are given the job in this epidemic situation that they were created to perform in epide­mics which this country has witnessed in the past.

The Public Health Service cannot win this battle alone. Our Federal and State programs must be changed to adapt to the crisis brought about by AIDS. On the first day of this lOOth Congress I introduced S. 24 which pro­vided for a number of measures to deal with this crisis. The one that I think is most urgent for AIDS patients them­selves is a 5-year waiver of the 24-month waiting period for Medicare coverage for AIDS patients receiving Social Security disability benefits. An AIDS patient can be certified by the Social Security Administration as dis­abled but must wait for Medicare cov­erage for 24 months. The glaring reali­ty is that anyone who is disabled by AIDS has almost invariably-to our knowledge-died within that 24 months.

The AIDS patient simply cannot wait 24 months to receive this cover­age. This 24-month waiting period exists to ensure that only those who are truly disabled enough so that they receive disability benefits for 2 years, would be eligible for health care cover­age. Sadly enough, there is not much hope that AIDS patients will over­come their disability, hence there is no reason to delay granting them Medi­care coverage.

S. 24 also directs the Secretary of the Health and Human Services to conduct a survey on infants with AIDS.

If there is one personal trauma that we all are going to have to learn to live

with, it is infants who are born with AIDS. I have seen them in New York hospitals. These are the children of mothers who have acquired the dis­ease, typically through hypodermic needles and drug use. They are born in these hospitals and abandoned. Yet hospitals are their only shelter: it is the doctors and nurses who care for them. It is the doctors and nurses who are the ones who our hearts must go out to. They do what they are fully able to do to care for these children, but must inevitably watch them die.

How do we avoid such tragedy? Pre­vention. S. 24 authorizes $75 million in grants to State and local governments for education and information dissemi­nation as to how to prevent the spread of AIDS.

In addition, S. 24 authorizes $20 mil­lion for alternative testing sites where individuals would go to be tested anon­ymously for the presence of AIDS antibodies.

We simply must put a stop to this disease. To do this, we have a lot of learning to do, and a lot of caring to provide and we shall do both. I think this bipartisan measure, asking for the cooperation of Congress and the Presi­dent, is a good sign that we are deter­mined to meet the needs of this very urgent crisis.

Mr. President, the Senator from California [Mr. CRANSTON] who is nec­essarily absent today, has been very active in drawing up this resolution and has asked that I submit a state­ment for him to be placed in the RECORD in the debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the resolution be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the resolu­tion was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

S. RES. 190 Whereas the Acquired Immune Deficiency

Syndrome <hereinafter in this resolution re­ferred to as "AIDS"> is the Nation's number 1 public health problem;

Whereas AIDS affects all segments of so­ciety;

Whereas more than 33,000 cases of AIDS have been reported in the United States and over 19,000 individuals have died from the disease since it was first recognized in 1981;

Whereas at least 1,500,000 Americans have already been infected with the AIDS virus;

Whereas AIDS is now the tenth leading cause of death in this country and is rapidly becoming the leading cause of death for males between the ages of 20 and 39;

Whereas 30 to 50 percent of Americans in­fected with the AIDS virus will develop the disease of AIDS within the next 5 years and all infected individuals may eventually de­velop the disease;

Whereas there is currently no medical cure or vaccine for AIDS and there is un­likely to be any available cure or vaccine within the foreseeable future;

Whereas there are many complex moral, ethical, and legal questions which must be addressed concerning AIDS; and

8946 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April10, 1987 Whereas AIDS poses a serious threat to

the health, welfare, and productivity of our Nation: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Nation make a major com­mitment of resources consistent with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences for health care, research, and education relating to AIDS, and that a Pres­idential Commission be created to assist the President and Congress in establishing pri­orities and a comprehensive plan to deal with all aspects of the domestic problems re­lating to AIDS as well as to assist with the development and adoption of a plan to deal with AIDS on an international basis.

SEC. 2. <a> The Presidential Commission referred to in the first section should con­sist of members chosen from representatives of:

< 1 > health care providers; <2> business; (3) labor; <4> the insurance industry; (5) the pharmaceutical industry; <6> State Governors and State and local

officials; <7> the International Red Cross; <8> foundations involved in financing do-

mestic and international health efforts; <9> scientific experts; <10> religious leaders; <11> the National Academy of Sciences; <12> the Steering Committee on a National

Strategy for AIDS of the Institute of Medi­cine;

<13> public health experts; and <14> organizations concerned with AIDS. <b> In addition to the members referred to

in subsection <a>, the Presidential Commis­sion should also consist of ex officio mem­bers from Federal agencies and departments as the President considers appropriate. Sup­port services and technical assistance should be provided for the Presidential Commission from the Department of Health and Human Services.

SEc. 3. The Presidential Commission re­ferred to in the first section should perform the following functions:

<1> Evaluate the adequacy of, and make recommendations regarding, the financing of the health care and research needs relat­ing to AIDS, including the roles for and ac­tivities of private and public financing, espe­cially the role of the insurance industry and the States.

(2) Evaluate the adequacy of, and make recommendations regarding, the dissemina­tion of information which is essential in the prevention of the spread of AIDS, which recognizes the special needs of minorities and the important role of the family, educa­tional institutions, religion, community or­ganizations in education and prevention ef­forts.

<3> Address any necessary behavioral changes needed to combat AIDS, taking into consideration the multiple moral, ethi­cal, and legal concerns involved.

<4> Make recommendations regarding how financial resources can best be allocated to various Federal departments and agencies, including the Veterans' Administration, and State and local governments.

<5> Make recommendations regarding test­ing and counseling for AIDS, particularly with respect to maintaining confidentiality.

<6> Evaluate the adequacy of and make recommendations regarding Federal and State laws including Civil Rights laws relat­ing to AIDS, particularly-

<A> rules, regulations, and ethical consid­erations relating to infectious diseases de-

signed to protect the health of all individ­uals at risk of contagion, including those re­lating to immigration, liability, and discrimi­nation; and

<B> problems encountered by individuals having AIDS in obtaining and retaining em­ployment, housing, and insurance and par­ticipating in educational systems, and in­cluding possible violations of rights of priva­cy and confidentiality.

(7) Evaluate the adequacy of and make recommendations regarding international coordination and cooperation with respect to data collection, treatment modalities, and research.

SEC. 4. It is the sense of the Senate that the Presidential Commission referred to in the first section should be established within 90 days of the date of adoption of this resolution and should issue a prelimi­nary report regarding its operations within 9 months after the date of establishment. A subsequent report should be issued one year after the date on which the initial report is issued and further reports should be issued as determined by the Presidential Commis­sion. e Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distin­guished minority leader [Mr. DoLE] and numerous of our colleagues in in­troducing Senate Resolution 190. This resolution is a result of discussions and negotiations between Senator DoLE and me arising out of his introduction of Senate Resolution 184, with input from a number of other Senators, and I believe that we have accommodated most of the concerns of all who are in­volved.

Our resolution would, first, express the sense of the Senate that this Nation must make a major commit­ment of resources for health care, re­search, and education, consistent with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, in order to bring an end to the AIDS epidemic. Those recommendations, included in the In­stitute of Medicine [10Ml in its report entitled "Confronting AIDS-Direc­tions for Public Health, Health Care, and Research" concluded that by 1991, $2 billion needs to be expended annu­ally on AIDS research and public edu­cation efforts.

Second, the resolution urges that a Presidential Commission be created to review, evaluate, and coordinate public and private efforts relating to AIDS and to recommend to the Congress and the President a comprehensive plan to combat this epidemic quickly and decisively. Specific timeframes for action would be provided. I would note that, in its report, the 10M recom­mended that a National Commission be established on AIDS, and there have been a number of legislative pro­posals introduced to implement that recommendation. I cosponsored and endorse one of those proposals, S. 613, which is designed essentially to make the IOM Committee on AIDS a per­manent advisory panel. The IOM would be sufficiently independent to give critical advice and have national and international statute and credibil-

ity in order for its advice to be accord­ed appropriate respect. It would also have the ability to bring together di­verse public and private resources and interest groups to marshal all avail­able national resources effectively.

I understand, however, that the President has recently become inter­ested in establishing a Presidential Commission on AIDS and may shortly be making an announcement to that effect. Since this Commission will be making significant recommendations about proposed future courses of action, I believe that it is very impor­tant for the Senate to provide the President with its best thinking as to the composition and functions of the Commission. That is what this resolu­tion is intended to do.

The Commission would be comprised of representatives from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, the business, religious, and scientific com­munities; the International Red Cross; labor; health-care providers; State and local governments; and health founda­tions. In addition, public health and/ or scientific experts from the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine Steering Committee on a National Strategy for AIDS, and the community-at-large would be present. Finally, I am pleased that organiza­tions which advocate on behalf of and provide services to people with AIDS would be represented.

It is our intent that the sectors to be represented would submit nominations to the President for representative membership from their ranks.

Also serving on the Commission, as ex officio members would be repre­sentatives of those Federal depart­ments, as well as Federal agencies, such as the Veterans' Administration, designated by the President. The tasks recommended for the Commission are derived from Senate Concurrent Reso­lution 184 and S. 613 and other sugges­tions.

I believe that this Commission would be balanced and broadly-based and would serve as a valuable forum to bring together individuals who repre­sent a wide range of public and pri­vate-sector interests and concerns and who must all work together if we are to bring an end to this epidemic. AIDS is a societal problem and all facets of society must participate in our war to defeat it.

The Federal Government, however, must lead the way. Unfortunately, to a large measure, it has failed to do so thus far-with the exception of the ac­tivities of the Public Health Service. President Reagan only last week gave his first speech on AIDS-6 years after the epidemic began and 3 years after the Secretary of Health and Human Services declared AIDS this country's No. 1 health problem. Each year during the last 4 years, this adminis-

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8947 tration has sought a cut in funding for AIDS activities, and each year Con­gress has nearly doubled those re­quests. For fiscal year 1988, the Presi­dent has finally requested his first in­crease in the budget for AIDS. Howev­er, it is already apparent that that re­quest is totally inadequate to meet the enormous needs-especially in the edu­cation and research areas as well as re­lating to experimental treatments­and I am confident that Congress will again substantially add to those rec­ommendations.

I am hopeful that the President is now taking seriously the threat that AIDS poses for this country and the world and that he will appoint to the Commission individuals who have ex­pertise on the AIDS issues, who have the public's best interests in mind, and who truly can provide creative, com­passionate, and cooperative input about how we can bring an end to this epidemic as rapidly as possible.

I strongly encourage the President to let public health concerns-not ide­ology-guide his decisions on appoint­ees and staff. Indeed, we have urged that the support and technical assist­ance and staff be drawn from the De­partment of Health and Human Serv­ices.

AIDS is too great a threat to be po­liticized. We need sound policies based on the advice of the best scientific and public health experts we can find, as well as the involvement of enlightened civic, business, labor, education, chari­table, and governmental leaders.

I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.e

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, President Reagan has recently de­clared that AIDS is the No. 1 public health problem of this Nation.

The facts bear this out. More than 33,000 cases of AIDS have been report­ed in the United States, and over 19,000 have died from the disease since it was first reported in 1981. At least 1.5 million Americans have been in­fected with the virus, and AIDS has become the lOth leading cause of death in this country.

Mr. President, the Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, has issued a report on AIDS. The concluding paragraph of his findings states:

AIDS is a life-threatening disease and a major public health issue. Its impact on our society is and will continue to be devastat­ing. By the end of 1991, an estimated 270,000 cases of AIDS will have occurred with 179,000 deaths within the decade since the disease was first recognized. In the year 1991, an estimated 145,000 patients with AIDS will need health and supportive serv­ices at a total cost of between $8 and $16 bil­lion. However, AIDS is preventable. It can be controlled by changes in personal behav­ior. It is the responsibility of every citizen to be informed about AIDS and to exercise the appropriate preventive measures. • • •

The spread of AIDS can and must be stopped.

Mr. President, this resolution calls for a Presidential Commission to assist the President and Congress in estab­lishing priorities and a comprehensive plan to deal with all aspects of the problem of AIDS. Members of the Commission will include representa­tives from a broad range of groups and industries involved in efforts to ad­dress this serious matter. This Com­mission is to be established within 90 days and issue a report within 9 months.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the time is long overdue to devote what­ever energy and whatever resources are required to conquer this devastat­ing epidemic of AIDS.

One and a half to two million Ameri­cans are already infected with the AIDS virus. As many as 10 million people are infected in the rest of the world. And every day, every week, it continues to spread.

The resolution we bring here today is intended to send a strong signal to the President that his administration must begin to take an active role in finding enduring solutions to the prob­lem of AIDS. The Surgeon General, Dr. Koop, has demonstrated magnifi­cant leadership on this issue, but he has too often stood alone. All too often, it has been the Congress that has had to step forward.

In offering this resolution, we are sending the message loud and clear to the President to take special care that the many concerned sectors of our so­ciety are represented in the critical de­liberations of an AIDS Commission.

Most important of all, we insist that this Commission not become an excuse for delay-that the recommendations already issued by the national acade­my of sciences be implemented proper­ly. We must not substitute talk for action.

I know-and the other sponsors of this resolution know-that any con­tinuing failure to get down to business in solving this public health crisis will be measured in the loss of countless lives-the lives of Americans of all ages and in all walks of life and, indeed, the lives of millions of people all over the world.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am informed that the distinguished Senator from Colorado wishes to speak and will be on the floor present­ly. So in those circumstances, I will not ask for the adoption of the resolu­tion but will await his arrival.

Mr. President, in that setting, as we await the arrival of our colleague from Colorado, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

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

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. President, I want to join with my colleagues in commending Senator DoLE and Sena­tor CRANSTON and others who have taken the lead in bringing this resolu­tion for the establishment of a nation­al commission on AIDS to the floor. I was extremely glad to join with Sena­tor DoLE and the others in sponsoring this when it was first introduced, and it appears to me that during the last several days, while this has been the subject of negotiation backstage and of some amendment, indeed the reso­lution has been strengthened.

In its original form it did not spell out as clearly as some would like the concern that Senators feel about the civil rights in employment and in other ways of persons who contract AIDS. Indeed, questions of job dis­crimination and other related issues ought to be taken into account by thoughtful persons because they are going to have more working men and women confronting exactly that ques­tion. There will be employers and their employees who will have to cope with and come to grips with unexpect­edly and in a tragic way what do you do if you have in the work force a person who comes down with AIDS.

So I think it is entirely appropriate that at the urgings of several Senators who have been interested in it we spell out and enumerate a number of our concerns for the rights of persons who contract AIDS.

I also note with interest and approv­al, indeed with satisfaction, that we have included language that makes it clear that public health remains our paramount consideration in adopting this resolution and urging the Presi­dent to establish a national commis­sion to look into this serious, indeed catastrophic, problem because the bottom line finally is public health.

We have before us the prospect of a disease of unknown but evidently enormous consequences, which some thoughtful people have compared with its scope and seriousness to the great plague which swept through the world in the fourth century. I hope that such predictions will prove to be exaggerated. I hope that indeed at an early date we will have a vaccine, we will have a cure, we will have preven­tion, none of which exists at the present time. My sense is to the con­trary.

My own perception, based upon some study and some talk with people who are far more knowledgeable than I, is that it is almost impossible to ex­aggerate the seriousness of a menace to public health to say nothing of the human tragic and the economic conse-

8948 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 quences which are endangered by the spread of this mysterious disease.

So I do commend the sponsors and I hope that the President will not take the 90 days, which the resolution sug­gests, but only a few days to appoint the commission, and that they will go to work promptly and report back no later than the date specified in the resolution with recommendations for what the Congress can do to legislate and to provide a legal framework in which we may do the best we can to protect those who are threatened with contagion, those who may contract AIDS, and the general public.

Mr. President, as we do so, I hope that all who are thinking about this problem will treat with a healthy degree of skepticism the pronounce­ments of experts. I say this because of an experience I had recently in which I stirred up something of an uproar by mentioning in a public place certain reports regarding the transmission of AIDS which run counter to the con­ventional wisdom.

My comments came up during a press conference I was holding on a bill I introduced to overturn a recent Supreme Court decision.

In that case, which the High Court handed down a couple of weeks ago, it was ruled that Federal laws designed to prevent discrimination against handicapped persons may also, under some circumstances, be applied to indi­viduals with a contagious disease. I be­lieve this is a serious mistake and I think the Court erred in this decision as a matter of law and as a matter of understanding the intention of Con­gress. Obviously, such a decision, if carried to its logical conclusion, will greatly complicate the job of those who are directed to protect the health and safety in schools and the work­place.

The bill which I have introduced makes it clear that the law, which was written a number of years ago to pro­vide protection for handicapped per­sons, does not require public or private employers to keep persons with a con­tagious disease on the job.

That case did not involve AIDS. It involved tuberculosis. I remain con­vinced that it would be absurd for this or any other Federal law to require that employers keep on the job some­one with tuberculosis if they were working in a health-sensitive occupa­tion. I mean, that is the furthest thing, I am sure. from the minds of any of our predecessors in this body who voted to establish this law.

In the course of mentioning this leg­islation at a news conference, the question of AIDS came up. I men­tioned reports from physicians and medical journals that raised serious concerns that do run contrary to the conventional wisdom about how AIDS is t ransmitted. These reports include one from a leading British medical

journal, the Lancet, on a case of ap­parent transmission through saliva ex­posure. In another report, Dr. Sydney Finegold, president of the Infectious Disease Society of America, advised "It would seem prudent to ask that AIDS patients not engage in food preparation or handling for others, particularly if they have an intestinal infection!' The Centers for Disease Control guidelines advise emergency care workers to use disposable airway equipment or resuscitation bags be­cause of the "theoretical risk of sali­vary transmission." And, Dr. William Haseltine of Harvard Medical School has said, "Anyone who tells you cate­gorically that AIDS is not contracted by saliva is not telling you the truth."

My comments at that time were in­tended simply to make the point that we do not know everything that we ought to know or need to know about how the disease of AIDS is transmit­ted. What I found particularly disturb­ing was the reaction of some journal­ists and some public health authorities who greeted my observations, the quotes of various authorities which had come to my attention, with a hoot and a holler. Their reaction is extraor­dinarily disturbing, not because the authorities I cited may prove ultimate­ly to be right-they may or may not­but to take them so lightly really flies in the face of the experience that we have already had in just the few years that AIDS has been under study.

In just the last few years, we have seen a substantial reversal of the so­called guarantees which we had re­ceived previously from the experts. A case in point is the reversal in assur­ances about the Nation's blood sup­plies. It is worth a review just because it makes the point that from now on we ought to be more cautious and less dogmatic.

The Federal Centers for Disease Control and the American Red Cross are now recommending that many people who received blood transfu­sions between 1978 and 1985 undergo a test for AIDS exposure. Since April of 1985 donated blood has been screened for exposure to the AIDS virus and is presumed to be safe. How­ever, health officials are concerned that people who received transfusions earlier may have been exposed to the AIDS virus.

My point is this: Their cautionary warning is an about-face from what many of these same officials were saying about blood transfusions just a few years ago.

Let me put the record in perspective. On December 9, 1982, the Centers

for Disease Control in Atlanta an­nounced it was investigating the cases of 20 children with AIDS symptoms. One child, who died at the age of 20 months, had received numerous blood transfusions for an unrelated condi­tion. The CDC reported:

"This and continuing reports of AIDS among persons with hemophilia A [who also required frequent transfusions] raises seri­ous questions about the possible transmis­sions of AIDS through blood and blood products.

At the end of the same month, a Newsweek magazine article on AIDS told readers that-

The Department of Health and Human Services is expected to convene an advisory panel soon to assess the role of blood trans­fusions in spreading the disease . . . But public-health officials warn against undue alarm, especially since only one case has been strongly linked to transfusions.

Dr. Harold Jaffee of the Centers for Disease Control was quoted as saying:

The risk to the general population is quite small.

During the following year other health officials made similar state­ments.

On July 14, 1983, the New York City Health Department, the Council of Hospital Blood Bank Directors of the Greater New York Region, Inc., and the Greater New York Hospital Asso­ciation issued a statement asserting:

Physicians can reassure their patients that the community's blood supplies are not considered a source of the spread of AIDS.

In a July 25, 1983, U.S. News & World Report article, Los Angels' Red Cross administrator Norm Kear claimed:

The odds are 10 million to 1 against some­one getting AIDS through a blood transfu­sion.

The magazine explained to readers that-

So far, only one person-among the 3 mil­lion Americans who receive blood every year-is thought to have contracted AIDS from a routine blood transfusion: an infant in San Francisco.

On September 15, 1983, American Red Cross President Richard F. Schu­bert defended his agency's blood col­lection methods by saying the risks of getting AIDS from a blood transfusion are "infinitesimal," according to a United Press International wire report of that date.

On October 16, 1983, according to an AP wire story of that date, Dr. Edward N. Brandt, an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services said:

Let me make it clear, the blood supply of the nation is safe. I have no concern ... and would not be afraid of receiving blood anyWhere in the country.

On November 2, 1983, the Associated Press reported on a news conference held by the American Association of Blood Banks. Dr. John Bove of the Yale School of Medicine, a spokesman for the association, said:

The risk of contracting AIDS from a transfusion was one out of 1 million.

On the same day, the Washington Post reported that-

Federal health officials and blood-bank leaders meeting here [New York] today said the American blood supply is highly safe.

April 10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8949 The chance of getting AIDS from a blood transfusion is still very small . . . less than one in a million.

My point is very simple: Today the experts are saying something quite dif­ferent. Of the estimated 9 million Americans living today who received transfusions during the period of con­cern, from 1978 to 1985, public health officials now says as many as 12,000 may have been infected with the virus. This is a far cry from 1 out of 1 mil­lion, which would be 9 people, not 12,000.

The point in all this is not to criti­cize errors in estimates or even the failure to understand all the dangers. AIDS is a relatively new disease. Our health professionals have learned a great deal in a very short time. But along the way, all of the rest of us who are not experts have been treated to pronouncements issued with an un­warranted air of certainty. My prefer­ence is for more caution and less dogma.

As we should have learned from our experience with the Nation's blood supply before 1985, categorical denials or assertions about AIDS are off the mark. The public is wise enough and compassionate enough for an open and full discussion of his epidemic, and that may mean challenging the prevailing wisdom about it. After all, as we have seen, the prevailing wisdom has been wrong before.

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Kansas. Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to

thank my colleagues for their state­ments in support of the pending reso­lution. I have no further statement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the resolu­tion? If not, the question is on agree­ing to the resolution.

S. RES. 190 Whereas the Acquired Immune Deficiency

Syndrome <hereinafter in this resolution re­ferred to as "AIDS" is the Nation's number 1 public health problem;

Whereas AIDS affects all segments of so­ciety;

Whereas more than 33,000 cases of AIDS have been reported in the United States and over 19,000 individuals have died from the disease since it was first recognized in 1981;

Whereas at least 1,500,000 Americans have already been infected with the AIDS virus;

Whereas AIDS is now the tenth leading cause of death in this country and is rapidly becoming the leading cause of death for males between the ages of 20 and 39;

Whereas 30 to 50 percent of Americans in­fected with the AIDS virus will develop the disease of AIDS within the next 5 years and all infected individuals may eventually de­velop the disease;

Whereas there is currently no medical cure or vaccine for AIDS and there is un­likely to be any available cure or vaccine within the foreseeable future;

Whereas there are many complex moral, ethical, and legal questions which must be addressed concerning AIDS; and

!li - Oii!l 0-!!!l-13 <Pt. 7J

Whereas AIDS poses a serious threat to the health, welfare, and productivity of our Nation: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Nation make a major com­mitment of resources consistent with the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences for health care, research, and education relating to AIDS, and that a Pres­idential Commission be created to assist the President and Congress in establishing pri­orities and a comprehensive plan to deal with all aspects of the domestic problems re­lating to AIDS as well as to assist with the development and adoption of a plan to deal with AIDS on an international basis.

SEC. 2.<a> The Presidential Commission re­ferred to in the first section should consist of members chosen from representatives of:

<1> health care providers; (2) business; (3) labor; <4> the insurance industry; (5) the pharmaceutical industry; < 6 > State Governors and State and local

officials; <7> the International Red Cross; (8) foundations involved in financing do-

mestic and international health efforts; <9> scientific experts; <10> religious leaders; (11) the National Academy of Sciences; <12> the Steering Committee on a National

Strategy for AIDS of the Institute of Medi­cine;

<13> public health experts; and <14> organizations concerned with AIDS. <b> In addition to the members referred to

in subsection <a>, the Presidential Commis­sion should also consist of ex officio mem­bers from Federal agencies and departments as the President considers appropriate. Sup­port services and technical assistance should be provided for the Presidential Commission from the Department of Health and Human Services.

SEC. 3. The Presidential Commission re­ferred to in the first section should perform the following functions:

(1) Evaluate the adequacy of, and make recommendations regarding, the financing of the health care and research needs relat­ing to AIDS, including the roles for and ac­tivities of private and public financing, espe­cially the role of the insurance industry and the States.

<2> Evaluate the adequacy of, and make recommendations regarding, the dissemina­tion of information which is essential in the prevention of the spread of AIDS, which recognizes the special needs of minorities and the important role of the family, educa­tional institutions, religion, and community organizations in education and prevention efforts.

<3> Address any necessary behavioral changes needed to combat AIDS, taking into consideration the multiple moral, ethi­cal, and legal concerns involved.

<4> Make recommendations regarding how financial resources can best be allocated to various Federal departments and agencies, including the Veterans' Administration, and State and local governments.

< 5 > Make recommendations regarding test­ing and counseling for AIDS, particularly with respect to maintaining confidentiality.

<6> Evaluate the adequacy of and make recommendations regarding Federal and State laws including Civil Rights laws' relat­ing to AIDS, particularly-

<A> rules, regulations, and ethical consid­erations relating to infectious diseases de­signed to protect the health of all individ-

uals at risk of contagion, including those re­lating to immigration, liability, and discrimi­nation; and

<B> problems encountered by individuals having AIDS in obtaining and retaining em­ployment, housing, and insurance and par­ticipating in educational systems, and in­cluding possible violations of rights of priva­cy and confidentiality.

(7) Evaluate the adequacy of and make recommendations regarding international coordination and cooperation with respect to data collection, treatment modalities, and research.

SEC. 4. It is the sense of the Senate that the Presidential Commission referred to in the first section should be established within 90 days of the date of adoption of this resolution and should issue a prelimi­nary report regarding its operations within 9 months after the date of establishment. A subsequent report should be issued one year after the date on which the initial report is issued and further reports should be issued as determined by the Presidential Commis­sion.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the reso­lution was agreed to.

Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in the ab­sence of the distinguished majority leader, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BuRDICK). The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

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

RECORD OPEN UNTIL 5 P.M. TODAY

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous cvnsent that Senators may have until 5 o'clock p.m. today to insert statements in the RECORD as though read; and also that they may have until 5 o'clock today to introduce business and resolutions.

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

T. SCOTT BUNTON Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, one of

the rewards of being a U.S. Senator is the opportunity to work with the dedi­cated and talented men and women who serve the Senate as professional staff. This is especially true for those who rise to occupy a senior staff office. Thus, it is with distinct sadness that I note the departure of a valued and trusted member of my staff, Scott Bunton.

Scott has served me, the Democratic leadership, and the other members of the Democratic Conference since 1981 as a member of the Democratic Policy

8950 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 Committee staff. In 1985, he became staff director of that committee.

Scott has brought a depth of energy, wisdom, and understanding to his work that will be missed by those who served under him on the Policy Com­mittee as well as his colleagues on other committees and by Members in this Chamber. Anyone who has worked with him is well aware of his dedication, his perseverance, his intel­lect, and his unfailing good nature. Any one of these is a desirable quality in a staff member-Scott has them all.

I have greatly appreciated his wise counsel and professional advice as well as his skill in inspiring and managing a talented staff. I know he leaves with the good wishes of all whom he served and with whom he served.

I join in wishing him the best of luck in his future endeavors, but he will need little of that. Having worked closely with him for so long, I know that his talents will lead him to suc­cess in whatever undertaking he chooses. I hope that the future holds much happiness for him and his family.

I know that I speak for many Sena­tors and staff in thanking him for the excellent job he has done and for con­tributing to the achievements of the Senate during his time here.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

CONTINUATION OF SOl Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, there

has been a great deal of debate recent­ly regarding interpretation of the ABM Treaty and the necessity of con­tinuing with the strategic defense ini­tiative. Congress must realize that a strategic defense research program is in the best interest of our country.

An SDI research program and per­haps early deployment can be used both as a hedge against the Soviet's own SDI Program and to reveal the long-term options that are before us.

An SDI research program has surely increased the prospects of sucess in arms control negotiations. If the Sovi­ets are concerned about SDI they should agree to deep reductions in bal­listic missiles. I believe an agreement is possible-and can be negotiated to reassure the Soviets that we are not intending to break out on the defen­sive side of strategic arms and that would reassure Americans that the So­viets will significantly reduce their land based ballistic missiles.

The strategic defense initiative need not be traded away during arms con­trol negotiations. As one astute observ­er put it, SDI is not a bargaining chip but a lever.

It is possible to have a significant SOl research program with either in­terpretation of the ABM Treaty. Thus, Congress should carefully con­sider the ramifications of cutting funding for SOl research.

We must continue with SOl efforts in order to investigate both the nucle­ar and nonnuclear defenses of our re­taliatory forces. It is in our interest to do this as a hedge against Soviet breakthroughs in SDI technology and to ensure that the strategic balance is in rough parity.

In developing new SOl systems we should avoid funding major test or mockups so that we avoid testing that gives inaccurate results and locks deci­sionmaking into place. That would be a mistake.

If the Soviets show flexibility in testing outside the laboratory and if the United States softens its demand a bit for unlimited testing in space, we can make certain progress toward a rea­sonable and verifiable arms control agreement. But in no case should we abandon SDI research.

We also have a commitment to our allies. We must keep in mind that our allies rely on our strategic offensive power to deter attacks against them. Their vital interests and ours are inex­tricably linked-their safety and ours are one.

SOl is a cooperative venture and can help strengthen the bonds between ourselves and our allies and friends.

There has been much discussion re­lating to the ABM Treaty interpreta­tion and its effect on SDI deployment. If we look at the actual text of the treaty, we find that there are indeed gray areas relating to new technol­ogies.

In fact, there was a side agreement to the treaty-agreement-statement D-referring to ABM systems using new technologies. Agreement-state­ment D says nothing whatever that would restrict the development or test­ing of new SDI technologies.

If we take the actual reading of the text and consider that the Nixon ad­ministration tried unsuccessfully to obtain development and testing re­strictions on exotic technologies, but failed to get Soviet agreement-then we can begin to understand that there is enough latitude in the treaty to allow for research, testing, and per­haps early deployment.

The Soviets are well aware of the ambiguity in the treaty and they have made large investments since 1972 in advanced research on high power lasers, particle beams, and beam weapon power supplies. The Soviets have not violated the treaty in this regard but they have directly violated the treaty by constructing the phased­array Krasnoyarsk radar and by con­tinued investment in tactical missile defenses that could be rapidly convert­ed to ABM use.

It is easily understood why the Sovi­ets would now oppose SOl-because they fear losing the research lead that they have gained in exotic weaponry.

It is easy to understand opposition to SOl by the Soviets. It is less easy to

understand domestic opposition to SDI. We are currently living under the doctrine of mutually assured destruc­tion, MAD, which I think we would all agree is a situation which is just that. It has awesome implications. We should not be fearful or reticent to break out of a system where we must rely on the doctrine of mutually as­sured destruction in order to prevent a Soviet first strike. Surely, SDI repre­sents an opportunity to preclude worldwide nuclear annihilation while enhancing American and allied se­curity.

U.S. AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, the United States can feed the world. No one knows how much food U.S. agri­cultural producers are capable of growing. Unlike most of the world, American farmers and ranchers con­tinually have to cut back production because of continuous overproduction.

Because of the oversupply of agricul­tural commodities, one of our priority responsibilities in the Senate Agricul­ture Committee will be consideration of a further reduction of planting next year for wheat, corn, and other feed grains.

The various commodity programs covered by the Farm Act have resulted in substantial crop and dairy produc­tion with considerable surpluses. We have more than a normal crop of wheat still available in Federal storage or stored on farms or in elevators. This year's wheat harvest, which starts in Texas in 6 or 7 weeks, will also have to be stored. In the Corn Belt, the · surplus corn has to be held yet in temporary storage in small farm communities on vacant lots, corners, and, in the case of Sibley, lA, on part of an A&P supermarket parking lot.

This overabundance of food is treat­ed as if no one wants it or needs it. But that is not true. The Commodity Dis­tribution Program, through communi­ty action centers across the country, was short on flour, cornmeal and dry powdered milk last year. The Depart­ment of Agriculture at the start of this year took steps to increase the amounts available to the States which, in turn, distributed the food commod­ities through the community action programs. The Department of Agricul­ture has been attempting to clarify that these commodities are also avail­able to charitable, nonprofit organiza­tions that help in food assistance to the poor. It is about time that we do just that.

In the homeless bill just adopted in the Senate yesterday, Congress in­creased the amount of surplus com­modities available to any State where more food is needed. And most of the States need more commodities for the

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8951 needy because there are an increasing number of people whose incomes have decreased and who are hungry.

For developing countries abroad af­flicted with poor economic conditions, they also need more food.

So why does the food just sit here in the United States in storage? That storage, which is paid out of the Fed­eral Treasury, approaches almost $1 billion annually. That is real money, and part of the massive $26 billion that we spent last year on the Farm Programs. The irony of it all is the farmers are worse off. Why is that? It is called "supply and demand," and there is too much supply-these huge surpluses-and the demand looks for lower and lower prices.

We have plenty of export programs, both in export assistance and in food for peace donations to friendly coun­tries.

A case-by-case investigation of devel­oping countries has demonstrated that if the food is cheap enough or is do­nated, they certainly need it to feed their hungry poor. The Senate acted on that yesterday when it adopted S. 659, which requires that missions be sent to developing countries to deter­mine their food needs. These missions would be made up of representatives from the Departments of Agriculture and State along with U.S. commodity groups and private voluntary organiza­tions and cooperatives to consult with their counterparts in 30 or more friendly foreign countries. They are to determine what the food needs are and which programs will best serve their interests. The food commodities will then be sold at reduced prices or a combination of easier credit, lower prices and some of the food donated.

There are needs for the United States to feed the world; we just have to find out how to do it-that is, get­ting our abundance to where the people need it.

In addition, the bill broadens the au­thority of the private voluntary orga­nizations and cooperatives that work in these developing countries around the world so they can broaden their activities. We cannot afford to in­crease the amount of foreign aid dol­lars, and the food supplies that we have in so much abundance can better be used to assist foreign friendly coun­tries. In other words, the food can re­place the dollar. We will be better off. It will not come out of our Treasury; it will come out of our storage. It costs money out of our Treasury. They will be better off because they need the food.

The passage of S. 659 will have four positive results for the United States.

First, food will provide nourishment for those who need it;

Second, the U.S. surplus commod­ities will be trimmed back, increasing U.S. exports to help the U.S. trade deficit;

Third, as the surplus is decreased, farm commodity prices will improve, and they will improve around the world because we have so much of the commodities, so much of the capabil­ity of producing them, and so much of it stored right here; and

Fourth, new markets will be devel­oped abroad in these developing coun­tries, which will also assist in their economic recovery.

American agricultural production is a positive force for doing good in the world. We do not know how much good, it can do but S. 659 sets us on the course to expand our exploration for assisting and doing business with developing countries and, in turn, de­veloping markets for the United States.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro­ceeded to call the roll.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. MELCHER). Without objection it is so ordered.

STEWART A. HARDY, SR. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, I

rise to join the majority leader, Mr. BYRD, in expressing condolences to Mr. Charles Hardy, whose father, Mr. Stewart A. Hardy, Sr., recently passed away.

I have known Charles Hardy from the time I was first elected to the Senate and I have developed a friend­ship with him as all Members of the Senate have. He is such a friendly soul and always willing to do something for Senators to make them much more comfortable. As you know, Mr. Presi­dent, he is a custodian of this body.

His father, as was pointed out in the eulogy extended by our distinguished majorty leader, was the fifth of six children, the son of the late John and Anna Bias Hardy, and one who re­ceived his formal education in the public schools of the District of Co­lumbia.

He remained in Washington, DC area during his entire adult life. In 1932 he was married to the late Rose Harris of Centerville, VA, and from that union our good friend Charles was born in addition to a brother named Stewart, Jr.

Mr. Hardy, Sr., the father of Charles, worked over 39 years for the U.S. District Court, and he was a loyal and faithful member of the Metropoli­tan Wesley AME Zion Church and was always willing to do whatever was nec­essary for his church.

Mr. President, I express my deepest condolences to my good friend Charles upon the loss of his father and pray

that he will be able to retain enough strength to undertake the duties that he must undertake as the surviving son to care for his surviving members of the family.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro­ceeded to call the roll.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. LAUTENBERG). Without objection, it is so ordered.

THE CALENDAR Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am

about to propound a request that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar Orders Nos. 86 and 88 if the two items have been cleared on the other side of the aisle. May I ask the able assistant Republican leader if those two are cleared?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I inform the majority leader that indeed those have been approved on our side of the aisle and thank him for his courtesy.

Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend.

PROTECTIONS UNDER TITLE XI, UNITED STATES CODE, THE BANKRUPTCY CODE Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calen­dar Order No. 86, S. 903.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill <S. 903) to extend certain protec­tions under title 11 of the United States Code, the Bankruptcy Code.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Commit­tee on the Judiciary with an amend­ment.

Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, S. 903, which was reported by the Ju­diciary Committee on Wednesday, is an emergency measure. It extends for 4 months a stop gap measure passed last year to protect retiree health ben­efits when companies file for bank­ruptcy. This extension will permit Congress to act on a more permanent solution to this problem.

This measure was worked out with the cooperation of the ranking member of the committee, Senator THuRMoND. His efforts last year and this year have made these protections possible, and I appreciate his coopera­tion on this matter.

I urge its adoption.

8952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April10, 1987 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.

The committee amendment was agreed to.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?

So the bill <S. 903) was passed, as fol­lows:

s. 903 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That sec­tion 608(a) of Public Law 99-591 <100 Stat. 3341-74), and section 2(a) of Public Law 99-656 <100 Stat. 3668) are amended by striking out "May 15, 1987" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "November September 15, 1987".

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

COMMENDING THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD FOR ITS RECENT RESCUE OF 37 SOVIET CREW MEMBERS Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calen­dar No. 88, Senate Resolution 189.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be stated by title.

The legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution <S. Res. 189) to commend the

United States Coast Guard for its recent heroic action in the rescue of 37 Soviet crew members.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any amendments? If there are no amendments, the question is on agreeing to the resolution.

The resolution <S. Res. 189) was agreed to.

The preamble was agreed to. The resolution, and the preamble,

are as follows: S. RES. 189

Whereas on March 14 of this year at 8:30 ante meridiem the Coast Guard station at Cape May, New Jersey, received a distress signal from the Soviet freighter Komsomo­lets;

Whereas the engines of the 482-foot Soviet ship had ceased and the vessel was 210 miles off of the eastern coast, barely withstanding 20-foot waves, 50-mile-an-hour winds, and listing at 40 degrees;

Whereas the distress signals were relayed to the Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod in Massachusetts and three H-3F helicopters were immediately dispatched.

Whereas helicopter pilot Lieutenant Keith Comber reached the stricken vessel at

9:40 ante meridiem, lowered a basket, and began to rescue 15 of the 37 Soviet crew members, including three women and an infant;

Whereas the second and third helicopters piloted by Lieutenant Commander Garry Poll and Captain Richard Hardy arrived at the listing freighter soon after, and with the help of Coast Guard survival specialists, transferred the remaining crew from the toppling deck of the ship to their two moving helicopters;

Whereas under extreme time pressure due to limited fuel capacity and adverse weather conditions, the Guardsmen were successful in ensuring that all of the 37 Soviet crew members were delivered safely to the Atlan­tic City International Airport, and later the Soviet compound in Washington, District of Columbia; and

Whereas it has been the tradition of the United States Coast Guard to respond to those in distress no matter what their na­tionality, and often at risk to the guardsmen and women themselves; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the United States Coast Guard is commended for its courage and skill in responding to a dangerous and seri­ous threat to the lives of 37 Russian crew members and in doing so not only demon­strated the high level of skill and profes­sionalism of the United States Coast Guard but its heroic action also clearly reflects a deep American tradition, to assist one's neighbor in times of distress.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the reso­lution was agreed to.

Mr. SIMPSON. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

SUPPORT PARENTAL AND MEDICAL LEAVE

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to support the Parental and Medical Leave Act of 1987 <S. 249) which has been introduced by my col­leagues Senator Donn and Senator SPECTER. I am pleased to add my name as a sponsor of this important legisla­tion.

I commend Senator Donn, chairman of the Subcommittee on Children, Family, Drugs and Alcoholism of the Committee on Labor and Human Re­sources for his consistent and tireless leadership on measures to improve the well-being of America's families and children. I also commend Congress­man BILL CLAY and Congresswoman PAT SCHROEDER for their leadership in offering similar legislation, H.R. 925, in the House of Representatives. Be­cause of their insight and commit­ment, Congress is directing long over­due attention to the pressing needs of working parents and their children.

S. 249 will improve the economic well-being of working families by pro­viding that a parent may take unpaid leave from work, without fear of losing a job, upon the birth, adoption, or seri­ous illness of a child. Temporary unpaid medical leave will be granted when a serious health condition pre-

vents a parent from working. Since these leaves are unpaid, the legislation will bring significant assistance to families and children at no cost to the Federal Government and little burden to business-in spite of the scare tac­tics and scare numbers being unfairly and inaccurately peddled against it.

The Parental and Medical Leave Act is an important and overdue response to the vast demographic changes that have transformed our society over the past two decades. Currently, almost half of all mothers who work outside the home have children under the age of 1. Twenty-four million children under 13 have mothers who work out­side the home. These numbers have soared in recent years, because of the large proportion of women entering the work force-by choice or by eco­nomic necessity. Two thirds of all working women are the sole providers for their families, or have husbands whose annual income is less than $15,000.

Under the Parental and Medical Leave Act, parents will be helped to fulfill their obligations both as bread­winners and as caregivers, without jeopardizing their jobs. Under the act, a parent would be entitled to receive 4 months of leave in order to care for a new child or a child with a serious ill­ness, and 6 months of temporary medi­cal leave would be available to moth­ers or fathers who are ill. This bill is an excellent and timely idea and I urge my colleagues to support it.

WAR AGAINST DRUGS Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise

to express serious concern regarding the status of the Federal initiative to assist States and localities in the war against drugs.

Last October, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Anti­Drug Abuse Act of 1986 <Public Law 99-570). This bill provided an addition­al $1.7 billion to fight the war on drugs nationwide, including an author­ization of $671 million for State and local grants for drug treatment, educa­tion, and law enforcement.

The State and local grant programs are administered by the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services, and the funds will go to State agencies for education, health, and law enforcement. These additional funds will be extremely useful to the States, as well as coun­ties and localities throughout the States, in addressing the growing drug problem.

Mr. President, my concern is based on the pace of which the Anti-Drug Abuse Act's funds are getting to the States. Congress soon will be consider­ing the fiscal year 1988 Federal budget, and it would be helpful­indeed essential-for Members of Con-

April10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8953 gress to receive information on the ef­fectiveness of the new drug funds for programs nationwide. This informa­tion is indispensable if Congress is to monitor effectively this sweeping na­tional initiative.

Mr. President, $225 million was ap­propriated to the U.S. Department of Justice for State and local law enforce­ment programs. However, only $10.8 million of this total has been allocated to States as of March 23. Even where State applications were for administra­tive costs alone, only 32 requests so far have been approved. No State yet has filed its required drug strategy plan to be eligible for its full program award.

The situation is similar regarding the Anti-Drug Abuse Act's funding of $200 million for drug education pro­grams. The bill provides $33 million for national program grants. After rulemaking, regulation promulgation, and application distribution and ap­proval, the actual awards are not ex­pected to be made by the Education Department until the fall.

The status of education funding for States and localities is even more dis­turbing. The drug bill allocates $159 million for State and local grants; yet only $19 million has been disbursed. Applications were distributed by the Education Department to States in January. Unfortunately, many States have not filed applications for this vital Federal funding-funding which is available shortly after an applica­tion is filed.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act also pro­vides substantial funds for drug abuse prevention and treatment. The drug bill provided $262 million to the Alco­hol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration for emergency drug abuse treatment and rehabilitation: $13.86 million is available to States under the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Service [ADMSl block grant; and $162.86 million is allotted to States for substance abuse treat­ment.

The ADMS funds have been includ­ed in the States' existing block grants. Of the substance abuse funds, 45 per­cent ($73 million) is awarded to States based on population and 55 percent <$89 million) is based on need. Most of the funding under the 45 percent for­mula already has been awarded to 57 States and territories. Applications for funding under the 55 percent formula were not provided to the States until March 4, 1987; consequently no funds have been allocated.

My own State of Pennsylvania is scheduled to receive funds of approxi­mately $8 million for prevention and treatment, $7.2 million for education, and $7.8 million to assist localities with narcotics control-apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention, and rehabilitation of drug offenders. Having met with State and local offi­cials, county commissioners, educators,

and drug treatment providers throughout Pennsylvania, I personally can attest to the pressing need for ad­ditional assistance. I have visited edu­cation programs in Pittsburgh, and I found a tremendous need for funds to deal with the drug program but very few funds having actually been distrib­uted.

It is apparent that many local offi­cials do not have the necessary infor­mation regarding the availability of this new Federal assistance. Based on my discussions with individuals who would benefit most from this funding, I wrote to county commissioners, school superintendents, and drug treatment specialists throughout Pennsylvania notifying them of this major program. It is clear to me that more needs to be done at the national level to inform local officials of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act's assistance pro­visions.

As a former district attorney and a current member of the Senate Judici­ary Committee, I long have been fight­ing the scourge of drugs on our socie­ty. I have toured State prisons and local jails throughout Pennsylvania, including the Philadelphia prison system, the Cambria County jail, and the Allegheney County jail. Mr. Presi­dent, drug treatment facilities in local jails are seriously understaffed, under­equipped, and underfunded.

In the Philadelphia prison system, up to 80 percent of the new inmates have drug-related problems; only 10 percent of the inmates, however, can be diagnosed and treated in the sys­tem's limited facilities. In an average week, 500 inmates with drug problems are admitted into the system, yet only 50 can be diagnosed and treated during that period.

During my tour of the Philadelphia jails on March 30, I spoke to clinicians, doctors, and counselors. In a counsel­ing orientation session which I attend­ed, it was apparent that the number of inmates far exceeded the number who could have effective interaction with the one counselor. These dedicated professionals were unanimous in their view that additional staff is desperate­ly needed to address the staggering caseload.

The prison overcrowding crisis na­tionwide is directly related to the ex­plosion of drug-related convictions and sentences. If adequate drug assess­ment and treatment facilities were available in local jails, many pretrial detainees with diagnosed drug prob­lems could be released when they were able to post bond. This would help re­lieve the immediate overcrowding situ­ation, while allowing the drug abuser the opportunity to seek help in com­munity treatment facilities.

Mr. President, Congress has provid­ed extensive Federal funding to States and localities to help combat the drug problem. This money is available to

fight drug abuse in various facets of society-education, treatment, reha­bilitation, and law enforcement. It is imperative that this funding be ap­plied expeditiously by the Federal, State, and local governments for pur­poses for which Congress appropriated it: Effective drug prevention programs.

I urge the appropriate government officials to make prompt and effective distribution of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act's funds a top priority.

Mr. President, there is an urgent need at this moment for expeditious administration of the $1.7 billion in funding. There has to be faster action taken at all levels if these funds are to be applied for the very important pur­poses for which they were allocated and enacted. There was much bally­hoo last October when this legislation was passed, but at the present time we have a very important job in imple­menting this legislation.

HOME CARE PROTECTION ACT Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, I am

pleased to join Senator HEINZ and sev­eral other distinguished colleagues in cosponsoring S. 961 the "Home Care Protection Act of 1987." This legisla­tion is an important step in assuring that elderly have access to the Medi­care-covered home care that they ur­gently need.

There has been a lot of discussion lately about catastrophic health care coverage. In my mind, you cannot talk about catastrophic health care cover­age without talking about home health care. The thing that older Americans fear most is that the cost of home health care or nursing home care will totally wipe out their savings. Frail and vulnerable Americans of every age want to be cared for at home, in a familiar environment, sur­rounded by family and friends. Here in Congress, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make sure that no one has to go broke just so they can stay in their homes.

I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction, a step toward strengthening and improving the Med­icare home health benefit. That bene­fit, as it stands today, is designed to provide Medicare beneficiaries with short-term, rehabilitative nursing care in the home. And unfortunately, even that limited coverage is being subject­ed to cuts by the Reagan administra­tion and the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFAl.

There are certain requirements that beneficiaries must meet in order to qualify for home health care coverage, and one of them is that they must need "intermittent" care, as opposed to daily, round-the-clock care. Daily visits are permitted for a maximum of 3 weeks, and longer under exceptional circumstances. However, HCFA's de-

8954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 liberately vague definition of "inter­mittent" is being interpreted different­ly across the country, leading to unfair denials of coverage for home health care.

We have a situation where Medicare beneficiaries, as a result of the Pro­spective Payment System [PPSl, are coming out of hospital sooner, and in need of greater levels of post-hospital care. As a result of PPS, the Federal Government is saving millions of dol­lars in Medicare hospital expenses. However, instead of using some of these savings to expand the home health benefit to meet growing de­mands, the Reagan administration is doing just the opposite.

This bill amends Medicare to allow Medicare coverage for home health services provided on a daily basis-that is, 7 days per week-with more than one visit per day if necessary, for up to 60 days, and longer under exceptional circumstances. I believe this is the least we can do for our elderly, and I urge my colleagues to join us in co­sponsoring this legislation.

VETERANS' SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the thousands of service officers who on behalf of veter­ans' service organizations, such as the American Legion, VFW, DAV, AMVETS, and PV A, provide free expert assistance to veterans seeking help with their Veterans' Administra­tion claims. These service officers serve all veterans who seek their help, irrespective of the nature or size of the claim. I speak today because of recent assertions that VA claims proc­essing is unfair and the representation provided by veterans' service officers is unskilled and ineffective. These asser­tions have been made in support of a lawsuit challenging the constitutional­ity of the $10 limitation on fees attor­neys can charge veterans.

Now, I do not dispute the fact that the $10 fee limitation was established over a century ago.

And, certainly, no one can deny that it discourages attorneys from repre­senting veterans.

But, what concerns me is the grow­ing lack of objectivity in many of the arguments I hear, the editorials I read, and the insinuations that those who oppose repeal of the $10 fee limitation are somehow antiveteran.

Mr. President, that is absurd. I supported repeal during the 99th

Congress; but I believe that recent re­ports have shed new light on this issue. They should be studied and not ignored or summarily dismissed, Mr. President, just because they are not consistent with our position.

We in the Congress should be asking a basic question: Does the fee limita-

tion help or hurt veterans? That is the bottom line.

Mr. President, one answer to the question may be found in a recent audit report by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The inspector general reports that attorneys representing Social Security claimants overcharged their clients by over $23 million, out of total attorney fees of $100 million. Almost one­fourth of the dollars paid to attorneys by their clients in nonadversarial Social Security administrative pro­ceedings were excessive. In one ex­treme case, a Social Security recipient paid his lawyer what equated to $750 an hour for his services.

We have heard claims that veterans are oppressed because they do not have attorneys and that Social Securi­ty recipients have more rights than our Nation's veterans. I wonder!

We have a case study for compari­son.

Mr. President, a report by the de­partment of veterans' affairs for the State of Oregon regarding a pilot pro­gram to overcome the $10 fee limita­tion indicates that the attorneys charged over $11,000, within this case, no tangible results for veterans due to the attorney assistance. One attorney reported that in the cases assigned to him, many of which were agent orange and radiation cases, the work by veter­ans' service officers had been:

Thorough and has left no stone unturned. I had no option but to go back over the same ground. All cases that I have been as­signed have been fully developed. Service of­ficers deserve credit for exhaustive and thorough work, and I should add that not one veteran expressed any dissatisfaction whatsoever for work done on their claims.

It sounds rather persuasive that at least in one State, veterans' service of­ficers are doing an outstanding job­free of charge. Mr. President, I submit that veterans' service officers are doing just as fine a job in the other 49 States. I have never seen a more dedi­cated group of individuals.

Mr. President, I have also heard from time to time proponents of repeal cite the high error rates in VA claims adjudication. According to a report by the VA inspector general, they are right; but, what the propo­nents do not tell us is that the inspec­tor general found that in 93.4 percent of the cases, the errors are in favor of the veterans and not the Government. $171 million out of $183 million is in overpayments to veterans, not under­payments.

In Jack Anderson's Washington Post column, published on March 25, 1987, we read that a second American revo­lution is brewing, a revolution to free the American public from the "tyran­ny of lawyers," a tyranny imposed by the litigation explosion which has bur­dened the American people with bil-

lions of dollars in higher costs, higher prices, and lower productivity. I find it ironic that we now face renewed pres­sure to impose lawyers on veterans at a time when we are becoming more aware of the enormous cost imposed on the rest of the economy as the con­sequence of this explosion of litiga­tion.

Such a step may just not serve veter­ans very well and could very possibly upset the delicate balance of duty to country and of our country's duty to those who served, as evidenced by those dedicated workers in the VA system who are processing veterans claims.

SUPPORT THE NEW GI BILL Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is

an honor to join Senator CRANSTON and other colleagues as a sponsor of S. 12, which is now on the Senate Cal­endar and which would make the new G I bill a permanent program. Since 1985, the new GI bill has been in force for a 3-year test period. The results of that test have shown the program to be a resounding success, and it de­serves to be made permanent.

Similar legislation introduced by Chairman SONNY MONTGOMERY of the House Veterans Committee passed the House of Representatives last month by the overwhelming vote of 401 to 2, and Congressman MONTGOMERY de­serves great credit for his effective leadership on this issue.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have long been a strong supporter of more effective programs to ensure that our military personnel are adequately compensated for their service to the country. The education benefits offered under the new G I bill are an essential part of that compensation package. These benefits are particularly effective in ensuring that the military services will continue to be able to attract the highest quality recruits.

Equally important, the new GI bill will benefit the Nation as a whole in the essential effort to upgrade the quality of education and restore our competitive position in the world. Every dollar that we spend on the new GI bill will be turned many fold by the increased tax revenues paid by the program's productive beneficiaries. If we are to succeed in the increas­

ingly competitive world marketplace, we must do more, much more, to im­prove the level of education and train­ing of our workers. The new GI bill contributes significantly toward the goal. I am proud to support this legis­lation, and I urge the Senate to adopt it.

April 10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8955 MESSAGES FROM THE

PRESIDENT Messages from the President of the

United States were communicated to the Senate by Ms. Emery, 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.)

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE At 10:18 a.m., a message from the

House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Berry, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House agrees to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1123) to amend the Food Se­curity Act of 1985 to extend the date for submitting the report required by the National Commission on Dairy Policy.

The messages also announced that pursuant to the provisions of section 276a-1 of title 22 of the United States Code, the Speaker appoints as mem­bers of the delegation to attend the conference of the Interparliamentary Union, to be held in Managua, Nicara­gua, on April 27 through May 2, 1987, the following Members on the part of the House: Mrs. BoGGs, chairman, Mr. SCHEUER, vice chairman, Mr. BATES, Mr. FusTER, and Mr. SuNIA.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees

were submitted: By Mr. JOHNSTON, from the Committee

on Energy and Natural Resources, without amendments:

S. 643. A bill to amend section 402 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to permit states to set aside in a special trust fund up to 10 percent of the annual state allocation from the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation fund for expendi­ture in the future for purposes of aban­doned mine reclamation <Rept. No. 100-37).

H.R. 14. A bill to designate certain river segments in New Jersey as study rivers for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System <Rept. No. 100-38).

H.R. 240. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Santa Fe Trail as a National Historic Trail <Rept. No. 100-39).

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. PROXMIRE: S. 1008. A bill to provide for State regula­

tion of the transportation of high level ra­dioactive waste; to the Committee on Envi­ronment and Public Works.

By Mr. MATSUNAGA <for himself, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. MUR­KOWSKI, Mr. BYRD, Mr. DoLE, Mr. CRANsToN, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. ADAMs, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BoND, Mr. BOREN, Mr. BOSCHWITZ, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. CHILES, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CoHEN, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. D'AMATO, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. DIXON, Mr. DODD, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. EvANS, Mr. FOWLER, Mr. GARN, Mr. GLENN, Mr. GORE, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HAT­FIELD, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. KARNEs, Mr. KAsTEN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEviN, Mr. LuGAR, Mr. McCoN­NELL, Mr. MELCHER, Mr. METZ­ENBAUM, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. MITCH· ELL, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. PELL, Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. REID, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. RocKEFELLER, Mr. RUDMAN, Mr. SANFORD, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SASSER, Mr. SIMON, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. STAFFORD, Mr. SYMMs, Mr. WARNER, Mr. WEICKER, Mr. WILSON, and Mr. WIRTH>:

S. 1009. A bill to accept the findings and to implement the recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and In­ternment of Civilians; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. HARKIN):

S. 1010. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for communi­ty nursing and ambulatory care to medicare beneficiaries on a prepaid, capitated basis; to the Committee on Finance.

ByMr.EXON: S. 1011. A bill to amend the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 to provide that any con­current resolution on the budget that con­tains reconciliation directives shall include a directive with respect to the statutory limit on the public debt, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, joint­ly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that when one committee reports the other has 30 days of continuous session in which to report or be discharged.

By Mr. KERRY <for himself and Mr. KENNEDY):

S. 1012. A bill to increase the amount au­thorized to be appropriated for property ac­quisition, restoration, and development, and for transportation, educational, and cultural programs, relating to the Lowell National Historical Park; to continue the term of a member of the Lowell Historic Preservation Commission pending the appointment of a successor; to adjust a quorum of the Com­mission in the event of a vacancy; and to delay the termination of the Commission; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Re­sources.

By Mr. BOREN: S. 1013. A bill to amend the Farm Credit

Act of 1971, as amended, to extend author­ity for financing cooperative exports and imports; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

By Mr. LAUTENBERG: S. 1014. A bill to increase civil monetary

penalties based on the effect of inflation; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

S. 1015. A bill to increase criminal mone­tary penalities based on the effect of infla­tion; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. KENNEDY <for himself, Mr. SIMON, Mr. HARKIN, and Ms. MIKUL­SKI):

S. 1016. A bill to provide financial assist­ance for the establishment and operation of literacy corps programs; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

By Mr. GRASSLEY: S. 1017. A bill to amend title 11 of the

United States Code to make nondischargea­ble any debt arising from a Judgment or consent decree requiring an individual debtor to make restitution as a result of a violation of State law; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself, Mr. WEICKER, and Mr. HARKIN):

S. 1018. A bill to amend the Internal Reve­nue Code of 1986 to provide that a taxpayer conscientiously opposed to participation in war may elect to have such taxpayer' income, estate, or gift tax payments spent for non-military purposes; to create the United States Peace Tax Fund to receive such tax payments; to establish a United States Peace Tax Fund Board of Trustees; and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. RIEGLE (for himself and Mr. LEviN):

S. 1019. A bill to amend the Internal Reve­nue Code of 1986 to clarify the tax exempt treatment of self-insured workers' compen­sation funds; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. MOYNIHAN <for himself and Mr. HATFIELD):

S. 1020. A bill to create the office of Li­brarian of Congress Emeritus; to the Com­mittee on Rules and Administration.

By Mr. SPECTER: S. 1021. A bill entitled the "Logan Relief

Act"; to the Committee on Banking, Hous­ing, and Urban Affairs.

S. 1022. A bill to transfer funds out of cer­tain foreign assistance accounts for prison construction purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

S. 1023. A bill to authorize the expendi­ture of funds not needed for purposes of the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund and the Customs Forfeiture Fund for purposes of emergency prison construction; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MOYNIHAN: S. 1024. A bill to suspend temporarily the

duty on diphenyl quanidine and diortho­tolyl quanidine; to the Committee on Fi­nance.

S. 1025. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on N-ethyl ortho/para toluenesulfona­mide; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. BURDICK: S. 1026. A bill to amend title 49, United

States Code, relating to the construction, acquisition, or operation of rail carriers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

By Mr. HUMPHREY <for himself, Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. DOLE, Mr. BYRD, Mr. HELMS, Mr. THuRMOND, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. KERRY, Mr. WALLOP, Mr. HoL­LINGS, Mr. SYMMS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. QuAYLE, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. HECHT, Mr. WILSON, Mr. TRIBLE, Mr. D'AMATo, Mr. ARMsTRONG, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. McCLURE, and Mr. STEVENs):

S. 1027. A bill to prohibit trade between the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan and the United States; to the Committee on Finance.

8956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 By Mr. JOHNSTON:

S. 1028. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on 6-amino-1-naphthol-3-sulfonic acid; to the Committee on Finance.

S. 1029. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on 2-< 4-aminophenyl>-6-methylben­zothiazole-7-sulfonic acid; to the Committee on Finance.

S. 1030. A bill to suspend for a three-year period the duty on B-naphthol; to the Com­mittee on Finance.

S. 1031. A bill to suspend for a three-year period the duty on sethoxydim; to the Com­mittee on Finance.

S. 1032. A bill to suspend for a three-year period the duty on 3-ethylamino-p-cresol; to the Committee on Finance.

S. 1033. A bill to suspend for a three-year period the duty on rosachloride lumps; to the Committee on Finance.

S. 1034. A bill to suspend for a three-year period the duty on C-amines; to the Com­mittee on Finance.

S. 1035. A bill to suspend for a three-year period the duty on diamino imid sp; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. LEVIN: S. 1036. A bill to designate certain public

lands in the State of Michigan as wilder­ness, and for other purposes; to the Com­mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and For­estry.

By Mr. LEVIN <for himself and Mr. SPECTER):

S. 1037. A bill to establish a procedure by which the United States can combat the unfair trading practices of trading partners with whom the United States has excessive trade deficits; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. McCLURE (by request): S. 1038. A bill to amend the Land and

Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Re­sources.

By Mr. MELCHER <for himself, Mr. SIMPSON, and Mr. BAUCUS):

S. 1039. A bill to review and determine the impact of Indian tribal taxation on Indian reservations and residents; to the Select Committee on Indian Affairs.

S. 1040. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, relating to sale, acquisition, or abandonment of railroad lines; to the Com­mittee on Commerce, Science, and Trans­portation.

By Mr. SYMMS <for himself, Mr. DIXON, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. SIMON, Mr. D'AMATo, Mr. DoDD, Mr. HECHT, Mr. WAIJ..OP, Mr. BRAD­LEY, Mr. MoYNIHAN, and Mr. HUM­PHREY):

S.J. Res. 115. Joint resolution making an urgent supplemental appropriation for emergency assistance to the Polish inde­pendent trade union organization NSZZ "Solidarnosc" for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations.

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred <or abted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. DOLE <for himself, Mr. BYRD, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. WILSON, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. ARM­STRONG, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BoND, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CocHRAN, Mr. CoHEN, Mr. D'AMATo, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr.

DOMENICI, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HoiJ..INGS, Mr. HUM­PHREY, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. KAsTEN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEviN, Mr. McCAIN, Mr. MoYNIHAN, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. REID, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. RoTH, Mr. RUDMAN, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. THuR­MOND, Mr. TRIBLE, Mr. W AIJ..OP, Mr. WIRTH, and Mr. DODD):

S. Res. 190. Resolution to express the sense of the Senate regarding the acquired immune deficiency syndrome <AIDS>; con­sidered and agreed to.

By Mr. SYMMS: S. Res. 191. Resolution expressing the

sense of the Senate with respect to the re­moval of the Soviet Union from its new fa­cility in Washington, DC; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

By Mr. LUGAR: S. Con. Res. 47. Concurrent resolution ex­

pressing the sense of Congress concerning the persecution of Christians in Eastern Europe and in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; to the Committee on Foreign Re­lations.

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. PROXMIRE: S. 1008. A bill to provide for State

regulation of the transportation of high-level radioactive waste; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

STATE REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing a bill which establishes a new licensing program within the Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission for transportation of high­level nuclear waste and spent fuel. The bill also sets out the permissible State role for regulation of nuclear waste transportation.

This bill does not impede interstate shipment of nuclear waste and spent fuel, whether to interim or permanent storage sites. Neither will it set up a burdensome process which would add greatly to the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle. Instead, it provides a modest first step toward assuring the public of the safety of nuclear transportation.

By passing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Congress mandated a huge increase in the volume of waste transported in the United States. But even without this law, large amounts of waste already move by truck and train.

For example, multiple shipments of spent fuel traveled by rail through Wisconsin in the last 2 years en route from Minneapolis to interim storage sites in Illinois. Despite the wish of the State of Wisconsin to impose rea­sonable requirements on these ship­ments, a Federal court held that the State was preempted from regulating by the Atomic Energy Act. According to the court, even in the absence of Federal rail safety regulations govern­ing nuclear cargo, there was no per-

missible role for the State under exist­ing law.

This restriction makes no sense. States, not the Federal Government, bear the cleanup responsibility when accidents happen. And States tradi­tionally use their police powers to pro­tect local health and safety by regulat­ing transportation.

Even though the Department of Transportation may be loosening its stranglehold over nuclear transporta­tion by allowing some limited State power over accident planning and bonding, even these limited powers have been challenged in court by the utility industry. Obviously, legislation is needed which sets forth the rights that belong to the States.

Mr. President, my bill requires that any person, company, or governmental body shipping high-level nuclear waste or spent nuclear fuel get a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commis­sion. The license application must in­clude information on: emergency re­sponse and mitigation; hazard/risk as­sessment; environmental impact; alter­native routes; notice to affected States; need for shipments, and; proof of financial responsibility in the event of an accident.

Before the Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission can issue a license it must compare the relative risks of alterna­tive routes and modes of transporta­tion and evaluate the various factors which affect the safety of the ship­ments.

The bill has one other important feature: it sets out the rights of the States. Under its provisions States and Indian tribes can implement require­ments for: accident reporting; inspec­tion; advance notice; user fees; clean­up procedures, and other health and safety requirements.

Mr. President, this legislation is an essential part of any nuclear waste dis­posal program and I urge my col­leagues to include it in the reauthor­ization of the Price-Anderson law this year.

By Mr. MATSUNAGA <for him­self, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. BYRD, Mr. DOLE, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. ADAMS, Mr. ARM­STRONG, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BENT­SEN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BoND, Mr. BOREN, Mr. BOSCHWITZ, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BUR­DICK, Mr. CHILES, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CoHEN, Mr. CoNRAD, Mr. D'AMATO, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. DIXON, Mr. DODD, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. EVANS, Mr. FOWLER, Mr. GARN, Mr. GLENN, Mr. GoRE, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. KARNEs, Mr. KASTEN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr.

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8957 KERRY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEviN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. McCONNELL, Mr. MELCHER, Mr. METZENBAUM, Ms. MIKUL­SKI, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. MOYNI­HAN, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. PELL, Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. REID, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. RocKEFELLER, Mr. RUDMAN, Mr. SANFORD, Mr. BAR­BANES, Mr. SASSER, Mr. SIMON, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. STAFFORD, Mr. SYMMS, Mr. WARNER, Mr. WEICKER, Mr. WILSON, and Mr. WIRTH):

S. 1009. A bill to accept the findings and to implement the recommenda­tions of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civil­ians; to the Committee on Governmen­tal Affairs. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FINDINGS AND RECOM­

MENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON WAR­TIME RELOCATION AND INTERNMENT OF CIVIL­IANS

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, the greatness of any nation can be ac­curately measured by the laws under which its people are governed. This year we celebrate the bicentennial of that greatest of documents ever writ­ten by mortals which we have adopted as the supreme law of our land. In so doing, I am extremely pleased, if not exhilarated, to announce that on this day 71 Members of the august body have joined together in introducing legislation to remove that one ugly blot which has marred our National Constitution over the past 45 years.

That piece of legislation, S. 1009, is designed to implement the recommen­dations of a nine-member Commission authorized by Congress and appointed by the President, which submitted its moving report, entitled "Personal Jus­tice Denied," in 1983.

The Commission recommended, and our bill would provide, a long-overdue remedy for what has been called America's worst wartime mistake and one of the worst single violations of in­dividual civil liberties in our Nation's history.

Those of us in this Chamber who are over 50 years of age no doubt recall ex­actly where we were and what we were doing on December 7, 1941, the day that Japan attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor. I myself was in active military service on the Island of Molokai as an Army officer. I was on the Island of Molokai in tem­porary command of an infantry com­pany defending that island against the invaders. In fact, I was one of more than 1,500 men of Japanese ancestry who had volunteered for and were in active military service in Uncle Sam's uniform 6 months or more prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and who stood in defense of Hawaii against the enemy.

We remember vividly the atmos­phere which prevailed in this country immediately following the bombing of

Pearl Harbor. Rumors of a Japanese attack on the west coast of the United States were rampant and numerous false sightings of enemy war planes off the coast were reported. A great wave of fear and hysteria swept the United States, particularly along the west coast, where a relatively small population of Japanese Americans had for many years been subjected to racial discrimination and often violent attacks, even before the outbreak of World War II.

Some 2 months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, February 1942, Presi­dent Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Ex­ecutive Order 9066. The Executive order gave to the Secretary of War the authority to designate restricted mili­tary areas and to exclude any or all persons from such areas. Penalties for violations of the restrictions were sub­sequently established by Congress in Public Law 77-503, enacted in March 1942.

At about the same time, the military commander of the Western District, Lt. Gen. John DeWitt, issued four public proclamations establishing re­stricted zones in eight Western States and instituting a curfew applicable to enemy aliens and persons of Japanese ancestry and restricting the travel of Americans of Japanese ancestry and resident aliens. The first "Civilian Ex­clusion Order" was issued by General DeWitt on March 24, 1942 and marked the beginning of the relocation and in­ternment of Japanese Americans and their resident alien parents from the west coast.

It is significant to note that the mili­tary commander of the then Territory of Hawaii, which had actually suffered an enemy attack and was under mar­tial law, did not believe that it was necessary to evacuate any Americans or resident aliens of Japanese ancestry from Hawaii, although about 1,400 leaders of the Japanese American community in Hawaii were rounded up immediately after the attack and sent to detention camps on the United States mainland.

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who could hardly be accused of being soft on suspected spies, opposed the mass evacuation of Japanese Americans from Hawaii or the west coast, point­ing out that the FBI and other law en­forcement agencies were capable of ap­prehending any spies or saboteurs. Japanese diplomats, consular officials and military attaches who were in this country at the outbreak of war be­tween the United States and Japan were not incarcerated in detention camps. On Hoover's orders, they were confined to house arrest and treated courteously, because the FBI Director hoped that American citizens in Japan would be treated in a similar manner. The Office of Naval Intelligence had also informed President Roosevelt that the wholesale incarceration of

Japanese Americans was unnecessary, pointing to the lack of evidence of any acts of espionage or sabotage by Amer­icans of Japanese ancestry or their parents, before, during or after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Of the 120,000 individuals who were ordered, on 72 hours notice, to pack, leave their homes, and report to as­sembly centers on the west coast prior to being moved to camps in the interi­or United States, about 80 percent were native born American citizens, many of them little children and teen­agers. The remainder, including many elderly people, were legal alien resi­dents of the United States who were prohibited by U.S. law, the Oriental Exclusion Act of 1924, from becoming naturalized American citizens. All of them, native born Americans and legal alien residents alike, were entitled to the full protection of the United States and the laws of our land, but their constitutional rights were sum­marily denied. Without being charged or indicted, without trial or hearing, without being convicted of any single crime, they were en masse ordered into what can only be described as American-style concentration camps, surrounded by barbed wire fences, with searchlights, watch towers, and armed guards. They lost every earthly possession, and life in the camps was soul-trying.

During hearings held by the Com­mission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, former in­ternees, many telling their stories for the first time, told of infants, young mothers and elderly persons who died for lack of adequate medical care and facilities; of families who were separat­ed, with elderly parents or in-laws going to one camp and their married children to another; of large families forced to live together in one small room; of the constant, nagging uncer­tainty about the future, both immedi­ate and longterm; of internees who were shot and killed by guards when they madvertently wandered too close to the camp fence; and of the strains which all of this placed on their fami­lies and on the close-knit Japanese American community as a whole.

A dramatic incident tells of a Dr. Ta­shiro whose father and son were play­ing pitch-catch ball. No one was to be seen between barbed wire fences after 6 o'clock.

It was a summer day; although past 6 o'clock, it was broad daylight. The grandfather missed the ball, and chased after it between the two fences. The guard in the watchtower yelled out, "Get back." The grandfather re­sponded, "Oh, I am just going for the ball." and went after the ball.

The guard from the watchtower fired with his machine gun and killed him on the spot.

8958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 But perhaps the most traumatic ex­

perience, the one thing that has haunted Americans of Japanese ances­try for 45 years, was the stigma of being cast as disloyal to their own be­loved country, the United States of America. One elderly internee, an American veteran of World War I, committed suicide rather than bear the brand of disloyalty to his country, the United States of America.

In 1980, 38 years after the beginning of the relocation and internment of Japanese Americans, Congress author­ized a thorough study of the circum­stances surrounding the incident, which is still the most traumatic expe­rience in the lives of about 60,000 living former internees. The distin­guished nine-member Commission es­tablished by Congress was mandated to examine the facts surrounding the issuance of Executive Order 9066 and the subsequent relocation and intern­ment of some 120,000 Americans and resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during World War II. In addition, the Commission was authorized to study the circumstances surrounding the evacuation of the Aleutian and Pribi­lof Islands of Alaska and the reloca­tion of Native American Aleuts. The Commission submitted its report, enti­tled "Personal Justice Denied" in June 1983.

Japanese Americans welcomed the study commission's thorough and in­tensive review of the circumstances surrounding their relocation and in­ternment. The Commission report re­vealed publicly and confirmed what they had always known: The reloca­tion and internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry was not justified by military necessity, but was the result of wartime hysteria, racism, and the failure of political leadership.

The Commission found that the pre­cipitous action had been taken under the leadership of men like the West­ern District Military Commander, General DeWitt, who believed, and stated to the U.S. House of Represent­atives Naval Affairs Subcommittee on April 13, 1943:

A Jap's a Jap. They are a dangerous ele­ment, whether loyal or not. There is no way to determine their loyalty • • • it makes no difference whether he is an American; theo­retically, he is still a Japanese, and you can't change him • • •. You can't change him by giving him a piece of paper.

In recommending the relocation and incarceration of Japanese Americans to his superiors in Washington, Gener­al DeWitt stated:

The Japanese race is an enemy race and while many second and third generation Japanese born on United States soil, pos­sessed of United States citizenship have become "Americanized", the racial strains are undiluted.

General DeWitt's views were loudly echoed by many on the west coast, in Congress and in the media. Although the Secretary of the Army and his

deputy did not share DeWitt's racial views and, in fact, tried to suppress them, they did not reject his proposed solution to the so-called Japanese American problem on the west coast, cloaking it instead in the spurious guise of military necessity, and adopt­ing his argument that there just wasn't time for the FBI, military intel­ligence, and local law enforcement agencies to identify and apprehend any suspected spies or saboteurs. No one argued to the President of the United States that the DeWitt propos­al was wrong, and that the failure to prove military necessity would render the proposed relocation and detention of Japanese Americans and their resi­dent parents constitutionally imper­missible. No one said, "Mr. President: Bad idea. You can't just snatch up a group of American citizens and impris­on them for years without charging them with a crime and providing them with a fair trial. The fifth amendment of our Constitution, the supreme law of our land forbids it." Indeed the matter was never even raised to the level of discussion at a Cabinet meet­ing.

While revelation of the truth at last by a congressionally created commis­sion is a great relief to Americans of Japanese ancestry who were victims of this grave wartime mistake, it is not enough to provide them with justice denied them for too long a period­anymore than it would be for any other innocent American falsely im­prisoned for years on trumped-up charges. In our great society, the vic­tims of such errors in justice are enti­tled to relief.

While it would not provide full relief, our bill is intended to provide some personal justice too long denied. The bill, in accordance with the study commission's recommendations, would provide a modest, token payment in the amount of $20,000 to each of the approximately 60,000 former internees who are still alive today. In addition, funds would be authorized for the es­tablishment of a civil liberties educa­tion fund, which, we believe, would en­hance the protection of civil liberties in this country and help ensure that what happened to Japanese Americans during World War II will never happen to any other group of Ameri­cans. Enactment of the bill would also constitute an official acknowledge­ment of the wrong done.

The bill would also implement the study commission's recommendations with respect to claims stemming from the evacuation of the Aleuts from their ancestral homes in the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands of Alaska during World War II. The study commission found that this evacuation was neces­sary because of the threat of an enemy attack-and one of the islands was attacked by the Japanese-howev­er, it was poorly planned and carried

out. The Aleuts were moved to make­shift camps on the Alaskan mainland and, due to a lack of adequate food, clothing and medical care, about 10 percent of them died. They lost most of their personal possessions and, upon return to their island villages, found that in many cases their homes and community buildings had been de­stroyed. Attu Island, the site of a native village for many years prior to World War II, was never returned to the Aleuts and our bill also provides compensation for the taking of the island, now one of the Nation's most valuable and beautiful wilderness areas.

Mr. President, joining me in intro­ducing this historic measure are my colleagues: Senator INOUYE of Hawaii, Senators STEVENS and MURKOWSKI of Alaska, Senator DECONCINI of Arizona, Senators CRANSTON and WILSON of California, Senators ARMsTRONG and WIRTH of Colorado, Senators WEICKER and DoDD of Connecticut, Senator BIDEN of Delaware, Senators CHILES and GRAHAM of Florida, Senator FoWLER of Georgia, Senator SYMMs of Idaho, Senators DIXON and SIMON of Illinois, Senator LUGAR of Indiana, Senator HARKIN of Iowa, Senator DoLE of Kansas, Senator McCoNNELL of Kentucky, Senators JoHNSTON and BREAux of Louisiana, Senators CoHEN and MITCHELL of Maine, Senators BAR­BANES and MIKULSKI of Maryland, Senators KENNEDY and KERRY of Mas­sachusetts, Senators RIEGLE and LEviN of Michigan, Senators DURENBERGER and BoscHWITZ of Minnesota, Senator COCHRAN of Mississippi, Senator BoND of Missouri, Senators MELCHER and BAucus of Montana, Senator REID of Nevada, Senator KARNEs of Nebraska, Senator RUDMAN of New Hampshire, Senators BRADLEY and LAUTENBERG of New Jersey, Senators MoYNIHAN and D'AMATo of New York, Senator SAN­FORD of North Carolina, Senators BUR­DICK and CoNRAD of North Dakota, Senators GLENN and METZENBAUM of Ohio, Senator BOREN of Oklahoma, Senators HATFIELD and PACKWOOD of Oregon, Senator SPECTER of Pennsyl­vania, Senator PELL of Rhode Island, Senator DASCHLE of South Dakota, Senators SAssER and GoRE of Tennes­see, Senator BENTSEN of Texas, Sena­tors GARN and HATcH of Utah, Sena­tors STAFFORD and LEAHY of Vermont, Senator WARNER of Virginia, Senators Evans and ADAMs of Washington, Sen­ators BYRD and ROCKEFELLER of West Virginia, Senators PRoXMIRE and KAsTEN of Wisconsin, and Senator SIMPSON of Wyoming. As a veteran of the All-Nisei 100th Infantry Battal­ion/ 442d Regiment, the most highly decorated unit of its size in U.S. mili­tary history, I am deeply grateful for their sense of justice. I am sure that others will join as cosponsors after

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8959 having had the opportunity to consid­er the facts in the matter.

Mr. President, in closing, I would like to quote the words of poet W.H. Auden: "Left alone with their day, and the time is short and/History to the defeated/May say Alas but cannot help or pardon." It is not enough for our great Nation to simply say "Alas" to the Japanese American and Aleut victims of our wartime policies. The early consideration and passage of this legislation would prove once again to the rest of the world that the United States derives its greatness partly from the truth that it is unafraid to admit its mistakes of the past and to make whole those whom it has wronged.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the statements of Senators INOUYE, CRANSTON, and MURKOWSKI be printed in the RECORD, following mine and other Senators who may wish to, may do likewise.

I further ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in full following the statements made by cosponsors of the measure.

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

s. 1009 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

FINDINGS AND PURPOSE SECTION 1. <a> FINDINGs.-The Congress

finds that-<1 > the findings of the Commission on

Wartime Relocation and Internment of Ci­vilians, established by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Ci­vilians Act, accurately and completely de­scribe the circumstances of the exclusion, relocation, and internment of in excess of one hundred and ten thousand United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry and the treat­ment of the individuals of Aleut ancestry who were removed from the Aleutian and the Pribilof Islands;

<2> the internment of individuals of Japa­nese ancestry was carried out without any documented acts of espionage or sabotage, or other acts of disloyalty by any citizens or permanent resident aliens of Japanese an­cestry on the west coast;

<3> there was no military or security reason for the internment;

< 4 > the internment of the individuals of Japanese ancestry was caused by racial prej­udice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership;

<5> the excluded individuals of Japanese ancestry suffered enormous damages and losses, both material and intangible, and there were incalculable losses in education and job training, all of which resulted in sig­nificant human suffering;

<6> the basic civil liberties and constitu­tional rights of those individuals of Japa­nese ancestry interned were fundamentally violated by that evacuation and internment;

<7> as documented in the Commission's re­ports, the Aleut civilian residents of the Pri­bilof Islands and the Aleutian Islands west of Unimak Island were relocated during World War II to temporary camps in isolat-

ed regions of southeast Alaska where they remained, under United States control and in the care of the United States, until long after any potential danger to their home vil­lages had passed;

(8) the United States failed to provide rea­sonable care for the Aleuts, and this result­ed in widespread illness, disease, and death among the residents of the camps; and the United States further failed to protect Aleut personal and community property while such property was in its possession or under its control;

(9) the United States has not compensated the Aleuts adequately for the conversion or destruction of personal property caused by the United States military occupation of Aleut villages during World War II;

<10) the United States has not removed certain abandoned military equipment and structures from inhabited Aleutian Islands following World War II, thus creating condi­tions which constitute potential hazards to the health and welfare of the residents of the islands;

(11) the United States has not rehabilitat­ed Attu village, thus precluding the develop­ment of Attu Island for the benefit of the Aleut people and impairing the preservation of traditional Aleut property on the island; and

(12) there is no remedy for injustices suf­fered by the Aleuts during World War II except an Act of Congress providing appro­priate compensation for those losses which are attributable to the conduct of United States forces and other officials and em­ployees of the United States.

<b> PuRPosEs.-The purposes of this Act are to-

< 1 > acknowledge the fundamental injustice of the evacuation, relocation, and intern­ment of United States citizens and perma­nent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry;

< 2 > apologize on behalf of the people of the United States for the evacuation, reloca­tion, and internment of the citizens and per­manent resident aliens of Japanese ances­try;

<3> provide for a public education fund to finance efforts to inform the public about the internment of such individuals so as to prevent the reoccurrence of any similar event;

<4> make restitution to those individuals of Japanese ancestry who were interned;

(5) make restitution to Aleut residents of the Pribilof Islands and the Aleutian Is­lands west of Unimak Island, in settlement of United States obligations in equity and at law, for-

<A> injustices suffered and unreasonable hardships endured while under United States control during World War II;

<B> personal property taken or destroyed by United States forces during World War II;

<C> community property, including com­munity church property, taken or destroyed by United States forces during World War II; and

<D> traditional village lands on Attu Island not rehabilitated after World War II for Aleut occupation or other productive use. TITLE I-RECOGNITION OF INJUSTICE AND

APOLOGY ON BEHALF OF THE NATION SEc. 101. The Congress accepts the find­

ings of the Commission on Wartime Reloca­tion and Internment of Civilians and recog­nizes that a grave injustice was done to both citizens and resident aliens of Japanese an­cestry by the evacuation, relocation, and in­ternment of civilians during World War II.

On behalf of the Nation, the Congress apologizes. TITLE II-UNITED STATES CITIZENS OF JAP­

ANESE ANCESTRY AND RESIDENT JAPA­NESE ALIENS

DEFINITIONS SEc. 201. For the purposes of this title­<1> the term "eligible individual" means

any living individual of Japanese ancestry who-

<A> was enrolled on the records of the United States Government during the period beginning on December 7, 1941, and ending on June 30, 1946, as being in a pro­hibited military zone; or

<B> was confined, held in custody, or oth­erwise deprived of liberty or property during the period as a result of-

(i) Executive Order Numbered 9066 <Feb­ruary 19, 1942; 7 Fed. Reg. 1407>;

<ii> the Act entitled "An Act to provide a penalty for violation of restrictions or orders with respect to persons entering, re­maining in, leaving, or committing any act in military areas or zones" and approved March 21, 1942 <56 Stat. 173); or

(iii) any other Executive order, Presiden­tial proclamation, law of the United States, directive of the Armed Forces of the United States, or other action made by or on behalf of the United States or its agents, represent­atives, officers, or employees respecting the exclusion, relocation, or detention of indi­viduals on the basis of race;

<2> the term "Fund" means the Civil Lib­erties Public Education Fund established in section 204;

(3) the term "Board" means the Civil Lib­erties Public Education Fund Board of Di­rectors established in section 206;

<4> the term "evacuation, relocation, and internment period" means that period be­ginning on December 7, 1941, and ending on June 30, 1946; and

<5> the term "Commission" means the Commission on Wartime Relocation and In­ternment of Civilians, established by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and In­ternment of Civilians Act.

CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS SEc. 202. <a> REVIEW.-The Attorney Gen­

eral is requested to review all cases in which United States citizens and permanent resi­dent aliens of Japanese ancestry were con­victed of violations of laws of the United States, including convictions for violations of military orders, where such convictions resulted from charges filed against such in­dividuals during the evacuation, relocation, and internment period.

(b) RECOMMENDATIONS.-Based upon the review required by subsection (a), the Attor­ney General is requested to recommend to the President for pardon consideration those convictions which the Attorney Gen­eral finds were based on a refusal by such individuals to accept treatment that dis­criminated against them on the basis of race or ethnicity.

<c> PARDONS.-In consideration of the find­ings contained in this Act, the President is requested to offer pardons to those individ­uals recommended by the Attorney General pursuant to subsection (b).

CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION FINDINGS SEc. 203. Departments and agencies of the

United States Government to which eligible mdividuals may apply for the restitution of positions, status, or entitlements lost in whole or in part because of discriminatory acts of the United States Government against such individuals based upon their

8960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 race or ethnicity and which occurred during the evacuation, relocation, and internment period shall review such applications for res­titution of positions, status, or entitlements with liberality, giving full consideration to the historical findings of the Commission and the findings contained in this Act.

TRUST FUND

SEC. 204. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.-There is hereby established in the Treasury of the United States the Civil Liberties Public Edu­cation Fund, to be administered by the Sec­retary of the Treasury. Amounts in the Fund shall be invested in accordance with section 9702 of title 31, United States Code, and shall only be available for disbursement by the Attorney General under section 205, and by the Board of Directors of the Fund under section 206.

(b) AUTHORIZATION.-There are authorized to be appropriated to the Fund $1,300,000,000.

RESTITUTION SEC. 205. (a) LoCATION OF ELIGIBLE INDIVID·

UALS.-<1> The Attorney General, with the assistance of the Board, shall locate, using records already in the possession of the United States Government, each eligible in­dividual and shall pay out of the Fund to each such individual the sum of $20,000. The Attorney General shall encourage each eligible individual to submit his or her cur­rent address to the Department of Justice through a public awareness campaign.

<2> If an eligible individual refuses to accept any payment under this section, such amount shall remain in the Fund and no payment shall be made under this section to such individual at any future date.

(b) PREFERENcE TO 0LDEST.-The Attorney General shall endeavor to make payment to eligible individuals who are living in the order of date of birth <with the oldest re­ceiving full payment first), until all eligible individuals who are living have received payment in full.

(C) NONRESIDENTS.-In attempting to locate any eligible individual who resides outside the United States, the Attorney General may use any available facility or re­sources of any public or nonprofit organiza­tion.

<d> No SET OFF FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CosTs.-No costs incurred by the Attorney General in carrying out this section shall be paid from the Fund or set off against, or otherwise deducted from, any payment under this section to any eligible individual. (e) EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS.-The claims of an eligible individual against the United States shall be extinguished-<A> on a date which is ten years after the date of enactment of this Act, or <B> on the date by which the individual has received the total amount of payments under this Act, whichever first occurs.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS SEC. 206. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.-There is

hereby established the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund Board of Directors which shall be responsible for making disburse­ments from the Fund in the manner provid­ed in this section.

(b) DISBURSEMENTS FROM FuND.-The Board of Directors may make disbursements from the Fund only-

< 1 > to sponsor research and public educa­tional activities so that the events surround­ing the relocation and internment of United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry will be remem­bered, and so that the causes and circum-

stances of this and similar events may be il­luminated and understood;

<2> to fund comparative studies of similar civil liberties abuses, or to fund comparative studies of the effect upon particular groups of racial prejudice embodied by Govern­ment action in times of national stress;

(3) to prepare and distribute the hearings and findings of the Commission to textbook publishers, educators, and libraries;

< 4> for the general welfare of the ethnic Japanese community in the United States, taking into consideration the effect of the exclusion and detention on the descendants of those individuals who were detained during the evacuation, relocation, and in­ternment period <individual payments in compensation for loss or damages shall not be made under this paragraph); and

(5) for reasonable administrative ex­penses, including expenses incurred under subsections (c)(3), (d), and <e>.

(C) MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF OFFICE.-<1) The Board shall be composed of nine mem­bers appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from persons who are not officers or em­ployees of the United States Government. At least five of the individuals appointed shall be individuals who are of Japanese an­cestry.

<2><A> Except as provided in subpara­graphs <B> and <C>, members shall be ap­pointed for terms of three years.

<B> Of the members first appointed-(i) five shall be appointed for terms of

three years; and (ii) four shall be appointed for terms of

two years; as designated by the President at the time of appointment.

<C> Any member appointed to fill a vacan­cy occurring before the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appoint­ed shall be appointed only for the remain­der of such term. A member may serve after the expiration of his term until his succes­sor has taken office. No individual may be appointed to more than two consecutive terms.

(3) Members of the Board shall serve without pay, except members of the Board shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and other necessary ex­penses incurred by them in carrying out the functions of the Board, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the United States Government are allowed ex­penses under section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.

<4> Five members of the Board shall con­stitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.

(5) The Chair of the Board shall be elect­ed by the members of the Board.

(d)(l) The Board shall have a Director who shall be appointed by the Board and who shall be paid at a rate not to exceed the minimum rate of basic pay payable for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332<a> of title 5, United States Code.

(2) The Board may appoint and fix the pay of such additional staff personnel as it may require.

(3) The Director and the additional staff personnel of the Board may be appointed without regard to section 531l<B> of title 5, United States Code, and may be appointed without regard to the provisions of such title governing appointments in the com­petitive service, and may be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title re­lating to classification and General Sched­ule pay rates, except that the compensation

of any employee of the Board may not exceed a rate equivalent to the rate payable under GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332(a) of such title.

(e) SUPPORT SERVICES.-The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Board of Directors on a reimbursable basis such administrative support services as the Board may request.

(f) DONATIONS.-The Board may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations or services or property for purposes authorized under subsection <b>.

(g) ANNuAL REPORT.-Not later than twelve months after the first meeting of the Board and every twelve months thereafter, the Board shall transmit a report describing the activities of the Board to the President and to each House of the Congress.

(h) SUNSET FOR BoARD.-The Board shall terminate not later than the earlier of ninety days after the date on which an amount has been obligated to be expended from the Fund which is equal to the amount authorized to be appropriated to the Fund or ten years after the date of en­actment of this Act. Investments shall be liquidated and receipts thereof deposited in the Fund and all funds remaining in the Fund shall be deposited in the miscellane­ous receipts account in the Treasury of the United States.

TITLE III-ALEUTIAN AND PRIBILOF ISLANDS RESTITUTION

SHORT TITLE SEc. 301. This title may be cited as the

"Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act".

DEFINITIONS SEc. 302. As used in this title, the term­< 1 > "Administrator" means the person des­

ignated under the terms of this title to ad­minister certain expenditures made by the Secretary from the Aleutian and Pribilof Is­lands Restitution Fund;

<2> "affected Aleut villages" means those Aleut villages in Alaska whose residents were evacuated by United States forces during World War II, including Akutan, Atka, Nikolski, Saint George, Saint Paul, and Unalaska; and the Aleut village of Attu, Alaska, which was not rehabilitated by the United States for Aleut residence or other use after World War II;

<3> "Aleutian Housing Authority" means the nonprofit regional native housing au­thority established for the Aleut region pur­suant to AS 18.55.995 of the laws of the State of Alaska or any successor law of the State of Alaska;

<4> "Association" means the Aleutian/ Pri­bilof Islands Association, a nonprofit region­al corporation established for the benefit of the Aleut people and organized under the laws of the State of Alaska;

<5> "Corporation" means the Aleut Corpo­ration, a for-profit regional corporation for the Aleut region organized under the laws of the State of Alaska and established pur­suant to section 7 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act <Public Law 92-203>;

<6> "eligible Aleut" means any Aleut living on the date of enactment of this Act who was a resident of Attu Island on June 7, 1942, or any Aleut living on the date of en­actment of this Act who, as a civilian, was relocated by authority of the United States from his home village on the Pribilof Is­lands or the Aleutian Islands west of Unimak Island to an internment camp, or other temporary facility or location, during World War II; and

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8961 <7> "Secretary" means the Secretary of

the Treasury. ALEUTIAN AND PRIBILOF ISLANDS RESTITUTION

FUND

SEC. 303. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.-There is es­tablished in the Treasury of the United States a Fund to be known as the Aleutian and Pribllof Islands Restitution Fund <here­inafter referred to as the "Fund">. The Fund shall consist of amounts appropriated tO it, as authorized by sections 306 and 307 of this title.

(b) REPORT.-It shall be the duty of the Secretary to hold the Fund, and to report to the Congress each year on the financial con­dition and the results of operations of such Fund during the preceding fiscal year and on its expected condition and operations during the next fiscal year. Such report shall be printed as a House document of the session of Congress to which the report is made.

<c> INVESTMENT.-It shall be the duty of the Secretary to invest such portion of the Fund as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such invest­ments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States. For such purpose, such obligations may be acquired-

<1 > on original issue at the issue price, or (2) by purchase of outstanding obligations

at the market price. (d) SALE OF 0BLIGATIONS.-Any Obligation

acquired by the Fund may be sold by the Secretary at the market price.

(e) INTEREST ON CERTAIN PROCEEDS.-The interest on, and the proceeds froin the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.

<f> TERMINATION.-The Secretary shall ter­minate the Fund six years after the date of enactment of this Act, or one year after the completion of all restoration work pursuant to section 306(c) of this title, whichever occurs later. On the date the Fund is termi­nated, all investments shall be liquidated by the Secretary and receipts thereof deposited in the Fund and all funds remaining in the Fund shall be deposited in the miscellane­ous receipts account in the Treasury of the United States.

EXPENDITURES AND AUDIT SEC. 304. (a) EXPENDITURES.-The Secre­

tary is authorized and directed to pay, to the extent provided by appropriation Acts, to the Administrator from the principal, in­terest, and earnings of the Fund, such sums as are necessary to carry out the duties of the Administrator under this title.

<b> AuDIT.-The activities of the Adminis­trator under this title may be audited by the General Accounting Office under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States. The representatives of the General Ac­counting Office shall have access to all books, accounts, records, reports, and files and all other papers, things, or property be­longing to or in use by the Administrator, pertaining to such activities and necessary to facilitate the audit.

ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN FUND EXPENDITURES

SEC. 305. (a) DESIGNATION OF ADMINISTRA­TOR.-The Association is hereby designated as Administrator, subject to the terms and conditions of this title, of certain specified expenditures made by the Secretary from the Fund. As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act the Secretary shall offer to undertake negotiations with the Association, leading to the execution of

a binding agreement with the Association setting forth its duties as Administrator under the terms of this title. The Secretary shall make a good-faith effort to conclude such negotiations and execute such agree­ment within sixty days after the date of en­actment of this Act. Such agreement shall be approved by a majority of the Board of Directors of the Association, and shall in­clude, but need not be limited to-

< 1 > a detailed statement of the procedures to be employed by the Association in dis­charging each of its responsibilities as Ad­ministrator under this title;

(2) a requirement that the accounts of the Association, as they relate to its capacity as Administrator, shall be audited annually in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by independent certified public accountants or independent licensed public accountants; and a further requirement that each such audit report shall be trans­mitted to the Secretary and to the Commit­tees on the Judiciary of the Senate and House of Representatives; and

(3) a provision establishing the conditions under which the Secretary, upon thirty days notice, may terminate the Association's designation as Administrator for breach of fiduciary duty, failure to comply with the provisions of this Act as they relate to the duties of the Administrator, or any other significant failure to meet its responsibil­ities as Administrator under this title.

(b) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.-The Secre­tary shall submit the agreement described in subsection <a> to Congress within fifteen days after approval by the parties thereto. If the Secretary and the Association fail to reach agreement within the period provided in subsection (a), the Secretary shall report such failure to Congress within seventy-five days after the date of enactment of this Act, together with the reasons therefor.

(C) LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES.-No ex­penditure may be made by the Secretary to the Administrator from the Fund until sixty days after submission to Congress of the agreement described in subsection <a>.

DUTIES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SEC. 306. (a) IN GENERAL.-Out of pay­

ments from the Fund made to the Adminis­trator by the Secretary, the Administrator shall make restitution, as provided by this section, for certain Aleut losses sustained in World War II, and shall take such other action as may be required by this title.

(b) TRUST ESTABLISHED.-(1) The Adminis­trator shall establish a trust of $5,000,000 for the benefit of affected Aleut communi­ties, and for other purposes. Such trust shall be established pursuant to the laws of the State of Alaska, and shall be maintained and operated by not more than seven trust­ees, as designated by the Administrator. Each affected Aleut village, including the survivors of the Aleut village of Attu, may submit to the Administrator a list of three prospective trustees. In designating trustees pursuant to this subsection, the Administra­tor shall designate one trustee from each such list submitted.

<2> The trustees shall maintain and oper­ate the trust as eight independent and sepa­rate accounts, including-

<A> one account for the independent bene­fit of the wartime Aleut residents of Attu and their descendants;

(B) six accounts, each one of which shall be for the independent benefit of one of the six surviving affected Aleut villages of Atka, Akutan, Nikolski, Saint George, Saint Paul, and Unalaska; and

<C> one account for the independent bene­fit of those Aleuts who, as determined by the trustees, are deserving but will not bene­fit directly from the accounts established pursuant to subparagraphs <A> and <B>. The trustees shall credit to the account described in subparagraph <C>, an amount equal to five per centum of the principal amount credited by the Administrator to , the trust. The remaining principal amount shall be divided among the accounts de­scribed in subparagraphs <A> and (B), in proportion to the June 1, 1942, Aleut civil­ian population of the village for which each such account is established, as compared to the total civilian Aleut population on such date of all affected Aleut villages.

(3) The trust established by this subsec­tion shall be administered in a manner that is consistent with the laws of the State of Alaska, and as prescribed by the Adminis­trator, after consultation with representa­tive eligible Aleuts, the residents of affected Aleut villages, and the Secretary. The trust­ees may use the accrued interest, and other earnings of the trust for-

<A> the benefit of elderly, disabled, or seri­ously ill persons on the basis of special need;

<B> the benefit of students in need of scholarship assistance;

<C> the preservation of Aleut cultural her­itage and historical records;

<D> the improvement of community cen­ters in affected Aleut villages; and

<E> other purposes to improve the condi­tion of Aleut life, as determined by the trustees.

<4> There are authorized to be appropri-ated $5,000,000 to the Fund to carry out the purposes of this subsection.

(C) RESTORATION OF CHURCH PROPERTY.­(1) The Administrator is authorized to re­build, restore, or replace churches and church property damaged or destroyed in affected Aleut villages during World War II. Within fifteen days after the date that ex­penditures from the Fund are authorized by this title, the Secretary shall pay $100,000 to the Administrator for the purpose of making an inventory and assessment, as complete as may be possible under the cir­cumstances, of all churches and church property damaged or destroyed in affected Aleut villages during World War II. In making such inventory and assessment, the Administrator shall consult with the trust­ees of the trust established by section 306(b) of this title and shall take into consider­ation, among other things, the present re­placement value of such damaged or de­stroyed structures, furnishings, and arti­facts. Within one year after the date of en­actment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit such inventory and assessment, to­gether with specific recommendations and detailed plans for reconstruction, restora­tion, and replacement work to be per­formed, to a review panel composed of-

<A> the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;

<B> the Chairman of the National Endow­ment for the Arts; and

(C) the Administrator of the General Services Administration.

<2> If the Administrator's plans and rec­ommendations or any portion of them are not disapproved by the review panel within sixty days, such plans and recommendations as are not disapproved shall be implemented as soon as practicable by the Administrator. If any portion of the Administrator's plans and recommendations is disapproved, such portion shall be revised and resubmitted to the review panel as soon as practicable after

8962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 notice of disapproval, and the reasons there­for, have been received by the Administra­tor. In any case of irreconcilable differences between the Administrator and the review panel with respect to any specific portion of the plans and recommendations for work to be performed under this subsection, the Secretary shall submit such specific portion of such plans and recommendations to the Congress for approval or disapproval by joint resolution.

(3) In contracting for any necessary con­struction work to be performed on churches or church property under this subsection, the Administrator shall give preference to the Aleutian Housing Authority as general contractor. For purposes of this subsection, "churches or church property" shall be deemed to be "public facilities" as described in AS 18.55.996<b> of the laws of the State of Alaska.

(4) There are authorized to be appropri­ated to the Fund $1,399,000 to carry out the purposes of this subsection.

(d) ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL EXPENSES.­The Administrator is authorized to incur reasonable and necessary administrative and legal expenses in carrying out its re­sponsibilities under this title. There are au­thorized to be appropriated to the Fund such sums as may be necessary for the Sec­retary to compensate the Administrator, not less often than quarterly, for all such rea­sonable and necessary administrative and legal expenses. INDIVIDUAL COMPENSATION OF ELIGIBLE ALEUTS

SEC. 307. (a) PAYMENTS TO ELIGIBLE ALEuTs.-<1> In accordance with the provi­sions of this section, the Secretary shall make per capita payments out of the Fund to eligible Aleuts for uncompensated per­sonal property losses, and for other pur­poses. The Secretary shall pay to each eligi­ble Aleut the sum of $12,000. All payments to eligible Aleuts shall be made within one year after the date of enactment of this Act.

< 2 > The Secretary may request, and upon such request, the Attorney General shall provide, reasonable assistance in locating el­igible Aleuts residing outside the affected Aleut villages. In providing such assistance, the Attorney General may use available fa­cilities and resources of the International Committee of the Red Cross and other orga­nizations.

<3> The Administrator shall assist the Sec­retary in identifying and locating eligible Aleuts pursuant to this section.

<4> Any payment made under this subsec­tion shall not be considered income or re­ceipts for purposes of any Federal taxes or for purposes of determining the eligibility for or the amount of any benefits or assist­ance provided under any Federal program or under any State or local program fi­nanced in whole or part with Federal funds.

(b) AUTHORIZATION.-There are authorized to be appropriated to the Fund such sums as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.

SUPPLEMENTAL CLEANUP OF WARTIME DEBRIS SEc. 308. <a> The Congress finds that the

Department of Defense has implemented an ongoing program for the removal and dis­posal of live ammunition, obsolete buildings, abandoned machinery, and other hazardous debris remaining in populated areas of the lower Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian Is­lands as a result of military activities during World War II. Such program is being ac­complished pursuant to Acts making appro­priations for the Department of Defense, in accordance with congressional statements of

purpose in establishing and funding the En­vironmental Restoration Defense Account. The authority contained in this section shall be supplemental to the authority of the Secretary of Defense in administering the Environmental Restoration Defense Ac­count, and shall be exercised only in the event that such account is inadequate to eliminate hazardous military debris from populated areas of the Lower Alaska Penin­sula and the Aleutian Islands.

(b) CLEANUP PROGRAM.-Subject to the terms and conditions of subsection <a>. the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized and direct­ed to plan and implement a program, as the Chief of Engineers may deem feasible and appropriate, for the removal and disposal of live ammunition, obsolete buildings, aban­doned machinery, and other hazardous debris remaining in populated areas of the lower Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian Is­lands as a result of military construction and other activities during World War II. The Congress finds that such a program is essential for the further development of safe, sanitary housing conditions, public fa­cilities, and public utilities within the region.

(C) ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM.-The debris removal program authorized under subsection <a> shall be carried out substan­tially in accordance with the recommenda­tions for a minimum cleanup contained in the report prepared by the Alaska district, Corps of Engineers, entitled "Debris Remov­al and Cleanup Study: Aleutian Islands and Lower Alaska Peninsula, Alaska", dated Oc­tober 1976. In carrying out the program re­quired by this section, the Chief of Engi­neers shall consult with the trustees of the trust established by section 306<b> of this Act, and shall give preference to the Aleu­tian Housing Authority as general contrac­tor.

<d> AUTHORIZATION.-There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry out the purposes of this section.

ATTU ISLAND RESTITUTION PROGRAM SEC. 309. <a> In accordance with section

3<c> of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 892) and section 702<1> of the Alaska National Inter­est Lands Conservation Act <94 Stat. 2417>, the public lands on Attu Island, Alaska, within the National Wildlife Refuge System are designated as wilderness. In order to make restitution for the loss of traditional Aleut lands and village properties on Attu Island, while preserving the present desig­nation of Attu Island lands as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, compensation to the Aleut people in lieu of Attu Island conveyance shall be provided in accordance with this section.

<b> The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an account designated "The Aleut Corporation Property Account", which shall be available for the purpose of bidding on Federal surplus property. The initial bal­ance of the account shall be $17,868,500, which reflects an entitlement of $500 for each of the thirty-five thousand seven hun­dred and thirty-seven acres within that part of eastern Attu Island traditionally occu­pied and used by the Aleut people for sub­sistence hunting and fishing. The balance of the account shall be adjusted as necessary to reflect successful bids under subsection <c> or other conveyances of property under subsections <f> and (g).

<c> The Corporation may, by using the ac­count established in subsection <b> bid, as any other bidder for surplus property, wher­ever located, in accordance with the require-

ments of section 484 of title 40, United States Code. No preference right of any type may be offered to the Corporation for bidding for General Services Administration surplus property under this subsection and no additional advertising shall be required other than that prescribed in section 484<e><2> of title 40, United States Code.

<d> The amount charged against the Treasury account established under subsec­tion <b > shall be treated as proceeds of dis­positions of surplus property for the pur­pose of determining the basis for calculating direct expenses pursuant to section 485<b> of title 40, United States Code.

<e> The basis for computing gain or loss on subsequent sale or other disposition of prop­erty conveyed to the Corporation under this section for purposes of any Federal, State, or local tax imposed on or measured by income, shall be the fair value of such prop­erty at the time of receipt. The amount charged against the Treasury account estab­lished under subsection <b> shall be prima facie evidence of such fair value.

<f> The Administrator of General Services may, at the discretion of the Administrator, tender to the Secretary of the Treasury any surplus property otherwise to be disposed of pursuant to section 484<e><3> of title 40, United States Code, to be offered to the Corporation for a period of ninety days so as to aid in the fulfillment of the Secretary of the Treasury's obligations for restitution to the Aleut people under this section, except that before any disposition under this subsection or subsection (g), the Admin­istrator shall notify the governing body of the locality where such property is located and any appropriate state agency, and no such disposition shall be made if such gov­erning body or State agency within ninety days of such notification formally advises the Administrator that it objects to the pro­posed disposition.

(g)(l) Notwithstanding any provision of any other law or any implementing regula­tion inconsistent with this subsection, con­currently with the commencement of screening of any excess real property, wher­ever located, for utilization by Federal agen­cies, the Administrator of General Services shall notify the Corporation that such prop­erty may be available for conveyance to the Corporation upon negotiated sale. Within fifteen days of the date of receipt of such notice, the Corporation may advise the Ad­ministrator that there is a tentative need for the property to fulfill the obligations es­tablished under this section. If the Adminis­trator determines the property should be disposed of by transfer to the Corporation, the Administrator or other appropriate Fed­eral official shall promptly transfer such property.

<2> No disposition or conveyance of prop­erty under this subsection to the Corpora­tion shall be made until the Administrator of General Services, after notice to affected State and local governments, has provided to them such opportunity to obtain the property as is recognized in title 40, United States Code, and the regulations thereunder for the disposition or conveyance of surplus property.

(3) As used in this subsection, "real prop­erty" means any land or interests in land owned or held by the United States or any Federal agency, any improvements on such land or rights to their use or exploitation, and any personal property related to the land.

<h> The Secretary of the Interior may convey to the Corporation the traditional

April10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8963 Aleut village site on Attu Island, Alaska, pursuant to the authority contained in sec­tion 1613(h)(l) of title 43, United States Code, except that on or after the date of en­actment of this section, no site on Attu Island, Alaska, other than such traditional Aleut village site, shall be conveyed to the Corporation pursuant to such section 1613(h)(l) of title 43, United States Code.

SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS

SEC. 310. If any provision of this title, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances, shall be held in­valid, the remainder of this title or the ap­plication of such provision to persons or cir­cumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues as we the people celebrate the 200th birth­day of our Constitution, to address what has been described as "The Ugly Blot" on U.S. constitutional democ­racy.

I am referring to the dark times when over 120,000 American citizens and resident aliens of Japanese ances­try became exiles in their own coun­try, evacuated from their homes, and imprisoned in internment camps, with­out the benefit of individual review. The Japanese-American case is unique in the constitutional history of our country in that there was a total abro­gation of constitutional guarantees in­flicted against a single group of citi­zens and resident aliens solely on the basis of ethnicity.

The Commission on Wartime Relo­cation and Internment of Civilians, es­tablished pursuant to Public Law 96-317, studied the facts and circum­stances surrounding the evacuation and internment of thousands of Amer­ican citizens and resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during World War II. In its final report entitled "Person­al Justice Denied," the Commission concluded that there was no justifica­tion for the mass evacuation, reloca­tion, and internment of Japanese­American citizens and resident aliens.

Based on these findings, the Com­mission recommended remedies which comprise the legislation which we are introducing today. In brief, the Com­mission recommended the establish­ment of a trust fund from which indi­vidual payments to surviving internees would be made. The remainder would be used for humanitarian and public education purposes in order to pre­clude this event from occurring again in the future.

The Commission further recom­mended the enactment of legislation to officially recognize the injustice that was committed and offer the apologies of the Nation.

The Commission also recommended granting pardons to those convicted of violating wartime statutes relating to forced curfews and evacuation on the basis of ethnicity, and a liberal review of individual cases for the restitution

of positions, status, or entitlements lost as a result of the evacuation, relo­cation, and internment.

At the very least, it is my hope that this legislation we are introducing today will serve to heighten the aware­ness of both the Congress and the American people to the extent that the racist sentiment which lead to in­ternment 45 years ago does not flare up again in the future.

To this end, it is vitally important that we recognize the gravity of the serious error that was committed, and that we redress in some form the vic­tilns of this reprehensible event.

President Harry S. Truman, address­ing the 442d Regimental Combat Team comprised almost entirely of volunteer Japanese-Americans, as they were honored for their heroic efforts, "You fought not only the enemy, but you fought prejudice and you've won • • • the Constitution stands for the welfare of all the people, all the time .....

Our Constitution and our freedoms have been preserved because no single and exclusive vision of America has been able to prevail. Instead, as divers people joined by threads of freedom and opportunity have been able to sur­vive and flourish.

The path to survival lay in remaking a choice originally framed by Thomas Jefferson:

Men are • • • naturally divided into two parties; (1) those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.

<2> Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cher­ish and consider them as the most honest and safe • • • depository of the public inter­est. It is only by taking the second path

that Americans can fulfill the prophe­sy of "We the people • • •:·

The monetary payment to surviving internees represents a symbolic effort to redress a grave infraction of civil liberties. The actual loss, incurred by those who suffered this injustice at the hands of their own government, is immeasurable.

Learning from our mistakes is not pleasant, but we must do so if we want to avoid repeating them. We must learn from the tragic injustice im­posed upon the Japanese-Americans and take all the necessary steps to assure that prejudice never again ob­scures our commitment to upholding the constitutional rights of all our people.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator MATsu­NAGA, Senator INOUYE, my senior col­league Senator STEVENS, and over 50 additional Senators in introducing leg­islation to implement the recommen­dations of the Commission on War­time Relocation and Internment of Ci­vilians. Senator MATSUNAGA has re­flected on the merits of those Japa­nese-Americans who were interned in

concentration camps throughout our country, so I will confine my remarks to the injustices done to the Aleut Americans residing in my State of Alaska.

As my colleagues will recall, the in­dependent Commission was estab­lished by an act of Congress in 1980 to investigate the circumstances sur­rounding the relocation and intern­ment of Japanese-Americans and Aleut citizens during World War II. The Commission's reports were pre­sented to Congress in · January and June 1983. Those reports document fully the injustices suffered by those who were relocated to camps far from their homes in early 1942 for the dura­tion of the war.

Mr. President, I recall, as a small child, observing on the outskirts of Ketchika, AK, the Aleut camp where the Aluets were confined. It was a very isolated area at the end of the road along side a creek that flowed into a lake, a heavily timbered area. While there was available care from the U.S. Department of Public health with regard to their medical needs, it was an area that was prone to some of the exposure of the outdoors in Alaska, which at times can be quite severe. I recall my mother mentioning that many of those interned had an ex­traordinary high rate of tuberculosis.

I want to take this opportunity to share a discussion I had with Mary Bourdukofski who described her per­sonal experience as an internee. At the time she was interned, Mary was mar­ried with two children. She reflected that on a Sunday afternoon in 1941, she saw Navy boats off the coast of St. Paul Island, the village where she lived. She was informed that the boats were to evacuate the village residents from the island and were told they could not take anything but what they were wearing and a suitcase. Mary re­calls she tried to put away personal be­longings such as antiques that had be­longed to her mother, but was not given time to do so. She was told to leave her home and not to lock the door. Within 12 hours all 500 residents were evacuated from St. Paul. The boat then picked up all the residents of St. George and other residents of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Pe­ninsula. After 10 days on the boat, the nearly 800 individuals were taken to abandoned canneries and mines throughout southeastern Alaska where camps were established.

At the camps, Mary describes the living conditions as terrible. The only running water in the camp where she was located at Funter Bay, was in the mess hall. There were no rooms, parti­tions were established by hanging blankets from the ceiling in order to establish some privacy. There was no stove to cook food. Health care and births were given in these conditions.

8964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April10, 1987 After 2 years of living in these condi­

tions, Mary and the surviving Aleuts were returned to their villages. Mary found her home had been converted into a "club" where a pool table, dart board, and stove were the only items left in the house. All of her personal effects, including her mother's an­tiques, were gone.

Mary's experience is not unique, ap­proximately 881 residents of Alaska suffered the same losses.

The Commission determined that the military decision to relocate the people were justified under the cir­cumstances. Unfortunately, the reloca­tion of the Aleuts to abandoned fish canneries and mining camps in south­eastern Alaska resulted in disease and death among some of the residents of the camps and losses such as those re­counted by Mary Bourdukofski.

The Commission found on examina­tion that indeed medical care was in­adequate and, as Senator MATSUNAGA indicated, there were a number of those Aleut people who died in their internment. Shelter and food were below standard, and sanitary facilites were poor. At least 10 percent of all Aleuts relocated to camps perished before their villages were restored on the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands.

After an extended period of time of 2 to 3 to 4 years in camp, the Aleuts were returned to their villages in the western part of Alaska, the Alaska Pe­ninsula, the Aleutian Islands.

Upon returning to their villages, the Aleuts, like Mary, found their personal and community property had been converted without compensation for military use, destroyed, or taken by those who occupied villages in the Aleuts' absence. They were never fully compensated for these losses. In addi­tion, some of their churches were burned or were desecrated, or stripped of irreplaceable religious icons dating from 18th and 19th century Imperial Russia. There was never any effort by our Government to replace or rehabili­tate the churches and church proper­ties destroyed or severely damaged.

Mr. President, the populated areas of the Lower Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutians are still littered with the debris and abandoned structures from the U.S. military occupation of the is­lands. In recent years, at least one child, who lived with his family in Cold Bay, lost the use of his hand when a World War II fuse exploded. He had been playing in an area where live ammunition still litters the lands outside the village. The Commission has recommended that this debris be cleaned up, as the debris from World War II has been cleaned up in Japan, Europe, and elsewhere often with sub­stantial American assistance.

Mr. President, our legislation imple­ments the five recommendations of the Commission to provide restitution to the Aleut people for the losses they

suffered as a consequence of Govern­ment operations during the war years. In addition the bill implements the Commission's recommendations for restitution of Japanese American losses.

Mr. President, 40 years and more have passed since the Aleuts were relo­cated to unimaginably inadequate camp facilities in southeastern Alaska. A number of those who suffered the most are quite elderly-an even great­er number have already passed away. I urge the Senate to consider this legis­lation promptly, as substantial justice to the Aleut people as compensation for losses sustained as a result of U.S. Government activities in World War II. The restitution provided in our bill should not be unreasonably delayed any longer.

Again, I thank all of my colleagues who have joined in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator MATSUNAGA and many of my colleagues in offering legislation to implement the recom­mendations of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians.

The Commission report results from 20 days of hearings and testimony from 750 witnesses; many of them from my home State. Many of those witnesses, and many more Japanese Americans, are waiting for the day when this country will stand up and say that we made a tragic error and an inhuman mistake when, during the hysteria surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbor, our Government made the decision to sentence Americans of Japanese descent to internment camps without probable cause or the benefit of a trial. Typical of those who wait for that admission is Mrs. Peggy Nishi­moto Mitchell from Seattle. She de­scribed the assembly center she was ordered to go to, under armed guard, prior to being transported to the actual relocation center. Here is what she had to say:

When we arrived at the Puyallup Center, we were dismayed to be crowded inside a small fenced compound with makeshift flimsy portables for our housing. I noticed some of the elderly women were crying in frustration. There were seven of us in one room. We were supposed to have army cots and blankets but since there were not enough to go around we huddled together and slept on the floor with our coats on • • •. Might as well have been a caged animal.

Mr. President, the 400-page report presented to the Congress and the public by the Commission was devel­oped with the utmost care and detail. The Commission membership included some of the most distinguished speak­ers and protectors of our civil liberties.

The Japanese American community, Asian American community, and other

interested parties in my State, are closely watching what this body does.

I am proud to say that much of the nationwide citizen action movement which has brought us closer to an act of redress included the efforts of many Washington State citizens. Together with my esteemed colleague from Hawaii, this national coalition pushed, prodded, and exhibited an unbeliev­able amount of commitment to see this issue move forward to its present position on our national agenda.

I am also proud to say that local gov­ernment jurisdictions in the State of Washington have also done their part in attempting to rectify historic wrongs committed by past governing bodies. Three years ago, under the ini­tiation of City Councilmember Dolores Sibonga, the city of Seattle enacted re­dress legislation that provided mone­tary reparations to former city em­ployees who were dismissed because of Executive Order 9066. Similar legisla­tion was also enacted by the city of Se­attle School District and the Washing­ton State Legislature under the leader­ship of Senators George Fleming, Jim McDermott, John Jones, Kent Pullen, Phil Talmadge and Representative Gary Locke.

Mr. President, the Japanese Ameri­can community, Asian American com­munity, and the citizens of the State of Washington have done their part in attempting to right this wrong. They now look to their national representa­tives sitting here in this hall to follow suit and move toward the inevitable determination that history cannot be undone; that historic events cannot be erased; that whatever we do will never measure up to past losses and suffer­ing; but that if we are a democracy, we will do what is within our power to provide remedies for violations of our own laws and principles.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I am delighted to cosponsor the legisla­tion, S. 1009, introduced today by my very good friend from Hawaii [Mr. MATSUNAGA] for redress of one of our Government's greatest acts of injus­tice. This legislation would implement the recommendations of the Commis­sion on Wartime Relocation and In­ternment. It was introduced in the 99th Congress as S. 1053, and as S. 2116 in the 98th Congress. I am de­lighted to note the increasing number of cosponsors of this historic legisla­tion.

As we look back with regret on this painful period of injustice-45 years ago-we must reaffirm our pledge that this kind of injustice must never recur.

Enactment of this legislation will help to prevent a recurrence.

And it will help us to look forward with hope to a brighter future of full participation by Asian-Americans in the American dream.

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8965 My involvement in opposing the re­

location of Japanese Americans dates back to the very beginning.

I believe that our Government's action in this case was a terrible af­front to the ideals for which our Nation stands.

Shortly after Pearl Harbor, I was as­signed to the Office of War Informa­tion. There I worked closely with Elea­nor Roosevelt and Archibald MacLeish trying to dissuade President Roosevelt from forcefully evacuating Japanese Americans from the west coast and in­terning them in so-called relocation camps.

Unfortunately for 120,000 Japanese Americans-and for the good name of our Nation-military authorities pre­vailed, and the orders for internment were issued.

More than two-thirds of the intern­ees were American citizens. The rest were legal U.S. residents.

After the internment process began, I visited two of the camps, Tule Lake in California and Heart Mountain, WY. Recently, the children of intern­ees visited Heart Mountain trying to sense what their parents had felt. In part I can tell them.

For 4 days in the cold, snow-covered camp at Heart Mountain, I spent my time round the clock inside the barbed-wire camp, talking to internees and visiting with a number of boyhood friends from Los Altos.

We ate meals together, talked over old times, walked around in the bit­ingly cold weather, played poker-in wanton violation of camp rules-and cheered at a football rally.

My friends and former classmates justifiably felt themselves robbed of their citizenship. They were distressed at the racial prejudice behind their in­ternment. They were anxious for their Government to prove its own adher­ence to democracy and to the very ideals for which we were then at war.

President Roosevelt himself pro­claimed, "In vindication of the very ideals for which we are fighting this war it is important to us to mountain a high standard of fair, considerate, and equal treatment for the people of this minority as for all other minorities."

But this standard was not upheld. The mere presence of Japanese

blood in loyal American citizens was believed to be enough to warrant re­moval and exclusion from places they otherwise had a right to go.

The argument that they were re­moved for their own good, because of possible vigilante attacks, was not per­suasive. Most, if not all, Japanese­Americans would rather have faced the risk of being killed by individuals than deprived of their liberties by their own American Government. And given the choice to remain interned or fight in the war, most enlisted and served.

One of my most poignant memories is of an intelligent and progressive­minded mother who was still manag­ing-with much difficulty-to conceal from her 4-year-old child that they were prisoners in what most inmates considered a racial internment camp.

It was ironic to see American Nisei soldiers, home on furlough and clad in uniform, wandering around inside a fenced-in camp. These Nisei soldiers returned from the battlefields of Europe as the most distinguished and decorated combat unit of the war, and from the Pacific theater as loyal sol­diers and as officers in military intelli­gence. I have never forgotten these impressions.

In 1980, I was a cosponsor of the leg­islation establishing the Relocation Commission. The Commission report issued in 1983 amounted to our Gov­ernment's official apology-41 years overdue to the internees and their families.

It confirmed what a great many con­scientious Americans have long be­lieved: These Americans of Japanese descent were clearly mistreated, and their basic civil liberties violated.

The ACLU singled out the intern­ment and related abuses at the time as "the worst single wholesale violation of civil rights of American citizens in our history."

As one commentator on the period said:

Japanese-Americans were the immediate victims of the evacuation. But larger conse­quences are carrried by the American people as a whole. Their legacy is the last­ing one of precedent and constitutional sanctity for a policy of mass incarceration under military auspices. This is a result of the process by which the evacuation was made. That process betrayed all Americans.

Since those tragic events took place, a number of the participants have had changed hearts and minds. Henry L. Stimson, who was Secretary of War, realized that to loyal citizens this forced evacuation was a personal in­justice. Former Attorney General Francis Biddle reiterated his belief that the program was ill-advised, un­necessary, and unnecessarily cruel. Justice William 0. Douglas, one of the Supreme Court majority in the Kore­matsu decision holding the evacuation constitutionally permissible, later said "the case was ever on my conscience." And Chief Justice Earl Warren, who as California's attorney general had urged evacuation, afterward said, "I have since deeply regretted the remov­al order and my own testimony advo­cating it, because it was not in keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens.''

On February 17, 1942, Attorney General Francis Biddle wrote to Secre­tary Stimson opposing the proposed exclusion order, stating that the War Department and the FBI had found no danger of imminent attack or evi­dence of planned sabotage. Biddle es-

pecially objected to removal from their homes of 60,000 American citi­zens who happened to be of Japanese descent. He refused to let the Justice Department participate in any way with the exclusion policy.

Not a single documented act of espi­onage, sabotage, or fifth column activi­ty was committed by the Nisei or by resident Japanese aliens on the west coast. Yet their lives were disrupted, fortunes were lost, and loyal citizens and legal residents incarcerated.

The victims of this policy were held collectively guilty, and collectively punished.

Moreover, the Government's atti­tude toward these innocent people fos­tered suspicions that often led to vio­lence against them. Many were at­tacked when they attempted to return to their homes 3 years later.

The legislation I'm cosponsoring today redresses this mass violation of civil liberties and compensates intern­ees for their suffering.

While the loss of liberty and the per­sonal stigma attached to internment can be erased, Federal reparations are a justifiable response to the legitimate financial losses incurred. An independ­ent study done for the Commission found the economic losses alone to evacuees between $2.5 and $6.2 billion in today's dollar values, including in­terest for the past 40 years. Many con­sider this a conservative estimate of the real economic losses of homes and other property, stores, and businesses. And these estimates do not begin to measure the personal hardships suf­fered.

The Commission found the cause of the exclusion and interment policies to be "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.''

On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Execu­tive Order 9066. Shortly afterward, all American citizens of Japanese descent were barred from living, working, or traveling on the west coast. The same exclusion applied to a whole genera­tion of Japanese immigrants residing at that time in the United States who, because of Federal law, were not per­mitted to become U.S. citizens.

After the initial plan for voluntary exclusion failed, these American citi­zens or legal residents were forcibly re­moved by the Army, first to assembly centers-makeshift quarters in fair­grounds and racetracks-and then to relocation centers. These latter camps, located in desolate Western areas, were surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by military police.

The U.S. Government carried out its policy without reviewing individual cases or providing due process of law, and continued its policy virtually with­out regard for individuals who demon­strated loyalty to the United States.

8966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 Congress made it a crime to violate

Executive Order 9066. The U.S. Su­preme Court-in one of its most ago­nizing decisions-held the removal constitutionally permissible because of the war. Interestingly, since that deci­sion a number of Justices from the majority-enough to have reversed the 5-to-4 decision-have written that on hindsight, they would have voted dif­ferently. The Supreme Court in are­lated case struck down imprisonment of these admittedly loyal American citizens. But long after the fact.

The Commission found that the main impetus leading to the exclusion order was the mistaken notion that in­dividuals of Japanese descent would be loyal to Japan, not to the United States, and groundless fears of fifth column activity even though no evi­dence of such activities could be un­covered. The Commission stated that "the record does not permit the con­clusion that military necessity war­ranted the exclusion of the ethnic Jap­anese from the west coast."

After exclusion became official policy, the War Relocation Authority [WRAl-the civilian agency charged with supervising the relocation-as­sumed that the vast majority of evacu­ees were loyal and should be allowed to resettle outside of the west coast. But because of harsh objections from certain mountain State politicians, a consensus plan for detention of the evacuees emerged. The WRA gave up on its idea of resettlement, and accept­ed a program of confinement. Despite WRA's belief that evacuees should be returned to normal productive life, it had, in effect, become their jailer. Since there was no military justifica­tion for detention, the WRA instead contended that the program was for the evacuees' own safety.

The history of life during the evacu­ation and in the relocation camps is one of suffering and deprivation. On the average, families received only 1 or 2 weeks notice of evacuation to an un­known destination. They could take with them only what could be carried. All else was lost or sold for cut-rate prices. Life in the relocation camps was spartan, with shoddy and crowded buildings, defective facilities, faulty heating, inadequate health care, and limited education programs. Privacy was impossible. Families and individ­uals alike lost their identities and became known only by identification numbers.

Because the Western Defense Com­mand opposed individual loyalty re­views-for fear of weakening the blan­ket exclusion-no opportunity for indi­vidual review was created in the as­sembly centers. The War Department favored conducting loyalty reviews, but did not act on this until the end of 1942. Although these reviews eventual­ly permitted some to leave relocation centers, it didn't end the exclusion

from the west coast. Moreover, even this belated process was offensive, since it treated Japanese Americans as guilty until proven innocent.

In the spring of 1943, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Assistant Sec­retary of War John McCloy, and Gen. George C. Marshall reached the con­clusion that the loyalty reviews elimi­nated any justification for exclusion from the west coast. They kept their views private, however, and General DeWitt repeatedly opposed ending ex­clusion until he left the Western De­fense Command in late 1943, as did west coast anti-Japanese fractions. Secretary Stimson finally put the rec­ommendation before the Cabinet in May 1944. But no action was taken until December 7, 1944, while confine­ment continued for the great majority of Japanese Americans.

The exclusion and removal of Japa­nese-Americans resulted from a long history of anti-Japanese-American agi­tation and legislation on the west coast. By contrast, in Hawaii, where the military commander restrained plans for radical measures and treated the ethnic Japanese as loyal resi­dents-absent evidence to the con­trary-only 2,000 ethnic Japanese were taken into custody. The policy devel­oped was in sharp contrast to Govern­ment actions against enemy aliens or citizens of non-Japanese descent. For example, the United States never or­dered a mass exclusion or detention against American citizens of German or Italian descent.

This episode in American history should never have happened. It's the Government's responsibility to set the record straight and to try, at least, to recognize and partially compensate for past injustices, although the tarnish on our Constitution can never be com­pletely removed.

Our purpose is to recognize and re­dress the injustices and violations of civil liberties against U.S. citizens and U.S. residents of Japanese and Aleut ancestry by the United States and to discourage similar injustices and viola­tions of civil liberties in the future.

The bill provides for the establish­ment of a $1.5 billion trust fund from which individual payments to the sur­viving internees would be made.

Those eligible are people of Japa­nese or Alaskan Aleut ancestry ex­cluded from the west coast between December 7, 1941, and June 30, 1946, or deprived of liberty or property as a result of a series of Executive orders, proclamations, laws, Armed Forces di­rectives, or other Federal actions re­sulting in exclusion, relocation, and/or detention of individuals on the basis of race. The remaining moneys in the trust fund would be utilized for hu­manitarian and public education ef­forts to preclude this event from oc­curring again in the future.

This act is a just and fair redress to those individuals who were excluded and/ or interned without justification, in gross violation of their civil liberties as American citizens and residents. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, I am proud to join my good friend, the dis­tinguished Senator from Hawaii [Mr. MATSUNAGA] as an original cosponsor of this important legislative effort. For this reason, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight my thoughts and reasons for cosponsoring this very important bill.

Mr. President, I recognize that the country was in a state of emergency; this was the first time in over 120 years that America had been attacked on her own soil. The anger and panic resulting from Pearl Harbor were un­derstandable. Indeed, because of hys­teria, temporary relocation may have been justified to protect Japanese­Americans from potential violence. Nevertheless, this is no justification for the wholesale deprivations of prop­erty and personal liberty that, in fact, occurred.

We must remember, Mr. President, that most of the victims of this unfor­tunate episode were American citizens. In all, 80 percent of those interned were native Americans of Japanese an­cestry, while the remaining 20 percent were longtime residents ot the United States. But this legislation important not just to victims, but to all Ameri­cans because it seeks to cure the lapse of constitutional protection that should have been, but was not, ex­tended to protect the rights of Ameri­cans who were deprived of property and personal liberty out of panic based solely on their ethnic identity. Those interned suffered enormous damage and losses, both material and spiritual.

These Americans remained behind barbed wire, effectively incarcerated, literally for years after the initial panic and suspicion that placed them there should have subsided and given way to the greatest of American values and traditions: due process of law. But these Americans were denied the due process that would have disclosed that that they posed no threat to America's security. They were denied the due process that would have compensated them for serious property losses. They were denied justice-and they are owed it, still. Those freedoms and guarantees we so often take for grant­ed, the cornerstone of our Constitu­tion, were denied Japanese Americans.

Mr. President, we also owe these Japanese Americans great gratitude, great admiration and at least the same loyalty that they displayed so long ago-and ever since. For while Amer­ica was at war with Japan, and they were prisoners of war in their own country, they never lost faith in Amer­ica, never flagged in their loyalty to

April 10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8967 her-even when their love went unre­quited. One of the great ironies of the period is that many of America's most heroic combat in that long war that began with the attack on Pearl Harbor were sons and grandsons of the intern­ees-members of the U.S. Army's cele­brated 442d Regimental Combat Team, one of the most highly decorat­ed combat unit in American military history.

This legislation comes 45 years late, but not too late. It comes appropriate­ly as we prepare, as a nation, to under­take the celebration of the bicenten­nial of the U.S. Constitution. The sad fact is that most Americans are igno­rant of this episode in our history. Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that this legislation will give Americans of all generations the opportunity to know and understand exactly what happened between 1942 and 1945 so that never again will we allow panic to blind us to our obligation to practice that essential and fundamental justice that makes America worth fighting for.

By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. HARKIN):

S. 1010. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for community nursing and ambulato­ry care to Medicare beneficiaries on a prepaid, capitated basis; to the Com­mittee on Finance.

MEDICARE COMMUNITY NURSING AND AMBULATORY CARE ACT

• Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am joined by my distinguished col­league from Iowa in introducing the Community and Ambulatory Care Act of 1987-legislation designed to im­prove the delivery of health care serv­ices to Medicare beneficiaries outside of institutional settings.

This proposal would allow Medicare to reimburse community nursing cen­ters for Medicare beneficiaries who elect to enroll in their programs. These centers would provide all ambu­latory care services now offered under part B of the Medicare Program­except physician services. The services would be provided under the supervi­sion of registered nurses, and safe­guards to ensure a high quality of care would be provided through the exist­ing peer review organizations.

In return for providing these serv­ices, the community nursing center will receive 95 percent of the total amount we are now paying for these same services per Medicare benefici­ary. These centers will work in much the same way as an health mainte­nance organization-an HMO.

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee which has jurisdiction over the Medicare Program, I have become increasingly concerned about whether we are spending our Federal health care dollars effectively and whether the health care services we do provide

are those most needed by the elderly and disabled.

In recent years we have made a number of major changes in the Medi­care Program. One of the most far­reaching changes was development of the prospective payment system which pays hospitals per episode of illness based on DRG's [diagnostic related groups]. This system, which we are still refining and improving, has re­moved the inflationary incentives in­herent in the old, retrospective cost­based reimbursement for hospital care.

However, because of the incentive built into this system to discharge Medicare patients more quickly, pro­spective payment has also created a critical gap in the services available to Medicare beneficiaries. When elderly beneficiaries are discharged from the hospital, services designed to help them recover and return to their pre­vious lifestyle are sadly lacking.

The legislation I am introducing today will help fill this gap by provid­ing a predetermined payment to com­munity nursing organizations designed to provide the services Medicare bene­ficiaries need to fully recover. Commu­nity nursing organizations will also help more Medicare beneficiaries live independently longer by providing in­home assistance to help prevent insti­tutionalization.

Over the past few years we have begun to explore alternatives to tradi­tional health care systems with the goal of providing choices to those who are supposed to benefit from our Fed­eral health care programs.

An example of this is our action to allow Medicare beneficiaries to option to enroll in an HMO or prepaid health care plan and opt out of the tradition­al Medicare Program. This option has already been chosen by 500,000 benefi­ciaries-a tiny portion of the 31 mil­lion individuals enrolled in the Medi­care Program.

The bill I am introducing today ex­pands on this concept. We must allow the beneficiaries of health care insur­ance to have greater responsibility and involvement in the delivery of their health care services. We must also con­tinue to allow the Medicare Program to adapt to innovations in health care delivery. And finally, we must encour­age the growth of noninstitutional services-such as those outlined in this legislation-so that we can help elder­ly individuals remain in their own homes and communities rather than force them to move to a nursing home. Flexibility in the use of noninstitu­tional models of health care is essen­tial for improving the quality of life of the elderly.

The Community Nursing and Ambu­latory Care Act makes use of one of the most important assets of our health care system: professional nurses. This legislation recognizes the

expanded role nurses can play in pro­viding primary health care. Nurses will be able to provide regular health as­sessments and posthospital care in a community based setting and they will be able to educate their patients, pro­mote health, and prevent disease.

I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me sponsoring this legisla­tion.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in full in the CONGRES­SIONAL RECORD at this point and that a statement by Senator HARKIN appear in the RECORD immediately following the bill.

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

s. 1010 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 "Medicare Community Nursing and Ambulatory Care Act of 1987". SEC. 2. PROVIDING COMMUNITY NURSING AND

AMBULATORY CARE ON A PREPAID, CAPITATED BASIS TO MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.

Title XVIII of the Social Security Act is amended by inserting after section 1876 the following new section:

"PROVISION OF COMMUNITY NURSING AND AM­BULATORY CARE ON A PREPAID, CAPITATED BASIS "SEc. 1876A. (a) ELIGIBILITY OF MEDICARE

BENEFICIARIES TO ENROLL WITH ELIGIBLE 0R­GANIZATIONS.-8Ubject to the provisions in­corporated by subsection (C)(3), every indi­vidual entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled under part B <other than an indi­vidual medically determined to have end­stage renal disease) shall be eligible to enroll under this section with any eligible organization with which the Secretary has entered into a contract under this section and which serves the geographic area in which the individual resides.

"(b) DEFINITIONS OF COMMUNITY NURSING AND AMBULATORY CARE AND ELIGIBLE 0RGANI· ZATION.-

"(1) COMMUNITY NURSING AND AMBULATORY cARE DEFINED.-In this section, the term 'community nursing and ambulatory care' means the following services:

"<A> Part-time or intermittent nursing care furnished by or under the supervision of registered professional nurses.

"(B) Physical, occupational, or speech therapy.

"<C> Social and related services supportive of a plan of ambulatory care.

"(D) Part-time or intermittent services of a home health aide.

"<E> Medical supplies <other than drugs and biologicals) and durable medical equip­ment while under a plan of care.

"<F> Medical and other health services de­scribed in paragraphs (2)(H)(ii) and <5> through (9) of section 1861(s).

"<G> Rural health clinic services described in section 1861<aa><l><C>.

"(H) Certain other related services listed in section 1915<c><4><B> to the extent the Secretary finds such services are appropri­ate to prevent the need for institutionaliza­tion of a patient.

8968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 "(2) ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATION DEFINED.-For

purposes of this section, the term 'eligible organization' means a public or private entity, organized under the laws of any State, which meets the following require­ments:

"<A> The entity is primarily engaged in the direct provision of community nursing and ambulatory care.

"(B) The entity provides directly, or through arrangements with other qualified personnel, community nursing and ambula­tory care.

"(C) The entity provides that all commu­nity nursing and ambulatory care is fur­nished by or under the supervision of a reg­istered nurse and that all such care is fur­nished by qualified staff.

"(D) The entity has policies governing the furnishing of community nursing and ambu­latory care that are developed by registered professional nurses.

"<E> The entity maintains clinical records on all patients.

"<F> The entity has protocols and proce­dures to assure, when appropriate, timely referral to or consultation with other health care providers or professionals.

"(0) The entity complies with applicable State and local laws governing the provision of community nursing and ambulatory care to patients.

"(H) The requirements of subparagraphs <B>. <D>, and <E> of section 1876<b><2>.

"(C) CONTRACTS WITH ELIGIBLE ORGANIZA­TIONS.-

"<1> IN GENERAL.-The Secretary may not enter into a contract under this section with an eligible organization unless it meets the requirements of this subsection and subsec­tion <d> with respect to members enrolled under this section.

"(2) BASIC SERVICE PACKAGE.-The organi­zation must provide to members enrolled under this section, through providers and other persons that meet the applicable re­quirements of this title and part A of title XI, community nursing and ambulatory care <as defined in subsection <b><l» which is generally available to individuals residing in the geographic area served by the organi­zation, except that the organization may provide such members with such additional health care services as the members may elect, at their option, to have covered.

"(3) INCORPORATION OF ENROLLMENT PROVI­SIONS.-Section 1876(c)(3) shall apply to eli­gible organizations under this section in the same manner as it applies to eligible organi­zations under section 1876, and, for such purpose, any reference in that section to subsection <a><l><A> is deemed a reference to subsection <d><l><A> of this section.

"(4) AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES.-The orga­nization must make community nursing and ambulatory care <and such other health care services as such individuals have con­tracted for> available and accessible to each such individual, within the area served by the organization, with reasonable prompt­ness and in a manner which assures continu­ity.

"(5) INCORPORATION OF GRIEVANCE PROCE­DURES.-Section 1876<c><5> shall apply to or­ganizations under this section in the same manner as it applies to organizations under section 1876.

"(6) QUALITY ASSURANCE.-The organiza­tion must have arrangements, established in accordance with regulations of the Secre­tary, for an ongoing quality assurance pro­gram for health care services it provides to such individuals, which program <A> stresses health outcomes and <B> provides review by

health care professionals of the process fol­lowed in the provision of such health care services.

"(d) DETERMINATION OF PER CAPITA PAY­MENT RATES.-

"( 1) IN GENERAL.-(A) The Secretary shall annually determine, and shall announce (in a manner intended to provide notice to in­terested parties) not later than September 7 before the calendar year concerned, a per capita rate of payment for each class of in­dividuals who are enrolled under this sec­tion with an eligible organization and who are entitled to benefits under part A and en­rolled under part B.

"(B) The Secretary shall define appropri­ate classes of members, based on age, dis­ability status, and such other factors as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, so as to ensure actuarial equivalence. The Sec­retary may add to, modify, or substitute for such classes, if such changes will improve the determination of actuarial equivalence.

"<C> The annual per capita rate of pay­ment for each such class shall be equal to 95 percent of the adjusted average per capita cost <as defined in paragraph (3)) for that class.

"<D> In the case of an eligible organiza­tion with a contract, the Secretary shall make monthly payments in advance and in accordance with the rate determined under subparagraph <C>, except as provided in subsection (e)(3)(B), to the organization for each individual enrolled with the organiza­tion under this section.

"<E> The amount of payment under this paragraph may be retroactively adjusted to take into account any difference between the actual number of individuals enrolled in the plan under this section and the number of such individuals estimated to be so en­rolled in determining the amount of the ad­vance payment.

"(2) PAYMENTS AS SUBSTITUTE FOR OTHER PAYMENTS.-Payments under a contract to an eligible organization under paragraph <1 > shall be instead of the amounts which (in the absence of the contract> would be other­wise payable, pursuant to sections 1814(b) and 1833<a>, for services furnished by or through the organization to individuals en­rolled with the organization under this sec­tion.

"(3) ADJUSTED AVERAGE PER CAPITA COST <AAPCC) DEFINED.-For purposes of this sec­tion, the term 'adjusted average per capita cost' means the average per capita amount that the Secretary estimates in advance <on the basis of actual experience, or retrospec­tive actuarial equivalent based upon an ade­quate sample and other information and data, in a geographic area served by an eligi­ble organization or in a similar area, with appropriate adjustments to assure actuarial equivalence) would be payable in any con­tract year for those services covered under parts A and B and types of expenses other­wise reimbursable under parts A and B which are described in subparagraphs <A> through <O> of subsection <b><l> <including administrative costs incurred by organiza­tions described in sections 1816 and 1842), if the services were to be furnished by other than an eligible organization.

"(4) PAYMENT FROM MEDICARE TRUST FUNDS.-The payment to an eligible organi­zation under this section for individuals en­rolled under this section with the organiza­tion and entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled under part B shall be made from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medi­cal Insurance Trust Fund in such propor-

tions from each such trust fund as the Sec­retary deeiDS to be fair and equitable taking into consideration benefits attributable to parts A and B, respectively.

"(5) ExCLUSIVE SOURCE OF PAYIIENT.­During any period in which an individual is enrolled under this section with an eligible organization having a contract, only the eli­gible organization <and no other individual or person> shall be entitled to receive pay­ments from the Secretary under this title for community nursing and ambulatory care <as defined in subsection <b><1» furnished to the individual.

"(e) RESTRICTION ON PREMIUMS, DEDUCTI­BLE&, COPAYJO:NTS, AND COINSURANCE.-

"(1) IN GENERAL.-In no case may the por­tion of an eligible organization's premium rate and the actuarial value of its deducti­bles, coinsurance, and copayments charged <with respect to community nursing and am­bulatory care> to individuals who are en­rolled under this section with the organiza­tion, exceed the actuarial value of the coin­surance and deductibles that would be appli­cable on the average to individuals enrolled under this section with the organization <or, if the Secretary finds that adequate data are not available to determine that actuarial value, the actuarial value of the coinsurance and deductibles applicable on the average to individuals in the area, in the State, or in the United States, eligible to enroll under this section with the organization, or other appropriate data) and entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled under part B, if they were not members of an eligible orga­nization.

"(2) ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.-If the eligible organization provides to its members en­rolled under this section services in addition to community nursing and ambulatory care, election of coverage for such additional services shall be optional for such members and such organization shall furnish such members with information on the portion of its premium rate or other charges applica­ble to such additional services. In no case may the sum of-

"<A> the portion of such organization's premium rate charged, with respect to such additional services, to members enrolled under this section, and

"<B> the actuarial value of its deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments charged, with respect to such services to such members exceed the adjusted community rate for such services <as defined in section 1876(e)(3)).

"(3) ADDITIONAL BENEFITS REQUIRED.-(A) Subject to subparagraphs <B> and <C>. each such contract shall provide that if-

"(i) the adjusted community rate, referred to in paragraph (2), for community nursing and ambulatory care covered under parts A and B <as reduced for the actuarial value of the coinsurance and deductibles under those parts) for members enrolled under this sec­tion with the organization, is less than

"(ii) the average of the per capita rates of payment to be made under subsection (d)(l) at the beginning of an annual contract period for members enrolled under this sec­tion with the organization, the eligible organization shall provide to such members the additional benefits de­scribed in section 1876(g)(3) which are se­lected by the eligible organization and which the Secretary finds are at least equal in value to the difference between that aver­age per capita payment and the adjusted community rate <as so reduced).

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8969 "<B> Subparagraph <A> shall not apply

with respect to any organization which elects to receive a lesser payment to the extent that there is no longer a difference between the average per capita payment and adjusted community rate <as so re­duced>.

"(C) An organization <with the approval of the Secretary) may provide that a part of the value of such additional benefits under subparagraph <A> be withheld and reserved by the Secretary as provided in section 1876(g)(5).

"<D> If the Secretary finds that, for pur­poses of subparagraph <A>, there is insuffi-

• cient enrollment experience to determine an average of the per capita rates of payment to be made under subsection (d)(l) at the beginning of a contract period, the Secre­tary may determine such an average based on the enrollment experience of other con­tracts entered into under this section.

"(4) INCORPORATION OF RELATED PROVI· sioNs.-The provisions of paragraphs (3), (5), and <6> of section 1876(g) shall apply in the same manner to contracts under this section as they apply to risk-sharing con­tracts under section 1876, and, for this pur­pose, any reference in such paragraphs to paragraph <2> is deemed a reference to para­graph <3> of this subsection.

"(5) INCORPORATION OF SECONDARY PAYOR PROVISION.-8ection 1876(e)(4) shall apply to eligible organizations under this section in the same manner as it applies to eligible organizations under section 1876.

"(f) INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS RELAT­ING TO OTHER TERMS OF CONTRACT.-8ection 1876(1) shall apply to contracts under this section in the same manner as it applies to contracts under section 1876, and, for such purpose, any reference to subsection <e> is deemed a reference to subsection (d) of this section.".e e Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished col­league from Rhode Island today in the introduction of the Community Nurs­ing and Ambulatory Care Act of 1987.

In recent years we have witnessed a dramatic drop in the length of hospi­tal stays and an increasing demand for home health services. By making use of one of the best resources of our health care system-professional nurses-the bill we are introducing today would bridge the Medicare gap between hospital and home.

The Community Nursing and Ambu­latory Care Act of 1987 allows for the creation of community-based nursing organizations to provide Medicare part B services on a prepaid, precapitated basis to enrollees. These centers would provide high quality nursing care under the supervision of RN's, as well as physical, occupational, and speech therapy. Patients who need health care, but who have been released from hospitals or do not want to move to nursing homes, could receive the care they need in their homes, while main­taining their independence and digni­ty.

The bill includes quality assurance measures which protect beneficiaries. These include peer review and a griev­ance procedure to insure that both Medicare enrollees and the Federal Government get what they pay for.

The reimbursement rate for the nursing organizations would be similar to that for a HMO. HCFA actuaries would calculate part B costs per bene­ficiary and extract physician, x ray, and laboratory fees from that figure. The entities would then be paid 95 percent of that dollar amount per en­rollee, and be contractually obligated to provide the remaining part B serv­ices on a monthly basis. Simply put, the legislation relies on prepayment based on actuarial data, providing in­centives for efficiency and cost con­trol.

I hope that my colleagues will join Senator CHAFEE and me in support of the Medicare Community Nursing and Ambulatory Care Act of 1987. I believe that by recognizing the expanded role nurses can play in providing primary health care, we can provide a humane, and at the same time cost-effective al­ternative to hospitalization and nurs­ing home placement for millions of older and disabled Americans.

Finally, I would like to thank the American Nurses Association for their assistance in drafting this legislation, and I want to thank my nurses adviso­ry committee in Iowa-a group on whose advice on a wide range of health issues I have come to rely-for their support.e

ByMr.EXON: S. 1011. A bill to amend the Congres­

sional Budget Act of 1974 to provide that any concurrent resolution on the budget that contains reconciliation di­rectives shall include a directive with respect to the statutory limit on the public debt, and for other purposes; pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, referred jointly to the Commit­tee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

BUDGET REFORM LEGISLATION Mr. EXON. Mr. President, during

the President's State of the Union message in January, the Congress erupted with unrestrained applause when the President declared "the defi­cit is outrageous." I hope that the Congress will back its applause for def­icit reduction with action. It should be obvious by now that stern discipline is required. I propose that discipline with the bill I introduce today, in this deficit reduction to the debt ceiling in­crease.

Although I have come to this floor many times to introduce and support legislation which restores fiscal re­sponsibility to the Federal Govern­ment, I was one of the leading skeptics of the Gramm-Rudman law. Despite the good intentions of its sponsors, the Gramm-Rudman law has not begun to realistically meet its attractive but un­realistic goals. We are now engaged in a great charade of dancing and dodg­ing to escape responsibility for foster­ing phony goals in the first place by erecting new graven images of a bal-

anced budget. We just must realize that Gramm-Rudman was created pri­marily to grease passage of the debt limit extension to over $2 trillon. The debt ceiling increase was truly the ger­mination of birth by artificial insemi­nation and Congress was the mid-wife. Notwithstanding its proud authors' proclamations, their creation of a "beautiful thing," Gramm-Rudman and the record debt ceiling increase is as ugly a duckling as I have ever seen from the standpoint of truth in budg­eting. The Congress and the President are now dashing for cover from their irresponsibility, covering their where­abouts with a smoke screen of phony numbers to reach their well-publicized worthy but unattainable goals in their time frame. There is no "quick fix" in 5 years given the runaway deficits of this administration's past 6 years, while the national debt doubled to over $2 trillion.

Rather than bring a rapid reduction in the deficit, the first year under the Gramm-Rudman law has produced a record $220 billion deficit for fiscal year 1986 and the budget deficit for 1987 is expected to exceed $176 billion; $32 billion above the magical and man­dated deficit target of $144 billion. Neither the President nor anyone else, despite their claims, has or can devel­op a 1988 budget which meets the $108 billion Gramm-Rudman deficit target without devastating national defense or increasing taxes to a point that may cause a recession, or both. To solve a problem, the first step is to face facts and quit pursuing myths.

In my opinion, there were two fatal flaws in the Gramm-Rudman scheme. First, it devised a formula for deficit reduction which was so filled with ex­emptions and special rules that well over half of the Federal budget was exempt from reduction. The exemp­tions and special rules were the heart and soul of the weak-kneed political deal patched together with cold water paste, looking for a reason to separate.

The second and most serious flaw and false promise of the Gramm­Rudman law is its total reliance on ar­bitrary economic projections as realis­tic benchmarks of progress toward the much promised balanced budget of 1991. Under the Gramm-Rudman plan, economic forecasts have assumed the status of economic facts. These forecasts are made for a period into the future, and all attention is focused on making the forecasts meet the defi­cit target for a single fiscal year. In such a legislative environment, no holds are barred to make the future target year look as good as possible re­gardless of the long-term effects of the chosen action. This invites, on its face, manipulations and procrastination.

There is now no continuing enforce­ment mechanism to assure that eco­nomic estimates are correct or that

8970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 deficit reduction efforts are sufficient. Given the optimistic economic fore­casts and clever accounting tools avail­able to Congress and the President, even an automatic sequester mecha­nism would produce deficits signifi­cantly above the mandated targets. This is a given, conveniently ignored since it serves as a magnificent and convenient political escape valve.

In essence, the Gramm-Rudman scheme does not work to reduce defi­cits, it works to reduce deficit projec­tions. It should be recognized that there is a difference. The more diffi­cult the target is to meet, the more creative the political branches of Gov­ernment will be in their search to painlessly reduce the deficit.

The best example of congressional and Presidential budget monkey busi­ness was last year's budget reconcilia­tion bill. The activities of Congress and the President were nothing short of shameful. Most members of the Budget Committee and the vast major­ity of the Congress knew that the 1986 reconciliation bill would not produce a deficit in the $144 to $154 billion range as mandated by the Gramm-Rudman law, but would produce a deficit in the $170 to $180 billion range. This was known and discussed among the mem­bers. Furthermore, the savings pro­duced by that bill were, for the most part, the result of accounting manipu­lations such as pushing expenses for­ward and backward out of the 1987 fiscal year and accelerating receipts into the 1987 fiscal year. Spending was not cut as much as the Congress proudly announced to the American people. It was simply shifted out of the target year. While the target year deficit declined, the spending and bor­rowing of the Federal Government was not significantly affected. The latest Congressional Budget Office report confirmed my suspicions and placed the 1987 deficit in excess of $176 billion.

The press, by and large, dutifully went along, reporting the various view­points and allowing the myth to pre­vail that we had indeed done some­thing. The conservative press heralded this as a major breakthrough, demon­strating at best that they are believers of what they preach rather than devout followers of workable remedies or they are ignorant of all facts of meaningful Government budget bal­ancing.

This charade points out that the Gramm-Rudman law focuses on an ideal deficit target 1 year at a time and measures success by economic fore­cast, not deficit reduction. The Gramm-Rudman process essentially ignores the total debt of the United States. The amateurish and temporary shifting of spending for a day or so, from 1 fiscal year into another, may appear to reduce the deficit in a given year, but it has no beneficial effect on

total Government spending or the ac­cumulated national debt. It is a great form of using mirrors to reflect the image that you desire, but it can't transform an ugly duckling into the goose who laid the golden egg. Bank­ruptcy is also usually proceeded by balancing the checking account for months or years with float.

If the Congress and the President are serious about reducing the deficit, we had better focus our attention both on the desired declining annual defi­cits and on the accumulated national debt. They are directly related, an eco­nomic and bookkeeping fact usually conveniently ignored.

The legislation I introduce today would essentially cap the statutory debt ceiling to match the deficit tar­gets of the congressional budget reso­lution.

Under recent practice, the House of Representatives has passed its initial debt ceiling legislation under a rule which ties the debt ceiling to the pas­sage of the annual congressional budget, thereby avoiding at least one record vote on a "stand alone" debt ceiling bill. The Senate, of course, more often than not, engages in high drama debt ceiling politics. The search for votes to push the statutory debt ceiling above $2 trillion in 1986 was the driving force behind the creation of the Gramm-Rudman legislation.

Prior to the adjournment of the 99th Congress, the Senate broke with tradition and the debt ceiling was in­corporated into the annual budget rec­onciliation bill. Despite the question­able budget savings of the 1986 recon­ciliation bill, it made a great deal of sense to link the debt ceiling to the reconciliation process. If Congress is to approve an increase in the statutory debt ceiling, it should be required to approve deficit reduction to assure that the Congress, at a minimum, keeps its deficit reduction commit­ments or stands up tall and forthright to vote required changes.

The congressional budget resolution includes functional targets for outlays, budget authority, revenues, and bor­rowing. The Congress uses reconcilia­tion instructions to direct committees to report legislation necessary to meet the guidelines of the congressional budget. Those bills are sometimes bun­dled into one reconciliation package.

The legislation which I introduce today would put debt ceiling legisla­tion into the budget cycle; require that the borrowing aspect of the budget be subject to reconciliation instructions; and require that annual legislation to increase the debt ceiling be included in the annual reconciliation package. In addition, a three-fifths vote would be necessary to increase the debt ceiling to beyond the level contemplated by the congressional budget resolution.

Such a procedure would institute continuous enforcement of the deficit

targets contained in each year's budget. If Congress sticks to its annual budget and corrects it for changing economic conditions, debt ceiling legis­lation would be handled in a routine manner under the limited debate pro­cedures of reconciliation.

If the Federal Government borrows funds at a rate faster than contem­plated by the annual budget, the Con­gress would need a three-fifths vote to increase the debt ceiling. Other meas­ures to deal with a budget shortfall, such as reducing spending and/ or rais­ing revenue would only require a simple majority. No longer would in­creasing the national debt be the easi­est way for Congress to satisfy its spending appetite.

This procedure would also make it much more difficult for the Congress or the President to employ smoke and mirrors instead of serious deficit re­duction because commitment to deficit reduction would be measured by the national debt in addition to the arbi­trary OMB/CBO "snapshot" of the projected deficit for the coming fiscal year. Accounting gimmicks such as pushing spending backwards into a soon to be completed fiscal year would be discouraged because the accumulat­ed national debt would grow when spending is shifted rather than re­duced.

What I propose here is a very tough but workable solution to the faulty Gramm-Rudman enforcement mecha­nism. To give such a proposal a chance to work, we should change the unreal­istic assumptions concocted under Gramm-Rudman which underestimat­ed the deficit by approximately $50 billion when enacted. Sooner or later the proponents will have to concede that, although inadvertently, the numbers were way off base when Gramm-Rudman was passed. It's not written in the Good Book that we have to eliminate the deficit in 5 years. Getting on a workable, down­ward path, I believe, is more impor­tant.

Under the legislation I introduce today, the debt ceiling could only be raised beyond the level contemplated by the congressional budget with a three-fifths vote, the same margin re­quired to waive certain Gramm­Rudman points of order. However, only a simple majority is necessary to alter spending and revenue policies to keep the budget on track. If the Con­gress and the President could not come to an agreement, the Govern­ment would be on a "short tether" in that Federal spending authority would begin to wind down. If borrowing au­thority is not extended, we could spend only incoming revenues.

This procedure would require contin­uous congressional attention to the actual levels of spending rather than annual projected levels. The threat of

April10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8971 a temporary or full Government clo­sure and the resulting financial chaos would pressure the President and Con­gress to be honest with economic and deficit projections; keep spending within the level planned by the con­gressional budget and to fine tune the Nation's economic plan throughout the year.

It's the ultimate workable sequester and it's foolproof. It would force Con­gress and the President to make the cuts or raise the revenue or a combina­tion of both, rather than the origional unconstitutional Gramm-Rudman process of delegating the process to some faceless bureaucrat. In addition, it proposes a build-in "safety valve" for any unforeseen future problems by providing a waiver by a three-fifths vote.

There are those who are working diligently to "make smoke" to cover the mismanagement of this Nation's fiscal policy with a so-called capital budget. Certainly, many businesses employ, and quite properly, a fiscal procedure to borrow money through bonds or other long-term debentures for capital improvements that will produce new and additional revenues in the future. A sinking fund is cus­tomarily employed to assure pay back, on an orderly basis, out of future reve­nues.

States, municipalities, and other gov­ernmental subdivisions use this proce­dure. It is not bad on its face so long as it does not become a means to live beyond the entities' means forever. There are people who are attracted to this as a convenient means to explain away and make mute the $2 trillion debt, over half of which has been cre­ated in the last 6 years alone, under the current and generally perceived­to-be "conservative" administration.

The capital budget fiscal maniacs justify their ingenuity by explaining, for example, that aircraft carriers are not something to buy for immediate consumption and therefore should not be charged against the deficit or na­tional debt. Logically, from a tradi­tional business standpoint-yes. They are correct. Unfortunately, they con­sistently overlook the fact that we have never measured Federal debt or deficits in this manner. Such a "spend­er" philosophy by those who portray themselves as fiscal conservatives is disappointing. There is nothing wrong with, for accounting purposes, to have a capital budget as a separate, broken­out figure in the final budget docu­ment. However, reducing the deficit by such actions will deftly, but gradually cover our runaway spending habits that we pass along with nonchalance to our children and grandchildren without paying the way in our genera­tion. We need some truth and not sleight of hand in the Federal budget.

Mr. President, the Congress must face the fiscal facts and work to

reduce deficit spending rather than hide it. I invite my colleagues to study and support this budget reform initia­tive.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the text of the bill be print­ed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows:

s. 1011 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Repre:Jentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECl'ION 1. RECONCILIATION DIRECl'IVES TO IN­

CLUDE DIRECl'IVE WITH RESPECl' TO INCREASE IN STATUTORY LUMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.

<a> IN GENERAL.-Section 310 of the Con- . gressional Budget Act of 1974 <2 U.S.C. 641) is amended by adding at the end thereof of following new subsection:

"(h) RECONCILIATION DIRECTIVES WITH RE­SPECT TO PuBLIC DEBT LIMIT.-

"( 1 > Any concurrent resolution on the budget for a fiscal year that contains direc­tives of the type described in paragraph < 1 > or <2> of subsection <a> for such fiscal year shall also include a directive of the type de­scribed in paragraph (3) of such subsection for such fiscal year.

"<2> Any change in the statutory limit on the public debt that is recommended pursu­ant to a directive of the type described in paragraph (3) of subsection <a> shall be in­cluded in the reconciliation legislation re­ported pursuant to subsection <b> for such fiscal year.".

(b) CONFORIIIING CHANGE.-Section 310<d><2> of such Act is amended by insert­ing "(other than a provision reported pursu­ant to a directive of the type described in subsection (a)(3))" after "motion to strike a provision". SEC. 2. POINT OF ORDER.

<a> IN GENERAL.-Notwithstanding the Standing Rules of the Senate, except as pro­vided in subsection (b), it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill or joint resolution <or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon> that increases the statutory limit on the public debt during a fiscal year above the level set forth as appropriate for such fiscal year in the concurrent resolution on the budget for such fiscal year agreed to under section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(b) ExCEPTION.-Subsection <a> shall not apply to any reconciliation bill or reconcilia­tion resolution reported pursuant to section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 during any fiscal year <or any confer­ence report thereon> that contains a provi­sion that-

< 1 > increases the statutory limit on the public debt pursuant to a directive of the type described in section 310<a><3> of such Act, and

(2) becomes effective on or after the first day of the following fiscal year.

<c> WAIVERs.-Subsection <a> may be waived or suspended in the Senate by a vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

(d) APPEALS.-If the ruling of the presid­ing officer sustains a point of order raised pursuant to paragraph < 1 ), a vote of three­fifths of the Members duly chosen and sworn shall be required to sustain an appeal of such ruling. Debate on any such appeal shall be limited to two hours, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the ma­jority leader and the minority leader or

their designees. An appeal of any such point of order is not subject to a motion to table. SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become effective on the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 4. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act are enacted by the Congress-

< 1 > as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, respectively, or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and

<2> with full recognition of the constitu­tional right of either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such House> at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.

By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY):

S. 1012. A bill to increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for property acquisition, restoration, and development, and for transporta­tion, educational, and cultural pro­grams, relating to the Lowell National Historical Park; to continue the term of a member of the Lowell Historic Preservation Commission pending the appointment of a successor; to adjust a quorum of the Commission in the event of a vacancy; and to delay the termination of the commission; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Re­sources. LOWELL HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

AUTHORIZATION Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I

am pleased to introduce legislation that will reauthorize the Lowell His­toric Preservation Commission for an additional 7 years. This reauthoriza­tion, which is cosponsored by my col­league from Massachusetts, is neces­sary in order to continue the impor­tant work that the Commission, work­ing closely with the Lowell National Historical Park, has begun. A compan­ion measure is being introduced in the House of Representatives, by our col­league, Mr. ATKINS of Massachusetts.

The Lowell Historical Park and the Lowell Preservation Commission were established by Congress in 1978 under the sponsorship of then-Congressman Paul Tsongas. It is clear that both en­tities have made major contributions to the phenomenal economic revital­ization of Lowell, MA. For those of us who knew Lowell in the years prior to the park and the Commission, the transformation is nothing short of in­credible. Back then, this chronically depressed mill town had an unemploy­ment rate of 13 percent. In a relatively short time, unemployment has shrunk to about 3.3 percent and new construc­tion in 1983 increased by 1,600 per­cent, according to Dun & Bradstreet. Since the park's inception, a public

8972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April10, 1987 sector contribution of $98 million in Federal and State funds has leveraged a private sector investment of over $238 million in the downtown area alone.

The park and Commission's benefits have been both direct and indirect. In terms of direct economic benefits, the national and State parks attracted some 800,000 recreation visits in 1985, each of which spent between $8 and $10 each, exclusive of lodging. In terms of development, funds appropri­ated by Congress under the park and Commission's development authoriza­tion represent less than half of the public-sector contribution to the downtown revitalization.

Just as important as the visitors from around the country and the world the park and Commission has brought to Lowell and the accompany­ing revitalization are some of the indi­rect benefits that have come to the region. The national park helped to create a consensus by articulating goals for the city and a clear vision for the future. It has contributed to a dra­matic change in image-both the com­munity's self-image and the image it projects to developers, businesses and potential visitors. Lowell and the sur­rounding communities have a bright future due in large part to the fore­sight of Paul Tsongas and the contin­ued support of Congress in recognizing the importance of maintaining ade­quate support for these important projects.

This legislation, in addition to ex­tending the life of the Commission, will also provide an additional $12,100,000 for its activities as well as authorizing an added $2,300,000 for the national park. It will also make some small changes in the authorizing act which will enhance the Commis­sion's effectiveness.

I want to commend the Senate for its past support for the Lowell Park and Commission and express my hope that the appropriate committee and the full Senate will move swiftly to extend the important life of this model Federal Commission.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the REcoRD.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

s. 1012 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

The Act entitled "An Act to provide for the establishment of the Lowell National Historical Park in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and for other purposes", ap­proved June 5, 1978 <92 Stat. 290; 16 U.S.C. 410cc et seq.), is amended-

< 1 > in section 103<a>-<A> by striking "$18,500,000" and inserting

"$19,800,000" in paragraph <1>; and <B> by striking "$21,500,000" and inserting

"$33,600,000" in paragraph <2>;

(2) in section 30l<e><2> by striking "for a period not longer than thirty days" and in­serting "until his successor is appointed";

(3) in section 301<!> by striking "Eight" and inserting "A majority of the incum­bents"; and

<4> in section 30l<i> by striking "ten" and inserting "seventeen". SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATES.

<a> IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in subsection (b), the amendments made by section 1 shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.-The amendments made by section 1<1> shall take effect on October 1, 1987.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in support of this bill to reauthorize the Lowell National Historic Commis­sion and provide additional funds for the Lowell National Historic Park.

Historically, the city of Lowell was a symbol of the age of our industrial revolution. The city was among the first of the planned industrial commu­nities in the Western Hemisphere. For nearly half a century, it was the pre­mier industrial city in America. Unfor­tunately, just as Lowell led the Nation in industrialization-it was also among the first cities to confront the urban blight of the postindustrial revolution era.

Civic, government, and business leaders marshaled a new spirit of part­nership for Lowell to move ahead again. On June 5, 1978, Congress re­sponded with the passage of legisla­tion to create the Lowell National His­toric Park and the Lowell Historic Preservation Commission. Through an innovative partnership between the public and private sectors, the cultural heritage of this outstanding city is being preserved for the appreciation and education of generations of Amer­icans.

The Commission has devised and im­plemented a brilliantly original and ef­fective design for the park. It has been very successful but its work is not fin­ished.

The bill that I am cosponsoring today with my colleague Senator KERRY, will increase the amount au­thorized for the Commission and the park and extend the authority of the Commission for 7 years so that it can continue its fine service to the city and the people of Lowell.

By Mr. BOREN: S. 1013. A bill to amend the Farm

Credit Act of 1971, as amended, to extend authority for financing cooper­ative exports and imports; to the Com­mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

AGRICULTURAL TRADE FINANCING ACT

e Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I am in­troducing today a bill which would extend the Farm Credit System Banks for Cooperatives authority to finance cooperative exports and imports.

The Farm Credit Act Amendments of 1980 gave the banks for coopera-

tives expanded authority to finance export and import transactions that benefit U.S. cooperatives and their members. The banks have successfully implemented that authority; however, the authority terminates on Septem­ber 30, 1990, unless Congress extends it. The bill I am introducing today will remove the "sunset" provision and thereby allay any concerns foreign buyers may have that the authority will be allowed to expire.

When Congress adopted the 1980 amendments, it was believed that we needed a trial period which would allow the banks for cooperatives to prove their ability to provide financing for agricultural exports. After adop­tion of the 1980 amendments, the banks for cooperatives placed the re­sponsibility for these activities with the Central Bank for Cooperatives in Denver, CO. The Central Bank has proven its ability to serve as a finan­cier of agricultural exports.

Since making their first internation­al loan in 1982, the banks for coopera­tives have financed over $5 billion in U.S. farm exports sourced by farmer­owned cooperatives. The banks, through the Central Bank for Coop­eratives, have successfully financed sales into over 25 nations and estab­lished correspondent bank relation­ships in 50 countries. Within 3 years of commencing operation, the banks began to show positive cash-flow from international activities and had re­couped startup costs.

The banks' analysis units carefully monitor both country risk and borrow­er risk to minimize loss potential. Ad­ditionally, the banks use USDA Com­modity Credit Corporation guarantees and the Foreign Credit Insurance As­sociation insurance programs of the Eximbank to the greatest extent possi­ble. The banks effective use of these foreign credit risk management tools has permitted the banks to operate for 5 years without a loan loss.

Farmer-owned cooperatives have a substantial investment of time and money in the establishment of the banks' international services. The so­phisticated operations necessary for effective participation in international markets demand the recruitment and retention of a specialized staff. Critical to its overall success is the ongoing re­lationships with various foreign and domestic parties. The threat of termi­nation of the banks' authority to engage in these activities could impair their ability to continue to function at maximum efficiency.

Mr. President, the international services of the banks for cooperatives is one bright spot in an otherwise dis­tressed Farm Credit System. The bill I am introducing today will allow this to continue.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8973 I ask unanimous consent that the

text of the bill and letters of support from the National Association of Wheat Growers and the American Farm Bureau Federation be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the bill and· letters were ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

s. 1013 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Agricultural Trade Financing Act of 1987".

EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO FINANCE COOPERATIVE EXPORTS AND IMPORTS

SEc. 2. Section 4.20 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 <12 U.S.C. 2208) is amended by-

<1> in the first sentence, striking out "(1)" and", and <2> section 3.7(b) authorizing the financing of certain domestic or foreign en­tities in connection with the import or export activities of cooperatives which are borrowers from the banks for coopera­tives,";

<2> in the second sentence, striking out "either provision" and inserting in lieu thereof "such provisions".

AMERICAN FAR!\( BUREAU FEDERATION, Washington, DC, April 7, 1987.

Hon. DAVID BOREN, Chairman, Agriculture Subcommittee on

Credit, Senate Committee on Agricul­ture, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR BOREN: In 1980 Congress authorized the Banks for Cooperatives to fi­nance U.S. international trade involving farmer-owned cooperatives. Subsequently, the Banks for Cooperatives placed the re­sponsibility for international lending activi­ties with the Central Bank for Cooperatives in Denver, Colorado.

The legislation contained a sunset provi­sion whereby these new authorities would expire in ten years, which is September 30, 1990. It was believed that a trial period was necessary in order to allow the Banks for Cooperatives to prove their ability as finan­ciers of agricultural exports.

Since the enactment of this legislation, the Central Bank for Cooperatives has been of real assistance in the export of agricul­tural commodities. They have proved their ability to assist farmers and ranchers in the international trade field.

The American Farm Bureau Federation believes it is important to indicate to our international trading partners that the Cen­tral Bank for Cooperatives will be involved in long-term trade financing. We believe it is important to remove the sunset provision that exists in current law. We urge your support for legislation to remove the sunset limitation on the international lending au­thority of the Banks for Cooperatives.

Sincerely, JOHN C. DATI",

Executive Director, Washington Offi ce.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS,

Washington DC, March 16, 1987. Hon. DAVID L. BOREN, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR BOREN: This is to indicate the National Association of Wheat Growers support for legislation which would remove the sunset limitation on the international

lending authorities of the Banks for Coop­eratives <BCs>.

In 1980 Congress authorized the BCs to fi­nance U.S. international trade involving farmer-owned cooperatives. Subsequently, the BCs placed the responsibility for inter­national lending activities with the Central Bank for Cooperatives <CBC> in Denver, Colorado.

Since making its first international loan in 1982, CBC has financed over $5 billion of U.S. agricultural exports. The bank fi­nanced $1.3 billion in farm exports in 1986 alone. It has financed exports into 27 for­eign countries and has established 114 for­eign correspondent banking relationships in 48 countries. CBC is a significant partici­pant in the Commodity Credit Corpora­tion's GSM programs as well as PL 480. CBC has conducted this business without incurring a loan loss despite a very difficult international operating environment.

Farmers, through their cooperatives, have a substantial investment of time and money in the BC export finance program. Allowing the sunset limitation to remain in force and to cause these authorities to expire would be a loss of an investment and a proven credit source vital to building U.S. farm ex­ports.

We hope that legislation is successful in repealing the sunset limitation on BC inter­national lending authorities, and we support your efforts to pass this important legisla­tion.

Sincerely, JAMES W. MILLER,

President.•

By Mr. LAUTENBERG: S. 1014. A bill to increase civil mone­

tary penalties based on the effect of inflation; to the Committee on Gov­ernmental Affairs.

S. 1015. A bill to increase criminal monetary penalties based on the effect of inflation; to the Committee on the Judiciary. FEDERAL CIVIL PENALTIES INFLATION ADJUST­

MENT ACT AND FEDERAL CRIMINAL PENALTIES INFLATION ADJUSTMENT ACT

e Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1987 and Federal Criminal Fines Inflation Adjustment Act of 1987. These two bills would adjust for inflation the maximum level of vari­ous civil monetary penalties and crimi­nal fines.

Mr. President, each year the Gov­ernment imposes monetary penalties for violations of civil laws and regula­tions. These penalties are designed to deter businesses and individuals from crossing various legal and regulatory lines, and to penalize those who do.

A resolute Congress wants to talk tough when it sets penalties for violat­ing remedial laws-to protect the envi­ronment, to ensure a safe workplace, to provide for transportation safety, to maintain a fair and competitive mar­ketplace. But, its bark is bigger than its bite. Intervening years of inflation reduce the real impact of the sanction. By its inaction, Congress each year pulls the punch of penalties for a vari­ety of transgression. While the rate of

inflation has slowed recently, congres­sional inaction spans periods of high inflation, as well as low.

Because of inflation, the price for violating OSHA rules has dropped roughly 65 percent since 1970, when the civil penalty was set at $10,000.

Because of inflation, the price for violating airline safety requirements has dropped roughly 75 percent.

And these are not isolated cases. Throughout the body of Federal laws, there are enforcement provisions that are falling out of date. According to survey of the agricultural laws by the Congressional Research Service, 40 percent of the penalty provisions are over 20 years old. Another 30 percent are over 10 years old.

While every consumer must cope with price hikes in everything from food to medical care, those who violate the law do not.

As a rule, many of the remedial laws remain on the books unchanged until some major development requires that they be rewritten. The law provided a $10,000 penalty for violations of rules and regulations of the Nuclear Regula­tory Commission. After the Three Mile Island disaster, Congress raised that to $100,000 in 1980. It has not changed since.

It would be unrealistic to assume that Congress can or will reopen every major law, to review and update civil enforcement provisions. Congress strains each year to pass a budget and the required appropriations acts. If Congress wants to maintain the deter­rent power of civil penalties, and if it wants to maintain compliance with the law, it must adjust the amount of penalties automatically.

The legislation I propose today would do just that. The Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act would adjust civil penalties automatically for infla­tion. Agencies would be required to publish a schedule of penalties each year. These would apply unless ex­pressly superseded by Congress. Ad­justments would, in the first year, be made retroactive to the last time Con­gress set or raised the penalty.

Mr. President, Congress increased the authorized levels of criminal fines, when it passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The law also established a Sentencing Commis­sion, which would establish guidelines that judges shall apply in setting sen­tences, including the imposition of fines, within the statutory maximums. The Commission's guidelines are now pending before the Congress for review.

While the maximum fines Congress set in 1984 were substantially above previous fine levels, they shall slowly lose value for inflation, unless Con­gress adjusts those fines. Consequent­ly, the Criminal Fines Inflation Ad­justment Act which I am introducing

8974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 would adjust for inflation the maxi­mum authorized criminal fines. It would also direct the Sentencing Com­mission to take account of inflation when it sets its guidelines with respect for fines.

Mr. President, not only is enforce­ment of the law weakened by the fail­ure to update fines and penalties, the Federal Treasury is denied tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Total fines, penalties, and forfeit­ures of the Federal Government in fiscal year 1986 topped $420 million. This does not include those collected under the tax laws-which generally are not identified separately from tax receipts themselves. By inflation ad­justing penalties each year, revenues would increase. If this adjustment in­cludes inflation since the penalty was set, the impact would be substantial.

Mr. President, unfortunately the OMB maintains no detailed central ac­count that tracks penalty assessments and collections and matches them with the laws under which they are imposed. There is no accounting of which laws need updating the most. Apparently, the bureaucracy thinks $400 million is small change that is not worth watching more closely.

Under each bill I am introducing, OMB would be required to maintain a central accounting of agencies' per­formance and collections. So, Congress and the public would know whether the laws are being enforced.

Mr. President, Congress should ensure that we have civil monetary penalties and criminal fines that pack as much punch tomorrow as they did the day a resolute Congress passed them. That would mean more respect for the laws, and more money in the Treasury. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act and the Fed­eral Criminal Fines Inflation Adjust­ment Act are intended to secure these goals.

I urge my colleagues to support these two bills.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the two bills be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

s. 1014 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the

"Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjust­ment Act of 1987".

FINDINGS AND PURPOSE SEC. 2. (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds

that-<1 > the power of Federal agencies to

impose civil monetary penalties for viola­tions of Federal law and regulations plays an important role in deterring violations, and furthering the policy goals embodied in such laws and regulations;

<2> the dollar amount of many civil mone­tary penalties has been reduced due to infla­tion that has occurred since Congress last set or adjusted the penalty amount;

(3) the reduction by inflation of civil mon­etary penalties has reduced the effect of civil monetary penalties in deterring viola­tions and promoting compliance with the law, and has reduced revenues to the Feder­al Government; and

(4) the Federal Government does not maintain comprehensive, detailed account­ing of the efforts of governmental agencies to assess and collect civil monetary penal­ties.

(b) PuRPosEs.-The purposes of the Act are to-

< 1 > provide for regular adjustment for in­flation of civil monetary penalties;

<2> maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties and to promote compli­ance with the law;

(3) improve the collection by the Federal Government of civil monetary penalties.

INFLATION ADJUSTMENT OF CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES

SEc. 3. Effective January 1, 1988, any civil monetary penalty provided for in Federal law shall be adjusted as provided in this Act. ADJUSTMENT FOR TAXABLE YEAR BEGINNING IN

1987

SEC. 4. (a) IN GENERAL.-Not later than De­cember 15, 1986, the head of each Federal agency shall prescribe and publish in the Federal Register a schedule of civil mone­tary penalties for each civil monetary penal­ty provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Federal agency which shall apply for the year beginning after December 31, 1987, in lieu of the penalties provided in the law as of the date of the enactment of the Fed­eral Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1987.

(b) METHOD OF PRESCRIBING SCHEDULE.­The schedule of civil monetary penalties shall be prescribed by increasing each penal­ty amount by the historical cost-of-living ad­justment. Any increase determined under the preceding sentence shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.

(C) HISTORICAL COST-OF-LIVING ADJUST· :MENT.-For purposes of subsection (b), the historical cost-of-living adjustment for each penalty amount is the percentage <if any) bywhich-

<1> the average of the Consumer Price Index as of the close of the 12-month period ending on September 30, 1987, exceeds

(2) the average of the Consumer Price Index as of the close of the 12-month period ending on September 30 of the calendar year in which such penalty amount was last determined under law prior to the date of the enactment of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1987.

ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS FOR TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER 1988

SEc. 5. (a) IN GENERAL.-Not later than De­cember 15 of 1988 and each subsequent cal­endar year, the head of each Federal agency shall prescribe and publish in the Federal Register schedules of civil monetary penal­ties which shall apply in lieu of the sched­ule prescribed under section 4 with respect to taxable years beginning in the succeeding calendar year.

(b) METHOD OF PRESCRIBING SCHEDULES.­The schedule which under subsection <a>. is to apply in lieu of the schedule prescribed under section 4, with respect to years begin­ning in any calendar year shall be pre­scribed by-

< 1 > increasing each base penalty amount by the cost-of-living adjustment for such calendar year; and

<2> adding to the schedule any civil mone­tary penalty within the jurisdiction of the Federal agency that was enacted into law in the previous calendar year and increasing the base penalty amount by the cost-of­living adjustment for the current calendar year. Any increase determined under clause < 1 > or (2) shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.

<c> CosT-oF-LIVING AnJUsTMENT.-For pur­poses of subsection (b), the cost-of-living ad­justment for any calendar year is-

(1) in the case of base penalties provided by law before December 15, 1987, the per­centage (if any) by which-

<A> the Consumer Price Index for the pre­ceding calendar year, exceeds

<B> the Consumer Price Index for the cal­endar year 1987; and

(2) in the case of base penalties provided by law on or after December 15, 1987, the percentage (if any) by which-

<A> the Consumer Price Index for the pre­ceding calendar year, exceeds

<B> the Consumer Price Index for the cal­endar year in which the base penalty was provided by law.

(d) CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ANY CALEN­DAR YEAR.-For purposes of subsection <c>, the Consumer Price Index for any calendar year is the average of the Consumer Price Index as of the close of the 12-month period ending on September 30 of such calendar year.

DEFINITIONS SEc. 6. For purposes of this Act-< 1 > the term "Consumer Price Index"

means the Consumer Price Index for all­urban consumers published by the Depart­ment of Labor; and

<2> the term "base penalty amount" means the civil monetary penalty provided by law, absent any adjustments made pursu­ant to this Act.

REPORTING SEC. 7. (a) COMPREHENSIVE REPORT BY THE

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.-The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall annually prepare and issue a comprehensive report that includes-

< 1 > the number and amount of civil fines or penalties imposed pursuant to each provi­sion of law providing for such fines or pen­alties; and

<2> the number and amount of such fines and penalties actually collected.

(b) REPORTS BY OTHER AGENCIES.-The Di­rector of the Office of Management and Budget shall establish a system of reporting to be used by the agencies empowered to impose or collect civil monetary fines and penalties to enable the Director to prepare the report described in subsection <a>.

s. 1015 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the

"Federal Criminal Penalties Inflation Ad­justment Act of 1987".

FINDINGS AND PURPOSE SEC. 2. (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds

that-<1 > the power to impose monetary fines

for various Federal criminal offenses plays

April 10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8975 an important role in deterring offenses and in punishing those who violate the law;

(2) the Federal Government does not maintain comprehensive, detailed account­ing of the imposition and collection of crimi­nal fines;

<3> the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 increased the authorized fines for various criminal offenses; and

<4> the deterrent effect of authorized criminal fines will depreciate in the future because of inflation unless they are adjust­ed.

<b> PuRPosEs.-The purposes of the Act areto-

<1> provide for regular adjustment for in­flation of criminal fines;

<2> maintain the deterrent effect of crimi­nal fines and to promote compliance with the law; ·

<3> improve the collection by the Federal Government of criminal fines. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COM­

MISSION TO INCLUDE INFLATION AS A FACTOR IN GUIDELINE ADJUSTMENTS SEc. 3. Subsection <n> of section 994 of

title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "In periodically reviewing and revising the guidelines promulgated pursuant to the pro­visions of this section, the Commission shall modify the guidelines with respect to crimi­nal monetary fines to reflect the impact of inflation on the level of such fines.". ADJUSTMENT OF CRIMINAL FINES BY INFLATION

F:ACTOR SEc. 4. Section 3571 of title 18, United

States Code, as added by the Comprehen­sive Crime Control Act of 1984 <Public Law 98-473>. is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection:

"(c) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.-(!) The authorized fines provided in subsection (b) shall be adjusted for inflation as provided in this subsection.

"<2><A> Not later than December 15, 1988, the Attorney General shall prescribe and publish in the Federal Register a schedule of authorized fines which shall apply for of­fenses in the year beginning after December 31, 1988, in lieu of the fines authorized in subsection <b>.

"(B) The schedule of authorized fines shall be prescribed by increasing the amounts in subsection <b> by the historical cost-of-living adjustment for the preceding four years. Any increase determined under the preceding sentence shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.

"(3)(A) Not later than December 15 of 1992 and every subsequent four years, the Attorney General shall prescribe and pub­lish in the Federal Register a schedule of authorized fines which shall apply in lieu of the schedule prescribed in paragraph <2> and the schedule last prescribed pursuant to this paragraph.

"<B> The schedule of authorized fines shall be prescribed by increasing the amounts prescribed in paragraph (2) or the amounts last prescribed under this subsec­tion, whichever are greater, by the histori­cal cost-of-living adjustment for the preced­ing four years. Any increase determined under this subparagraph shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.

"(4) For purposes of this subsection-"(!) the historical cost-of-living adjust­

ment for the preceding four years means the percentage by which-

"<A> the Consumer Price Index for the preceding calendar year, exceeds

"<B> the Consumer Price Index for the calendar year four years prior to the preced­ing calendar year;

"(2) the Consumer Price Index for any calendar year is the average of the Con­sumer Price Index as of the close of the 12-month period ending on September 30 of such calendar year; and

"(3) the term Consumer Price Index means the Consumer Price Index for all­urban consumers published by the Depart­ment of Labor.".

SEC. 5. (a) COMPREHENSIVE REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.-The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall annually prepare and issue a comprehensive report that includes-

< 1 > the number and amount of criminal fines imposed pursuant to each provision of law providing for such fines; and

<2> the number and amount of such fines actually collected.

(b) REPORTS BY OTHER AGENCIES.-The Di­rector of the Office of Management and Budget shall establish a system of reporting to enable the Director to prepare the report described in subsection <a>.e

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. SIMON, Mr. HARKIN, and Ms. MIKULSKI):

S. 1016. A bill to provide financial as­sistance for the establishment and op­eration of literacy tutoring programs; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

LITERACY TUTORING ASSISTANCE ACT Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am

introducing a bill today to support a literacy corps program which I believe will benefit schools and other public community agencies across the coun­try. It would provide startup grants to colleges willing to establish special three-credit academic courses in which undergraduates tutor reading, writing, and mathematics to the illiterate in classroom settings.

This bill would provide $9.2 million in fiscal year 1988 and $18.3 million in fiscal year 1989 to establish this pro­gram at 1,000 colleges and universities across the country. These funds would generate 10 million hours of literacy tutoring over the 2-year period.

The main thrust of the program is to provide a more realistic education for college students by injecting expe­rience into the undergraduate curricu­lum. As a practical matter, the under­graduates enroll in three-credit elec­tive courses in which they are required to tutor 6 hours each week of the se­mester in established community agencies, such as innercity schools, Head Start centers, prisons, adult lit­eracy centers, juvenile detention facili­ties, and in agencies for the handi­capped children and the emotionally disturbed.

In addition, the undergraduates are required to meet in weekly seminars with monitoring professors from vari­ous departments, such as sociology, education, and economics, where the student's experience in the community is matched against the theories of the academic discipline. In this way, the undergraduates get a mix of experi­ence and theory at the same time, and a more realistic education than they can get through courses that provide only classroom theory.

But the undergraduates benefit in other ways, in that these courses pro­vide the sort of solid work experience that will help them to make a sensible choice of a college major, and a career. It is this same work experience that will help them to get a job upon grad­uation, since they will be able to show employers a clear record of achieve­ment at something genuinely impor­tant. And, not least, these courses permit undergraduates to learn the old virtues of duty, obligation, and compassion.

The project is inexpensive to oper­ate. The undergraduates are not paid to do the tutoring, and there are no capital expenditures of any kind. The undergraduates are permitted to work only in established community agen­cies, such as the public schools, that have teaching programs already un­derway, and all tutoring is done by the undergraduates under the direct su­pervision of a classroom teacher, who provides the undergraduates with the minimal on-the-job training they re­quire. The undergraduates usually tutor on a 1-to-2 ratio, in the back of the classroom, with children or adults assigned to them by the classroom teacher, who evaluates their work on a daily basis.

Since the undergraduates do the tu­toring as part of a college course, they are reliable, absolutely free, and pro­foundly effective. Moreover, virtually all college students would be eligible to participate, since these courses are offered as electives, and since under­graduates, generally, must take elec­tive courses to get a degree.

Each undergraduate in this project is required to produce a minimum of 60 hours of tutoring per semester­that is, 6 hours of tutoring per week times the 10 weeks in a semester. As a result, 1,000 undergraduates would produce a minimum of 60,000 hours of reliable tutoring-that is, 1000 under­graduates x 60 hours of tutoring each. If 1,000 institutions of higher educa­

tion across the country establish pro­grams, 165 students at each institution generating 60 hours of tutoring each, would result in approximately 10 mil­lion hours of tutoring services. Valued at $20 per hour, this represents an as­tounding $200 million in tutorial serv­ices.

And this does not take into account the vast amounts of new wealth that will be created over the course of a working lifetime hy those who are taught to read by the undergraduates.

This bill is based upon a model pro­gram called the Washington Educa­tion Project begun by Mr. Norman Manasa in 1969. The program ran for 4 years at the University of Miami, and had over 1,000 undergraduates enroll in these courses and work as tutors in prisons, inner city schools, and Head Start Centers throughout the City.

Here is the evaluation of the effec­tiveness of the tutors, written by the

8976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 principal ofa special Miami school fOr emotionally disturbed adolescents:

Because (of the tutors], our remedial reading students have had reading level. . gains of one to two years within a three to live month period of tutorage. · <Emphasis supplied.> - It is nOWOPerating at St. John's Uni­versity in New York with funds provid­ed by grants from the New York Daily News, the Xerox Foundation, and the American Can Co. Foundation.

While a few projects of this kind have been funded on an individual basis with corporate donations, I find the results of the program and the amount of tutoring services which we can receive for a modest investment are so compelling, that Federal funds would be returned manyfold on this initiative. _

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill appear in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

·s. 1o16 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the

"Literacy Corps Assistance Act of 1987". PURPOSE

SEc. 2. It is the purpose of this Act to pro­vide financial assistance to institutions of higher education to promote the develop­ment of literacy corps programs to be oper­ated by institutions of higher education in public community agencies in the communi­ties in which such institutions are located.

LITERACY TUTORING PROGRAM SEc. 3. From the amount appropriated

pursuant to section 7 for any fiscal year, the Secretary is authorized, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, to make grants to institutions of higher education to carry out literacy corps programs.

USES OF FUNDS SEc. 4. Funds made available under this

Act may be used for-< 1 > grants to institutions of higher educa­

tion for-<A> the costs of participation of institu­

tions of higher education in the literacy corps program for which assistance is sought; and

<B> stipends for student coordinators en­gaged in the literacy corps program for which assistance is sought; and

<2> technical assistance, collection and dis­semination of information, and evaluation in accordance with section 6.

APPLICATIONS SEC. 5. (a) APPLICATION REQUIRED.-Each

institution of higher education desiring to receive a grant under this Act, shall submit an application to the Secretary, at such time, in such manner, and containing or ac­companied by such information as the Sec­retary may reasonably require.

(b) CONTENTS OF APPLICATION.-Each SUCh application shall-

<1> contain assurances that the institution will use the grant in accordance with section 4;

<2> contain adequate assurances that-<A> the institution has established one or

more courses of instruction for academic credit which are designed to combine the training of undergraduate students in vari-

ous academic departments such as social sci­ences, economics, and education with expe­rience as tutors, and

<B> such individuals will be required, as a condition of receiving credit in such course, to perform not less than six hours of volun­tary, uncompensated service each week of the academic term in a public community agency as a tutor in such agency's educa­tional or literacy program; and

<3> contain such other assurances as the Secretary may reasonably require.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COORDINATION CONTRACT

SEC. 6. (a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.-To the extent that funds are available therefor pursuant to section 7, the Secretary shall enter into a contract with a qualified entity-

< 1) to provide technical assistance to grant recipients under this Act;

<2> to collect and disseminate information with respect to programs assisted under this Act; and

<3> to evaluate such programs and report · to the Secretary the results of such evalua­

tions. (b) QUALIFIED ENTITY DEFINED.-For the

purposes of subsection (a), the term "quali­fied entity" means a private nonprofit orga­nization which has-

< 1 > experience in administering a program consistent with the requirements of this Act; and

<2> demonstrated ability to coordinate, manage, and provide technical assistance to programs that receive grants under this Act.

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS SEc. 7. There are authorized to be appro­

priated to carry out the provisions of this Act $9,200,000 for fiscal year 1988 and $18,300,000 for fiscal year 1989.

DEFINITIONS SEc. 8. For the purpose of this Act-(1 > the term "public community agency"

means an established community agency with an established program of instruction such as elementary and secondary schools, Head Start centers, prisons, agencies serving youth, and agencies serving the handi­capped, including disabled veterans;

(2) the term "institution of higher educa­tion" has the same meaning given that term by section 120l<a> of the Higher Education Act of 1965; and

(3) the term "Secretary" means the Secre­tary of Education.

By Mr. GRASSLEY: S. 1017. A bill to amend title 11 of

the United States Code to make non­dischargeable any debt arising from a judgment or consent decree requiring an individual debtor to make restitu­tion as a result of a violation of State law; to the Committee on the Judici­ary.

BANKRUPTCY ANTIFRAUD ACT e Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that seri­ous impedes our State's ability to pro­tect consumers from fraud. I'm speak­ing of the use of the Federal Bank­ruptcy Code to provide a safe harbor for the fraudulent rip-off artists so prevalent in our society.

Under our current bankruptcy law, a debtor may discharge a State court order to reimburse a State for costs payable to consumers injured by unfair and deceptive business prac­tices. I might add that a debtor de­fendant may also use this trick to

avoid court-ordered environmental cleanup charges.

This is an issue I raised late in the last Congress, but, unfortunately, time did not permit us to move a bill through the Judiciary Committee.

The legislation I am offering today I is similar to S. 2531, which was the subject of very good hearings in the Judiciary Committee last September.

The legiSlation- h&S been modified slightly to address some concerns about the breadth of the language, and to take into account recent court decisions.

As with the earlier bill, it is support­ed by our State attorneys general. Indeed, it is fully consistent with ana­tional association of attorneys general resolution, which was unanimously ap­proved by NAAG at its June 1986 con­ference. Mr. President, I ask unani­mous consent that copy of that resolu­tion be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

BANKRUPTCY AMENDMENT

CONSUMER PROTECTION Whereas, state Attorneys General are

charged with the responsibility of enforcing state consumer protection statutes designed to protect the public from fraudulent acts and practices; and

Whereas, state Attorneys General are also charged with the accompanying responsibil­ity of recovering restitution/damages for the victims of violations of state consumer protection statutes; and

Whereas, the recovery of restitution/dam­ages is an integral part of the enforcement of these laws; and

Whereas, the individual victims of these fraudulent acts and practices are often unable to enforce their rights because of fi­nancial or other reasons; and

Whereas, state consumer protection stat­utes were designed to allow state Attorneys General to protect just these kinds of vic­tims; and

Whereas, those who perpetrate consumer frauds ought not to be allowed to discharge in bankruptcy their obligations to repay ill­gotten gains; and

Whereas, offices of the state Attorneys General have been plagued with increasing numbers of bankruptcy filings by those who defraud consumers and then seek haven in the bankruptcy courts; and

Whereas, the standing of the states to challenge the dischargeability of these resti­tution/ damages orders remains in question; and

Whereas, the bankruptcy code has been interpreted to allow the discharge of state court ordered restitution/ damages in con­sumer protection cases and/or to require litigation in both state court and bankrupt­cy court; and

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Whereas, state Attorneys General are

charged with the responsibility of enforcing state environmental protection statutes de­signed to protect the public from dangers and hazards to health and safety; and

Whereas, state Attorneys General are charged with the accompanying responsibil­ity of recovering restitution/damages for

April10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8977 clean up, etc. as a result of violations of these environmental protection statutes; and

Whereas, the recovery of restitution/dam­ages is an integral part of the enforcement of these laws; and

Whereas, those responsible for creating health and safety dangers and hazards ought not to be allowed to discharge their restitution/damages obligations to the states; and

Whereas, the bankruptcy code may allow the discharge of state court ordered restitu­tion/damages in these environmental pro­tection cases; and

CRIMINAL RESTITUTION

Whereas, the bankruptcy code has been interpreted to allow a convicted felon to avoid making court ordered restitution; and

Whereas, court ordered restitution is an integral part of rehabilitation; and

Whereas, there is no valid reason to re­quire the recipient of criminal restitution to file an objection to discharge in order to ensure that a restitution order will be con­sidered nondischargeable: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the National Association of Attorneys General urges Congress to remedy these above-noted "loopholes" in the bankruptcy code by providing for the nondischargeability of debts arising from violations of State laws enforced by govern­mental entities; and be it further

Resolved, That the Association directs its Executive Director and General Counsel to transmit these views to the United States Congress, other appropriate agencies and officials, and interested persons.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ad­dressed this loophole in the context of an order of restitution arising from a criminal fraud conviction in State court. On December 12, 1986, the court held that the bankruptcy code cannot shield a criminal defendant from paying restitution to victims for ill-gotten gains Kelly v. Robinson.

As much as I applaud this common­sense result, the problem in consumer cases and environmental cases is not addressed; the loophole is not closed.

Mr. President, our various State at­torneys general want to vigorously prosecute consumer fraud. They want to aggressively protect our environ­ment, and carry on other police and regulatory activities.

This simple amendment will allow them to do it, without one hand tied behind their backs. It makes nondis­chargeable any debt arising from a judgment or consent decree requiring a debtor to make restitution as a result of a violation of State law.

I hope all my colleagues can join me in this effort, because I cannot believe that we now allow the bankruptcy code to sanction this law breaking.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent to include at this point the text of the bill.

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

s. 1017 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Bankruptcy Anti­fraud Act of 1987".

NONDISCHARGEABILITY OF CERTAIN DEBTS FOR RESTITUTION

SEC. 2. Section 523<a> of title 11, United States Code, is amended-

(1) in paragraph (9), by striking out "or" at the end thereof;

<2> by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph < 11); and

<3> by inserting after such paragraph (9) the following:

"(10) to the extent that such debt arises from a violation by the debtor of a civil or criminal law enforceable by an action by a governmental unit to recover restitution, damages, civil penalties, attorney fees, costs or any other relief, or to the extent that such debt arises from an agreed judgment or other agreement by the debtor to pay money or transfer property in settlement of such an action by a governmental unit; or".

CONFORMING AMENDMENT

SEc. 3. Section 1328<a><2> of title 11, United States Code, is amended by striking out "section 523(a)(5)" and inserting in lieu thereof "paragraphs (5) and <10> of section 523<a>".e

By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself, Mr. WEICKER, and Mr. HARKIN):

S. 1018. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that a taxpayer conscientiously opposed to participation in war may elect to have such taxpayer's income, estate, or gift tax payments spent for nonmilitary purposes; to create the U.S. Peace Tax Fund to receive such tax payments; to establish a U.S. Peace Tax Fund Board of Trustees; and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

U.S. PEACE TAX FUND

• Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I introduce the U.S. Peace Tax Fund Act. Joining me as original cosponsors of this legis­lation are my good friends Senator WEICKER of Connecticut and Senator HARKIN of Iowa.

During the next few days many Americans will find themselves scram­bling to complete their tax returns before the April 15 deadline. To be sure, taxtime is filled with anxiety. But to a small portion of our popula­tion the payment of Federal taxes can bring real anguish. For a conscientious objector, payment of Federal, estate, personal, or gift taxes represents par­ticipation in war.

Since 1945 an eligible conscientious objector has been excused from combat. Although our Nation long has recognized moral and religious opposi­tion to war, it has failed to address the depth and scope of such objections. Our tax laws do not recognize that conscience not only prohibits partici­pation on the battlefield, but also in the preparation for war through pay­ments to the military.

The Peace Tax Fund Act, if enacted, would allow complete participation in our Federal Government by all citi-

zens without many being forced to compromise deeply held beliefs of any citizen. In United States venus Seeger, Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone eloquently stated the relation­ship of conscience and state:

Both morals and sound policy require that the state should not violate the conscience of the individual. All our history gives con­firmation to the view that liberty of con­science has a moral and social value which make it worthy of preservation at the hands of the state. So deep in its significance and vital, indeed, is it to the integrity of man's moral and spiritual nature that nothing short of the self-preservation of the state should warrant its violation; and it may well be questioned whether the state which pre­serves its life by a settled policy of violation of the conscience of the individual will not in fact ultimately lose it by the process.

Over the years I have received many letters from constituents describing their disapproval of military taxes and their desire to have the Federal Gov­ernment respect such objections. Some citizens write of their decision to set aside their beliefs and pay their taxes in full, despite the anguish such pay­ment causes. Others, perhaps follow­ing Albert Einstein's advice, "Never do anything against conscience even if the State demands it," refuse to pay a portion of their taxes. Some Ameri­cans purposefully keep their income below the taxable level, so that they can avoid the decision altogether.

It is important to point out what the Peace Tax Fund legislation is not. The Peace Tax Fund is not a method by which a citizen may lodge protest over wasteful defense programs. Nor is it a tool to circumvent foreign policy ini­tiatives. Tax liabilities cannot be re­duced through participation in the Peace Tax Fund. The Peace Tax Fund Act was developed not for those indi­viduals seeking to alter national policy, but rather to allow certain indi­viduals to fully uphold Federal law without violating their consciences.

The Peace Tax Fund would allow these sincere conscientious objectors the opportunity to pay their Federal taxes in full. Those who qualify may choose to have that portion of their taxes which would go to military ac­tivities instead be diverted to a special trust fund. An appointed board of citi­zens would make recommendations to Congress for the appropriation of the fund, with the stipulation that such dollars be used for nonmilitary activi­ties only.

As defined by the Peace Tax Fund Act, an eligible conscientious objector is anyone who has obtained this status under the Military Selective Service Act. Others may submit a question­naire to the Secretary of the Treasury certifying his or her beliefs and how those beliefs affect that individual's life. The IRS would no longer be re­quired to challenge a conscientious ob­jector's status in U.S. district court,

8978 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 with the burden of proof now falling upon the claimant.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation so impor­tant to the protection of personal and religious beliefs of many citizens who find themselves each tax season tom between the law and conscience.e

By Mr. RIEGLE (for himself and Mr. LEviN):

S. 1019. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the tax-exempt treatment of self-insured workers' compensation funds; to the Committee on Finance. SELF-INSURED WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUNDS

TAX EXEMPT STATUS CLARIFICATION ACT

e Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clar­ify the tax-exempt status of workers' compensation self-insurance funds. I am pleased to have my friend and col­league from Michigan, Senator LEviN as an original cosponsor.

The bill we are introducing today would provide group self-insured funds with tax exempt status. Recently, the tax status of these funds has been questioned by the Internal Revenue Service. Our bill will allow these funds to continue operating as they have in previous years.

During the 1960's, small- and medium­size businesses began to band together forming open group funds to collec­tively self-insure their workers' com­pensation coverage. In doing this they greatly reduced their premiums while continuing to provide maximum bene­fits. Self-insuring funds are a simple and efficient method for small em­ployers to meet their workers' com­pensation liability obligation. The sole purpose for these funds is to provide this coverage.

The premiums are collected and placed in a fund to provide benefits during the year. In some instances there is a surplus in these funds due to varying circumstances. The surpluses are returned to the members immedi­ately upon authorization of their regu­lator. In Michigan's case, the regulator is the Michigan Department of Labor. The IRS has recently audited several funds and concluded that the surplus­es are subject to income tax. The IRS argues that since these funds are not actually mutual insurance funds they should not be treated for tax purposes as such.

A moratorium has been placed on the IRS ruling until August 15, 1987 on the taxing of these funds. Congress must now provide a permanent solu­tion. It is important to emphasize that the approach we are outlining may not be the only way to solve this problem.

This proposed legislation is consist­ent with the IRS' prior tax treatment of self-insured funds, which until re­cently were considered tax exempt. We must continue to help small busi-

nesses and assist them in providing their employees with affordable work­men's compensation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the text of S. 1019 be printed in the RECORD.

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

S.1019 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 "Self-Insured Workers' Compensation Funds Tax Exempt Status Clarification Act of 1987". SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF TAX EXEMPT STATUS OF

SELF-INSURED WORKERS COMPENSA­TION FUNDS.

Section 501<c> of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"<26> Any corporation, fund, or trust whose principal purpose is to function as a self-insured workers' compensation or work­ers' disability fund.". SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply to all taxable years beginning before, on or after December 31, 1987.e

By Mr. MOYNIHAN <for himself and Mr. HATFIELD):

S. 1020. A bill to create the Office of the Librarian of Congress Emeritus; to the Committee on Rules and Adminis­tration.

LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS EMERITUS

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my distinguished colleague, Senator HATFIELD, in introducing a bill to create the office of Librarian of Congress Emeritus in the Library of Congress.

The Librarian of Congress serves in an office of great distinction in this country. Since January 29, 1802, when President Jefferson appointed the first Librarian of Congress, John J. Beckley, there have only been 11 other such appointments.

The history of the Library of Con­gress is filled with some rather de­lightful stories. The early days of the Library were turbulent, to say the least. During Napoleonic Wars, the United States sided with the French and in 1813 American troops burned the Parliament House and the Library of Canada in present day Toronto. Seeking revenge, a year later British troops stormed into Washington, burned the White House and the Cap­itol, and within the Capitol, destroyed the original Library of Congress. Rec­ognizing that this national treasure must be restored, the then-retired Jef­ferson offered his personal library at Monticello as a replacement.

However, Jefferson's offer was con­sidered political by the Congress. The New England States were against buying the collection from Jefferson, the Mid-Atlantic States were mixed, but a unified vote by the South car­ried the measure. The Congress ac-

quired the entire collection, paying $23,950 for its 6,487 volumes, which ar­rived in a single shipment of 10 horse­drawn wagons brought across the to­bacco roads of Virginia.

After these shaky beginnings, the Li­brary of Congress survived and pros­pered. And the person who must pre­side over this great institution, the Li­brarian of Congress, is vested with tre­mendous responsibilities. The present Librarian of Congress, Dr. Daniel J. Boorstin oversees a $235 million budget and a staff of 5,000. Indeed, larger than many major corporations in this country.

Each of the 12 Librarians is remem­bered for specified contributions. In Daniel Boorstin's case, these are nu­merous indeed. His tenure began on November 12, 1975. Within 2 months of taking office, Dr. Boorstin initiated a yearlong study of the Library, the result of which was a major reorgani­zation of the Library in 1978. Under his watch, the new third Library of Congress building, the Madison Build­ing was completed and occupied, and renovation and restoration of the Li­brary's two existing buildings was un­dertaken.

Yet, more than these contributions, Daniel Boorstin will be remembered for the type of man he is. A Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, he is a scholar with great vision. It has been said that it is difficult to distinguish the man from the institution; Dr. Boorstin used his position to further the name of the Library and promoted many causes such as literacy. His presence will be missed indeed when he retires on June 15, 1987. But by making him a Librari­an of Congress Emeritus, we can mini­mize the loss.

Mr. President, this resolution is simple and straightforward. It simply creates the position-no salary or addi­tional cost to the Government. The Li­brary of Congress will provide office space and parking privileges. The bill merely says that we, the Congress, have high regard for the office of Li­brarian of Congress and see fit to create an honorary position for the Li­brarian upon retirement. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and hope that we can deal with this expeditiously. e Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to join wholeheartedly in cosponsoring the legislation proposed by Senator MoYNIHAN to create the post of Librarian of Congress Emeri­tus. The bill being introduced by my colleague from New York will provide the Library of Congress with an im­portant post for leadership and guid­ance.

The Library of Congress bears a re­sponsibility that is greater than any similar academic institution in the world. Its vital role requires the ongo­ing commitment of full support from

April10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8979 the Congress. A part of that commit­ment is the provision for taking full advantage of the resources that are available through the offices of a li­brarian emeritus.

For almost 200 years the Library of Congress has served the Congress and the American people as the organizer and disseminator of knowledge and in­formation. In the age of information, the body of knowledge is growing in exponential form. We need great wisdom and skill to deal effectively with this situation.

That wisdom comes, in part, from an understanding of the past--where we have come from, how to interpret our past, and how we have dealt with in­formation.

Only 12 individuals have held the post of Librarian of Congress since 1800. We are fortunate to have at the present time one of the most brilliant and thoughtful of scholars in the ca­pacity of Librarian. His skill, knowl­edge and historical perspective are na­tional resources that, like those of his predecessors and successors should not be wasted.

I congratulate Senator MoYNIHAN for his foresight in proposing the cre­ation of a Librarian of Congress Emer­itus and join him in urging passage of this important piece of legislation.•

By Mr. SPECTER: S. 1021. A bill entitled the "Logan

Relief Act"; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

LOGAN RELIEF ACT

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am today reintroducing legislation which would authorize the Federal Govern­ment to assist residents of the Logan area of Philadelphia by purchasing homes endangered by the disaster that has occurred there.

As my colleagues may recall, I intro­duced identical legislation, S. 2938, in the closing days of the 99th Congress, on October 16, 1986. Since that time, only a modicum of progress has been made in tackling the Logan problem, and the need for Federal assistance clearly remains.

Hundreds of homes in the Logan area are situated in low land and a flood plain of the Wingohock.ing Creek that were filled many years ago with ash and cinders. Recent studies con­tracted by the city of Philadelphia have identified 71 homes as imminent­ly dangerous and another 70 as dan­gerous due to a severe sinking condi­tion caused by the settlement, disinte­gration and shifting of the ash and cinders. Some 957 homes in all are af­fected by the subsidence, and many are now or will soon be uninhabitable.

According to the summary of the final report of the Logan geotechnical study, conducted by Lippincott Engi­neering Associates, one of the contrib­uting factors to the subsidence of the Logan area was mild earthquakes,

which caused the "ash and cinder to lose strength and volume."

Logan residents are like many other Americans in that their homes are their primary financial assets. The widely publicized subsidence problem in the Logan neighborhood has re­duced or eliminated the market value of many of these homes. This is a major financial blow to the position in life of many Logan residents.

Since the problem began, I have ac­tively sought assistance for Logan area residents. At my request, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Samuel Pierce provided mortgage relief to affected homeowners, reliev­ing the debt obligations of FHA-guar­anteed loans. I also sought and re­ceived a similar commitment from the Veterans' Administration.

At my urging, former Gov. Dick Thornburgh declared the Logan area both a Federal major disaster, under Public Law 93-288, and a State disas­ter emergency. Although the adminis­tration denied the Federal assistance request, Governor Thornburgh grant­ed Philadelphia $1 million in State re­development assistance funds for the Logan residents.

In addition, the city of Philadelphia has secured a mortgage payment mor­atorium between Logan residents and eight private lending companies to ease the financial burdens of home­owners, some of whom have already vacated their homes. The mayor of Philadelphia has put forth a plan for the establishment of a private/public corporation to relocate residents and purchase homes. The future of this initiative is uncertain.

According to a city study, the total cost of resolving the Logan problem­buying the dangerous homes, provid­ing relocation assistance and doing re­medial work where possible-is in the range of $30 to $40 million. Despite ef­forts to date, many Logan residents will clearly be left in the lurch. My bill would authorize the Federal Govern­ment to purchase homes at their market value before the subsidence began, thereby ensuring that residents whose homes are in danger or immi­nent danger would be adequately pro­vided for.

There is ample precedent for Feder­al intervention and legislation in emer­gency situations such as this one. A case in point is that of the Centralia, PA, mine fire. The Senate earmarked an appropriation of $42 million for the abandoned mine reclamation fund to provide for the purchase of homes and relocation of Centralia residents. Thus, in addition to providing an ex­ample of general Federal involvement in an emergency situation that is par­tially man made, the Centralia case also serves as a precedent for Federal involvement in the purchase of homes and provision of relocation assistance. The special appropriation for Centra-

lia was used precisely for these pur­poses.

In the case of Love Canal, a commu­nity endangered by highly toxic waste in the 1970's, a disaster declaration along with an earmarked appropria­tion provided Federal assistance in mitigating the environmental danger. Of course, the Love Canal tragedy ulti­mately led to the establishment of Su­perfund, a massive Federal program to respond to certain kinds of manmade environmental problems which neither State nor local authorities can ade­quately address.

Another instance of Federal involve­ment in a manmade emergency came in response to a series of sewer explo­sions in Louisville, KY, in 1981. In that case, President Reagan declared a major disaster to assist homeowners with property damage.

Mr. President, there is, in short, a history of Federal involvement in situ­ations analogous to the one that Logan residents are now facing.

It is my hope that the concurrent ef­forts of Federal, State, and local au­thorities will continue to focus atten­tion on the festering tragedy in Logan. Without these efforts, the residents of that area will be financially disadvan­taged-through no fault of their own­for the rest of their lives.

I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this dilemma, and look for­ward to working with them in resolv­ing it expeditiously.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the RECORD as if read in full.

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

8.1021 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. PURCHASE OF HOMES AND RELOCA­

TION ASSISTANCE The President or his designee is author­

ized to purchase the homes of the residents of the Logan section of Philadephia, Penn­sylvania at their market value prior to re­ports of the subsidence there, provided that the President or his designee deems them dangerous or uninhabitable. Further, the President or his designee shall provide relo­cation assistance to those whose homes are deemed dangerous or uninhabitable. SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

For the purposes of this Act, the Presi­dent or his designee is authorized to expend such sums as may be necessary.

By Mr. SPECTER: S. 1022. A bill to transfer funds out

of certain foreign assistance accounts for prison construction purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. TRANSFER OF PRISON CONSTRUCTION FUNDS OUT

OF CERTAIN FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills to address the nationwide prison overcrowding crisis. This legislation would permit

8980 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April10, 1987 foreign assistance funds designated for drug-producing countries and drug­asset, forfeiture funds to be used in­stead for emergency prison renovation and construction at the Federal, State, and local levels.

The first bill I am introducing would address two problems that have reached critical proportions: illegal drug exports from certain countries and prison overcrowding. This bill au­thorizes the transfer of foreign assist­ance funds from countries which the Secretary of State certifies have failed to make adequate progress in reducing illegal narcotics production to the Jus­tice Department, to be utilized for con­structing additional prison space for serious drug offenders.

Throughout the country-at Feder­al, State, and local levels-overcrowd­ing of jails and prisons strains our cor­rectional system by overextending the staff and resources of each facility and by creating conditions not conducive to rehabilitation of prisoners. Prison staffs simply are not equipped to deal with prisoner unrest and violence re­sulting from overcrowded conditions.

The number of probationers and pa­rolees is growing larger in proportion to the number of incarcerated offend­ers, mainly as a result of the courts' reluctance to sentence convicted crimi­nals to jails and prisons already filled well beyond capacity. The Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics has re­ported that the probation population has grown much faster in the 1980's than has the prison population. There are now approximately three times as many offenders under such communi­ty supervision than there are in prison.

The probation and parole popula­tions have reached record levels, ac­cording to the Bureau of Justice Sta­tistics. Tens of thousands of convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees are re­leased prematurely, because there simply is no space for them in our ex­isting prisons and jails. Courts have in­tervened in approximately 72 percent of the States prison systems, frequent­ly placing limits on the number of prisoners the State may place in exist­ing facilities.

The Justice Department's "Survey of Jails," which analyzed the popula­tions of approximately one-third of the Nation's jails, revealed that 24 per­cent of the facilities in jurisdictions with large jail populations reported that they were under court order to remedy one or more conditions of con­finement. Of these, 81 percent were cited for crowded living units.

At the Federal level, the Bureau of Prisons reports that the overall occu­pancy rate is as high as 148 percent of capacity. The Federal inmate popula­tion has grown from 34,263 prisoners in 1984 to 41,491 at present. At this time, the Bureau reports that all but 3

of the 47 Federal prisons are over ca­pacity.

In the Commonwealth of Pennsylva­nia, for example, the overcrowding sit­uation is especially acute. Federal pris­ons in Lewisburg, Allenwood, and Lor­etto are 27, 38, and 70 percent over ca­pacity, respectively. Even these num­bers, however, pale in comparison to other Federal correctional institutions, such as those in Danbury, CT, and Phoenix, AZ. The Danbury facility is filled to 107 percent over capacity-1,063 prisoners in a prison designed to hold 514. The Phoenix facility is 114 percent over capacity, housing 848 in­mates in a prison designed to hold 396.

This nationwide prison overcrowding crisis is due, in large part, to the stag­gering number of drug offenders being sent to Federal prisons. During fiscal year 1986, admissions for drug offend­ers totaled 7 ,066. The total of this class of inmates is 12,038-an increase from 9,487 in 1985. The administra­tion's intensified crackdown on drug trafficking has increased significantly the number of drug convictions. The accordant burden on the Federal cor­rections system will continue.

In October 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which provides significant resources for drug education, rehabilitation, and law enforcement. However, the serious threat to our country posed by the flow of illegal drugs from foreign sources continues to worsen.

Last year, I wrote to Secretary of State George Shultz regarding the international drug flow into the United States. According to statistics provided by the State Department, five nations-Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Pakistan, and Peru-either in­creased or failed to significantly de­crease their drug production in 1985.

On March 2, 1987, the U.S. Depart­ment of State released its 1986 annual report on the status of worldwide ille­gal narcotics production. According to this report, worldwide production of heroin, cocaine and marijuana in­creased significantly in 1986. The pro­duction of opium, for example, in­creased approximately 50 percent, from 1,640 metric tons in 1985 to 2,515 tons in 1986. Coca leaf production in­creased from 161,000 to 188,320 metric tons during the same period. The pro­duction of marijuana rose from 10,725 to 13,405 tons last year.

This year, the State Department has identified 24 nations as major illegal drug-producing or drug-trafficking countries. Approximately $1 billion in U.S. foreign assistance funds is at issue.

Mr. President, the time has come to send a clear message to those coun­tries receiving U.S. foreign assistance that their lack of cooperation in fight­ing the illegal drug trade no longer will be tolerated.

The legislation I am introducing today authorizes use of certain unobli­gated foreign aid funds for emergency prison construction. Under the bill, those unobligated funds appropriated to provide foreign assistance to coun­tries that are certified as not cooperat­ing with the U.S. war on drugs, would be transferred instead to the Attorney General for use in prison construction. What better use for these unobligated funds than to finance new facilities to house the serious drug offenders of our Nation?

This new source of funding will assist the Federal, State, and local gov­ernments in addressing the prison overcrowding crisis. The bill author­izes the Attorney General to allocate these funds for construction of Feder­al correctional facilities administered by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The bill also authorizes the Attorney Gen­eral to allocate these funds to the Jus­tice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance pursuant to title I, part M of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 <P.L. 99-570). Under this provision, State and local narcotics control pro­grams may renovate and construct cor­rectional facilities for the detention of persons convicted of drug offenses.

These grant provisions will help ad­dress the prison overcrowding crisis. Outdated and outmoded jails with overcrowded conditions exist through­out the country. The Cambria County prison in Ebensburg, PA, is representa­tive of these facilities nationwide. This facility is over 100 years old; construc­tion of the original cell block was com­pleted in 1870; and construction of the present cell block was completed in 1910. Facilities for female prisoners are extremely limited and the jail is subject to overcrowding. Local finan­cial resources for extensive renovation are severely limited.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act's State and Local Grant Program for prison renovation and construction will pro­vide new hope for county commission­ers and local officials who are anxious to address overcrowding problems. The bills I introduce today would aug­ment the financial resources of this vital program by providing much needed additional assistance to State and local governments.

We must continue to address the demand for drugs here in the United States. It is equally clear, however, that we cannot continue to tolerate unlimited foreign supplies of drugs. I believe it is time to demonstrate our seriousness by reducing or eliminating foreign aid to, and perhaps even trade with, nations that have failed to reduce their export of this deadly product. Nothing could be more appro­priate than to use these Federal funds, instead, to help relieve the national crisis of prison overcrowding.

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8981 Mr. President, the problem of prison

overcrowding is an epidemic in this country at the present time. We have a serious problem in this Nation of crime control. About 70 percent of the crimes are committed by career crimi­nals, and if we have adequate prison space in conjunction with an appropri­ate prognun for dealing with career criminals, it is estimated that as much as 50 percent of the violent crimes in this country could be eliminated.

Mr. President, these two bills are di­rected to the core of this kind of prob­lem.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the bill be printed in the RECORD.

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

s. 1022 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That <a><l> notwithstanding any other provision of law, 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act there shall be transferred to the Attor­ney General for-

<A> prison construction; or <B> making grants under part M of title I

of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 <as added by section 1552 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986), those unobligated funds appropriated for the fiscal year 1987 which are allocated for the fiscal year 1987 to provide assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 <other than chapter 8 of part I of such Act which relates to international narcotics con­trol) or to provide foreign military sales fi­nancing under the Arms Export Control Act with respect to a country for which a certifi­cation has been made under subsection <b>.

<2> Funds transferred under paragraph (1) shall remain available for the same periods of time for which such funds would have been available under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control Act, as the case may be, but for the enactment of this Act.

(b) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall certify to the Congress those countries which have failed to make ade­Quate progress in reducing illegal narcotics production.

By Mr. SPECTER: S. 1023. A bill to authorize the ex­

penditure of funds not needed for pur­poses of the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund and the Cus­toms Forfeiture Fund for purposes of emergency prison construction; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EMERGENCY PRISON CONSTRUCTION FUNDING ACT

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the second bill I introduce today. the Emergency Prison Construction Act of 1987, authorizes the Attorney General to allocate moneys in the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund and the Customs Forfeiture Fund for emergency prison construction. This bill is the successor to S. 2828, which I introduced in the 99th Congress.

91-059 0 -89 - 14 (Pt. 7)

Existing law provides for two sepa­rate funds in the U.S. Treasury as re­positories for moneys and property seized by or forfeited to law enforce­ment officials: the Customs Forfeiture Fund and the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.

Property and moneys seized or for­feited in drug-related arrests by the U.S. Customs Service are deposited in the Customs Forfeiture Fund under the Tariff Act of 1930 <19 U.S.C. 1607). Similarly, property and moneys seized or forfeited pursuant to a law enforced or administered by the Department of Justice are deposited in the Depart­ment's Assets Forfeiture Fund (28 U.S.C. 524). The law states that amounts in the fund which currently are not needed for purposes specified in the applicable statutes establishing the funds shall be kept on deposit in the U.S. Treasury.

The increasing number of convicted drug offenders, and the consequent in­crease in the amount of property con­fiscated and moneys forfeited are swelling the deposits in both the Cus­toms Forfeiture Fund and the Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund. As of January 31, 1987, the Justice seizures totaled over $42 million.

The legislation which I am introduc­ing today would amend existing law to allow these forfeiture funds to be used to relieve prison overcrowding. Specifi­cally, it would amend the existing Cus­toms and criminal forfeiture statutes to authorize the Attorney General to allocate forfeited moneys for emergen­cy prison construction. Moneys from the sale of property seized by the Cus­toms Service in drug-related arrests, and not needed for the purposes al­ready set forth in the Customs For­feiture Fund statute, also could be used for emergency prison construc­tion.

This new source of funding will assist Federal, State, and local govern­ments in addressing the prison over­crowding crisis. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to allocate these funds for construction of Federal cor­rectional facilities administered by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The bill also authorizes the Attorney General to allocate these funds to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assist­ance pursuant to title I, subtitle M of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 <P.L. 99-570>. Under this provision, State and local narcotics control programs may renovate and construct correc­tional facilities for the detention of persons convicted of drug offenses.

Mr. President, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act's grant provision for State and local correctional facilities is a new program to address the prison over­crowding crisis. Outdated and out­moded jails with overcrowded condi­tions exist throughout the country. This State and local grant program for prison renovation and construction

will provide new hope for county com­missioners and local officials in ad­dressing overcrowding problems. The bills I introduce today would augment the financial resources of this vital program by providing much needed additional assistance to State and local governments.

Mr. President, this legislation repre­sents an important additional step toward eliminating the problem of prison overcrowding at the Federal, State, and local level. And what more appropriate way to finance the new fa­cilities than with the forfeited spoils of convicted drug traffickers?

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

s. 1023 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 "Emergency Prison Construction Funding Act of 1987". SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ASSETS FORFEIT­

URE FUND.

Paragraph <5> of subsection <c> of section 524 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

"<5> Amounts in the fund which are not currently needed for the purpose of this sec­tion-

"<A> may be used by the Attorney General for-

" (f) prison construction necessary on an emergency basis; or

"(ii) making grants under part M of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 <as added by section 1522 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986); or

"<B> if not used for the purposes provided in clause <A> shall be kept on deposit or in­vested in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the United States.". SEC. 3. CUSTOMS FOREITURE FUND.

Subsection <e> of section 613a of the Tariff Act of 1930, as added by Public Law 98-473, is amended to read as follows:

"<e> Amounts in the fund which are not currently needed for the purpose of this sec­tion-

"<A> may be used by the Attorney General for-

"(i) prison construction necessary on an emergency basis; or

"(ii) making grants under part M of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 <as added by section 1552 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986>; or

"<B> if not used for the purposes provided in clause <A> shall be kept on deposit or in­vested in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the United States.'~.

By Mr. HUMPHREY (for him­self, Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. DOLE, Mr. BYRD, Mr. HELMs, Mr. TlluR.MOND, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. KERRY, Mr. WALLOP, Mr. HOL­LINGS, Mr. SYMMS, Mr. KENNE­DY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. QUAYLE, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. HECHT, Mr. WILSON, Mr. TRIBLE, Mr. D'AMATO, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr.

8982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April10, 1987 GRASSLEY, Mr. McCLURE, and Mr. STEVENs):

S. 1027. A bill to prohibit trade be­tween the Soviet puppet regime in Af­ghanistan and the United States; to the Committee on Finance.

PROHIBITING TRADE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND AFGHANISTAN

e Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, more than 7 years have passed since troops of the Soviet Union poured into Afghanistan and installed a puppet regime in Kabul. The Kabul regime, with the help of 120,000 Soviet troops, is responsible for the deaths of more than 1 million people-most of them noncombatants, including women, children, and the elderly-and the largest refugee population in the world. Last year, the United Nations described the condition of human rights in Afghanistan as: "A situation approaching genocide."

Incredibly, the United States still permits trade with the Soviet puppet regime in Kabul. While there are re­strictions on the sale of certain strate­gic items, the State Department in­forms me that: "Trade in and of itself between the United States and Af­ghanistan is not prohibited." Indeed it is not.

Therefore, today I am introducing on behalf of Senator PRoXMIRE, Sena­tor DoLE, Senator BYRD, and 19 other Senators, and on my own behalf, legis­lation that would prohibit any trade between the United States and the genocidal Kabul regime. Presently, the United States prohibits trade with Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, North Korea, and Kampuchea. I propose to add Afghanistan to that list of rogue nations.

Last year, the United States Congress in Public Law 99-399 expressed concern that Soviet policies in Afghanistan may constitute the crime of genocide. Yet, the United States continues to permit exports to the Kabul regime. Such exports more than doubled last year over exports the previous year. For example, the Kabul regime pur­chases certain aircraft parts and other goods from the United States.

Mr. President, in an annual state­ment marking the seventh anniversary of the brutal Soviet invasion of Af­ghanistan, Deputy Secretary of State Whitehead stated:

It is clear that only steadily increasing pressure on all fronts-military,- political, diplomatic-will induce the Soviets to make the political decision to negotiate the with· drawal of their forces • • • we must keep up the effort.

Unfortunately, that is just more hot air from the State Department. If the Congress wishes to implement such policy, Members will have to take the initiative. The legislation I propose will increase pressure on the Soviet puppet regime. It is long overdue.

Congress has been unanimous in its condemnation of the Kabul regime.

Three weeks ago, the Senate over­whelmingly adopted a joint resolution expressing solidarity with the people of Afghanistan, and calling upon the President to designate March 21, 1987, as Afghanistan Day. Here is an oppor­tunity for Congress to match its in­spiring words with deeds.

Last year, after pressure from Con­gress, the President withdrew most fa­vored nation trading status from Af­ghanistan. As the crisis in Afghanistan worsens, we must send a strong mes­sage that this Nation will not cooper­ate in any fashion with a regime par­ticipating in the genocide of its own people.

This legislation has the bipartisan support of 23 Senators, including our distinguished leaders. I urge each of my colleagues to add their names as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the text of the bill be print­ed in the RECORD.

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

s. 1027 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled., SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPORTS.

<a> IN GENERAL.-No product of Afghani­stan may be imported into the United States after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) PRODUCTS OF AFGHANISTAN.-For pur­poses of this section, the term "Product of Afghanistan" means any article grown, pro­duced, or manufactured <in whole or in part> in Afghanistan and which is exported by the so-called "Democratic Republic of Afghanistan" that is supported by the Soviet Union, or any political party, faction, or regime supported by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Afghanistan. SECTION 2. PROHIBITION ON EXPORTS.

<a> IN GENERAL.-No goods or technology subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or which is exported by a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, may be exported to Afghanistan for the benefit or use by the so-called "Demo­cratic Republic of Afghanistan" that is sup­ported by the Soviet Union, or for use by any political party, faction, or regime in Af­ghanistan supported by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Afghanistan.

(b) ADMINISTRATION.-The prohibition provided under subsection <a> shall be ad­ministered under the Export Administration Act of 1979.

By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. SPECTER):

S. 1037. A bill to establish a proce­dure by which the United States can combat the unfair trading practices of trading partners with whom the United States has excessive trade defi­cits; to the Committee on Finance.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AND TRADE DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT

e Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are no decisions more important for the economic security of the United States than those Congress will make over

the next few months with regard to trade legislation. And we had better make certain that we-and when I say we, I include both Houses of Congress and the administration-put together a trade bill that does what we say it is going to do. America's workers, farm­ers, and businesses expect us to produce legislation that will enhance America's competitiveness in the inter­national marketplace, and reduce the enormous trade deficits that are cost­ing us jobs and profits.

We need changes in our trade poli­cies for the long-term goal of keeping the United States competitive into the 21st century. But in the near term, we've got to address the havoc being created by the biggest trade deficits in our Nation's history. It is my belief that to achieve this immediate goal we needn't rely solely on new laws-we've also got to make existing laws work.

Trade laws already in place give the President authority to combat unfair foreign trade practices. President Reagan gave a recent display of how this authority can work in the semi­conductor case. But I am concerned that it wasn't until Congress was threatening to act and the Japanese were clearly violating an agreement which had been extremely difficult to get them to negotiate in the first place that retaliatory action was taken by the President. If our country is going to take action against unfair traders only in order to pull the legislative rug out from under Congress, we are going to sacrifice more of our industry to foreign competition, and consign more of our workers to the unemployment office.

There is nothing protectionist about taking strong action against unfair trading practices before the practices get out of control. We can already identify what these practices are and what their trade-distorting impact is­beginning in 1985, Congress required the Trade Representative to submit an annual report called the "National Trade Estimates" which contains this information. Why not use this annual estimate of the cost of unfair foreign trade practices and policies as a basis for actions aimed at reducing bilateral trade deficits?

Today I am introducing legislation to do exactly that.

In January, I introduced the Fair Trade Act of 1987, a bill requiring a re­duction in the merchandise trade defi­cit equivalent to the cost to the United States of unfair foreign trade prac­tices. The bill I am offering today rep­resents a fine-tuning of that earlier measure.

The Anti-Discrimination and Trade Deficit Reduction Act of 1987 requires USTR to make a monetary estimate of how much more U.S. companies would be able to export were it not for the unjustifiable, unreasonable, and dis-

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8983 criminatory trade practices of our trading partners. These estimates would become deficit reduction goals for each country with which, in each of the past 2 years, the United States has run a trade deficit of at least $3 billion, and which, for the past 2 years, has been identified in the Na­tional Trade Estimates report as having unfair trade practices. Interest­ed parties would have an opportunity to challenge the deficit reduction goals and the estimates on which they are based, and USTR would have dis­cretion to adjust the goals accordingly. By April 1 of each year, the President would be required to submit a plan ex­plaining how he will achieve the defi­cit reduction goals. The President can use the full range of his existing au­thority to achieve the goal-authority to negotiate agreements, authority to threaten retaliation, and authority to retaliate with tariffs or quotas if nego­tiations fail.

In other words, this approach simply requires the President to use existing authority to end unfair trade practices by our trading partners-an important source of our devastating trade defi­cits. I hope that this proposal will re­ceive serious consideration by the Fi­nance Committee, and ultimately by the Senate as a whole.

I am pleased that Senator SPECTER has joined me as an original cosponsor of this legislation. My friend from Pennsylvania understands as well as anyone in the Senate the importance of combating unfair trade practices and getting our trade deficits down.

I fear that a trade bill without a pro­vision that allows us to fight unfair trade practices in a direct and forceful way-by reducing our bilateral deficits with countries engaging in unfair practices against us-will not have the results the American people expect. Yes, we need competitive strategies for the 21st century and beyond. But we also need to get some fair play into our trade relations right now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that a copy of the Anti-Discrimi­nation and Trade Deficit Reduction Act of 1987 be printed in the RECORD following my remarks, along with a section-by-section analysis of the bill.

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

s. 1037 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 "Anti-Dis­crimination and Trade Deficit Reduction Act of 1987". SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL TRADE ES.

TIMATES. <a> IN GENERAL.-Section 181 of the Trade

Act of 1974 <19 U.S.C. 2241> is amended-<1> by striking out "Not later than the

date on which the initial report is required under subsection <b><l>," in subsection

<a><l> and inserting in lieu thereof "For cal­endar year 1986, and for each succeeding calendar year,",

<2> by inserting "of each foreign country" after "or practices" in subsection <a>O><A>.

(3) by striking out "and" at the end of subsection <a><l><A><U>.

(4) by striking out the period at the end of subsection <a><l><B> and inserting in lieu thereof"; and",

(5) by adding at the end of subsection <a><1> the following new subparagraph:

"<C> make an estimate of the range of­"(i) the value of additional goods of the

United States, "(ii> the value of additional services of the

United States, and "(iii) the value of additional foreign direct

investment by United States persons, that would have been exported to, or invest­ed in, each foreign country during such cal­endar year if each of such acts, policies, and practices of such country did not exist.",

(6) by striking out paragraph (3) of sub­section (a) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(3) The range of each estimate made under paragraph O><C> shall not exceed 10 percent of the amount that could be the lowest value of such estimate.",

<7> by striking out "the date which is one year after the date of the enactment of the International Trade and Investment Act, and" in subsection <b><l> and inserting in lieu thereof "March 1 of 1988, and of", and

(8) by inserting "for the calendar year pre­ceding such calendar year" after "under subsection <a>" in subsection (b)(l).

(b) EFFECTIVE DATES.-( 1) Except as otherwise provided by this

subsection, the amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of en­actment of this Act.

(2) The amendment made by subsection <a><6> shall take effect on January 1, 1988. SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE AND UN­

WARRANTED TRADE DEFICIT COUN­TRIES.

<a> IN GENERAL.-For purposes of this Act, a foreign country is an excessive and unwar­ranted trade deficit country for a calendar year if-

<1) for each of the 2 calendar years pre­ceding such calendar year, the deficit of the United States in the merchandise balance of trade between the United States and such foreign country exceeded $3,000,000,000; and

(2) such foreign country is identified in the report subinitted by the United States Trade Representative <hereafter in this Act referred to as the "Trade Representative") under section 181(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 during such calendar year and the cal­endar year preceding such calendar year as having policies or practices, or committing acts, identified under section 18l<a><l><A> of such Act.

(b) Pt7BLICATION.-(l)(A) The Trade Representative shall

publish in the Federal Register, on or before March 10 of 1988, and of each suc­ceeding calendar year-

(i) a preliminary list of all foreign coun­tries that are excessive and unwarranted trade deficit countries for such calendar year, and

<U> an estimate of the total value of addi­tional goods of the United States that would have been exported to, or invested in, such country during the calendar year preceding such calendar year if all of the acts, policies, and practices identified in the report sub­Initted under section 18l<b>O> of the Trade

Act of 1974 during such calendar year did not exist.

<B> Estimates made under subparagraph <A><m during any calendar year for an ex­cessive and unwarranted trade deficit coun­try shall be based on the estimated range of values made under section 18l<a><l><C><1> of the Trade Act of 1974 for such country that are contained in the report submitted during such calendar year under section 181(b)(l) of such Act, but the Trade Repre­sentative may use the lowest value in such range in determining the amount of such es­timate under subparagraph <A><U>.

(2) During the 10-day period beginning on the day after the day on which the Trade Representative publishes the list and esti­mates under paragraph < 1 >. any interested party may petition the Trade Representa­tive with regard to whether-

<A> any foreign country is an excessive and unwarranted trade deficit country for the calendar year; and

<B> any of the estimates described in para­graph <l><B> are accurate.

<3> On or before the close of the 20-day period beginning on the day after the day on which the Trade Representative pub­lishes the list and estimates under para­graph <1> for any calendar year, the Trade Representative, after taking into account any petitions submitted under paragraph <2>. shall publish in the Federal Regtster-

<A> a final list of all foreign countries that are excessive and unwarranted trade deficit countries for such calendar year, and

<B> a final estimate of the value of addi­tional goods of the United States that would have been exported to each excessive and unwarranted trade deficit country in the calendar year preceding such calendar year if the acts, policies, and practices of such country that are identified under section 18l<a>O><A> of the Trade Act of 1974 in the report submitted during such calendar year did not exist. SEC. 4. DEFICIT REDUCTION GOALS.

<a> IN GENERAL.-For purposes of this Act, the deficit reduction goal for any excessive and unwarranted trade deficit country for any calendar year is an amount <subject to reduction under subsection (b)) that is equal to the excess, if any, of-

< 1 > the amount of the deficit of the United States in the merchandise balance of trade between the United States and such country for the calendar year preceding such calen­dar year, over

<2> the amount of the estimate published under section 3(b)(3)(B) during such calen­dar year with respect to such country.

(b) REDUCTION OF GOALS.-( 1 > The President may reduce the deficit

reduction goal detennined under subsection <a> for any excessive and unwarranted trade deficit country for any calendar year if the President-

<A> determines that, because of balance­of-payment difficulties <including debt re­payments>. such country cannot reduce the deficit of the United States in the merchan­dise balance of trade between the United States and such country for such calendar year to an amount that equals, or is less than, such goal without suffering signifi­cant econoinic harm,

<B> develops a plan of action for otherwise achieving the fundamental purposes of this Act, and

<C> includes in the report submitted to the Congress under section 5<b> during such cal­endar year-

8984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 <1> a statement that provides notice of

such reduction and certifies the determina­tion described in subparagraph <A>, and

(11) a detailed description of the plan de­veloped under subparagraph <B>.

<2><A> Any reduction made under para­graph <1 > in a deficit reduction goal deter­mined under subsection <a> for an excessive and unwarranted trade deficit country shall cease to apply, and have no effect, if a joint resolution described in section 152<a><l><C> of the Trade Act of 1974 <19 U.S.C. 2192<a><l><C» that relates to such reduction is enacted into law during the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the report containing notice of such reduction is sub­mitted to the Congress under section 5(b).

<B> Paragraph <1> of section 152<a> of the Trade Act of 1974 <19 U.S.C. 2192<a><l» is amended-

<1> by striking out "and" at the end of sub­paragraph <A>,

(ii) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph <B> and inserting in lieu thereof"; and", and

(iii) by adding at the end thereof the fol­lowing new subparagraph:

"<C) a joint resolution of the Congress, the entire matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: 'That the Congress disapproves of the reduction in the deficit reduction goal for --------­under the Anti-Discrimination and Trade Deficit Reduction Act of 1987.', the blank space being filled with the name of the ap­propriate foreign country.''. SEC. 5. ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT TO ACHIEVE

DEFICIT REDUCTION GOALS. <a> IN GENERAL.-During calendar year

1988, and each succeeding calendar year, the President shall take such actions within the power of the Presidency (including, but not limited to, actions described in section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974> to ensure that the deficit of the United States in the bilateral merchandise balance of trade be­tween the United States and each excessive and unwarranted trade deficit country for such calendar year does not exceed the defi­cit reduction goal for such country for such calendar year.

<b> REPORT.-By no later than April 1 of 1988, and of each succeeding calendar year, the President shall submit to the Congress a report on the actions the President plans to take with respect to each excessive and un­warranted trade deficit country in order to meet the requirements of subsection <a> for such calendar year.

(C) FAILURE TO ACHIEVE GOALS.-( 1 > If the actions taken under subsection

<a> with respect to any excessive and unwar­ranted trade deficit country fail to achieve the requirements of subsection <a> for any calendar year-

<A> the President shall take such actions described in section 30l<b> of the Trade Act of 1974 <19 U.S.C. 2411<b)) during the calen­dar year succeeding such calendar year as are necessary to limit the total value of all products of such country entered during the calendar year succeeding such calendar year to an amount equal to the excess of-

(i) the total value of all products of such country that entered during such calendar year, over

(ii) the amount by which the deficit of the United States in the merchandise balance of trade between the United States and such country for such calendar year exceeded the deficit reduction goal for such country for such calendar year, and

<B> the deficit reduction goal of such country determined under section 4 for the

calendar year succeeding such calendar year shall be increased by the amount described in subparagraph <A><m for purposes of ap­plying subsection <a> during the calendar year succeeding such calendar year.

<2> For purposes of this subsection-<A> The term "entered" means entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for consump­tion in the customs territory of the United States.

<B> The term "customs territory of the United States" means the States, the Dis­trict of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF ANTI-DIS· CRIMINATION AND TRADE DEFICIT REDUC­TION ACT OF 1987 Section 1: Title of the bill Section 2: Requires USTR to estimate the

cost to the U.S. of unfair foreign trade prac­tices.

Provides for USTR to begin estimating the value of the goods and services that U.S. companies could be selling abroad were it not for unfair foreign trade practices. He would include this estimate in his annual report on foreign trade barriers. Under cur­rent law, USTR is required to publish every year a "Annual Report on National Trade Estimates" <NTE> which has to include a de­scription of the trade barriers and other unfair trade practices of all of our major trading partners. USTR must "identify and analyze" these practices, and "make an esti­mate of their trade-distorting impact" -but he is not currently required to make a spe­cific monetary estimate of how much these practices cost U.S. businesses and investors.

Allows for the estimate to be presented as a range between two numbers to take ac­count of the difficulty of arriving at a pre­cise figure. The range cannot exceed 10 per­cent of the lower number <i.e. $100-$110 mil­lion is okay; $100-150 million is not>.

Provides for USTR to publish this year's NTE report by October 31, which has been the deadline for publication in the past. Be­ginning in 1988, however, USTR would be required to publish the NTE by March 1 of each year. The earlier publication date will allow this report to be used as the basis for the estimates USTR makes under Section 3.

Section 3: defines what is meant by "ex­cessive and unwarranted trade deficit coun­tries.'' Requires USTR to publish a list of these countries by March 10 of every year beginning with 1988 and, for each country listed, to make an estimate of the aggregate cost to the U.S. of that country's unfair trade practices.

Subsection <a> provides that a country is an "excessive and unwarranted trade deficit country" if for at least the two preceeding years it has < 1 > maintained a trade deficit with the U.S. of over $3 billion, and (2) been identified in the NTE report as having unfair trade practices.

Subsection (b) provides for USTR to pub­lish in the Federal Register by March 10 a preliminary list of the "excessive and un­warranted" countries and, with the list, an estimate of how much each country's unfair practices cost the U.S. during the previous calendar year. The estimates would be based on the estimates in the annual NTE report. Since the NTE estimates could be given as a range between two numbers, USTR is given discretion to choose the lower number of the range.

Provides a ten-day period for "interested parties"- which might include affected for­eign countries and companies, or domestic companies-to petition USTR concerning

the inclusion of a particular country on the list of "excessive and unwarranted" coun­tries, or to challenge the estimate of the cost to the U.S. of the unfair trade practices of a particular country.

USTR would then have another ten days to consider these petitions, and to publish a final list of "excessive and unwarranted" countries and final estimates of the cost of unfair practices. USTR can adjust the list and estimates based on information includ­ed in the petitions.

Section 4: defines "deficit reduction goal." Allows the goal for a particular country to be reduced if the country is having balance of payments problems.

Subsection <a>: the deficit reduction goal for each "excessive and unwarranted" coun­try is equal to the final estimate made by USTR under Section 3. In other words, if USTR determined that Country X's dis­criminatory quotas and tariffs, illegal subsi­dies, unreasonable certification procedures, etc. cost U.S. firms and investors $3 billion in 1987, then in 1988, the deficit reduction goal for Country X would be $3 billion. If we ran a $20 billion deficit with Country X in 1987, we would be seeking a $17 billion deficit in 1988.

Subsection (b) allows the President to use his judgment to reduce deficit reduction goals if meeting the goal would cause signif­icant economic harm to a country having a balance of payments problem <such as diffi­culty paying back debts>. The fundamental purpose of the bill-combatting the unfair trade practices of countries with whom we maintain large trade deficits-would be pre­served. The President would have to come up with an alternative plan of action to achieve this purpose.

Requires the President to submit his al­ternative plan of action for these debt­ridden countries as part of the overall defi­cit reduction plan he is required to submit by April1 <see Section 5(b)).

Allows Congress to · overrule the Presi­dent's decision to reduce the deficit reduc­tion goal for any country by passing a joint resolution of disapproval.

Section 5: provides for Presidential action to achieve the deficit reduction goals for all "excessive and unwarranted" countries.

Subsection <a> requires the President to use existing authority to take whatever ac­tions are necessary to achieve the deficit re­duction goals for each country. Under exist­ing law, he can take a whole range of steps to reduce bilateral deficits-engage in bilat­eral negotiations, negotiate voluntary re­straints or orderly marketing agreements, or if negotiations fail, impose quotas or tariffs on the goods of the "excessive and unwar­ranted" country in question.

Subsection <b) requires the President to submit to Congress by April 1 of each year a plan to achieve the deficit reduction goals.

Subsection (c) provides a back-up in case the President fails to achieve the deficit re­duction goals. If his actions fall short of the goal for any country in any year, during the next year he would have to take whatever actions are necessary to reduce imports from that country by the amount of the shortfall. In other words, if the goal for Country X in 1988 is $3 billion, but Country X's deficit in 1988 ends up being only $2 bil­lion lower than it was in 1987, then in 1989 the President would take action to restrict imports from Country X by $1 billion. This $1 billion amount would be in addition to the deficit reduction goal for Country X in 1989 .•

April10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8985 By Mr. McCLURE (by request>:

S. 1038. A bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, and for other pur­poses; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT eMr. McCLURE. Mr. President, pur­suant to an executive communication referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, at the request of the Department of Agriculture, I send to the desk a bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, this draft legislation was submitted and recommended by the Department of Agriculture, and I ask unanimous consent that the bill, and the executive communication which accompanied the proposal from the Acting Secretary be printed in the RECORD.

I wish to emphasize that I am intro­ducing this legislation as an accommo­dation to the administration to get the U.S. Forest Service recreation fee bill in front of the Senate. Mr. President, I have major reservations and concerns with this legislation and will seek modification of two sections of this bill.

The first concern I have is in section 101 of the bill as it amends section 4<0<2> of the Land and Water Conser­vation Fund Act of 1965. The Secre­tary has authority, after making a finding, to set "entrance fees" at a na­tional forest. I am opposed to that in any form. Second, Mr. President, sec­tion 202 of the bill would allow the Forest Service to contract with the "U Squeeze 'Um Collection Agency" on a commission basis to collect, administer and authorize recreation uses and fees at summer homesites, ski areas, re­sorts, guide and outfitting businesses, and river running businesses who do business on our national forests.

We pay the Forest Service to do that, and I strongly oppose the provi­sion.

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

s. 1038 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

TITLE I-AMENDMENT TO LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT SEc. 101. Section 4 of the Land and Water

Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended <16 U.S.C. 4601-6a> is amended by adding the following new subsection:

"(i) NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM RECREATION UsE FEEs.-The Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the provisions of subsec­tion <b> of this section, shall designate for the purpose of charging a recreation use fee < 1 > specialized recreation sites, facilities, equipment, or services, including but not limited to, improved camp and picnic grounds, swimming sites, visitor centers with specialized services or programs, and

<2> areas where a combination of services and facilities are provided to accommodate heavy public use. The Secretary of Agricul­ture shall provide for collection of such fees at the place of use or other location reason­ably convenient to the user and the author­ized collector: Provided, That there shall be no fee charged by the Secretary of Agricul­ture where specific services are not provid­ed, nor singly for the use of drinking water, wayside exhibits, general purpose roads, overlook sites, toilet facilities, unimproved boat ramps or for general visitor informa­tion. Any Golden Age Passport permittee shall be entitled upon presentation of such permit to utilize such recreation facilities, services, or areas at a rate of 50 per centum of the established use fee." TITLE II-NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

RECREATION USE FEE EXPENDI­TURES. SEc. 201. <a> Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, all recreation receipts shall be deposited into a special fund established in the Treasury and shall be immediately available and remain available until expend­ed, without further appropriation, to the Secretary of Agriculture <hereafter, "the Secretary") for operation, maintenance, re­habilitation, reconstruction, replacement, and management of recreation facilities, equipment, sites, trails, and areas within the National Forest System: Provided, That recreation receipts shall be considered as moneys received or net revenues for the purposes of the Act of May 23, 1908 <35 Stat. 260, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of March 1, 1911 <36 Stat. 963, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 500), and the Act of July 22, 1937 (50 Stat. 522, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 1012): Provided further, That recreation re­ceipts shall not be subject to the provisions of the Act of March 4, 1913 <37 Stat. 843, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 501).

(b) For the purposes of this Act, "recrea­tion special use" means an activity permit­ted of an individual, entity, or organization by the Secretary for the purpose of develop­ing or operating a recreation-oriented busi­ness, conducting a recreation activity, or constructing a recreation facility as author­ized by the Act of June 4, 1897 <30 Stat. 11, as amended), the Act of March 4, 1915 <38 Stat. 1086, as amended), or any other special use authority for recreation purposes appli­cable to National Forest System lands. Recreation special uses include, but are not limited to, resorts, marinas, winter sports sites, recreation residences, organization camps, and outfitter and guide activities.

(c) For the purposes of this Act, "recrea­tion receipts" means all fees collected for recreation use of National Forest System lands and facilities pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (78 Stat. 897, as amended) and all fees for recreation special uses.

SEc. 202. The Secretary may authorize in­dividuals, organizations or businesses to sell permits and other authorizations for recrea­tion uses, including recreation special uses, of the National Forest System lands and au­thorize them to collect recreation receipts and other payments subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may pre­scribe, including provisions for the deduc­tion by the authorized individual or entity of reasonable commissions, fees, and ex­penses from the amount collected and re­mittance of the remaining proceeds there­from to the Secretary.

SEc. 203. The Secretary may authorize persons who are designated volunteers under the Volunteers in the National For-

ests Act of 1972 <86 Stat. 147, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 558a-558d) to sell permits and other authorizations for recreation uses, in­cluding recreation special uses, of the Na­tional Forest System lands and authorize them to collect recreation receipts and other payments subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe. The Secretary is authorized to cover the costs of surety bonds which may be required of persons rendering such volunteer service if the Secretary determines it to be in the best interest of the Government: Provided, That such costs shall be paid from amounts available in the fund established under sec­tion 20Ha>.

SEc. 204. The Secretary is authorized to accept donations for the purpose of helping to defray the costs of carrying out the recre­ation program within the National Forest System. Such donations shall be used for the same purposes as recreation receipts col­lected pursuant to section 201 and shall be immediately available to the Secretary for expenditure: Provided, That such donations shall not be considered as moneys received or net revenues for purposes of the Act of May 23, 1908 <35 Stat. 260, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of March 1, 1911 <36 Stat. 963, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 500>, the Act of March 4, 1913 <37 Stat. 843, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 501), and the Act of July 22, 1937 <50 Stat. 522, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 1012).

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, DC, March 11, 1987. Hon. GEORGE BusH, President of the Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Transmitted here­with, for the consideration of the Congress, is a draft bill "To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, and for other purposes."

The Department of Agriculture strongly recommends introduction and enactment of t h e draft bill.

This proposed legislation would: <1 > pro­mote the availability, maintenance, and use of high quality recreation areas and facili­ties in the National Forest System for the use, enjoyment, and benefit of all Ameri­cans; (2) require those persons using certain recreation facilities, heavily used areas, and services in the National Forest System to pay an appropriate share of the cost of pro­viding and maintaining those recreation fa­cilities and services; (3) permit the Secretary of Agriculture to charge reasonable use fees for those areas; and <4> increase the sources of funding for National Forest System recreation areas and facilities by using the revenue from recreation receipts to enhance National Forest System recreation areas, fa­cilities, and services.

It has become increasingly expensive to provide the high quality public recreation areas, facilities, and services that Americans expect and deserve. In fiscal year 1986, the cost of operating and maintaining the recre­ation resources on National Forests totaled $99 million. Recreation fees generated only about $30 million in revenues. This $30 mil­lion included $11 million from use fees for facilities such as campsites and $19 million from recreation special uses such as ski areas and outfitter and guide permits.

Use of recreation areas and facilities and the cost of providing them have increased more rapidly than the funding available for maintaining, refurbishing, replacing and im­proving those areas and facilities. Current

8986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 economic and budgetary realities limit our ability to meet recreation funding needs.

This draft bill would increase National Forest System recreation receipts to an esti­mated $52 million in fiscal year 1988 by al­lowing us to charge at additional campsites, other recreation facilities, and heavily used recreation areas where services are provid­ed. This proposed legislation would not change any authorities for charging for recreation special uses such as ski areas and guiding and outfitting operations. Subject to the withholding of 25 percent of receipts for payments to States and counties under existing law, fees collected under this re­vised authority and under recreation special use authorities would be deposited into a special fund in the Treasury and would be made immediately available for any author­ized outdoor recreation purpose within the National Forest System.

National Forest System lands are avail­able to all Americans, but those who actual­ly visit the recreation areas and use the re­lated facilities and services derive a greater benefit than those who do not. We believe that the actual beneficiaries, the users of National Forest System recreation facilities and areas, should pay a higher percentage of the cost of maintaining those resources. The draft bill would provide authority to charge reasonable fees to recreation users.

The Administration recognizes the impor­tance of outdoor recreation to the American people. Because of that importance and the current economic and budgetary realities, we believe that recreation funding, such as this draft bill would provide, is required.

We strongly recommend enactment of the draft bill to enhance the availability of high quality public recreation areas and facilities within the National Forest System.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that enactment of this proposed leg­islation would be in accord with the pro­gram of the President.

A similar letter is being sent to the Speak­er of the House of Representatives.

Sincerely,

Enclosure.

PETER C. MYERS, Acting Secretary.

DRAFT BILL

<To amend the Land and Water Conserva­tion Fund Act of 1965, as amended, and for other purposes> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

TITLE I-AMENDMENT TO LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT SEc. 101. Section 4 of The Land and Water

Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended <16 U.S.C. 4601-6a> is amended by adding the following new subsection:

"(i) NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM: RECREATION UsE FEEs.-The Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the provisions of subsec­tion (b) of this section, shall designate for the purpose of charging a recreation use fee < 1 > specialized recreation sites, facilities, equipment, or services, including but not limited to, improved camp and picnic grounds, swimming sites, visitor centers with specialized services or programs, and <2> areas where a combination of services and facilities are provided to accommodate heavy public use. The Secretary of Agricul­ture shall provide for collection of such fees at the place of use or other location reason­ably convenient to the user and the author­ized collector: Provided, That there shall be

no fee charged by the Secretary of Agricul­ture where specific services are not provid­ed, nor singly for the use of drinking water, wayside exhibits, general purpose roads, overlook sites, toilet facilities, unimproved boat ramps or for general visitor informa­tion. Any Golden Age Passport permittee shall be entitled upon presentation of such permit to utilize such recreation facilities, services, or areas at a rate of 50 per centum of the established use fee." TITLE II-NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

RECREATION USE FEE EXPENDI­TURES SEC. 201. <a> Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, all recreation receipts shall be deposited into a special fund established in the Treasury and shall be immediately available and remain available until expend­ed, without further appropriation, to the Secretary of Agriculture <hereafter, "the Secretary") for operation, maintenance, re­habilitation, reconstruction, replacement, and management of recreation facilities, equipment, sites, trails, and areas within the National Forest System: Provided, That recreation receipts shall be considered as moneys received or net revenues for the purposes of the Act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 500>, the Act of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 500), and the Act of July 22, 1937 (50 Stat. 522, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 1012>: Provided further, That recreation re­ceipts shall not be subject to the provisions of the Act of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 843, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 501>.

(b) For the purposes of this Act, "recrea­tion special use" means an activity permit­ted of an individual, entity, or organization by the Secretary for the purpose of develop­ing or operating a recreation-oriented busi­ness, conducting a recreation activity, or constructing a recreation facility as author­ized by the Act of June 4, 1897 <30 Stat. 11, as amended>, the Act of March 4, 1915 (38 Stat. 1086, as amended), or any other special use authority for recreation purposes appli­cable to National Forest System lands. Recreation special uses include, but are not limited to, resorts, marinas, winter sports sites, recreation residences, organization camps, and outfitter and guide activities.

<c> For the purposes of this Act, "recrea­tion receipts" means all fees collected for recreation use of National Forest System lands and facilities pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act <78 Stat. 897, as amended) and all fees for recreation special uses.

SEc. 202. The Secretary may authorize in­dividuals, organizations or businesses to sell permits and other authorizations for recrea­tion uses, including recreation special uses, of the National Forest System lands and au­thorize them to collect recreation receipts and other payments subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may pre­scribe, including provisions for the deduc­tion by the authorized individual or entity of reasonable commissions, fees, and ex­penses from the account collected and re­mittance of the remaining proceeds there­from to the Secretary.

SEc. 203. The Secretary may authorize persons who are designated volunteers under the Volunteers in the National For­ests Act of 1972 <86 Stat. 147, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 558a-558d) to sell permits and other authorizations for recreation uses, in­cluding recreation special uses, of the Na­tional Forest System lands and authorize them to collect recreation receipts and other payments subject to such terms and

conditions as the Secretary may prescribe. The Secretary is authorized to cover the costs of surety bonds which may be required of persons rendering such volunteer service if the Secretary determines it to be in the best interest of the Government: Provided, That such costs shall be paid from amounts available in the fund established under sec­tion 20l<a>.

SEC. 204. The Secretary is authorized to accept donations for the purpose of helping to defray the costs of carrying out the recre­ation program within the National Forest System. Such donations shall be used for the same purposes as recreation receipts col­lected pursuant to section 201 and shall be immediately available to the Secretary for expenditure: Provided, That such donations shall not be considered as moneys received or net revenues for purposes of the Act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of March 1, 1911 <36 Stat. 963, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of March 4, 1913 <37 Stat. 843, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 501>. and the Act of July 22, 1937 <50 Stat. 522, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 1012).

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Title I Section 101 would amend section 4 of the

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, by adding a new subsec­tion m. This new subsection would author­ize the Secretary of Agriculture to designate recreation sites, areas, facilities, equipment and services for the purpose of charging a recreation use fee within the National Forest System. However, no such fee would be authorized where services are not provid­ed and fees would not be authorized singly for the use of drinking water, wayside ex­hibits, general purpose roads, overlook sites, general visitor information, toilet facilities, or unimproved boat ramps <not construct­ed). Persons with a Golden Age Passport would be required to pay only 50 percent of the established user fee.

The Secretary of Agriculture would use the authority in the new Subsection 4(i), rather than subsection 4<b>, as a basis of es­tablishing recreation use fees within the Na­tional Forest System. Except as provided in Title II, all other provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, would continue to apply to the National Forest System. These provisions include the requirement that all fees be fair and equitable and economically efficient to collect <subsection 4(d)) and the prohibition against the issuance of Federal hunting and fishing licenses <subsection 4(g)). Section 4<b> would not be amended, and thus the recreation use fee charges of other Federal agencies would not be affected.

Currently, section 4(b) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, authorizes the collection of daily recreation use fees for the use of specialized outdoor recreation sites, facilities, equip­ment, and services. However, fees may not be collected under section 4<b> for the use of facilities such as campgrounds that do not have specific components such as potable water, picnic grounds, boat launches except those with hydraulic or mechanized lifts, and visitor centers. Section 4(b) also prohib­its fees from being charged in areas which do not contain highly developed facilities but require expenditures to ensure the safety of visitors or to protect natural re­sources.

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8987 The proposed legislation would expand

the scope of National Forest System recrea­tion sites, areas, facilities, equipment and services for which use fees could be collect­ed. However, the authorities for charging for recreation special uses <such as ski areas and guiding and outfitting operations> would not change. These authorities include the Act of June 4, 1897 <30 Stat. 11, as amended> and the Act of March 4, 1915 <38 Stat. 1086, as amended).

Title II Under present law, the National Forest

System recreation fees collected pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act <about $11 million annually) are paid into the Land and Water Conservation Fund and are available for appropriation for any Land and Water Conservation Fund purpose.

Section 201 would provide that all recrea­tion receipts would be deposited into a spe­cial Treasury fund and would be available to the Secretary of Agriculture, without fur­ther appropriation, for operation, mainte­nance, rehabilitation, replacement, recon­struction, and management of recreation fa­cilities, equipment, sites, trails, and areas within the National Forest System. Recrea­tion receipts as defined in Section 20l<c>, in­clude collections from fees for use of Na­tional Forest System lands and facilities col­lected pursuant to the Land and Water Con­servation Fund Act as amended by Title I, and all fees collected for recreation special uses of the National Forest System. Recrea­tion special uses, as defined in Section 201(b), include, but are not limited to, re­sorts, marinas, winter sports sites, recrea­tion residences, organization camps, and outfitter and guide activities authorized under the Acts of June 4, 1897, March 4, 1915, and any other statutory authority pro­viding for recreational use of National Forest System lands. The fees collected would not be used for major new construc­tion such as visitor centers, roads, or devel­opment of new areas.

The required receipt-sharing payments to States and counties under permanent stat­utes would continue <currently 25 percent>. However, recreation receipts would not be subject to the law requiring that 10 percent of moneys received from the National For­ests be used for construction and mainte­nance of forest roads and trails. The monies received from the recreation receipts would be used in part for construction and mainte­nance of forest trails. Thus, there is no need to put it into a separate fund for the same use.

Since the recreation receipts would be de­posited into a special Treasury fund, for the purposes of Section 256<a><2> of the Bal­anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Con­trol Act of 1985 <P.L. 99-177, 99 Stat. 1037>, any funds sequestered during any fiscal year would not lapse but would be available for obligation on October 1 of the following fiscal year.

Section 202 would allow the Secretary to enter into agreements with individuals, or­ganizations and businesses to sell permits and collect fees for recreation uses and other payments including, but not limited to, the sale of maps, firewood, books, and other interpretive materials of National Forest System lands. A reasonable commis­sion for providing this service could be de­ducted from the fees collected.

Section 203 would allow volunteers to sell permits and collect fees subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the Secretary. It also would authorize the Secretary to cover the cost of surety bonds for volunteers

if the Secretary determined that doing so was in the best interest of the Government.

Section 204 would allow the Secretary to accept donations to help defray the costs of carrying out the recreation program within the National Forest System. This would pro­vide the opportunity for users to voluntarily help pay for the facilities and services that they enjoy. The funds collected would be available as provided in Section 201 except such donations would not be subject to re­ceipt-sharing with the States and counties.e

By Mr. MELCHER <for himself Mr. SIMPSON, and Mr. BAUCUS):

S. 1039. A bill to review and deter­mine the impact of Indian tribal tax­ation on Indian reservations and resi­dents; to the Select Committee on Indian Affairs.

INDIAN TRIBAL TAXATION

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, I shall today introduce a bill dealing with the question of taxation on Indian reservations imposed by the tribes on non-Indians-that is, those persons on the reservation, who live or do business on the reservation and who are nontribal members.

The situation has been such in Mon­tana over the past several months that almost every month we have become aware of a new tax ordinance proposed by one of the tribes in the State. These tax ordinances by the tribes­who have the authority to propose taxes and tax-which are imposed on nontribal members, are found to be rather objectionable by those persons who are not members of the tribe and therefore have no part in developing and adopting the tax ordinance. They call it taxation without representa­tion.

In addition, the tax proposals that have been presented by the tribes seem to me to be counterproductive for economic activity on the reserva­tion. The reservations are not well off now because unemployment is high and the opportunity for jobs or income is very limited. Imposing taxes which further drives out the business which is now on the reservations, will even make the situation worse.

So I am introducing this bill, along with the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. SIMPSON] and the junior Senator from Montana [Mr. BAucusl, which says that the Secretary of the Interior must review and approve any proposed tribal tax ordinance; that for a 2-year period there cannot be any new tax or­dinances imposed by the tribes on non­tribal members; and that the Presi­dent shall appoint a commission to review the economic impact which tribal taxes, as they are proposed, might have on a particular reserva­tion. These tax ordinances generally vary from one reservation to another, so that impact on the reservation varies from one reservation to an­other.

Finally, the bill, during this period, would authorize an additional $450

million for the Secretary of the Interi­or to help alleviate economic hardship on the Indian reservations and assist with emergency educational and un­employment needs. This is a rather modest amount, but it would be in ad­dition to what the Secretary has been authorized in the funds that we do ap­propriate for the various programs carried out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

In addition, the bill would authorize $75 million to be made available to the Secretary of Health and Human Serv­ices to alleviate emergency health care needs on Indian reservations.

That is the sum and substance of the bill I will introduce on behalf of myself, Senator SIMPSON, and Senator BAucus today, to deal with the situa­tion as it is developing in Indian coun­try.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am joining my distinguished colleague from Montana, Mr. MELCHER, in intro­ducing this bill today to impose a 2-year moratorium on new Indian tribal tax ordinances.

Tribal taxes are a new phenomenon. In response to reduced Federal fund­ing for Indian programs and instruc­tions from the Federal Government to become more self -sufficient, some Indian tribes have decided to levy taxes on the use or occupancy of tribal lands.

Some of these taxes have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as a legal exercise of Indian sovereignty. However, the Supreme Court has ex­amined only a couple of these taxes, a possessory interest tax levied by the Navajo and an oil and gas severance tax imposed by the Jicarilla Apache Tribe. It is important to recognize that all tribes and reservations are differ­ent; for example, the Navajo lands are under uniform ownership, while many reservations in other States, like Mon­tana, are "checkerboarded" with deeded land within reservation bound­aries. The new tax codes being pro­posed or considered by other tribes raise serious questions about the tribes' ability to impose taxes on deeded land; double taxation; conflicts with local and county governments in collecting revenues and providing serv- . ices; and, perhaps most important to this Congress, questions about the best interests of the tribes themselves.

It has been said, and often quoted on this Senate floor, that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If tribes adopt taxes that are ill-conceived, without having necessary information about the true incidence of the tax and the effect the tax will have on business and personal decisions, the results could be disastrous. In the short run, a tribe could collect revenue from businesses located on the reser­vation, but in the long run it is the tribe that would suffer if the business-

8988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE .April 10, 1987 es close their doors. I do not mean to imply that tribes cannot be trusted to make wise decisions; but it is our re­sponsibility to ensure that the tribes have the information they need to ex­ercise their sovereignty responsibly.

CUrrently, there are no rules pre­scribing how Indian tax codes are to be proposed and considered, unless the tribe's constitution provides some reg­ulations. Based on the experiences we have had in Montana during the last few months, I think it is important to ensure that well publicized, open hear­ings are held, and that adequate notice is given for all those affected to collect and communicate relevant informa­tion to the tribe and to the Depart­ment of the Interior.

I am also deeply concerned about how the enactment of tribal taxes will affect local and county governments. At present, many county governments provide essential services to reserva­tion lands and reservation residents. Some taxpayers that are targeted by these tribal taxes have announced that they will pay their county taxes under protest, pending court adjudica­tion of their tax liabilities. This puts county commissioners in a terrible bind, as a significant percentage of their revenues could be inaccessible for months or years while litigation proceeds through the courts.

I support this bill, which provides a 2-year moratorium and a 1-year study of these issues, because I believe it is important to resolve the issues up front instead of waiting for the issues to be resolved after costly, lengthy liti­gation. I want more information on the types of taxes Indian tribes can appropriately levy, and the procedures they should follow to ensure the taxes are proper and wise. I also want more information about the relationship be­tween the sovereign tribe and other sovereign governments, including local, county, and State governments, in terms of taxes and service responsi­bilities.

The Indian tribes are sovereign enti­ties within the United States, and Congress should respect their rights. However, the Congress also has a pro­found trust responsibility for the tribes, and it is our responsibility to ensure that the actions of the tribes are in the best interests of tribal mem­bers. I believe this bill will give us the opportunity to carry out our responsi­bilities to the tribes and to other Americans who work and live on and around tribal lands, and I urge its prompt enactment.

By Mr. MELCHER: S. 1040. A bill to amend title 49,

United States Code, relating to sale, acquisition, or abandonment of rail­road lines; to the Committee on Com­merce, Science, and Transportation.

INTERSTATE COJIDIERCE COIDIISSION ACT AJIENDMENTS

• Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, today 1: am introducing a bill which will ~require the Interstate Commerce Commission ~to review sales of major portions of railroad Unes to private noncarrier individuals.

The bill provides that any sale, ac­quisition, or abandonment of a rail­road line, rail transportation, trackage, or trackage rights to or by a person who is not a ,carrier shall be subject to such provisions in the same manner and to the same extent as if such sale, acquisition or abandonment had in­volved only rail carriers providing transportation subject to ,such juris­'diction.

The railroad industry is presently undergoing major restructuring. Many of the major carriers, in an effort to streamline operations and cut costs, are selling segments of their lines which are marginally profitable. These sales are to noncarrier opera­tors. More than 150 new railroads have been formed since 1980, and there are indications that this may be the wave of the future. Some industry analysts believe that if present trends continue, major railroads may end up selling between 20 to 30 percent of their tracks over the next 5 years.

Three points are significant in all of this change. What happens to the workers, to the communities, and to the shippers? All of their needs and rights must be safeguarded.

In the past, these types of sales would have been scrutinized by the Interstate Commerce Commission to ensure that they were beneficial to the public good. Under deregulation, how­ever, the Commission has created a class exemption from regulation of any acquisition or operation of a rail line by a noncarrier. The ICC rule ex parte 392, sub No. 1, provides that an exemption goes into effect 7 days after it is filed. After the notice is published in the Federal Register, the exemption can then only be revoked upon a show­ing of false or misleading information.

Although Congress is not consider­ing it necessary to reregulate the in­dustry, I question whether the public interest is, in fact, being served in each case. One of the rationales provided by the Interstate Commerce Commission when it issued its rule on class exemp­tions was that all of the prior exemp­tion requests had been granted on a case-by-case basis. In my view, there is little justification to believe that there will not be cases in the future which call for scrutiny by the Commission. I believe the potential for market abuse remains very real.

Although the Commission reserves the right of after-the-fact revocation of the exemption, this solution is most unsatisfactory. Requiring divestiture of a line after a sale has already been consummated is more disruptive of

business operations than prior review before the sale goes into effect, when there is still time to modify the terms of the sale or terminate negotiations.

My immediate concern is with my own State of Montana, where Burling­ton Northern is considering the sale of a 600-mile stretch of track that runs from Laurel, MT, to Sandpoint, ID. Far from being what one normally thinks of as a short line, the sale of 600 miles of track would constitute the sale of the major portion of the south­em line through the State. This stretch of track connects with Burling­ton Northern at point A, its beginning, and at point B, its end. Therefore, the new operator stands little chance of offering any meaningful competition to Burlington Northern when it is de­pendent on maintaining good relations with Burlington Northern at its termi­nus points.

In the absence of review of the transaction by the ICC, the shippers have no assurance that the sale will result in reliable service at reasonable rates. A number of communities along this line could be substantially affect­ed by the change in operations of the line and the workers need to retain their opportunities for jobs.

I believe that the green light for de­regulation of transportation has gone much too far. The public interest is no longer being served by the nod and wink that the ICC gives to these sales. The public needs assurance that there is someone in Government who is re­viewing the impact that these sales might have on the local communities which are dependent on real service.e

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS s. 12

At the request of Mr. CRANSTON, the names of the Senator from West Ver­ginia [Mr. BYRD] and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] were added as cosponsors of S. 12, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to remove the expiration date for eligibility for the educational as­sistance programs for veterans of the All-Volunteer Force; and for other purposes.

s. 249

At the request of Mr. DODD, the name of the Senator from Massachu­setts [Mr. KENNEDY] was added as a cosponsor of S. 249, a bill to grant em­ployees parental and temporary medi­cal leave under certain circumstances; and for other purposes.

s. 328

At the request of Mr. SASSER, the names of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. DASCHLE], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. METZENBAUM], and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN] were added as cosponsors of S. 328, a bill to amend chapter 39, United States Code, to require the Federal

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8989 Government to pay interest on over­due payments; and for other purposes.

S.476

At the request of Mr. DoDD, the name of the Senator from Massachu­setts [Mr. KENNEDY] was added as a cosponsor of S. 476, a bill to provide assistance in the development of new or improved programs to help younger persons through grants to the States for community planning, services, and training; to establish within the De­partment of Health and Human Serv­ices an operating agency to be desig­nated as the Administration on Chil­dren, Youth, and Families; and to pro­vide for a White House Conference on Young Americans.

s. 541

At the request of Mr. PRYOR, the names of the Senator from Texas [Mr. BENTSEN], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI], the Sena­tor from Minnesota [Mr. BOSCHWITZ], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY], the Senator from Florida [Mr. CHILES], the Senator from Mon­tana [Mr. MELCHER], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. LAUTENBERG], and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. SASSER] were added as cosponsors of S. 541, a bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to extend to certain officers and employees of the U.S. Postal Service the same procedural and appeal rights with respect to certain adverse person­nel actions as are afforded under title 5, United States Code, to Federal em­ployees in the competitive service.

s. 684

At the request of Mr. GLENN, the name of the Senator from washington [Mr. ADAMs] was added as a cosponsor of S. 584, a bill to amend the Appendix to the Tariff Schedules of the United States to extend the suspension of duty on bicycle parts.

s. 692

At the request of Mr. DoLE, the name of the Senator from South Caro­lina [Mr. THuRMoND] was added as a cosponsor of S. 592, a bill to provide for Medicare catastrophic illness cov­erage, and for other purposes.

s. 628

At the request of Mr. GRASSLEY, the name of the Senator from North Caro­lina [Mr. HELMs] was added as a co­sponsor of S. 628, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to re­store the deduction for interest on educational loans.

s. 698

At the request of Mr. THulul.loND, the name of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. BREAux] was added as a cospon­sor of S. 698, a bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to prohibit the conveyance of the right to perform publicly syndicated television pro­grams without conveying the right to perform accompanying music.

s. 789

At the request of Mr. BIDEN, the name of the Senator from Pennsylva­nia [Mr. SPECTER] was added as a co­sponsor of S. 789, a bill to. provide the framework necessary to pursue a co­ordinated and effective national and international narcotics control policy.

s. 840

At the request of Mr. THuRMoND, the names of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GoRE] and the Senator from Montana [Mr. MELcHER] were added as cosponsors of S. 840, a bill to recog­nize the organization known as the 82d Airborne Division Association, In­corporated.

s. 861

At the request of Mr. DANFORTH, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. KAsTEN] was added as a cospon­sor of S. 861, a bill to require certain actions by the Secretary of Transpor­tation regarding certain drivers of motor vehicles and motor carriers.

S.880

At the request of Mr. DURENBERGER, the name of the Senator from Texas [Mr. BENTSEN] was added as a cospon­sor of S. 880, a bill entitled the "Su­perconductivity Competition Act of 1987."

s. 959

At the request of Mr. GLENN, the names of the Senator from Connecti­cut [Mr. WEICKER] and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. METZENBAUM] were added as cosponsors of S. 959, a bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to strengthen and improve the provisions relating to State long-term care ombudsman programs; and for other purposes.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 11

At the request of Mr. THuRMoND, the name of the Senator from Delaware [Mr. RoTH] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 11, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to Federal balanced budget.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 26

At the request of Mr. PELL, the name of the Senator from Montana [Mr. BAucusl was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 26, a joint res­olution to authorize and request the President to call a White House Con­ference on Library and Information Services to be held not later than 1989; and for other purposes.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 41

At the request of Mr. GLENN, the name of the Senator from California [Mr. CRANSTON] was added as a co­sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 41, a joint resolution to designate the period commencing on November 22, 1987, and ending on November 29, 1987, as "National Family Caregivers Week."

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 64

At the request of Mr. CHILEs, the name of the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. CoNRAD] was added as a cosponsor of· Senate Joint Resolution 64, a joint resolution to designate May 1987, as "Older Americans Month."

SENATE JOINT RES6LUTION 75

At the request of Mr. THululoND, the names of the Senator from California [Mr. WILSON], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. LAUTENBERGl, and the Sen­ator from Connecticut [Mr. DoDD] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 75, a joint resolution to designate the week of August 2, 1987, through August 8, 1987, as "Na­tional Podiatric Medicine Week."

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 99

At the request of Mr. DECONCINI, the names of the Senator from Con­necticut [Mr. WEICKER], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. BUMPERS], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. STAF­FORD], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DoDD], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. FoWLER], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI], the Sena­tor from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE], and the Senator from Montana [Mr. MELCHER] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 99, a joint resolution to express the sense of the Congress that the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children should receive increasing amounts of appropriations in fiscal year 1988 and succeeding fiscal years.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 22

At the request of Mr. KENNEDY, the name of the. Senator from New Jersey [Mr. BRADLEY] was added as a cospon­sor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 22, a concurrent resolution to con­gratulate Hadassah, the Women's Zi­onist Organization of America, on the celebration of its 75th anniversary.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 29

At the request of Mr. DECONCINI, the name of the Senator from Wash­ington [Mr. ADAMS] was added as a co­sponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolu­tion 29, a concurrent resolution ex­pressing the sense of Congress regard­ing the inability of American citizens to maintain regular contact with rela­tives in the Soviet Union.

SENATE RESOLUTION 167

At the request of Mr. BIDEN, the names of the Senator from Washing­ton [Mr. ADAMs], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. BINGAMAN], the Sen­ator from Arkansas [Mr. BUMPERS], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. DASCHLE], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. GLENN], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARKIN], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. LEAHYl, the Senator from Maine [Mr. MITCHELL], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE], the Sena­tor from Michigan [Mr. RIEGLE], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SANFORD], and the Senator from Colo-

8990 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 rado [Mr. WIRTH] were added as co­sponsors of Senate Resolution 167, a resolution concerning constitutional principles pertinent to the making of treaties, and further concerning the interpretation of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLU­TION 47-RELATING TO PERSE­CUTION OF CHRISTIANS IN EASTERN EUROPE AND THE SOVIET UNION Mr. LUGAR submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

S. CON. RES. 47 Whereas on August 1, 1975, the Final Act

of the Conference on Security and Coopera­tion in Europe was signed at Helsinki, Fin­land, by 33 European countries, together with Canada and the United States;

Whereas the signatories of the Helsinki Final Act committed themselves under Prin­ciple VII to "respect human rights and fun­damental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion;"

Whereas persecution of individuals on the basis of religious beliefs and cultural herit­age is in direct violation of the commit­ments to freedom of thought, conscience, expression, and religion made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics <hereafter in this concurrent resolution referred to as the "USSR"> and by the countries of Eastern Europe as the signatories of the United Na­tions Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Madrid Concluding Document;

Whereas in Albania, the only officially atheistic country in the world, the Constitu­tion of which outlaws religion and defines all religious activities as criminal acts, there are documented cases of executions and murders of clergy and believers;

Whereas in Bulgaria, where the Constitu­tion of 1971 specifically guarantees freedom of religion, the organization of branches, missions, convents and charitable institu­tions of religious associations having head­quarters or centers located abroad is never­theless prohibited (by Article 23 of the law of February 26, 1949), religious instruction to persons under 16 years of age is prohibit­ed, courts are authorized <by the law on Family of March 15, 1968) to remove chil­dren from families that do not comply with the demand that "education of children be conducted in the spirit of socialism and com­munism", and special benefits are bestowed on individuals who renounce religion, while those who adhere to religious beliefs are se­verely harassed and imprisoned;

Whereas in Czechoslovakia, where citizens are constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and "performance of religious rites, so long as it does not contradict the law", all churches and religious organizations are nevertheless subject to the control of a Sec­retariat for Religious Affairs that has "nor­mative, guiding and controlling powers in all church and religious affairs", clergy are pro­hibited from serving the church without state license issued only after thorough in­vestigation and revokable without explana-

tion or right of appeal, all religious orders of brothers and nuns have been prohibited for decades from accepting new members and could soon die out, practicing Christians are discriminated against in housing, em­ployment and education, secret government agents are frequently present at church services, clergy are offered bribes to join re­ligious "peace" movements which closely collaborate with the government, and many clergy and church members are invited to cooperate with the secret police;

Whereas in the German Democratic Re­public, where freedom of religion is guaran­teed "in agreement with the Constitution and legal regulations in the GDR" by Arti­cle 39 of the Constitution of 1968, religious education for Christian children is never­theless officially discouraged so that teen­agers receiving such education are often treated as second-class citizens, young people are forced to participate in the Com­munist ceremonies of "youth consecration" and required to pledge allegiance to Marx­ism-Leninism, and conscientious objectors and organizers and members of the unoffi­cial peace movement, almost all practicing Christians, are persecuted;

Whereas in Hungary, where the Constitu­tion guarantees the eQuality of all citizens, provides that discrimination of citizens on the ground of religious faith is a punishable offense, guarantees freedom of conviction and freedom of religious worship, and de­crees separation of church and state, all churches are nevertheless supervised and controlled by the State Office for Church Affairs of which special departments over­see the activities of individual districts and report their observations to the headquar­ters in Budapest, the State Office for Church Affairs exclusively appoints clergy and faculty of theological schools, admis­sion of candidates for theological studies is drastically curtailed, and members of the "basic communities" are occasionally har­assed for their independent religious activi­ties;

Whereas in Poland, where the Constitu­tion guarantees freedom of religion and sep­aration of church and state, and where, in 1982, the Patriotic Movement of National Renewal-a coalition of the Polish United Workers Party and its adjunct small politi­cal parties-declared equality under law for all citizens, activist priests and believers, pri­marily members of the Solidarity move­ment, have nevertheless become targets of persecution, and the Catholic Church oper­ates under significant impediments in its pursuit of charitable, religious, and humani­tarian goals;

Whereas in Romania, where the Constitu­tion guarantees freedom of religion, the Ministry of Cults is nevertheless granted (by Article 51 of the law on rituals of 1948> "unrestricted control of church teachings and church administration", contacts with religious associations abroad is prohibited (by Article 40 of such law> unless authorized by the Ministry of Cults and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Romanian Orthodox Church, the second largest Orthodox church <after the Orthodox Church in the USSR> with some 16 million members <out of 21 million Romanian citizens), is still tightly controlled by the government de­spite its special national status and some members of such Church suffer persecution, Catholics and Protestants are generally members of national minorities <Hungarians and Germans> that are frequent targets of persecution and discrimination especially in the provinces of Transylvania and Moldavia,

the Uniate Church was officially and forc­ibly abolished and its members transferred to the Orthodox Church by government fiat, religious instruction is discouraged and restricted, religious instructions are not per­mitted to use any teaching aids and reading materials, agents of secret police shadow re­ligious believers and clergy, trials of church­men are frequent, and the government has engaged in the physical destruction of churches of all faiths regardless of their in­estimable historical and cultural value;

Whereas in Yugoslavia, where <although officially atheistic> authorities assert that there is wide tolerance of religious activities, the government has nevertheless responded to growing demands by the citizenry for more religious instruction for children by recently proposing a law providing for fines ranging from 2,000 to 20,000 dinars or 30 days in prison for persons "performing a re­ligious ceremony where it is not permitted by law", and any citizen using a radio or film to spread religious material is subject to a fine ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 dinars;

Whereas in the USSR, where Article 124 of the Constitution guarantees both the freedom of religious faith and the freedom of atheism, the right to conduct atheistic propaganda is nevertheless fully realized while the right of evangelization is not ex­tended to religious denominations and orga­nizations, "religious propaganda" <defined by government authorities at various times to include sacred books, hymnals, prayer books and religious literature, as well as ro­saries, pictures of saints, and other religious articles> is banned, the teaching of religious to persons under 18 years of age is prohibit­ed, practicing members of any religion cannot be appointed or elected to public of­fices or positions of influence and leader­ship and such members have no representa­tion in any administrative and legislative bodies or educational and cultural institu­tions, the Ukrainian Catholic Church has been abolished, the Lithuanian Catholics and Latvian and Estonian Lutherans are subjected to religious and ethnic persecu­tion, and police force is used to suppress re­ligion;

Whereas under the oppressive conditions in existence in the USSR and Eastern Europe, some clergy, church officials, and church members consent, however reluc­tantly, to collaborate with the government, allowing the government to involve such in­dividuals and their churches in the service of the Communist system through such or­ganizations as the PAX association in Poland, the Pacem in Terris Peace Move­ment of Catholic clergy in Czechoslovakia, the Religious Circles Convocation <a new entity associated with the World Peace Council), and, most notably, the Christian Peace Conference the headquarters of which are in Prague, Czechoslovakia, but the control of which is in the Kremlin; and

Whereas the Christian Peace Conference is both pro-Soviet and undemocratic, the ac­tivities, orientation, and rhetoric of which remain biased in favor of the USSR, Cuba, other Marxist states, the PLO, and the the­ology of liberation, such that no condemna­tion of the Soviet aggression against Af­ghanistan, of the Soviet interventions in Ethiopia, Angola, and Mozambique, and of the Soviet violations of human rights in the Communist-dominated countries is allowed: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep­resentatives concurring), That because the Congress is deeply disturbed by and opposed

April10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8991 to the increased harassment of clergy and members of Christian faiths, as well as the use of clergy and believer's on behalf of Soviet foreign policy goals, it is the sense of Congress that-

<1> the President of the United States should continue to express to the govern­ments of the USSR and Eastern European countries the deep concern and opposition of the United States with respect to the har­assment of Christians;

<2> the governments of the USSR and Eastern European countries should comply with their commitments under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Madrid Concluding Document; and

(3) the governments of the USSR and Eastern European countries should immedi­ately cease persecuting individuals on the basis of their adherence to their Christian faiths and should afford them their funda­mental human right of religious expression. • Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, just as the Senate is on record as opposing the persecution of Jews in the Soviet bloc, so must we speak out forcefully against the persecution of Christians in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

In recent months, some grounds for mild optimism have arisen through the release of several prominent Jewish dissidents. Several weeks ago, many Members were privileged to par­ticipate in Soviet Jewry Day. Soviet authorities have claimed advances in their emigration policy, but we have yet to see such claims translated into positive action.

We must not be lulled into a false sense of satisfaction on the basis of recent Soviet propaganda. Moreover, the so-called new policy of openness must not be applied only to Soviet Jews. It must be extended to all fields of life and to every person. One of the most precious of all human rights is the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. That freedom does not exist for Christian and Jews alike in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe. Indeed, individuals are persecuted on the basis of their religious beliefs and cultural heritage.

Therefore, I am submitting in the Senate today a concurrent resolution calling upon the Communist states of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to cease their persecution of members of Christian faiths. Such persecution of individuals on the basis of their reli­gious beliefs and cultural heritage is in direct violation of the commitments to freedom of thought, conscience, ex­pression, and religion made by the U.S.S.R. and by the states of Eastern Europe as signatories of the U.N. Uni­versal Declaration of Human Rights, the Final Act of the Conference on Se­curity and Cooperation in Europe, and the Madrid Concluding Document.

In presenting this resolution for con­sideration by the Senate, I highlight the case of Georgi Vins, secretary abroad for the Council of Evangelical

Baptist Churches. Reverend Vins, now a resident of Elkhart, IN, was perse­cuted in the Soviet Union solely for his faith. For 8 years, until the time of exile to the United States in 1979, Reverend Vins was incarcerated in Soviet prisons. His experience is typi­cal of that encountered by many evan­gelical Christians throughout the Soviet Union and the nations of East­ern Europe.

This resolution will put the Senate firmly on record to the effect that:

First, the President of the United States should continue to express to the Governments of the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe the deep concern and opposition of the United States with respect to the persecution and harass­ment of Christians;

Second, the Governments of the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe should comply with their commitments under the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Coopera­tion in Europe, and the Madrid Con­cluding Document;

Third, the Governments of the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe should immediately cease persecuting individ­uals on the basis of their adherence to their Christian faiths.

I would hope that it will be possible for the Senate to express itself on this subject in an expeditious and timely fashion.e

SENATE RESOLUTION 190-SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING AIDS Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. BYRD,

Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. WILSON, Mr. SIMP­SON, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BOND, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COHEN, Mr. D' AMATO, Mr. DAN­FORTH, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. DODD, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. KASTEN, Mr. KENNE­DY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEviN, Mr. McCAIN, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. MURKOW­SKI, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. REID, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. RoTH, Mr. RUDMAN, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. THuRMOND, Mr. TRIBLE, Mr. WALLOP, and Mr. WIRTH) submit­ted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. RES. 190 Whereas the Acquired Immune Deficiency

Syndrome (hereinafter in this resolution re­ferred to as "AIDS") is the Nation's number 1 public health problem;

Whereas AIDS affects all segments of so­ciety;

Whereas more than 33,000 cases of AIDS have been reported in the United States and over 19,000 individuals have died from the disease since it was first recognized in 1981;

Whereas at least 1,500,000 Americans have already been infected with the AIDS virus;

Whereas AIDS is now the tenth leading cause of death in this country and is rapidly

becoming the leading cause of death for males between the ages of 20 and 39;

Whereas 30 to 50 percent of Americans in­fected with the AIDS virus will develop the disease of AIDS within the next 5 years and all infected individuals may eventually de­velop the disease;

Whereas there is currently no medical cure or vaccine for AIDS and there is un­likely to be any available cure or vaccine within the foreseeable future;

Whereas there are many complex moral, ethical, and legal questions which must be addressed concerning AIDS; and

Whereas AIDS poses a serious threat to the health, welfare, and productivity of our Nation; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Nation make a major com­mitment of resources consistent with the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences for health care, research, and education relating to AIDS, and that a Pres­idential Commission be created to assist the President and Congress in establishing pri­orities and a comprehensive plan to deal with all aspects of the domestic problems re­lating to AIDS as well as to assist with the development and adoption of a plan to deal with AIDS on an international basis.

SEc. 2. <a> The Presidential Commission referred to in the first section should con­sist of members chosen from representatives of:

<1 > health care providers; < 2 > business; <3> labor; < 4 > the insurance industry; (5) the pharmaceutical industry; < 6 > State Governors and State and local

officials; <7> the International Red Cross; <8> foundations involved in financing do-

mestic and international health efforts; <9> scientific experts; <10> religious leaders; (11) the National Academy of Sciences; <12> the Steering Committee on a National

Strategy for AIDS of the Institute of Medi­cine;

(13) public health experts; and <14> organizations concerned with AIDS. <b> In addition to the members referred to

in subsection <a>. the Presidential Commis­sion should also consist of ex officio mem­bers from Federal agencies and departments as the President considers appropriate. Sup­port services and technical assistance should be provided for the Presidential Commission from the Department of Health and Human Services.

SEc. 3. The Presidential Commission re­ferred to in the first section should perform the following functions:

<1> Evaluate the adequacy of, and make recommendations regarding, the financing of the health care and research needs relat­ed to AIDS, including the roles for and ac­tivities of private and public financing, espe­cially the role of the insurance industry and the States.

(2) Evaluate the adequacy of, and make recommendations regarding, the dissemina­tion of information which is essential in the prevention of the spread of AIDS, which recognizes the special needs of minorities and the important role of the family, educa­tional institutions, religion, and community organizations in education and prevention efforts.

<3> Address any necessary behavioral changes needed to combat AIDS, taking into consideration the multiple moral, ethi­cal, and legal concerns involved.

8992 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 <4> Make recommendations regarding how

financial resources can best be allocated to various Federal departments and agencies, including the Veterans' Administration, and State and local governments.

(5) Make recommendations regarding test­ing and counseling for AIDS, particularly with respect to maintaining confidentiality.

<6> Evaluate the adequacy of and make recommendations regarding Federal and State laws including Civil Rights law's relat­ing to AIDS, particularly-

<A> rules, regulations, and ethical consid­erations relating to infectious diseases de­signed to protect the health of all individ­uals at risk of contagion, including those re­lating to immigration, liability, and discrimi­nation; and

<B> problems encountered by individuals having AIDS in obtaining and retaining em­ployment, housing, and insurance and par­ticipating in educational systems, and in­cluding possible violations of rights of priva­cy and confidentiality.

<7> Evaluate and adequacy of and make recommendations regarding international coordination and cooperation with respect to date collection, treatment modalities, and research.

SEc. 4. It is the sense of the Senate that the Presidential Commission referred to in the first section should be established within 90 days of the date of adoption of this resolution and should issue a prelimi­nary report regarding its operations within 9 months after the date of establishment. A subsequent report should be issued one year after the date on which the initial report is issued an further report should be issued as determined by the Presidential Commission.

SENATE RESOLUTION 191-RE­LATING TO THE REMOVAL OF THE SOVIET UNION FROM ITS NEW FACILITY IN WASHING­TON,DC Mr. SYMMS submitted the follow­

ing resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

S. RES. 191 Resolved, That it is the sense of the

Senate that the Secretary of State shall re­quire the government of the Soviet Union, not later than thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution, to vacate the premises of its chancery on Tunlaw Road in Washington, D.C., and shall take such steps that may be necessary to transfer that chancery to the control of the General Services Administration.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the Secretary of State.

NOTICES OF HEARINGS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate that a closed hearing has been scheduled on the status of the Department of Energy's efforts to address questions concerning national security, environmental and safety issues surrounding the defense materi­als production reactors located in the United States.

This hearing will take place on May 7, 1987, at 2 p.m. in room 8-407 in the Capitol in Washington, DC.

For further information, please con­tact Ben Cooper at (202) 224-7569.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the Special Committee on Aging has scheduled a hearing entitled, "The Role of the Older Americans Act in Assuring Access to Quality Home Care."

The hearing will take place on Monday, April 27, 1987, at 10:00 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

For further information, please con­tact Max Richtman, Staff Director at (202) 224-5364.

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITI'EES TO MEET

SUBCOIIDIITTEE ON PRIVATE RETIREMENT PLANS AND IRS OVERSIGHT

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcom­mittee on Private Retirement Plans and IRS Oversight of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 1987 at 9 a.m. to hold a hear­ing on a proposed taxpayer's bill of rights.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With­out objection, it is so ordered. SUBCOIIOIITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE

AFFAIRS

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcom­mittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs on the Committee on the Judi­ciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 1987 at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing on oversight on implementation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

ON CELEBRATING A CHAMPION eMs. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, a hero was crowned Monday night in Las Vegas.

A hero was crowned because he made a decision, took a risk, and met a challenge.

Sugar Ray Leonard, of Potomac, MD, did more than just win a fight and assume an historic place in boxing history.

Ray Leonard became an example of Maryland, America, and the world to admire.

I rise, Mr. President, to applaud this man for his courage and determina­tion. He's our new "Rocky."

Sugar Ray Leonard did not need to challenge Marvelous Marvin Hagler

for the financial rewards. And he did not need the media attention that fol­lows whenever great athletes square off.

Rather, what motivated Sugar Ray was the inner, burning drive that in­spires any achiever.

His goal was to defeat Mr. Hagler, a man who had not lost a fight in 11 years. His goal was to become the first boxer ever to become champion in three different weight classifications.

Sugar Ray's goal, Mr. President, was to defy the odds.

Those odds said Sugar Ray Leonard would lose. Those odds said no boxer could come back from a 5-year layoff. Those odds said Sugar Ray Leonard could face permanent damage to his eyesight.

Mr. Leonard researched the odds and the risks. He made a decision. And he followed that decision through, with tireless training and remarkable dedication.

And then, on a Monday night in Caesar's Palace, he stunned the boxing world.

In this middleweight victory over Marvin Hagler, Ray Leonard showed the speed and cunning that had been his trademark as a welterweight cham­pion. By the eighth round, Sugar Ray had his opponent against the ropes with three- and four-punch blows.

Sugar Ray, it was clear, had himself ready for the challenge.

He defeated formidable odds. And he defeated a formidable opponent.

I congratulate Sugar Ray Leonard because he had the strength to weigh risks, make a decision, dedicate him­self to a cause, and face the conse­quences.

For this, Sugar Ray should serve as an inspiration to us an .•

AFGHANISTAN: LETTERS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

e Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, last December the brutal Soviet occu­pation of Afghanistan entered its eighth year. The horrible condition of human rights in Afghanistan was re­cently described in a United Nations report as: "A situation approaching genocide."

As chairman of the Congressional Task Force on Afghanistan. I have re­ceived thousands of letters from Amer­icans across the Nation who are out­raged at the senseless atrocities being committed today in Afghanistan. Many of these letters are from Ameri­cans who are shocked at this Nation's relative silence about the genocide taking place in Afghanistan.

In the weeks and months ahead, I plan to share some of these letters with my colleagues. I will insert into the REcoRD two letters each day from various States in the Nation. Today, I submit two letters from the State of

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8993 West Virginia and ask that they be printed in the RECORD.

The letters follow: CHAiu.EsTON, WV.

DEAR SENATOR HUKPHREY: I have just fin­ished reading "Agony in Afghanistan" in the March issue of Reader's Digest and I am aghast at the alleged atrocities taking place in Afghanistan. I shudder to think of how the majority of the world closed their eyes and ears to the Nazi slaughter of the Jewish people.

I strongly urge that the United States take immediate action to ascertain whether or not these allegations are true.

Sincerely, LoiS A. SIMPKINS.

MOUNDSVILLE, WV. DEAR SENATOR HUKPHREY: I am writing to

voice my concern about the Soviet campaign and butchery going on in Afghanistan.

I feel I have to write and let our govern­ment know I wish something would be done to stop this operation of terror and atroc­ities being done to the Afghanistan people.

We must not make the same mistake, like we did in Nazi Germany! I was too young to raise my voice, but I am now saying help stop this butchery!

Most sincerely, LILLIAN P. NOLAND.e

RURAL HEALTH CARE e Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I commend to the attention of my col­leagues an article that appears in this month's issue of Business and Health magazine entitled "Keeping Rural Hospitals Open and Affordable" by Senator MAx BAUCUS.

Senator BAucus' article is a timely reminder to all of us who understand the important role of small rural hos­pitals and the problems they face in serving the health care needs of mil­lions of Americans who live in sparsely populated and remote communities around the Nation.

Rural Americans have a friend in the Senator from Montana. As an active member of the Health Subcom­mittee of the Senate Finance Commit­tee, Senator BAucus has been a firm and persuasive advocate on rural health concerns. And as a member of the conference committee that negoti­ated agreements on dozens of health provisions contained in the 1986 Budget Reconciliation Act, Senator BAucus fought for a package of re­forms that will help to improve the margin of financial safety for many vulnerable rural hospitals.

It is clear from reading the article in Business and Health that more needs to be done, especially in the Medicare Program, to assure continued access to quality health care in rural areas. For example, according to a February 1987, report by the Prospective Pay­ment Assessment Commission, fully 10 percent of the Nation's rural hospitals with fewer than 50 beds had first year losses that exceeded 18 percent for the services they provided to Medicare pa­tients. Clearly, we must remain sensi-

tive to the needs of rural hospitals as Congress considers further refine­ments in Medicare's prospective pay­ment system.

I am sure that my colleagues will find the article by the Senator from Montana to be valuable and insightful. I ask that the article by Senator BAUCUS appearing in the April 1987, issue of Business and Health be print­ed in the RECORD.

The article follows: KEEPING RURAL HOSPITALS OPEN AND

AFFORDABLE

<By Max Baucus> The backbone of rural health care is the

small hospital. In many towns throughout the United States, the small hospital not only is the central provider of health care, it often is the town's largest employer and purchaser as well. Moreover, these facilities are essential to the quality of life in rural communities. They make their towns better places to live and work, help attract new businesses and provide desirable communi­ties for retirees to settle.

To determine the importance of small hospitals to rural communities, consider these facts: Small hospitals often provide some of the best paying jobs in town and up to three-quarters of the hospital's payroll is estimated to stay in or around the commu­nity the hospital serves; these hospitals are essential magnets for attracting and retain­ing physicians and other health profession­als in rural, underserved areas; and, finally, these facilities are closely tied to the com­munity's identity and pride, which residents have sacrificed to support in times of heavY demand for shrinking local tax revenues.

HOSPITALS DRAW ON LOCAL REVENUES

However, many small rural hospitals today are fighting for survival. The finan­cial vital signs of these facilities are weaken­ing under the combined pressures of a rural economy that has gone into a tailspin, changes that have been made in Medicare, such as the institution of the prospective payment system <PPS> and its constant re­finments, as well as cost management strat­egies adopted by private insurers.

In Montana, for instance, nearly half the 60 hospitals in the state have fewer than 30 beds. One indicator of the financial vulner­ability of the state's smallest hospitals has been the recent sharp increase in local tax subsidies that have been necessary to re­place losses in patient revenues. In 1985, almost 70 percent of the nonoperating reve­nue for this group of hospitals came from tax dollars provided by counties and hospi­tal districts. From 1984 to 1985, local tax subsidies to these hospitals grew by 54 per­cent as communities stepped in to offset losses, and during the same period, revenues from the hospitals' investments fell by over 60 percent, in part due to the need to spend down reserves to remain solvent.

For most larger hospitals, the bulk of non­operating revenues usually comes from in­terest earned on their investments and do­nations. Generally speaking, if the sources for this additional income are stable and re­liable, the ability to generate revenue from activities other than patient charges is one positive sign of a hospital's financial strength. But the rapidly growing reliance of small rural hospitals on local tax dollars to ensure solvency is a disturbing trend. At times when local rural economies are stretched to the limit, continued increases in tax support are anything but a solid

source of income because hospitals are put in the tenuous position of contending annu­ally for limited community resources.

These hospitals face many other condi­tions that limit their ability to respond, for example, to changes in payments for their services and sudden drops in patient admis­sions, which declined by 7.6 percent in 1985, nearly twice the rate of patient admissions decline for all U.S. hospitals. First, small rural hospitals have relatively high fixed costs as a result of staffing required to meet minimum accreditation and Medicare par­ticipation requirements. This makes it more difficult for rural hospitals to absorb reve­nue losses as urban and suburban hospitals have done with offsetting cost saving strate­gies or creative staffing arrangements. Second, few small rural hospitals can high­light special services that might increase their revenues, in part because of the prob­lems of attracting specialized professionals and obtaining new technology. Third, cash reserves are small because of less diversifica­tion in operations and fewer investment re­sources to bring in additional funding.

Finally, and of growing concern, is these hospitals, heavy reliance on Medicare as the dominant source of payment. In Montana, for example, Medicare patients account for well over 50 percent of total hospital admis­sions for many of the state's smallest hospi­tals. Even minor fluctuations in Medicare can translate into major financial changes for these vulnerable health care providers.

All too often, the magnitude of such changes is overlooked by those who examine health policy decisions broadly. Medicare payments to small rural hospitals account for only a tiny fraction of Medicare's costs, and frequently, the effects of payment changes on rural communities get lost in de­cisions based solely on the impact on larger facilities.

SHORTCOMINGS IN MEDICARE'S DESIGN

Because Medicare payments are essential to the survival of small rural hospitals, it is necessary to understand whether the way Medicare pays for health services is appro­priate for rural communities. The basic premise behind PPS is that paying an aver­age, fixed price for hospital services will keep health costs down by increasing com­petition among providers. Firmly embedded in the complex, technical calculations of PPS rates, adjustments, updates and refine­ments is a payment program based on the theory of economic efficiency.

There is nothing wrong with economic ef­ficiency. The problem is that it is not the only goal for health care. Americans also want health care to be accessible and of high quality. For rural Americans-where the next nearest hospital may be more than a hundred miles away-a payment system based on competition among hospitals is far less important than one that does not threaten the survival of the primary health care institution serving the entire region.

For health care and many other services, rural Americans simply have fewer options. What is more, economic efficiency policies, carried to an extreme, may backfire if small rural hospitals close and patients are forced to travel to distant urban facilities or rural referral hospitals for routine care where the ·reimbursement costs to Medicare and other payers for the same services are as much as 25 percent to 35 percent higher.

PPS also works against hospitals that are unable to take advantage of the law of large numbers. That is, the losses taken by larger hospitals for some cases can be offset more

8994 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 easily by their gains over the large volume of patients they serve. Small hospitals, on the other hand, have a harder time averag­ing out their losses because of their low pa­tient volume. They also have less flexibility to shift Medicare losses to private payers, since non-Medicare patients account for a relatively small portion of their caseload. Fi­nally, small hospitals can face unusually high financial risks when the costs of even a few patients, whose health problems are much worse than expected, are not ade­quately reimbursed by Medicare's average payment amounts.

MEDICARE GUARANTEES HOLD PROMISE

In the 1986 Sixth Omnibus Budget Recon­ciliation Act <SOBRA>. Congress approved a number of actions to improve the margin of financial safety for rural hospitals and help to preserve quality health care for their communities. These changes are no guaran­tee that some rural hospitals will not fail. But many of the provisions will help restore greater fairness in the way Medicare pays for health services in rural areas. More im­portant is Congress' recognition of the need for federal policy makers to be more sensi­tive to how PPS affects rural hospital fi­nancing and the health care needs of over 60 million Americans who live in rural com­munities.

For instance, Congress directed that Medi­care continue to pay its full share of the capital costs for more than 360 isolated, sole community hospitals. This provision en­sures that, over the next three years, sole community hospitals will continue to be paid 100 percent of Medicare's share for costs related to land, buildings and medical technology, These costs often are 10 percent or more of a hospital's total expenses. Main­taining this policy for these costs will help ensure that Medicare will be a reliable part­ner in meeting such obligations while broad­er changes in the payment of capital ex­penses are being considered.

In addition, small rural hospitals with fewer than 100 beds will be allowed to con­tinue to receive biweekly Medicare pay­ments to protect them from sudden disrup­tions in their cash flow. SOBRA also directs the Department of Health and Human Serv­ices <HHS> to recalculate hospital payments to both urban and rural hospitals. Starting Oct. 1, 1987, standard Medicare payment amounts to hospitals will be weighted by the number of Medicare patients served. The result is that the average Medicare pay­ments to rural hospitals, which tend to serve higher percentages of elderly patients, will go up. According to early estimates done by the Health Care Financing Admin­istration <HCFA), this change alone will eliminate over 15 percent of the gap in the average Medicare payments with rural hos­pitals receiving some $600 less than urban hospitals for the same services.

The reconciliation legislation alters as well the way that rural hospitals will be as­sessed to cover unusually high cost services to Medicare patients. SOBRA establishes separate outlier pools for urban and rural hospitals. Contributions to the pool will be based on the amount of actual payments that the two groups of hospitals can expect to receive from Medicare in the form of out­lier payments. Since rural hospital contribu­tions to the pool will be lower than in the past, average Medicare payments for their routine care to elderly patients will increase.

The act also extends the authority of the HHS secretary to make appropriate adjust­ments in Medicare's payments to sole com­munity hospitals that experience sharp

drops in their occupancy. This provision gives PPS the needed flexibility to respond to swings in patient volume that are beyond the control of these hospitals and helps to safeguard patients' access to isolated hospi­tals.

REMAINING PROBLEMS

One of the most important challenges to PPS remains to establish a fair and justifi­able basis for the difference between rural and urban payment rates for the same serv­ices to Medicare patients. When PPS began in 1983, Congress established a dual rate structure based on evidence at the time that the costs for health care in urban areas his­torically were higher than those experi­enced by rural providers. However, it still needs to be determined why patient costs are higher in urban areas and whether the same degree of difference in costs exists today.

The simple fact is that the present pay­ment system is biased against rural health care. Not only are rural hospitals paid far less than urban facilities, the upward ad­justments to Medicare payments that are available to soften the blow of PPS on large teaching hospitals and those servicing large numbers of poor patients are of little value or relevance to the average rural hospital. Congress has directed HHS to find out what lies behind the differences in urban and rural payment amounts. Once HHS delivers its findings this year, Congress needs to re­store confidence in the integrity of PPS by making sure that any remaining payment differences are supported by hard facts.

Another area where changes should be considered is in Medicare payments to sole community hospitals. Unlike other hospi­tals, Medicare payments to these hospitals have not been moving toward national aver­age rates. Rather, the hospitals are paid permanently on the same basis as all other hospitals were paid in the first year of PPS. That means that three-quarters of the amount they receive from Medicare is based on the hospital's own, pre-PPS costs and one-quarter is based on average costs within the region where the hospital is located.

Medicare's payment scheme for rural, iso­lated hospitals now needs to be reexamined. HCFA recently reported to the federal Pro­spective Payment Assessment Commission <ProPAC> that "sole community hospitals . . . are projected to do significantly worse than most groups of hospitals," and suggest­ed that many of these hospitals might be better off by abandoning their special pay­ment status and joining other hospitals under regular PPS rules.

The American Hospital Association <AHA> also believes that payments to sole commu­nity hospitals should be revised. But its pro­posed solution differs significantly from HCFA's. Testifying before the Senate Fi­nance Committee in May 1986, AHA sug­gested allowing sole community hospitals to return to the cost based reimbursement rules that existed before 1983.

A middle ground possibility now being ex­plored by ProPAC would be to refine and expand the present authority that the sec­retary of HHS has to adjust PPS payments to sole community hospitals that experience declines in patient volume. This approach has the advantage of being able to target relief to certain low volume hospitals that are important to maintaining access to es­sential health care services for rural elderly. Congress also should consider whether volume adjusted payments are needed for other rural hospitals that meet the defini-

tion of sole community hospitals but have not sought that designation so far.

In general, the federal government needs much better information about which health care policies will work in rural areas and which will not. That means changing federal research priorities and putting an emphasis within HHS on rural health ques­tions and demonstrated solutions. It also means changing the attitude of federal ad­ministrators so that any possible adverse af­fects on rural health care are considered fully before policy changes are made in Washington.

Recently, the Appalachian Regional Com­mission initiated a study to find out wheth­er PPS is adversely affecting health care in rural Appalachia. The commission also hopes to determine how hospitals within the region have responded to the changes made by Medicare and what improvements might be appropriate in PPS. These are the sorts of questions that HCFA needs to ad­dress for other regions of the country before PPS can be considered a fair, work­able national program for payment of health care services.

Finally, it is obvious that Medicare poli­cies are neither the sole issue nor only cure for all of the problems that face rural hospi­tals. The future of health care for rural communities is as much in their own hands as it is in the technical changes that are still needed in PPS. Some rural hospitals have joined together to form cooperative ar­rangements to reduce redundant services in the same areas and to share expensive equipment. Others have become affiliated with large academic medical centers to gain access to medical specialists on a rotating basis and to promote patient referrals to a more comprehensive facility. Still others have found ways to diversify their services and fill unmet community needs.

There should be no illusions about the dif­ficulty of the task ahead. But by demon­strating a willingness to explore innovative approaches and by demanding fairness from federal payment programs, rural communi­ties can influence their ability to maintain quality health care.e

AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION • Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, we take for granted that the scholarly record will last forever-that the scien­tific volumes archived in our libraries will be always available to researchers and to future generations. Like so much we take for granted, this simply is not true. The majority of scientific literature in existence today is printed on high-acid content paper that is des­tined to disintegrate in perhaps 50 years without expensive and selective efforts at its preservation. Archivists, librarians, and information specialists know this and are using a variety of preservation interventions. Although technological developments in elec­tronic storage of information will no doubt offer some cure, and new preser­vation problems of their own, there is another alternative. By using more permanent paper in the production of the scientific literature, much of the preservation problem can be stopped at its source.

AprillO, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8995 This January, the board of regents

of the National Library of Medicine, joined by our colleague in the House, the Honorable WILLLUI H. NATCHER, brought these issues to a public forum to initiate discussion and increase awareness of this serious problem and of prevention as its relatively simple cure. This day long hearing on the use of permanent paper for biomedical lit­erature provided a forum in which publishers, editors, paper manufactur­ers and distributors, printers, biomedi­cal researchers, librarians, and other professionals concerned with preserv­ing the biomedical literature could share experiences in the use of archi­val media. Lois E. DeBakey, Ph.D, pro­fessor of scientific communication at the Baylor College of Medicine, spoke during the day's proceedings. Her re­marks underscore the need to resolve the problem. Because, in the long term, the preservation of scholarly lit­erature is a responsibility we as a soci­ety all share, I ask that Dr. DeBakey's speech be printed in the RECORD.

The speech follows: PRESERVING OUR MEDICAL ARCHIVES: AN

OUNCE OF PREvENTION

<By Lois DeBakey, Ph.D.) "All that Mankind has done, thought,

gained or been:" wrote Thomas Carlyle, ". . . is lying as in magic preservation in the pages of Books. They are the chosen posses­sion of men." As an avid reader of books and an occasional contributor, I concur in the magic, but the preservation is a source of concern, and I want to plead today for an ounce of prevention to obviate not a pound, but a ton, of cure.

When Moses, angered by the sinners, broke the stone tablets on which the Ten Commandments were graven, the Lord al­lowed the code to be recorded again. That second chance and the preservation of the Decaloque through the ages have provided us with the Judeo-Christian ethic-the basis for ideal human behavior, morality, and law. Unhappily, modern man may not have a second chance.

Printed volumes-particularly those pub­lished since the advent of acidic paper-are crumbling inexorably on our library shelves. Preservationists are in a fierce race against time, and so far time is winning. Our most worthy scientific archives, if not set in stone, deserve at least to be printed on acid­free paper.

HISTORICAL REVIEW

Concern for the preservation of the writ­ten word is not new. Before the invention of paper, man used stones, walls of caves, clay tiles, wooden tablets, papyrus, parchment, fabric, and vellum to record human thoughts and chronicle human events. All such materials were cumbersome, expensive, or fragile.

In 105 A.D., Ts'ai Lun, a Chinese court eunuch, announced the discovery of paper. But that material, too, presented problems from the beginning. Early Chinese law, in fact, required inclusion of an extract from the seeds of the cork tree in all paper manu­factured-as a means of repelling insects. Nonetheless, the demand for paper did not rise dramatically until after Gutenberg in­vented the movable-type printing press in 1452.

Among the early skeptics <1492) was Jo­hannes Trithemius, the German historian, who objected to the increasing use of paper by religious scribes. "If writing is put on parchment," he argued, "it can last for a thousand years, but how long will printing something on paper last?" Little did he know that four centuries later, we would be faced with further risks in the form of metal and chlorine residuals, alum-rosin, and groundwood.

EXTENT OF DETERIORATION

Are we exaggerating the danger of losing our recorded history? About a third of the books recently sampled in the Yale Univer­sity Library had brittle paper, and more than 80% had acidic paper, which will inevi­tably become brittle and crumble. A fourth of the collections at the Library of Con­gress, as well as at Stanford University, are at risk from embrittlement, and half of the New York Public Library's five million vol­umes are crumbling. Ninety-seven per cent of nonfiction books published in the first half of this century will not last until the next. While pages of the Gutenberg Bibles remain white and supple and their bindings firm, the pages of a 1912 work by Henrik Ibsen are turning to dust.

At the National Library of Medicine, about 9% or 113,000 volumes are so embrit­tled that one more use may destroy them. To the credit of scientific publishers and of the architects and staff of the National Li­brary of Medicine, that figure is compara­tively low. Publishers have properly consid­ered scientific documents worthy of more stable paper than some other genres; archi­tects designed the Library to provide a pro­tective environment; and the excellent NLM staff has enhanced that protection.

Books published today on acidic paper have a life of only 30 to 50 years, whereas those on alkaline paper will last 500 to 1,000 years. Acid is eating away our recorded her­itage. With paper that self-destructs, who needs book burners? It is one thing if a nat­ural disaster, like the 1966 flood in Florence, destroys the records of a civilization, but it is quite another if we acquiesce in the "silent disaster" of book destruction by fail­ing to use available preventive measures.

Is it responsible to use, for archival publi­cations, the acidic paper that entered com­merce after 1850 when we know its fate? Es­pecially when acid-free paper is available? It is inefficient and illogical to apply costly, labor-intensive remedial measures to vol­umes containing highly perishable paper when we can prevent the problem by using acid-free paper. Surely, an ounce of preven­tion here is worth a pound of cure.

The chief book conservator at the North­east Document Conservation Center knows how laborious and expensive book restora­tion is. She has bathed books, one page at a time, in a solution that removes acids, has treated them with magnesium bicarbonate, and has mended the rips and tears. Non­profit organizations pay $40 per hour for this service; profit-making concerns a little more. But the treatments cannot stop the deterioration completely or restore the paper's strength.

WHY PRESERVE BOOKS?

Some may ask: Why should we be con­cerned with the quality of paper when in­formation to be published is already in ma­chine-readable form? But long-term preser­vation of such materials remains the subject of discussion. Still unclear, for example, are the effective life of machine-readable stor­age devices and optimal environmental con-

ditions for archival storage. These questions will eventually be resolved, but we must still find a way to preserve today's scholarly journals-and tomorrow's-until printed publications become obsolete, if indeed they ever do. And I, for one, hope that never happens.

OTHER MEDIA

What about other media besides books? Microfilming has been most widely used as a preservation measure, but at $45 to $60 per volume and four months for processing, li­braries can afford to microfilm very few books. Moreover, microfilming has hardly been embraced by users, who consider it cumbersome and time-consuming.

All other methods of copying documents for preservation are associated with certain problems, and most are very expensive. Tapes break and scratch, videotape formats quickly become obsolete, and optical sys­tems, magnetic discs, and computer equip­ment are still in a state of rapid develop­ment, so that conversion is a constant prob­lem. Semiconductor chips and laser discs are the latest technology, but archivists are skeptical, and some believe paper is still best for storage. The book also remains the most convenient medium in scholarly communica­tion-no small consideration. We need only our eyes and hands to read the highly port­able book-no cumbersome equipment like computers or microfiche readers.

ACCESS TO ORIGINAL SOURCES

Of course, our space problem may vanish as books more than 30 years old disente­grate and must be discarded. It is disheart­ening to scholars to think that they may have access only to publications of the past 30 years, but even now I see a disturbing trend. Citations in medical articles today often contain only those references avail­able in electronic data bases, that is, over the past two decades, even though the pri­mary sources may have dated several dec­ades earlier.

Yet if original publications are ignored, scientists may not only perpetuate misinter­pretations and erroneous citations and fail to acknowledge priority properly, but they may also repeat research for which conclu­sive results are already available-and that would be an unfortunate waste. Medical his­tory also contains a number of instances in which a remarkable medical advance, such as computerized axial tomography, had a basis in research completed some years ear­lier. In the 1950s and 60s, physicist A.M. Cormack, pioneer in the development of computer tomography, was seeking a solu­tion to a mathematical problem crucial to his work. As a result, he was forced to spend considerable time on the solution himself, only to discover, 14 years later, that mathe­matician J.H. Radon had published a paper in 1917 that contained the solution he was seeking.

And, as is well known, Mendel's classic work on genetics in 1866 was virtually for­gotten until several botanists rediscovered it at the turn of the century. Without access to and consultation of earlier work, we might therefore be delaying or preventing further medical advances.

Our vast pre-electronic archives also help us understand the nature and progression of research-the ambiguities, false starts, con­tradictions, and dead ends-and that under­standing helps scientists toward sounder and more fruitful studies. As Henry Sigerist wrote, "Medical history . . . is the compass that guides us into the future. If our work is

8996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 not to be haphazard but to follow a well-laid plan, we need the guidance of history, ... :•

The question is not, then:· Why should we preserve these publications? Most thought­ful people agree with Santayana that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The question, rather, is: What shall we preserve, and how shall we decide? Some of you know how in­sistently I have argued against publication of scientific articles that are inherently flawed-that is, that are redundant, inconse­quential, invalid, or frankly fraudulent. So if the cost is excessive, selectivity may be important. In 1980, the Committee on In­trinsic Value of the National Archives and Records Service recommended that all per­manently valuable historical documents and other such records be retained in their origi­nal form, if possible.

Once published, even scientific fraud should be exposed, not suppressed-to remind editors and reviewers to be more vigilant and to allow historians to analyze the record accurately.

PRIDE IN AUTHORSHIP

If I may be permitted a personal note, I'd like to speak for a moment as an author. When my co-author and I were considering a publisher for our forthcoming book, "Medicine: Preserving the Passion," one req­uisite was acid-free paper. Scholars like to believe they are writing for posterity and are loath to think that their diligent efforts and long labors will eventuate in mere dust.

When you consider that scholars and sci­entists, unlike journalists and authors of popular works, not only surrender their in­tellectual property to journal editors with­out compensation, but must sometimes pay page-reviewing-charges and must buy back their own words in the form of reprints, you can understand why they might consider permanence an important quality. Without authors' contributions, journals would, inci­dentially, not exist. The substance of their product, if of some potential value to hu­manity, deserves more stable paper than ex­pendable newspapers, popular magazines, and fad books. If an original scientific report is not worthy of preservation, is it worthy of publication at all?

As scholars and scientists realize they have decreasing access to early publications, perhaps they may demand acid-free paper. And if the voices of authors, researchers, ar­chivists, librarians, and readers swell suffi­ciently, editors and publishers will surely listen.

Alan Calmes, preservation officer of the National Archives and Records Administra­tion, believes that the switch to acid-free paper will come when the Congressional Joint Committee on Printing, which deter­mines the specifications of government paper, requires the use of acid-free paper. So serious are the problems of preservation and storage space, federal officials are con­sidering the collection and treatment of single copies of all published books and doc­uments for burial in vaults deep in salt mines.

One problem is that the gravity of the matter has not caught the attention of the public, and no national preservation policy has thus emerged. Consumers are generally unconcerned about book durability. They read contemporary best-seller paperbacks and promptly dispose of them. And for most such books, permanence is irrelevant.

According to the National Conservation Advisory Council, the United States is the only major nation without a coordinated na­tional policy for conservation. If the Gov-

ernment Printing Office required archival­quality paper for all government documents that deserve retention in their original form, such a policy could serve as a model for all publishers. The lack of a national policy to forestall disintegration is attribut­able in part to a dearth of communication about this threat to our archives. Our pur­pose today is to heighten awareness of this problem.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1823, that it is "the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities, which occur to him for pre­serving documents relating to the history of our country." Certainly, medical archives of intrinsic value represent part of that histo­ry.

Already there is a danger of losing more than a century of the human record. Shall we continue to store problems for future generations, or shall we begin prevention measures now? The question is serious and deserves the only reasonable answer I can find-a resounding YES for prevention-and now.e

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

• Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, it is re­quired by paragraph 4 of rule 35 that I place in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD notices of Senate employees who par­ticipate in programs, the principal ob­jective of which is educational, spon­sored by a foreign government or a foreign educational or charitable orga­nization involving travel to a foreign country paid for by that foreign gov­ernment or organization.

The select committee has received a request for a determination under rule 35, for Mr. Robert F. Hurley, a member of the staff of Senator JOHN H. CHAFEE, to participate in a program in Saudi Arabia, North Yemen, and Oman, sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Saudi Arabia and the National Council on United States-Arab Relations, from April 9-19, 1987.

The committee has determined that participation by Mr. Hurley in the pro­gram in the Saudi Arabia, North Yemen, and Oman, at the expense of the Chamber of Commerce and Indus­try of Saudi Arabia and the National Council on United States-Arab Rela­tions, is in the interest of the Senate and the United States.

The select committee has received a request for a determination under rule 35, for Ms. Polly L. Gault, a member of the staff of the Subcommittee on Education, Arts and Humanities, Com­mittee on Labor and Human Re­sources, to participate in a program in the People's Republic of China, spon­sored by the Chinese People's Insti­tute of Foreign Affairs in conjunction with the United States-Asia Institute, from April12-21, 1987.

The committee has determined that participation by Ms. Gault in the pro­gram in the People's Republic of China, at the expense of the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs in

conjunction with the United States­Asia Institute, is in the interest of the Senate and the United States.

The select committee has received a request for a determination under rule 35, for Mr. William C. Jacobs, a member of the staff of Senator DANIEL J. EvANs, to participate in a program in Saudi Arabia, North Yemen, and Bahrain, sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Saudi Arabia and the National Council on United States-Arab Relations, from April 10-19, 1987.

The committee has determined that participation by Mr. Jacobs in the pro­gram in Saudi Arabia, North Yemen, and Bahrain, at the expense of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Saudi Arabia and the National Council on United States-Arab Rela­tions, is in the interest of the Senate and the United States.

The select committee has received a request for a determination under rule 35, for Mr. David Cox, a member of the staff of Senator DAVID L. BOREN, to participate in a program in South Korea, sponsored by the Ilhae Insti­tute of Seoul, Korea, from Aprilll-18, 1987.

The committee has determined that participation by Mr. Cox in the pro­gram in South Korea, at the expense of the Ilhae Institute of Seoul, Korea, is in the interest of the Senate and the United States.

The select committee has received a request for a determination under rule 35, for Ms. Gail D. Fosler, a member of the staff of the Senate Budget Com­mittee, to participate in a program in the People's Republic of China, spon­sored by the Chinese People's Insti­tute of Foreign Affairs in conjunction with the United States-Asia Institute, from April 10-22, 1987.

The committee has determined that participation by Ms. Fosler in the pro­gram in the People's Republic of China, at the expense of the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs in conjunction with the United States­Asia Institute, is in the interest of the Senate and the United States.

The select committee has received a request for a determination under rule 35, for Mr. George Krumbhaar, a member of the staff of Senator JoHN GLENN, to participate in a program in South Korea, sponsored by the Ilhae Institute of Seoul, Korea, from April 11-18, 1987.

The committee has determined that participation by Mr. Krumbhaar in the program in South Korea, at the expense of the llhae Institute of Seoul, Korea, is in the interest of the Senate and the United States.

The select committee has received a request for a determination under rule 35, for Mr. Darren Trigonoplos, a member of the staff of Senator PAUL TRIBLE, to participate in a program in

April 10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8997 Bolivia, sponsored by the American Chamber of Commerce in Bolivia [ACCB1. from April9-14, 1987.

The committee has determined that participation by Mr. Trigonoplos, in the program in the Bolivia, at the ex­pense of the American Chamber of Commerce in Bolivia [ACCB1. is in the interest of the Senate and the United States.

The select committee has received a request for a determination under rule 35, for Ms. Christine Dawson, a member of the staff of Senator DANIEL J. EvANs, to participate in a program in Bolivia, sponsored by the American Chamber of Commerce in Bolivia [ACCBl, from April9-15, 1987.

The committee has determined that participation by Ms. Dawson in the program in the Bolivia, at the expense of the American Chamber of Com­merce in Bolivia [ACCBJ, is in the in­terest of the Senate and the United States.e

OLDER AMERICANS ACT e Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in sponsoring legis­lation to reauthorize the Older Ameri­cans Act. The enactment of this im­portant act in 1965 established a na­tional policy to address the needs of older citizens in our country. The pro­grams contained in the Older Ameri­cans Act were developed to meet a va­riety of needs of the older population, including health, nutrition, transpor­tation, and social services.

Over the past two decades we have seen a rapid growth in the Nation's 65 and over population. This population grew by 54 percent. The number of persons 75 and over has increased by more than 275 percent between 1940 and 1980. This trend is expected to continue into the next century. By the year 2035, it is estimated that every fifth American will be 65 years of age and over.

Changes that have occurred in the elderly population have been met by many of the programs in the Older Americans Act. Changes that are pro­jected for the future will be met by an Older Americans Act that responds to the needs of this changing older popu­lation in a variety of ways.

Today. many Americans are able to live independently in their own homes because of the services provided under the Older Americans Act. A major component of this act provides for the State units on aging and the area agencies on aging [AAAJ to develop a comprehensive set of programs at the community level to address the needs of the elderly. These services include community-based assistance such as senior centers, transportation ombuds­man services, part-time community service jobs, and home services. The Older Americans Act continues to achieve its goal of promoting greater

independence and providing sources designed to maintain the dignity of millions of older Americans.

The nutrition program under title 111-B has been one of the most suc­cessful and popular programs under the Older Americans Act. This pro­gram not only delivers nutritious meals for older persons at a price within their reach, but also provides an opportunity for the elderly to so­cialize with others-an important pro­vision of the nutrition program, espe­cially for those who are lonely and iso­lated.

Title IV provides funds for research, training, and demonstration projects. The research projects have provided vital information to develop sound public policies, and the career training has provided gerontology students for numerous positions in the field of aging. Several of the demonstration projects have resulted in major inno­vations to the Older Americans Act, including the nutrition program for the elderly and the Foster Grandpar­ents Program.

Finally, the title V Senior Communi­ty Service Employment Program [SCSEP1 has enabled low-income older Americans to help themselves while helping others in their commu­nities at the same time.

The Older Americans Act continues to achieve its goal of assisting older Americans to fully participate in the benefits of our Nation. It also provides the foundation for a partnership among Federal, State, and local gov­ernments and communities to meet the needs of the elderly. I am pleased to join in sponsoring legislation to re­authorize the Older Americans Act. I fully understand the difficulties con­fronting older Americans living on fixed incomes, and I will continue to support legislation that provides for adequate assistance in health, nutri­tion, housing, energy, and other needs of the elderly.e • Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, many of my colleagues are preparing to go to the Soviet Union this month. I would like to draw their attention to the plight of Naum Melman.

Naum has been a Soviet refusenik for over 10 years. He has struggled endlessly to end the discrimination and harassment accorded Jews in the Soviet Union. Although he has applied numerous times to emigrate to the West, the Soviets continue to deny him an exit visa.

Naum recently lost his dear wife Inna. Inna suffered from cancer, and she was in critical need of treatment available only in the West. The Soviet Union delayed Irma's release, and her condition worsened. She was finally given permission to come to the United States in January. It was too late, though, and Inna passed away at the beginning of February.

Naum was not allowed to accompany Inna to the United States to offer comfort and support. In addition, the Soviet Government cruelly denied Naum permission to attend lnna's fu­neral. As he adjusts to life without his beloved wife, Naum still wishes to live in the West. It is time for the Soviets to allow Naum some happiness.

I implore the Soviet Union to grant Naum Melman permission to emigrate immediately.e

GRAIN ELEVATOR SAFETY e Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the oc­currence of three serious grain eleva­tor explosions within the past week, two of which occurred in my State of Iowa, again raises the question of what is being done by the Federal Government to prevent such disasters.

The first explosion occurred last Friday morning at the Archer Daniels Midland elevator in Burlington, lA. The explosion destroyed one 10-story concrete grain bin and damaged 10 others. Windows were shattered and shards of glass went flying onto streets and sidewalks in a 25-block area.

Amazingly, no one was killed in the explosion, although five persons were injured. Fortunately, the employees at the location were evacuated moments before the blast when a small fire was observed at the site.

The two most recent explosions oc­curred on Tuesday of this week. One was in Bancroft, lA, which destroyed a branch elevator of the Lone Rock Co­Operative Exchange. The other oc­curred in Mott, ND.

Iowa has not experienced a serious explosion since April 20, 1982, when 5 people were killed and 21 were injured in the explosion of the Bluff Elevator Co. in Council Bluffs. The explosion caused $10 million in damage.

The suspected cause of all three of these recent explosions is grain dust. Since 1974, 9 of the 10 major explo­sions at Iowa grain elevators have been blamed on grain dust. While grain dust may seem to be an innocent byproduct of grain handling, it is as powerful as dynamite when ignited. Air containing grain dust is nearly 10 times more explosive than coal dust.

Nationally, the number of deaths and injuries attributable to grain ele­vator explosions has been reduced in recent years. However, this has not been the result of any improved regu­latory effort by the Federal Govern­ment. In fact, the Federal effort in this area is dismal. In January 1984, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] published proposed safety standards for grain elevators and feed mills. To date, after over 3 years of delay and foot drag­ging, OSHA is still working on grain dust regulations. The attached article,

8998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 which I would like to place in the RECORD, suggests that the rule now will not be published until "late this summer.''

Mr. President, I find it incredible that it takes an agency more than 4 years to develop a rule on such a straightforward issue. One can only surmise how many explosions would have been prevented, or how many lives would have been saved, or how many injuries prevented, had an effec­tive rule been in place.

Mr. President, I ask that the article be printed in the RECORD.

The article follows: [From Feedstuffs, Mar. 23, 19871

OSHA EASES DUST RULE APPLICATIONS <By Jon F. Scheid>

WASHINGTON, DC.-The Occupational Safety & Health Administration's <OSHA> pending standards for grain elevators and feed mills are substantially less imposing that those first offered, according to Barry White, director of OSHA's safety standards program.

White told a panel of the National Grain & Feed Assn. <NGFA> that the controversial eighth-inch standard will appear in the final rule, but its application will be limited to certain areas of the elevator.

Specifically, White said, the final rule probably will say that an elevator can be cited if an eighth-inch of dust has accumu­lated in areas within 35 feet of the boot of a bucket elevator, or in enclosed areas in which grinding or drying operations are present.

White was questioned by NGFA members as to whether the 35-ft. rule applied to any area near the elevator, including the head house. White said that he believed the rule applied only to the boot area. However, he said, the final rule will explain the provi­sions clearly.

He also said that the final rule will not differentiate between different types of bucket elevators <for instance, enclosed vs. partially enclosed>.

OSHA considers the eighth-inch standard an "action level," which means that, if in­spectors find the eighth-inch of dust and the elevator has not begun cleanup oper­ations, the facility will be in violation of the rule.

White emphasized that the rule is still un­official. As of March 17, when White ad­dressed NGFA's panel, the final rule hadn't been sent to the Office of Management & Budget <OMB> for final approval. He cau­tioned that OMB could change the rule. However, he added, "The standard isn't going to get tougher" as a result of an OMB review. If anything, he said, the rule that emerges from OMB will be easier for the in­dustry to live with than the rule OSHA sub­mitted first.

OSHA officials had speculated that the rule might have been issued earlier this year, but White said that the agency still had not finished its review. He said OSHA officials were in agreement on 90% of the rule, and it should be published in the Fed­eral Register by "late this summer."

When the proposed rule was last pub­lished, OSHA had suggested three alterna­tives on the dust rule. One was that an eighth-inch of dust anywhere within an ele­vator would trigger a housekeeping action or a citation from OSHA.

White said that the agency deemed that rule to be too cumbersome. The new provi-

sion, which restricts the area that inspec­tors will check, will cut costs to the elevator by at least 50%, he added.

The former proposal also suggested a once-a-shift sweep-down of the facilities. This provision was rejected as being nearly meaningless. For some elevators, the sweep­ing wouldn't be needed, and to cite an eleva­tor for not doing something that wasn't needed would have been wrong, White said.

A final alternative, which White said was put into the previous proposal by OMB, would have required all elevators to have pneumatic dust removal equipment. That provision was called too expensive, costing the industry perhaps $1 billion, he said In fact, he said the pneumatic rule was a "laugher," and OSHA dropped it.

FEED KILLS

Feed mills will not be subject to the eighth-inch dust rule, White said. However, they will have to follow many of the other provisions of the final rule concerning safety equipment.

However, he said, if a feed mill has an ele­vator attached, the regulations applying to elevators will be in effect concerning the el­evator area.

OSHA estimated the cost of the new rules for feed mills to be only about $5 million an­nually.

SKALL ELEVATORS According to White, small facilities will

not be subject to the more stringent provi­sions of the rule, and the smaller elevators will have an extra two years to come into compliance.

The regulations will define small elevators as those with less than 1 million bushels of storage capacity, he said. The rule will clas­sify 85% of all elevators as small, he said.

He added that he could not be any more specific about the definition, except to say that OSHA will not use throughput in its definition. (If it did, he said, elevators could be classified as large one year, but not the next.>

The eighth-inch rule will apply to small elevators the same way it does to larger fa­cilities, he said, but other equipment re­quirements will be softened. For example, he said, larger elevators may have to have motion detectors, but smaller facilities will be in compliance if they can easily check the bearings.

White said, "we didn't feel we had sup­port" to exclude small elevators entirely from the rule because they "still have fires and explosions." However, he added, the provisions for smaller elevators were re­laxed to avoid placing a huge financial burden on them.

Elevators will have to have a housekeep­ing plan, but OSHA acceptance of a plan is not implied in the rule, White said.

The cost of elevators is estimated at $35-65 million per year, according to OSHA. The range in the estimate reflects how often ele­vators employees will have to sweep out their facilities, White said. If elevators are as clean as the industry says they are, they will have to be swept out less often, keeping industry expense closer to the lower range, he said.

OSHA will have easier standards for exist­ing elevators than for those under construc­tion at the time the final rule is published, White also said.

SAFETY DATA SHEETS Another OSHA official on NGFA's pro­

gram, Charles Adkins, director of health standards, warned that the agency's hazard

communications standard may be applied to grain elevators.

The communications standard requires basic manufacturers of hazardous material to supply "Material Safety Data Sheets" <MSDS> on their products to alert workers handling those products about health con­cerns.

In November 1985, Adkins said, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking saying that the rule would be expanded. A proposed rule is currently being drafted by OSHA, Adkins said, and it may cite the haz­ards of grain dust. If that is the case, eleva­tors would have to provide their workers with MSDS about the dust.

Currently, feeds containing potentially hazardous animal drugs must be accompa­nied by MSDS. According to Dave Bossman of the American Feed Industry Assn., the rule applies only to a few medicated pre­mixes, but most medicated feeds are exempt.

If the communications rule is applied to grain dust, elevators will also be required to train their employees about the potential hazards of grain dust, Adkins added.

He said that the proposed rule could be finished at OSHA within a month or so and forwarded to OMB.e

DOD CONTRACTING OUT WOULD ENDANGER ARKANSANS • Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to express grave concern about a plan by the U.S. Army that may unneces­sarily expose Arkansans to the dan­gers of chemical weapons and compro­mise our national security. The Army's plan would give the responsibility for the security of certain chemical weap­ons at the Pine Bluff Arsenal to pri­vate contractors. This is one task that surely should be carried out by Gov­ernment personnel.

This plan is wrongheaded and dan­gerous and I am cosponsoring legisla­tion that would prohibit it.

Mr. President. later this year the Army will begin to demilitarize and dispose of certain old chemical weap­ons at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Ar­kansas. At the same time the arsenal plans to begin production of binary chemical weapons. It appears that the Army intends to hand over guard force operations for these new activities to the lowest commercial bidder.

Until now, all the chemical weapons kept in secure storage at Pine Bluff were considered dangerous enough to require a Defense Department securi­ty force. Apparently the Army now thinks chemical weapons will be less dangerous when they are being trans­ported to a disposal area, or when they are being disassembled, or when they are being manufactured. They could not be more wrong.

The Army's thinking seems to be in­fluenced by the controversial Reagan administration contracting out order. known as the OMB Circular A-76. In short, A-76 requires Federal agencies to seek private sources to contract for Government services whenever possi­ble.

April10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8999 There are serious unanswered ques­

tions about contracting out from the standpoint of Government efficiency and from the standpoint of Govern­ment cost. But even if we assume that in rare cases it makes sense to shift the responsibility for certain tasks from civil servants or soldiers to pri­vate contractors, when it comes to guarding chemical weapons against terrorists or other criminal elements, it makes no sense at all.

Mr. President, the Pine Bluff Arse­nal problem is not unique. Arsenals throughout the country, including those that store, dispose of, or produce chemical weapons, are undergoing in­discriminate waves of contracting out that effect thousands of workers.

Enough is enough. Left unchecked, this effort by the Reagan administra­tion to privatize everything it touches will drive efficiency down and the cost of good Government up. In the case of U.S. arsenals, it will weaken our mili­tary mobilization ability and compro­mise the security of dangerous materi­als.

To address the problem at Pine Bluff I am cosponsoring S. 736, a bill introduced by Senators HARKIN and SIMON which would prohibit further contracting out at arsenals and weap­ons manufacturing facilities run by the Defense Department.

I dare say that Arkansans and all Americans will sleep better knowing that chemical weapons are being guarded by a trained Government se­curity force rather than by the lowest commercial bidder.e

LE'ITER FROM GOV. MICHAEL CASTLE OF DELAWARE RE­GARDING S. 402, THE LINE­ITEM VETO

e Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, continuing to submit into the RECORD letters which I have received support­ing S. 402, the line-item veto bill, I rise today to share with my colleagues a letter which I recently received from Gov. Mike Castle of Delaware. I would ask consent at this time to have Gov­ernor Castle's letter appear in the RECORD at the close of my remarks.

The budget process in Delaware is similar to that here in the Federal Government. Line-items of appropria­tions bills generally encompass more than one program. Thus, in order to get at a single program, other pro­grams must be rejected as well. As Governor Castle points out, "we must rely on our working relationship with the legislature to keep spending in line." However, since Delaware also has a constitutional mandate to bal­ance the budget, the process is consid­erably easier.

The Federal Government must also rely on the working relationship be­tween the executive and the Congress. However, in recent years, with the

ever-increasing use of continuing reso­lutions, the balance in this relation­ship is being disrupted and knocked completely out of balance. We hit rock bottom last year when the Congress dumped a huge half-trillion-dollar bill on the steps of the White House. The President had the choice of take it or leave it-in other words, no choice at all.

The time has clearly arrived to reform the budgetary process. Part of that reform should be the limited line­item veto embodied in S. 402. I share in Governor Castle's "hope that with its passage comes a better budget proc­ess resulting in the reduction of Feder­al deficits." As we continue to consider this issue, I would ask that my col­leagues keep the thoughts of Gover­nor Castle in mind.

The letter follows: STATE OF DELAWARE,

March 27, 1987. Hon. GORDON J. HUMPHREY, U.$. Senate, Hart Senate Of/ice Building,

Washington, DC. DEAR SENATOR HUMPHREY: I am pleased to

respond to your letter of March 6, 1987 re­garding the line-item veto authority that I have here in Delaware. I am also pleased to see the introduction of S. 402, and hope that with its passage comes a better budget process resulting in the reduction of federal deficits.

As you know, I am one of 43 governors who have line-item veto authority. I am proud of the fact that to date I have not had to use that authority. I should also point out that I am probably more lucky than anything else. My predecessors have used the line-item veto on occasion to remove unwanted expenditures from the state budget.

As a practical matter, the line-item veto in Delaware is not a mechanism for shaping the budget. Routinely, any single line-item appropriation encompasses several pro­grams so that use of the line-item veto to delete one unwarranted expenditure may take with it several good programs. General­ly, we must rely on our working relationship with the legislature to keep spending in line, a process which is helped considerably by Delaware's constitutional mandate of a bal­anced budget. However, I do believe that our having the line-item veto as an alterna­tive facilitates a more cooperative legisla­ture and is a catalyst for resolving issues prior to the passage of the final budget.

I am sending a copy of your letter and my response to our Congressional delegation and would be happy to provide any other support you feel is necessary.

Sincerely, MICHAEL N. CASTLE,

Governor.•

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN HIRING

e Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on March 25 the Supreme Court issued a major decision in Johnson versus Transportation Agency, County of Santa Clara, CA. In that decision, the Court upheld the principle of affirma­tive action in hiring. I commend the Court for this important decision.

The Court held that the Santa Clara Transportation Agency appropriately took Diane Joyce's gender into consid­eration as one factor in determining that she should be promoted. The Court further held that the agency's affirmative action plan represented a moderate, flexible, case-by-case ap­proach to effecting a gradual improve­ment in the agency's work force, and was fully consistent with title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority, "Such a plan is fully consistent with title VII, for it em­bodies the contribution that voluntary employer action can make in eliminat­ing the vestiges of discrimination in the workplace."

This is a very important decision, be­cause it gives the green light to em­ployers to go ahead and implement voluntary affirmative action programs without fear of challenge in court. It will undoubtedly result in major gains in hiring for women and minority ap­plicants. This decision also has the strong support of the business commu­nity, which supports the principle of voluntary affirmative action.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case is a stinging rebuke to the Reagan Justice Department, and to the policies of Attorney General Meese and William Bradford Reyn­olds. It effectively puts an end to their efforts to gut affirmative action, which was established by Executive order 20 years ago by President Lyndon Johnson. And it puts the U.S. Supreme Court firmly on the side of equal justice for all in America, follow­ing in the tradition of the landmark decision in Brown versus Board of Education in 1954.

Mr. President, affirmative action programs do not mandate that un­qualified persons receive preference over qualified applicants. These pro­grams merely seek to ensure that women and minorities receive their fair share of those positions for which they are qualified.

For generations, white males in America have received an unfair ad­vantage in hiring at the expense of women and minorities. The Supreme Court has now acted to remedy some of those past ills of discrimination. This is a major step forward for women, for minorities, and for all who believe in equal opportunity in Amer­ica.e

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S PROPOSED EMERGENCY PLANNING RULE CHANGE

• Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the most important mandate in the Federal Government's role in the reg­ulation of nuclear facilities is the pro­tection of the public health and

9000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 10, 1987 safety. Following the accident at Three Mile Island, the Nuclear Regu­latory Commission [NRCl concluded that adequate emergency prepared­ness is an essential aspect of that pro­tection.

In 1980, the NRC promulgated emer­gency planning rules requiring that no new operating licenses be granted unless the NRC finds that evacuation plans for an emergency planning zone of 10 miles in radius provide reasona­ble assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

This policy is simple in its approach and overwhelming in its logic: Emer­gency planning for the evacuation of people in the vicinity of a nuclear pow­erplant is as important as safety sys­tems engineered into a plant.

Disturbingly, the NRC has recently proposed to repudiate this policy.

In March, the Commission published a proposed rule change which suggests that emergency planning is only of secondary importance. Though the proposal is apparently designed to ad­dress the licensing process at two spe­cific plants-the Seabrook Nuclear Plant in my State and the Shoreham Nuclear Plant in New York-the fall­out from the rule could spread across the entire country.

The Commission rationalizes the changes by stating that emergency planning should come into play "only after all of the other safety require­ments for proper plant design, quality construction and careful, disciplined operation have been considered."

NRC's recent shut-down of the Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant in Penn­sylvania where plant operators were literally asleep at the switch provides hard proof that factors such as "care­ful, disciplined operation" are not suf­ficient to ensure adequate protection of the public. No technology and cer­tainly no person is infallible; there­fore, it is essential that adequate emergency plans be in place before li­censing a nuclear plant for operation.

Mr. President, two important words lie at the heart of the Commission's proposed rule. The current standard requires that the NRC may not issue an operating license unless they find that "there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a ra­diological emergency." The words "and will" are essential, for they demand proof that plans are workable and will be put into effect were an ac­cident to occur.

Commission Chairman Lando W. Zech, Jr. was recently quoted as saying: "If we were able to approve the rule, it should be recognized that, if a State or local government refused to participate in emergency planning, the Commission must still find with rea­sonable assurance that the public health and safety can be protected

before issuing a full-power license." The words "will be protected" are con­spicuously absent from Commissioner Zech's statement. It is enough, apparently, under the

proposed rule, to find that protective measures can be taken if there were "reasonable State or local governmen­tal cooperation." In the words of Chairman Zech, "adequate plans must be feasible." Commissioner Asselstine notes, however, that with this policy "the Commission once again enters the realm of wishful thinking."

Common sense dictates that emer­gency plans be judged on their ability to protect public health and safety. It contradicts the entire essence of pre­paredness-training, organization, and public confidence in the authorities­to endorse plans based on their poten­tial feasibility rather than on their actual workability. It is irresponsible for the NRC to change licensing rules by using as a criterion protective action which theoretically can be taken, rather than which will be taken in the event of an accident.

The proposed rule would clearly reduce safety standards. In the view of the NRC staff, the proposal would place the public in the vicinity of a few affected plants "at somewhat greater risk." I believe this to be a dangerous departure from the NRC's mission to protect the public health and safety. Furthermore, it is simply not an acceptable policy for those citi­zens living in the vicinity of nuclear plants.

Whether emergency plans are devel­oped by a State, a municipality, a utili­ty, or some combination of the three, the bottom line is that these plans must meet a standard which ensures the adequate protection of the public. Safety is safety and should not be compromised because it is difficult to achieve. If emergency plans cannot provide reasonable assurance that they will be implemented, then such plans simply are not adequate.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose the NRC's proposed emer­gency planning rule which undermines the Commission's policy that emergen­cy planning is an independent element. equal in importance to other plant safety features.

Further, I urge the Commission to uphold the current standard which re­quires reasonable assurance that pro­tective measures can and will be taken to protect public health and safety.e

SENATOR EDWARD ZORINSKY • Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, today marks the end of National Know Your Cholesterol Week. It also marks the end of the first month that this body has had to operate without the pres­ence of the late Senator from Nebras­ka, Ed Zorinsky.

Senator Zorinsk.y sponsored the res­olution establishing National Choles­terol Awareness Week in a personal at­tempt to focus people's attention on what is one of the most pervasive health problems in today's society. Hlg'h cholesterol annually leads to the death of thousands of Americans, as it most tragically led to the death of Ed Zorinsky himself.

Ed may have died last month, but his work and his spirit live on. Politi­cally, there were many issues on which Ed and I did not agree, but I do not fault him. His pragmatic approach to issues gained him the respect of all his colleagues. His willingness to approach each issue based not on party lines, but according to its own merits contin­ues to provide an example we will all need to return to in the course of this Congress.

Above all else, Ed was a servant of the people. He went beyond the open door policy to establish his own no door policy, taking his office door out to allow complete accessibility for his visitors. He never forgot his responsi­bilities to his constituency. The farm­ers of the Midwest never had a truer friend.

The people of Nebraska and this body lost an honorable and distin­guished politician when Ed Zorinsky died last month, and I join my col­leagues in once again offering my sym­pathy to his family. He made the most of all his opportunities to help the people of this country and for that he will always be remembered and hon­ored.e

ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1987

NO RESOLUTIONS OR :MOTIONS, OVER UNDER THE RULE; WAIVER OF CALL OF CALENDAR

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate returns on Tuesday, April 21, no resolutions and motions, over under the rule, come over.

I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, April 21, the call of the cal­ender under rule VIII be waived.

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

AUTHORITIES DURING RECESS REPORT ON BUDGET

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to reach a unanimous-consent agreement that has to do with filing of the report on the budget. I say to the distinguished assistant Republican leader that I understand this request has been cleared by the Republican leader.

I ask unanimous consent that, for the purposes of commencing the 2-day rule on the report to be filed next week on the first concurrent budget resolution, the time period shall com-

April10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 9001 mence with the time and date that is stamped on the report when it is deliv­ered to the Capitol by the Govern­ment Printing Office.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, that has been cleared by this side of the aisle, and we would concur in that con­sent agreement.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With­

out objection, it is so ordered. HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be permitted to receive from the House, House Concurrent Resolution 93, the House-passed first concurrent budget resolution, during the adjournment of the Senate over until Tuesday, April 21.

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

COliDIIITTEE REPORTS

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the commit­tees may have until 5 p.m. today to report and that on April 15, Wednes­day, the committees may be permitted to report between the hours of 10 o'clock in the morning and 3 o'clock in the afternoon.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the distinguished assistant Republican leader have anything further?

Mr. SIMPSON. No, I have nothing further.

BEST WISHES FOR A RESTFUL BREAK

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish my friend and all our colleagues a joyous Easter recess. We will be going back to our home States, many of us conduct­ing meetings there and doing work there. But, all in all, I hope that we will remember during this period the meanings of this holiday period. I wish that all Senators may have a very rest­ful recess, and that they might safely return on April21.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a moment?

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I say

to the leader that indeed we, too, look forward to the coming recess period, a time of rest and respite and regenera­tion. We have so much to do when we come back, as the majority leader knows so well, with the budget and supplemental appropriations and the debt limit.

I just wish to extend the cooperation from this side of the aisle as much as is possible, without getting into great stretches of feckless partisanship, to work with the majority leader in doing the work of the Senate, because we have much to do. The things that have consumed us are things left over from the agenda last session, oddly

enough. Now we have our new work ahead of us, a new majority and new chairmen and new floor managers, and those things take time to work in this remarkable place.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his comments. I take the occasion in responding to say that the cooperation that has been shown to me by the Republican leader and the assistant Republican leader during this session has been remarkable, has been good, and all that I could have wished for. This cooperation has con­tributed much to the work of the Senate and the Senate has, indeed, been able to, I think, establish a very good work record up to this point. Their cooperation will be much de­sired and much needed in the weeks and months ahead.

TRIBUTE TO FORMER SENATOR MILWARD SIMPSON

I say, incidentally, Mr. President, to my friend, with whose father I served in the Senate here, that out of the 1,782 Senators who have served in the Senate from its beginning in 1789 to date, the distinguished Senator, Mr. ALAN SIMPSON, is the 1,721st Senator and his father, Mr. Milward Simpson, was the 1,607th Senator to have served in the Senate.

I am proud to be able to say that I served with Milward Simpson. I liked him very much; a fine, fine gentleman. And I am proud to say I serve with his son, who is also a fine gentleman, always very courteous, gracious, and kind. I hope that the son will give my best regards to his illustrious father.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. That is very gracious of him to share that. I shall see my father during this period. He is 89 years old. He suffers the rav­ages of Parkinson's disease and arthri­tis and the loss of an eye. But he is a man of great courage and he watches my activities very carefully.

Mr. BYRD. I'll bet. Mr. SIMPSON. And so does my

mother. She has talked to me more in the last 2 weeks than for some time.

But I thank you and I shall tell him that he is the 1,607th.

Mr. BYRD. The 1,607th. Mr. SIMPSON. And I am the

1,721st. Mr. BYRD. The 1, 721st. Mr. SIMPSON. And those are the

things that make you so unique and an absolute reservoir of data, fact, and history. And that is one of your spe­cial, special attributes. I thank you for that. I shall share it with him.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

vene at 10 o•clock in the morning. It will recess at 12 noon that day until the hour of 2 p.m. for the customary party conferences. During the day there will be rollcall votes.

The business that is expected to be called up on that day consists of any one or more of the following measures:

Calendar Order No. 79, S. 742, a bill to clarify the congressional intent con­cerning, and to codify, certain require­ments of the Communications Act of 1934; Calendar Order No. 40, H.R. 1157, an act to provide for an acreage diversion program applicable to the producers of the crop of winter wheat harvested in 1987; and, finally, the first concurrent resolution on the budget.

I hope to call up the wheat acreage bill first and I hope that the Senate could dispose of that bill that day. I have my doubts that it will, in which case the bill will go over for further action thereon to Tuesday. But there will be rollcall votes.

And, because that is a Tuesday on which the Senate is convening imme­diately following the Easter break, I have said to my colleagues, and I say it again, that there will be no rollcall votes on that Tuesday prior to the hour of 2 p.m. when the parties have finished their meetings. So any rollcall votes that are ordered that morning will be put over until 2 o'clock that afternoon.

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1987

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if my friend has no further business, and if no other Senator has further business to bring before the Senate, I move, in accordance with the previous order and pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 103, that the Senate stand in adjournment until10 a.m. on Tues­day, April 21, 1987.

The motion was agreed to; and, at 2:49 p.m., the Senate adjourned until Tuesday, April 21, 1987, at 10 a.m.

NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by

the Senate April10, 1987: DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Thomas C. Ferguson, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipoten­tiary of the United States of America to Brunei Darussalam.

Robert M. Smalley, of the District of Co­lumbia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Lesotho.

DEPARTMENT OF COliDIIERCE

Gerald J. McKiernan, of Connecticut, to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce, vice Paul A. Vander Myde, resigned.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PROGRAM William John Maroni, of Rhode Island, to

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the be Assistant Secretary of Labor <new post­Senate, on Tuesday, April 21, will con- tion>.

9002 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE AprillO, 1987 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

B. Wayne Vance, of Virginia, to be general counsel of the Department of Transporta­tion, vice Jim J. Marquez, resigned.

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY

Jack Edwards, of Alabama, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Author­ity for a term of 6 years <new position>.

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HANDICAPPED

Leslie Lenkowsky, of New York, to be a member of the National Council on the Handicapped for the remainder of the term expiring September 17, 1987, vice Justin W. Dart, Jr.

Leslie Lenkowsky, of New York, to be a member of the National Council on the Handicapped for a term expiring September 17, 1990 <reappointment>.

POSTAL RATE COJIDriiSSION

John W. Crutcher, of Kansas, to be a com­missioner of the Postal Rate Commission for the term expiring October 16, 1992 <re­appointment>.

U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY

Anthony J. Gabriel, of Virginia, to be in­spector general, United States Information Agency <new position>.

IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE

The following-named persons of the Agency for International Development for appointment as career members of the Senior Foreign Service of the classes stated, and also for the other appointments indicat­ed herewith:

For reappointment in the Foreign Service as a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of minister-counselor, and a consular officer and a secretary in the Dip­lomatic Service of the United States of America:

Ain H. Kivimae, of Maryland. For reappointment in the Foreign Service

as a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of counselor, and a consular officer and a secretary in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America:

Robert N. Bakley, of New Jersey. The following-named persons of the agen­

cies indicated for appointment as Foreign Service officers of the classes stated, and also for the other appointments indicated herewith:

For appointment as Foreign Service offi­cers of class one, consular officers, and sec­retaries in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America:

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

David M. Schoonover, of Virginia. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Robert A. Bonnaffon, of Virginia. Mary Ann Cusack, of California. Gary A. Eidet, of Florida. Emesto C. Lucas, of Hawaii. For appointment as Foreign Service offi­

cers of class two, consular officers, and sec­retaries in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Luis Espada-Platet, of Florida. John Melvin Jones, of Virginia. Martha Ann Kelleran, of Virginia.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Joel P. Haggard, of California. John W. Harrison, of Maryland. Mary E. Revelt, of Florida. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Cheryl A. McCarthy, of Wisconsin.

Hugh Sheridan Plunkett, of Virginia. Michael J. Porvaznik., of Virginia. For appointment as Foreign Service offi­

cers of class three, consular officers, and secretaries in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Carroll A. Caulfield, of Pennsylvania. John L. Mack, of Texas. Edmee Hawkes Pastore, of Virginia.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

James D. Grueff, of Maryland. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Andrew Michael Maxey, of Texas. For appointment as Foreign Service offi­

cers of class four, consular officers, and sec­retaries in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Paul John Andersen, of California. John Richard Arndt, of Florida. David Cortelyou Becker, of Washington. Richard C. Beer, of New York. Randall Virgil Biggers, of New Mexico. Timothy Vincent Collins, of the District

of Columbia. Anne Kathryn Cusick, of California. Mary Elizabeth Daly, of Virginia. Thomas Lawrence Delare, of Pennsylva-

nia. Gregory T. Delawie, of Virginia. Boyd Raymond Doty, of Florida. Philip Raymond Drouin, of Connecticut. Jeffrey Mark Glassman, of Massachusetts. Mary Anne Gorjance, of Washington. James Bingham Gray, of California. Robert Daniel Griffiths, of Nevada. Ann M. Hayes, of Massachusetts. Liam Jackson Humphreys, of the District

of Columbia. Kevin M. Johnson, of New York. Benjamin R. Justesen II, of North Caroli­

na. William M. Kendall-Johnston, of Califor-

nia. George Benjamin Kopf, of California. Jessica LeCroy, of Texas. Laurie A. Lerner, of Pennsylvania. Lawrence C. Mandel, of Massachusetts. Maurice A. McLeggan, of New York. A. David Miller, of Iowa. Arthur H. Mills II, of Pennsylvania. David Nolan, of Washington. Brian Kent Oberle, of Michigan. Daniel John O'Grady, of Florida. Norman Hartman Olsen, Jr., of Maine. June Carter Perry, of the District of Co-

lumbia. Michael Bernard Regan, of New Jersey. Kathleen Alyce Riley, of Nevada. Josef Karl Ruth, of Texas. John Frederick Sammis, of Virginia. Paul R. Siekert, of Virginia. Sarah Ann Sinith, of California. Harvey Alan Somers, of Ohio. James V. Soriano, Jr., of Virginia. Richard M. Stephenson, Jr., of Virginia. Judith Davis Tohonou, of California. Jonathan Standen Turak, of Maryland. David A. Tyler, of Illinois. Stephen Andrew Vann, of Alabama. Samuel Robert Watson III, of Virginia. Janet W. Weber, of New York. Sharon N. White, of Connecticut. James Wojtasiewicz, of New York.

U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY

Elizabeth Howard Adair, of New York. Robert David Banks, of Massachusetts. David Anthony Bustamante, of California. Anne Taylor Callaghan, of California. Beatrice A. Camp, of Virginia. Joanne M. Cotter, of Virginia.

Rosemary Anne DiCarlo, of New Jersey. Gregory Bernard Elftmann, of the Dis-

trict of Columbia. Mark Thomas Jacobs, of New York. Andrew C. Koss, of Maine. Gregg Price Marshall, of Wisconsin. Matthew J. McGrath, of Florida. James Dinneen Nealon, Jr., of New Hamp-

shire. Phillip T . Parkerson, of Florida. Charlotte R. Peterson, of Minnesota. Delia C. Pitts, of the District of Columbia. Donna Jean Roginski, of Ohio. Adnan A. Siddiqi, of New York. Steven Powell Smith, of Texas. Gary Merle Spackey, of Ohio. Anne V. Stenzel, of California. The following-named members of the For­

eign Service of the Department of State to be consular officers and/ or secretaries in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America, as indicated:

Consular officers and secretaries in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America:

David A. Ackerman, of Arizona. Mark L. Andersen, of Montana. Melvin Thlick-Len Ang, of Maryland. Gilbert Arguello, of California. William T. Aspell, of Virginia. Darryll P . Baker II, of Virginia. Michael Haan Bekedam, of Virginia. John F. Belz, of the District of Columbia. Charles E. Bennett, of Washington. Michelle Bernier-Toth, of Virginia. Boyd R. Bickmore, of Utah. Francis H. Bostock, Jr., of New York. Johney Brooks, of California. Jennifer Leigh Brush, of Maryland. Stephen D. Burkart, of Texas. Caralyn S. Bushey, of lllinois. Aubrey Alexander Carlson, of Texas. Deirdre Chetham, of New York. Sylvia Reed Curran, of Alaska. Ronald J. Czametsky, of New York. Bryan Wayne Dalton, of Minnesota. Kathleen M. Davis, of Virginia. Jeanne E. Desjardins, of Minnesota. Raymond Walter Dillion, Jr., of New

York. Cecilia Bridget Elizondo, of Texas. John A. Elliott, of Indiana. John Fennerty, of Maryland. John J. Finnegan, Jr., of Pennsylvania. Julie M. Gardner, of Washington. Reuel M. Gerecht, of Missouri. Laura M. Gobrecht, of Alabama. Kenneth N. Goode, of Florida. Sara J. Goodgame, of North Carolina. Miriam B. Gonzalez, of New York. Marilynn Gurian, of California. Jeri Schaeffer Guthrie-Com, of Califor-

nia. Laurie A. Gutzat, of New York. Larry 0. Hall, of Maryland. Jonathan B. Handley, of New York. Kathleen M. Hennessey, of Virginia. Larry A. Holtzapple, of Virginia. Helen Clare Hudson, of the District of Co-

lumbia. Nancy Helen Izzo, of New Jersey. Robert B. Jefferson, Jr., of Virginia. George H. Johnson, of Wisconsin. Michael P. Johnson, of Ohio. Stephen R. Jordan, of Virginia. Mark R. Jorgensen, of Minnesota. Charles H. Kabel III, of Virginia. Jackie J. Kassenger, of Tennessee. Nan Terese Kennelly, of New Jersey. Alan A. Kinsman, of Virginia. Allan David Langland, of California. Jose E. Latour, of Florida. Mary Lee Luque, of Maryland. Jonetha Lynard, of South Carolina.

April 10, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 9003 James Marcinkowski, of Michigan. William P. McNulty, of Minnesota. Carlos Felipe Mejia, Jr., of California. Franklin L. Milhous, of Florida. Terrence Michael Murphy, of Illinois. David H. Myaard, of Michigan. Patricia G. Nelson-Douvelis, of the Dis-

trict of Columbia. Evelyn O'Brien, of Colorado. Jeffrey R. Olesen, of West Virginia. William J. Orr, Jr., of New Mexico. Ph1llip 0. Otts, of Alabama. Michael Scott Owen, of Tennessee. Claire Knox Oxley, of Texas. Pamela Jean Pearson, of Texas. Donald L. Pepper, Jr., of Louisiana. Thomas A. Praster, of Pennsylvania. Adele Pruss, of Virginia. Richard Rahm, of Washington. Carol Tyson Reynolds, of Georgia. Larry Riddick, of Tennessee. Keith E. Riggin, of Texas. Vincent J. Rizzo, of New Jersey. Alice M. Rougvie, of Connecticut. Dale L. Rumbarger, of Pennsylvania.

Eddie N. Sauls III, of North Carolina. Timothy J. Schierbeek, of Michigan. Carter Shannon, of the District of Colum-

bia. Marie Erin Jean Shay, of Missouri. Daniel F. Sheehan, of New York. Andrew T. Simkin, of Ohio. Donald Simpson, of Washington. Erik N. Thomas, of California. Robert J. Underwood, Jr., of New York. Peter F. Waldorf, of Virginia. Mary Annette Wright, of California. Harry S. Yates, Jr., of Virginia. Consular officers of the United States of

America: George S. Dragnich, of Virginia. Karen D. Klemp, of Illinois. Geraldine C. Lewallen, of Texas. Secretaries in the Diplomatic Service of

the United States of America: John D. Lange, of Virginia. Allen Lee Sessoms, of Virginia. The following-named career members of

the Foreign Service of the Department of State, previously promoted into the Senior

Foreign Service to the class indicated Octo­ber 6, 1986, effective October 12, 1986, now to be effective December 22, 1985:

Career member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, class of counselor:

Darryl N. Johnson, of Washington. Patrick N. Theros, of the District of Co­

lumbia. The following-named career member of

the Foreign Service of the Department of State for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service to the class indicated, effective Oc­tober 12, 1986:

Career member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, class of counselor:

Dan E. Turnquist, of Wyoming. The following-named person of the De­

partment of State for appointment as a For­eign Service officer of class two, a consular officer, and a secretary in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America, ef­fective July 19, 1985:

Ravindar Kumar Sikand, of Florida.