SENATE-Tuesday, June 16, 1987 - US Government ...

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

SENATE-Tuesday, June 16, 1987 16097

The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable RicHARD C. SHELBY, a Senator from the State of Alabama.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The prayer today will be offered by the Reverend Christian Halverson, pastor of the Chesterbrook Presbyterian Church, Falls Church, VA.

PRAYER The Chaplain, the Reverend Chris

tian Halverson, D.D., offered the following prayer:

Let us look to the Lord in prayer: Father in heaven, we open a new

day's proceedings by praying for the individual people who work in the Senate.

We know that You hear our prayers and are ready to act on our behalf. We also know that You are no respecter of persons. You love the spiritual and the unspiritual alike. You reach out to the people of every religion and race. And Your love, peace, and mercy are available to anyone who wants them.

Knowing this about You, we humbly approach Your throne with confidence, asking You to help those in need and prove Yourself to be a God who answers prayer.

We ask You to help those in need: forgive those who are doing wrong things. Release those who are being held captive by bitterness or guilt. Counsel those who are having difficult problems in their relationship with another person. Help those who are financially burdened. Be close to those who struggle with a poor self-image or meaninglessness in life. And come to those, especially, who are so numb, or strong, or self-sufficient, that they can't think of anything for which they need You.

In Christ's name. Amen.

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 assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:

U.S . SENATE, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,

Washington, DC, June 16, 1987. To the Senate:

Under the provisions of rule I, section 3, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable RICHARD

SHELBY, a Senator from the State of Alabama, to perform the duties of the Chair.

JOHN C. STENNIS, President pro tempore.

Mr. SHELBY thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President protempore.

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. The majority leader is recognized.

THE JOURNAL Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Journal of proceedings be approved to date.

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

NEW PERSIAN GULF COMMITMENTS

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last night President Reagan addressed the Nation and addressed the question of Uwted States warship protection of Kuwaiti tankers. I find it disappointing that he was not able to tell it like it is, and, instead, downplayed this contemplated new American commitment as a kind of business-as-usual operation whereby the Navy is simply to "escort U.S. flag vessels, a traditional role for the Navy," and that the recent controversy is over "11 new U.S. flag vessels that have been added to our merchant fleet."

The addition of 11 new Kuwaiti vessels to our merchant fleet is not, as the President would characterize it, some normal event which just happened to occur in the usual scheme of things. This reflagging is a deliberate attempt by the Kuwaitis to protect Kuwaiti interests, and it is generally believed that it is an attempt by the Kuwaitis to bring the United States into a greater level of involvement in the gulf, with the hope of helping to end the Iran-Iraq war which is threatening the integrity of Kuwait.

There is a further, more deep-seated purpose which it is important that we all be aware of in evaluating this proposal to defend Kuwaiti interests, Kuwaiti oil bound for the West and Japan, on Kuwaiti-owned vessels. That purpose has been revealed, as has been expressed by the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. MOYNIHAN] and been concluded by an on-scene investigation, at my direction, by Sena-

tors SASSER, WARNER, and GLENN during the last 2 weeks. That purpose is simply this: America, prove your manhood to us. America, we have lost our confidence in your staying power. America, we are afraid you will abandon us, and we will have to face a radical Iran alone.

The Gulf States have a case of the jitters, and they have a clear right to that case of the jitters. Kuwait approached the Soviet Union for warship protection last November, within days of the public revelation of this administration's secret policy of selling lethal arms to Iran in the faint hope of buying American hostages' freedom. The Kuwaitis, who have traditionally attempted to keep diplomatic lines open to the Soviet Union as well as the United States, calculated shrewdly that the United States would rise to the bait and would agree to reflag and protect Kuwaiti tankers in response to a Soviet agreement to do so.

In this Kuwaiti gambit is both cynicism and hope-a cynicism that the only incentive for the United States to get involved is to counter the Soviets, and a hope that the United States will indeed rise to the challenge and dedicate the forces necessary to convince the Gulf States that the Iran arms sale affair was an aberration and that the United States will put sound purposes and policies into place now.

Mr. President, the Senate is developing a thorough awareness of the risks inherent in this new proposed commitment. It is, as well, becoming aware, unfortunately, of just how damaging to our Nation's credibility the escapades of the National Security Council and other complicitors in the IranContra scandal have been.

In better days, we might have dismissed the tanker proposal as another half-baked scheme; and, indeed, it is clear that the administration did not think through its implications: What new forces would be needed; what new risks had developed, from the point of view of both new Iranian weapons and tactics as well as potential Iranian terrorist activities directed at us and our friends in the gulf.

Mr. President, the worst way to handle a bully is with hesitation and vacillation. If Iran challenges our interests, a very strong response will be welcomed by this Senator. That is the only way to deal with a bully. But if we are going to adopt a new commitment, let us not hide behind the freedom of the seas. Let us not hide

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

16098 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 behind the suggestion that we have got to keep the Persian Gulf open and that, if we move out of the Persian Gulf, of course the Soviets will move in. Nobody is advocating moving out of the Persian Gulf.

The Senate has moved a step in the right direction. By 91 to 5, the Senate adopted my amendment for the administration to produce a comprehensive assessment of the security situation in the gulf associated with this proposal. The report was to include an assessment of the cooperative arrangements to be put into place with our allies and friends, a sharing arrangement, since all our interests are at stake here. It was to address the risks we would now face and the forces necessary to meet those risks. The classified portion of that report was delivered last night, and the unclassified portion is to arrive today. I will be asking the chairmen of the Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and Intelligence Committees, to provide an indepth assessment of the diplomatic, militar and intelligence aspects of these reports hopefully within a week. Hearings on this matter have already been scheduled by two of those committees. The Senate needs an exhaustive, thoughtful examination of the plan now submitted to the Senate. Is the plan complete? Is it satisfactory? Does it merit the support of our :neople, whose sons and daughters will be implementing it? At bottom, does the administration have its act together in the Persian Gulf? We are asking the hard questions, and we expect solid answers. The time is past for half-baked, poorly developed policiesthe vital interests of this Nation and the West are involved in the Persian Gulf. The net result of the IranContra affair is the presence of Soviet warships escorting Kuwaiti-chartered Soviet tankers in the gulf. That is a sign of the times. It is a sign of bad policy, of secret policy, of misplaced arrogance, and we need to chart a better course for our interests in the Persian Gulf region.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

RECOGNITION OF THE REPUBLICAN LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. The Republican leader is recognized. ·

WHOSE SMOKESCREEN IS IT ANYWAY?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, later this morning we will resume debate on campaign financing legislation. The debate has unfortunately, but I suppose inevitably, been politicized. Charges are being made that the Republicans are "obstructionists"-that we are antireform-that our opposition to public financing is merely a

"smokescreen" for our opposition to changing the status quo.

Well, all I can say is, what a difference a year makes. A year ago the campaign finance reform bill before the Senate-the so-called Boren-Goldwater package, a bipartisan packagehad the support of a broad coalition of Members from both sides of the aisle. There were some differences on specifics, but the measure had significant support. And the bill did not, and I reiterate did not, contain public financing.

One might ask the question as to why public financing is now suddenly an essential ingredient in campaign reform when it was not last year.

It seems to me that any discussion of a campaign finance reform measure should be based on the supposition that the changes will ensure broadernot more restricted-participation in the electoral process.

PUBLIC FINANCING

Public financing of Senate campaigns impinges on an individual's right to support voluntarily those political candidates of his or her choice; public financing diminishes-not increases-an individual's opportunity to participate in the political process. In fact, I believe the bill poses serious questions regarding first amendment rights of both the individual contributors and the candidates.

During the weekends, I spend a lot of time traveling around the country, speaking to ordinary citizens. They're concerned about a lot of things-about the Federal deficit, about arms control, about crime; I do not get a lot of questions or complaints about campaign financing. So I raise the issue, because here in Washington it appears to be a priority concern. And when I ask the question whether these people want to subsidize Senate campaigns with their taxes, the answer is a resounding "No."

Right now budget conferees-at least the Democratic ones-are struggling to come up with a fiscal 1988 budget. I believe if you asked them, what would you think of creating a new Government "entitlement program" costing millions of dollars, they would not look kindly upon it. And yet, that is what public financing of Senate campaigns would be-an outright subsidy for those seeking reelection.

OTHER MEANINGFUL REFORMS

Yet, as opposed as this Senator is to public financing, there are other ways in which we can make meaningful changes to the present campaign finance system. And I believe the compromise package, introduced by Senator STEVENS last week, addresses many of those concerns.

For instance, the Stevens amendment incorporates those limits on contributions for both individuals and political action committees that were

contained in the Boren-Goldwater bill. This adjustment in "contribution limits" addresses concerns about candidate dependence on PAC contributions, and allows political campaigns to rely more on the individual as the traditional source of funding.

Key to the success of any significant campaign reform, in my opinion, is disclosure. Common Cause calls our current finance system a "national scandal"; and the Washington Post says the system is "fundamentally corrupt." Well, Mr. President, if any portion of our current system has a potential for meeting these definitions, it is the failure of the system to provide for full reporting of political expenditures. And that includes the disclosure of "soft money" expenditures by corporations, labor unions, national political parties and political action committees for activities such as "get out the vote" or "voter registration."

I am also willing to consider limitations on these soft-money contributions and, in conjunction with such limitations, a further tightening of amounts PAC's can contribute to candidates.

Mr. President, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support publicly subsidized elections say they are ready to compromise; yet the socalled middle-ground substitute introduced last week is simply that-a substitute, and no real compromise.

The bottom line, Mr. President, is that we should concentrate our efforts on abuses in the current system, correct those abuses, and eliminate the loopholes. .

We should encourage individual involvement and commitment. We should expect that those seeking office will go to the public, not the public trough, for their support.

I have been speaking, as I have traveled around the country this past weekend, in Iowa, South Dakota, North and South Carolina, and Virginia about public financing of our campaigns, recognizing as one of the potential candidates in 1988 I might receive public financing.

I think it is fair to say that there is a great concern about the cost of campaigns-one that is shared by the majority leader, the minority leader, all of us who are trying to find some way to come to grips with the skyrocketing cost of campaigns. But I do not find any great support, or any support at all for that matter, for taxpayers financing our campaigns or any portion of our campaign expenditures on such a broad scale.

There may be still some way-! hope there is some way-that we can come together on a bipartisan real campaign finance reform package.

The Republicans have had meetings. As I have indicated before, there are really two major objections on this

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16099 side. One is public financing, which I might add does not appear in the big ads being run by Common Cause. If that is the case, then it does not comply with "truth in advertising," because this is a public financing bill.

The American voters, I assume, would like reform. But not if it means saddling them with additional tax burdens, especially at a time when we are talking about $150 billion deficits.

I think it is appropriate to point out-and there will be a lot of debate on this later today-that the bill introduced by Senator STEVENS and a number of cosponsors, last week, in many aspects is the same as the Boren-Goldwater bill of last year. And I would point out that in addition to that, there is still another version by Senators PACKWOOD and McCONNELL.

As I recall, a year ago the thrust of the debate and the news editorials was that we should eliminate or reduce the influence of political action committees. We are prepared to do that, to lower from $5,000 to $3,000 the amoun 4 that PAC's can contribute and to raise what individuals might contribute, or, as Senator PAcKwooD and Senator McCoNNELL advocate, zero out PAC contributions altogether.

So a year ago or 2 years ago or 3 years ago we were being bombarded by editorials by Common Cause and by others that we ought to eliminate P AC's. Suddenly that is not even in the debate anymore.

Those who were encouraging the original idea have suddenly retreated from that position and have found a safe harbor in taxpayer financing of our campaigns.

I know that this matter is of some importance. Although I think the urgency is less than it was, since it will not apply to the 1988 elections. It will be effective in 1990.

I certainly share the view of the majority leader that there is some way we can achieve real reform then it ought to be done.

So I reiterate there are not really that many differences between what some of us are willing to do this year, and what some were willing to do last year. And last year there was no public financing-it was all aimed at PAC's. This year the majority bill does not touch PAC's. It is all aimed at public financing. So there has been a big, big switch in position.

So if we go back to last year's bill, drop the public financing, and I must say, as a Republican, a member of the minority party now in the Senate, when you start putting caps on expenditures you are in effect saying the Republicans who are trying to emerge in the South are not going to have that opportunity. Because I think anybody will tell you if we are limited in some areas, and are not given the opportunity to raise more funds because Republicans have a tougher hill to

climb in certain parts of the country, then we are never going to succeed in breaking through in these parts of the country. That may not be correct, but that is an assumption that many people have, including experts.

It would seen to me it makes no sense to lock ourselves into a campaign expenditure limit and public financing bill and then not applying any of these provisions to the House.

So I am not certain how long the debate may continue. But I do hope, and still hope and believe, that there may be some common ground. We have a number of Members on both sides, I think, who would be willing to join in that effort.

I would just say to the majority leader, if we are so concerned about the cost of campaigns and all the influences in campaigns-and I raise one other question, then why are we not addressing soft money? What about all the phone banks that organized labor uses in Democratic campaigns, about 99 percent of the time? That is not a contribution, that is not reportable. There is nothing about that in this bill. It is only public financing and putting a limit on expenditures. It is not just labor unions. It is corporations and others, and we are not trying to drive true volunteers off the politica.~. scene.

It would seem to me that we fail to address one of the big, big areas of concern and big, big loopholes in all the campaign finance laws, so-called soft money. There was an excellent story in the Washington Post a year ago about where much of the money comes from in politics-including soft money. You do not even have to disclose it. There are not even disclosure requirements.

So there are some of the basic elements that have not been touched on at all in the debate. I guess, in the final analysis, if we want subsidized elections, then we can make that judgment. But I think there is a middle ground there somewhere. I would hope that some of the experts-and there are some experts on both sideswho have been working on this for months and months may yet be able to come to some agreement. Because I do not know of anyone who is not concerned about the escalating campaign costs.

BICENTENNIAL MINUTE JUNE 16, 1976: SENATE CONVENES IN OLD

SENATE CHAMBER

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on June 16, 1976, 11 years ago today, Senators proceeded two-by-two out of this Chamber, across the beautiful Minton tiles, to the room, 40 paces down the hall, that served as the Senate's home between 1810 and 1859. On that memorable occasion, the Senate convened in the glorious gold, red, and mahoga-

ny Chamber to celebrate its stunning restoration. Sitting where Webster, Clay, and Calhoun once debated the crucial issues of an earlier era, the Senate officially dedicated the newly restored Chamber.

This event, occurring less than 3 weeks before the Bicentennial of the Nation's independence, marked the culmination of an extended effort to return the old Chamber to its present appearance. In the Mid-1930's, at the end of the Supreme Court's 75-year residence in that Chamber, Senate leaders sought unsuccessfully to obtain funding for the restoration. During the following three decades this room served as a glorified storeroom, used occasionally as a sleeping area during all-night filibusters, and for luncheons and conference committee meetings.

Finally in 1964, through the dedicated efforts of our colleague, JoHN STENNIS, funds were appropriated to undertake the necessary research, and to prepare working drawings and specifications. Architectural historians, curators, archivists, and others cooperated in an extraordinary effort to consider all appropriate resources to achieve an accurate recreation. Working under the supervision of the Architect of the Capitol, scores of artisans, including cabinetmakers, metalworkers, and stonemasons, translated this wealth of detail into the finished Chamber.

On June 16, Senator Mike Mansfield, chairman of the Senate Commission on Art and Antiquities, which oversaw the restoration; Senator Hugh Scott, vice chairman of the commission; and Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, happily dedicated the Chamber "as a new shrine of American liberty."

I reserve the balance of my time. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore. The majority leader.

SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN FINANCING REFORM

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have listened with very great care and attention to the comments that have been made by the distinguished minority leader. Those have been helpful comments.

I think it is regrettable, however, that this debate is being framed in the context of partisanship-in other words, that it is a Democratic bill-and that is unfortunate. It is not a Democratic bill. It is not a Republican bill. It is not a Democratic problem and it is not a Republican problem, but it is a very serious problem.

Mr. President, anybody who wants a breakthrough in some parts of the country, as stated by my good friend, Mr. Dole, should seek that breakthrough on the basis of the issues. That breakthrough should come on the basis of debate, public debate, on

16100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 the issues, on the ideologies, on the positions of candidates. The breakthrough should not come on the basis of who can raise the most money or who can spend the most money.

It would seem to me that legislation to bring about real, genuine reform in campaign financing would be the way to push us to that improved situation in which the breakthroughs to parties and to candidates can come on the basis of where they stand on the public issues of the day.

Mr. President, I also would have to say that I do not believe there can be any genuine campaign reform unless there are limitations on campaign expenditures. The distinguished Republican leader speaks of public financing. Well, this has been debated on both sides. I understand how Senators can have a genuine, sincere, conscientious position on that subject, but I do not think that we really can have genuine campaign financing reform without a limitation on expenditures.

May I say to my friend, Senator DoLE- -, nd he is my friend-that he says that basic elements have not yet been touched on in this bill. Let us touch on those basic elements. Let us vote cloture and let us get into those basic elements, soft moneys, whatever, let us get into those elements if Senators wish to do that. But we cannot get into them as long as we cannot get 60 votes to invoke cloture.

So I would appeal to my friend, the distinguished Republican leader, and other Republicans-and I know that there are those on that side of the aisle who want genuine reform. I know that some of them want to vote for a bill that will give us genuine, real, effective, meaningful campaign financing reform. But they cannot do it as long as we cannot get 60 votes to shut off what is, in fact, a filibuster.

There are those on that side who I think would like to vote for cloture, but the Republican conference has met and taken · a stand as a bloc against invoking cloture, against public financing, and against a limitation on campaign spending.

Maybe there is a way, I do not know. There may be a way to get around the constitutional problem and avoid public financing-! have not found that way, but I am certainly open to continuing to search-but there is no way to pretend to this country that we are passing meaningful, genuine, effective, real reform without a limitation on campaign spending.

But at least, I would appeal to all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for cloture.

Now I do not suffer under any illusions that we are going to get cloture today. We not only have the problem of getting 60 Senators to vote for cloture, but we have a problem with Senators who are absent today. And I cannot blame those who are opposed

to cloture for that, because they could be absent or they could be here and the outcome is the same.

For those of us who are for cloture, if we are not here to cast our vote for cloture, then, Mr. President, we ourselves are partly at fault.

I thank the Republican leader. I know that he is in a position of wanting campaign reform. He has some problems with it. But I think some of those problems can probably be dealt with if we can invoke cloture and get on with the debate.

Mr. President, I thank all Senators and I yield the floor.

MORNING BUSINESS The ACTING PRESIDENT protem

pore. Under the previous order, there will now be a period for the transaction of morning business, not to extend beyond the hour of 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for not to exceed 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the Senator from Wisconsin.

WHY AMERICA DOESN'T NEED FEWER AND BIGGER BANKS

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, George Gould and the Treasury are at it t gain. Under Secretary Gould represents big money and big business at its very biggest. He is the Mr. Big. He is the prime advocate of bigness in an administration that is to big business what Babe Ruth was to the New York Yankees. Anyone who thinks the country suffers from a merger mania has seen nothing yet. It is true that in the past year the country has endured 9 of the 10 biggest mergers in its history. But to Mr. Gould the merger business is lagging. It should be much better and especially much bigger. He especially would like to see the Nation's big banks get with it. Now the fact is that our big banks are growing. They are growing very fast. They are already enormous. Consider the measures of bigness. Our big banks employ tens of thousands of people, far more than our biggest banks have ever employed before. They have assets and deposits much bigger than they have ever been in the past. They are up to their neck in foreign lending. In fact they have surpassed their lending to foreign countries by record margins. But that is not enough for Mr. Gould. It apparently does not matter to Mr. Gould that some of these loans are weak. He is not phased by the fact that Chase Manhattan had to take a hit of one and three-quarter billions in its reserve against losses in third country loans in the current quarter, or that Citibank took a mammoth $3 billion sockeroo to its reserve to offset the weakness of its LDC loans.

Nor does it seem to worry Mr. Gould that our biggest banks have been

among our weakest performers by the measure of the free market. Until a few years ago Bank America, for instance, was the biggest bank in the country and in the world. It was the biggest. But was it making money? Bank America discovered that there is a difference between bigness and success. This biggest of all banks has suffered a very rocky time for several years now, and in spite of changes in management. The Continental Illinois Bank of Chicago was a big bank by most standards. Was it successful? No, it collapsed. It was bailed out by the Federal Government. Most of the 10 biggest banks in our country are not failing, but they are not doing very well either. One measure of the success or failure of any free market economic institution is how well it is doing with hard headed investors. The answer for our biggest banks is not well. Not well at all. In fat the average price of the stock of our 10 biggest banks is about six times earnings. That is less than half the price that other firms listed on the stock exchanges are doing. For these really big banks it is worse. Some regional banks-banks that are only a quarter to half the size of the 10 biggest-are selling at close to 30 times their earnings. Secretary Gould and his friends call the free market the real measure. I agree. So the free market tells us that it is not bigness that spells success. It is competence. It is prudence. And these qualities come with manageable size. What does that mean? That means operating an entity that is big enough to compete in profitable markets but small enough for competent management to control it.

Mr. Gould and others have looked to Japan and they have come to a conclusion that is superficially plausible. But it does not stand up. The Japanese now have the biggest banks in the world. Of the world's six biggest banks, five are Japanese, one-Citibank-is American. To Gould that means we need 9 or 10 more Citibanks. To achieve those big banks Gould would like Congress to promptly bring on nationwide branching, permit banks to get into the same securities, insurance, real estate businesses that have been denied American banks during the 50 years of the Glass-Steagle Act. But that is not enough. Gould also would like to push our biggest commercial and industrial firms into banking. He would breach the firm line that has throughout our history separated banking from commerce. Bankers would no longer deal with borrowers at arms length. They would, in fact, in many cases be owned by their borrowers. Just think of it. In this country very big banks are not allowed to fail. They have the full faith and credit of the Federal Government backing up their deposits, and a long

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16101 line of precedents going back through the Continental Bank, the Franklin National, and many others that assure the Federal Government stands by ready to rescue any troubled big bank. So Mr. Gould wants to see most of American banking big. He also wants big industry to be free to own them. Does this mean the Federal Government will bail out Sears Roebuck and its banking subsidiary or American Express or Ford or General Motors?

Furthermore, Mr. President, if Mr. Gould really wants to emulate the Japanese banks, changing the law to permit our biggest commercial and industrial firms to own banks would not do it. The Japanese prohibit firms that are involved in commerce and industry from owning banks for exactly the same reason that we do. They value the safety and soundness of their banks. They also recognize the corrupting conflict of interest that would be involved in ending the separation of commerce and banking. What is more, the Japanese have their own G'::LSs-Steagle. They do prohibit banks 1rom the kind of securities underwriting in long-term debt and equities that brought on the scandals that in turn created Glass-Steagle and ended such underwriting in our country in the 1930's.

Mr. President, there is no record that American banks are not competing vigorously and effectively with the Japanese banks and other banks. Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Paul Volcker, has testified many times to the efficiency and success of American banks-present American banks-in international banking competition.

Earlier this year I asked Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Paul Volcker, why the Japanese now have larger banks than we have and whether this constituted a disadvantage for American banking. We should ponder his response long and hard. Here it is:

Japanese banks are the largest in the world partly because the Japanese yen has been appreciating in value, partly because they have a highly concentrated banking system, and partly because that country is now demonstrating an enormous capacity to save internally and externally. I have not heard any concern over the years that U.S. banks are not active competitors internationally. They have been at the cutting edge of international banking competition and we have very active international competitors among the American banks. They are certainly among the most active, if not the most active, in the Eurodollar market, right on the doorstep of all the European banks. International competition is as much a matter of quality as it is size, once you get beyond a certain threshold. Obviously you need some substantial size to compete internationally.

I would point out that even in Japan the most active, forceful, aggressive, international competitor is the Bank of Tokyo which ranks 29th. It's one of the smaller worldwide and is one of the smaller Japanese banks. You dont

need to be the biggest one in the world-the biggest banking organization in the world happens to be an American bank, but it doesn't require that you dominate that top ten.

This country does not need just a few megabanks. We do not need bigger banks. We need better banks. And what makes banks better? The same element that makes all of us better. It is called competition. With our system of 11,000 independent banks competing in domestic American as well as foreign markets, we have the best and the most competitive banking system in the world, and the two go together. No one can convince this Senator that we can secure more competition if we reduce the number of banks and concentrate most of financial resources in nine megabanks. Fewer banks means less competition. Yes, the big banks would be fatter, in fact much fatter. But would they be more efficient? Not on the basis of the record.

NAVY MAKES SIGNIFICANT MOVE FOR CIVILIAN WOMEN Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, it is

my pleasure to commend the Navy for removing restrictions which formerly kept female civilian technicians from testing their work on submarine sea tna.ls. This bold move lays to rest the 5-year case of Pamella Doviak Celli who has been appealing to the Navy and finally to the courts for the right to do her job at Sea. Ms. Doviak's case has long been a sore point for Navy civilian and military women, and I commend Secretary Webb for putting case behind him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two articles which outline this case and the Navy's recent decision be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Washington Post, June 16, 1987]

WOMEN CLEARED FOR SUBMARINE TRIALS <By Molly Moore)

Navy Secretary James H. Webb Jr., reversing a policy the Navy had already concluded was discriminatory, announced yesterday that women civilian employes will be allowed to participate in submarine sea trials on the same basis as men.

For Pamella M. Doviak Celli, a 42-year-old mechanical engineering technician at the Portsmouth, N.H. Naval Shipyard, the ruling ended a five-year dispute over regulations that barred her from a trial -cruise on a submarine she was helping to repair in November 1982.

The Navy's grievance procedures had established that the policy discriminated against women, and Celli was offered financial compensation, which she rejected because the service would not guarantee a change in the rules. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also said the Navy had discriminated against Celli and ordered the service to change its policies.

Webb's decision reverses the position of his predecessor, John F. Lehman Jr., who

rejected the Navy's findings of discrimination, appealed the EEOC rulings and refused to implement its orders to revise the rules.

Barely two months ago, Celli had taken her case to the federal court in Portland, Me., to try to push the Navy into changing its rules.

Yesterday's decision applies only to civilian employes and does not include female sailors, Navy officials said. A Navy spokesman said the decision would affect "a large number" of female employes, but said specific numbers were unavailable yesterday.

Webb also ordered that Celli be awarded attorneys' fees for her legal battle as well as back pay, overtime and benefits she would have received if she had been permitted to embark on the USS Kamehameha's sea trial in November 1982.

Under the new rules, men and women will be provided separate berthing accommodations on the submarines, but "separate sanitary facilities are not required," a Navy statement said. Sea trials usually last two to nine days.

[From the Boston Globe, June 14, 1987] WOMAN FIGHTS NAVY ON ALLEGED SEX BIAS

<By Clare Kittredge) DovER, N.H.-Pamella Doviak Celli says

it's unnerving to sue the Secretary of the Navy. "I may sound like I've got it down pat because I've been at it for so long," she said, putting French fries on a plate for her 17-year-old son.

"But you always wonder 'what are they going to do to me because of this? What is this going to cost me in the long run?' Am I ever going to feel like I've won?"

For five years, this 42-year-old Dover woman has been going about the bureaucratic business of contesting a Navy policy forbidding her from working on submarines during sea trials.

As her case has extended over time, she has remarried and acquired another last name. Her son and daughter have grown up. Her pile of documents has risen to 4 feet. And the case has grown from a simple complaint filed in the Equal Employment Office of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, where she works, to a civil lawsuit filed on her behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union in US District Court in Portland.

The charge: that the Navy failed to comply with a US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruling that she was discriminated against because of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civl Rights Act of 1964.

Tomorrow, the Justice Department is expected to respond. But the case may not end there. According to Hampton attorney Joseph McKittrick, cocounsel with the ACLU, her case may eventually reach the US Supreme Court.

The Navy and Justice Department will not comment on the case, but McKittrick says that for the Navy, the stakes are enormous. "This is one of the last holds the Navy has on an all-male world."

"Civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion, age and handicap," said Isabelle Katz Pinzler, director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project. "If the Navy gets away with this, hundreds of thousands of civilian employees of all the branches of the military could be deprived of protection under those laws."

Of the 8,000 civilians working at the shipyard, 1,000 are women. "The Pam Doviaks

16102 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 of the 1980s are the Rosie the Riveters of the 1940s," said Carolyn Becraft, director of the Women and the Military Project of the Women's Equity Action League.

But Celli says she does not feel like a symbol. She first chose a man's job at the shipyard because she was divorced with two children and needed the money, she said. Through "Upward Mobility," a Navy program designed to attract people to technical jobs, she became a mechanical engineering technician in the Ship Silencing Branch, working to keep subs quiet underwater.

Sea trial work is part of the job. It has had its tragedies. In 1963, the USS Thresher went down during sea trials with 129 men on board. But sea trials are to Celli what test drives are to car mechanics.

"When a team is assigned to overhaul a boat, the last part of the job is going on sea trials," she said. A typical seven-day sea trial can mean 10 percent of her annual pay. Men with sea trial experience get promoted.

In 1981, Celli was allowed on the USS Benjamin Franklin for sea trials. "I was berthed by myself. We used the bathroom one at a time, as we do on airplanes." But in November 1982, she was denied sea trial work on the sub's sister ship, the USS Kamehemeha.

She filPd a complaint. A year later, a Navy investig, or found that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her sex. A year after that, the Navy's Chief of Naval Operations agreed and offered to settle for back pay but did not guarantee her access to sea trials. Though other women in Celli's position have settled at this point, she refused.

Another year went by. In November 1985, the Navy ruled that its decision to bar Celli was military and that her complaint did not fall under the purview of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. But Celli says she is not arguing that women should go into combat. The submarine is unarmed, she said. Most of the men on board are civilians.

She appealed to the US Equal Opportunity Commission, which ruled in her favor. Refusing a Navy appeal, the EEOC ordered the Navy to comply. When the Navy refused, Celli filed suit in March.

In the meantime, this spring, a Federal District Court judge in San Diego ruled against Glenda Bledsoe, a civilian who had sued the Navy for denial of sea trial work on an aircraft carrier. Though Celli expects the Navy to use this ruling against her, she says the Bledsoe case is different. Aside from doing a different job on a different vessel, she said Bledsoe was allowed sea trial work before and after her denial and has been on sea trials since. "The judge ruled that her denial was an isolated case."

Celli's case is not isolated. As it drags on, the men in her section go on more sea trials. She does not.

"People have asked me. 'Why haven't you given up?' " she said "For one thing, I still have the same job. I just want to do the job I already have."

JUNE GOLDEN FLEECE AWARDED

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the Executive Office of the President won the Golden Fleece Award for June for spending $611,623 to gild one mediumsized room in the old Executive Office Building, which is next door to the White House. They were ready to go on to six other offices, including the

lair of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget at a cost of $728,000, but suddenly "deferred" these plans after my inquiries.

The taxpayers may have saved millions because somebody had an attack of common sense. But now I know how Charlie Brown feels when Lucy holds the football and good old Charlie is ready to kick it into the next county, only to have Lucy jerk it away at the last moment.

Under the auspices of the Executive Office, the General Services Administration-the Government's housekeeping agency-was in the midst of renovating the interior of the old Executive Office Building. It is home to many top officials of the executive branch, including the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

This renovation started rather modestly. Published reports indicate that GSA had earlier renovated three libraries, the east rotunda, and four domes at a total cost of about $400,000.

But like so many Government programs, this renovation soon went from cost-conscious modesty to big-spending opulence. The Executive Office then approved renovating one medium-sized room, which most recently was used by Vice Presidents but in the past had hl11sed the Secretary of the Navy. What did this one-room renovation cost? Not $100,000, nor even $400,000, but a staggering $611,623 was shelled out by the taxpayers. This office is now to be used for "ceremonial functions and conferences," but remained unused as of mid-April.

When asked if any other offices were going to be renovated, the GSA replied on April 14, 1987, that, "Yes, a project to renovate rooms 252 and 254 is in the procurement process. Future projects are planned for rooms 226, 231, 232, and 236." Rooms 252 and 254 are occupied by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. GSA officials reported that the work in . these rooms would cost over $500,000, and had an artist's depiction of the renovated office. Workmen had already started stripping the walls.

My staff visited the old Executive Office Building to see how the taxpayers' money had been spent. They reported that the work was indeed beautiful. They walked over to the OMB Director's office to see what was planned, and admired the artist's depiction. But as taxpayers themselves, they came away wondering why the work needed to be done now, given the size of the deficit-a sentiment I shared.

Over the telephone, we asked for some additional information regarding the work planned, but the Executive Office was getting antsy. So on May 19, 1987, I asked in writing for the additional information regarding this work: Who occupied the offices now,

who would after renovation, the cost, and the historical significance of the offices. This inquiry evidently caused some consternation in the Executive Office. A reply, dated June 8, 1987 stated that the $728,000 renovation of the Director's office, instead of being in the procurement process "has been deferred." Note that this project has been deferred, not eliminated. GSA went on to say "No firm dates have been established for any of the other rooms."

It now looks as if the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is going to have to wait to have his office fancied up. This Senator is glad to see that economy does begin at home, at least after a little elbow nudging. But for spending $611,623 to fix one office, the Executive Office of the President richly deserves this month's fleece, even after giving credit for a lateblooming passion for saving the taxpayers' money.

CAMPAIGN FINANCING REFORM Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have lis

tened with interest to the remarks by the majority and minority leaders in regard to the campaign finance bill and I heard a considerable amount of the debate that has involved some of us on that very important issue. I think most of my colleagues do not understand that this Senator is not for and never has been for and probably never will be for any great amount of taxpayer money used to finance campaigns. I think all of this talk about how much PAC's can contribute or not, whether they can give to candidates and whether we should limit that, or whether we should allow them to give money to the political parties and then have them filter it down to the candidate, and all of the other issues that we talk about, including, I think, the objectives that this Senator has to the bill that is before us, is that the bill essentially says that we are not going to be doing very much about limiting the amount of obscene money that is spent in campaigns, but is being sidetracked by the debate over whether or not we should have public financing of campaigns in the U.S. Senate.

All of this, it seems to me, takes the eye off what I think is the real ball. That point was made by the majority leader today when he brought out the fact that essentially we are never going to have the cure to this disease that has set in and which is spreading throughout our legislative process until we have some type of constitutionally accepted language that limits the amount of money that anyone can spend in a campaign.

I have been talking to some of my colleagues and would like to lay out in the next minute or so some thoughts

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16103 that have been going through my mind.

I know that we have a serious problem with the Supreme Court decision that says any time you try and say you cannot spend more than this amount of money, generally based on a percentage of population in a given State, that you are interfering with the constitutional right of an individual who may want to spend their own money for their own campaign.

While I do not agree with that Supreme Court decision, I recognize and realize that it is a point that might be well made, constitutionally.

I am wondering, since I want to continue to focus my attention on limiting the amount of money that can be spent, if we could not devise some kind of a proposition, complicated as it might be, to go ahead and outline how much money could be spent in a campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Let us take Nebraska for an example. If through some formula, to use $1 million for the sake of discussion, if the lirrit was $1 million in Nebraska, and if candidate A maintained that limit but candidate B was a very rich individual or was an individual that had the ability to raise vast amounts of money so that that candidate B could spent $5 million in Nebraska, I think on the face of it that might not decide the election in Nebraska but from another viewpoint it might tend to influence it unfairly.

What would be wrong with some kind of a piece of legislation that said when candidate A lived up to his $1 million on a tightly reported mechanism that candidate B would be obligated to also; that we would require when candidate B went over the $1 million limit he would be required under the law to print on the television tube, on his newspaper advertising, on his direct mail, that this advertising is paid for through the candidate's fund over and above the amount authorized for expenditure for senatorial campaigns in Nebraska?

To put it another way, it would penalize that individual with unlimited funds that he would have to advise the public that he is spending more money than the law outlines and that the law provides that he can still do that so long as he has that statement, that disclaimer, if you will, to search for a word, that would indicate to the public that this candidate B is spending an inordinate amount of money in the view of the law passed by the Congress of the United States?

It seems to me that further refinement of that principle, Mr. President, might go to the issue of saying that if candidate B, in this particular case, spends more than $2 million in Nebraska, that that would trigger a fund that we might create through some formula, even taxpayer financing on a limited scale, that he, candidate A,

would be reimbursed up to one-third or a half of the $1 million over that candidate B was expending.

In that kind of scenario, it seems to me, Mr. President, it would not be candidate A who is expending taxpayer money; rather, it would be candidate B, who has these massive funds, who would be the one that would be viewed by the public as forcing the underfinanced, comparatively speaking, candidate A to take campaign financing, and it would be well advertised and well known.

It seems to me some mechanism like that, although I am not a lawyer, would be one way around this difficult issue of the constitutional objections that have been raised and been decided thus far by the Supreme Court. I am also a cosponsor, Mr. President, of the constitutional amendment offered by Senator HoLLINGS and others, to pass a constitutional amendment that States could vote on through their legislature to give the Congress of the United States the authority, notwithstanding any other objections in the Constitution, to set limits on the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns. But that is going to take several years and I do not think we can wait.

I am merely offering what I think m1ght be a constructive suggestion that we think we should consider and receive and search a way out of the impasse we may have on campaign financing, the way to finance it, and the amount of money we are going to spend to finance it. I think we should attack this in some way, and maybe some constructive suggestions along what I have outlined would get us to a place where all of us could agree on some kind of reasonable proposal to attack this problem that we all recognize is there.


GEPHARDT AMENDMENT AND THE TRADE BILL: PART III

FLINT TO SPARK A TRADE WAR

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, over the last few days, I have explained some of my objections to the Housepassed Gephardt amendment to this year's trade bill. My most serious concern about the Gephardt amendment doesn't call for immediate retaliation, of course. First, it mandates a round of negotiations to eliminate those nations' unfair trade practices.

These negotiations, however, are almost certain to fail.

Let's assume that the trade deficit between the United States and Japan was reversed, and that the United States had a large bilateral trade surplus with Japan. One day, the Japanese decide that we Americans must either agree to make many billion dollars' worth of trade concessions within 6 months or face massive trade retalia-

tion. The Japanese demand that we must import more Toyotas, more textiles, and more Japanese TV's, and the Japanese agree to give up nothing in return.

Would we Americans knuckle under to such demands? Of course not ..

Yet, this is exactly what we are asking Japan to do if the Gephardt amendment becomes law.

The Japanese will not allow themselves to be buffaloed by trade blackmail any more than our country would if the situation were reversed.

That is why the Gephardt amendment will lead directly to retaliationthe negotiations cannot work because they are not negotiations.

The issue here is not whether Japan trades unfairly. It does. The issue is whether this strategy will be effective. It will not.

History teaches that retaliation, particularly massive retaliation, leads to counterretaliation.

Very few countries take trade sanctions lying down.

It is true the Japanese chose not to counterretaliate against the United States after our country's recent retaliation against Japanese semiconductors.

But it is a mistake to assume that they will follow the same pattern when hit with trade retaliation on a massive scale.

Remember, the semiconductor retaliation totaled about $300 million; the Gephardt amendment would total about $40 billion. That is the equivalent of 133 semiconductor retaliations.

I have frequently heard some Gephardt amendment supporters answer charges that the amendment would spark a trade war by asking, "What do we have to lose?" After all, they argue, we import a great deal more than we export.

The answer to their question is we would lose a lot.

For one thing, the nations targeted by the Gephardt amendment-Japan, Taiwan, and Korea-are major purchasers of U.S. agricultural exports.

Japan is the largest importer of U.S. agricultural commodities.

On the Gephardt list for retaliation are the No. 1 and No. 2 markets for U.S wheat, the No. 1 and No. 3 markets for U.S. soybeans, and the No. 1 and No.3 markets for U.S. corn.

Any of the targeted nations could easily purchase the agricultural commodities that they require from other agricultural exporters like Canada and Australia.

This makes it almost certain that many family farms across the United States will be an early casualty of the Gephardt amendment trade war.

Other export-oriented industries, from aerospace manufacturing to timber, could also be hurt by counterretaliation.

16104 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 Do not get me wrong. Retaliation is

justified in some cases. Trade retaliation is a job that re

quires sophistication-a scalpel, not a meat ax.

The bottom line is that a unilateral attempt to legislate a decrease in the U.S. trade deficit is more likely to result in a trade war than it is to result in an improvement in the U.S. trade position.

That is a result we should not tolerate.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, "no nation has ever perished because of trade, but many have perished for lack of it."

We must strive to design a trade policy that expands trade, not restricts it.


CANCELLATION OF SOVIET PARTICIPATION IN "JOIDES": AN UNSOUND STEP IN SUPERPOWER RELATIONS Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am

deeply saddened to report that, over my strong representations and recommendations, the administration has taken what I regard as a very unsound-indeed foolish-step in United States-Soviet relations.

Since 1968, the National Science Foundation has sponsored a multilateral ocean-drilling project designed to yield scientific insights concerning the history of the Earth, of climatic change, of the movement of continents, and of sea floor parting. This research has been conducted by an organization called JOIDES, standing for Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling. The instrument for research has been a converted oil drilling vessel called the JOIDES Resolution, which has traveled the seas, drilling at various points and collecting sediment and rocks which provide the basic data for scientific inquiry and theory.

The members of JOIDES are 10 American universities, including the University of Rhode Island, and a number of foreign participantsJapan, Britain, France, West Germany, Canada, and a consortium of smaller countries. On the U.S. side, the National Science Foundation has contributed $40 million to the project annually, and each of this six foreign participants has contributed $2.5 million annually.

In the summer of 1985, the National Science Foundation-having gained approval from the State Department, the U.S. Navy, and the President's Science Adviser-invited the Soviet Union to become a seventh foreign participant. From the perspective of the NSF this seemed a reasonable step in the direction of United States-Soviet cooperation. Having received this invitation in 1985, the Soviets considered

the matter for over a year and then last fall accepted, agreeing to join JOIDES and to contribute the customary $2.5 million annual fee.

At this late point, however, two new participants entered the U.S. decisionmaking process: a new White House Science Adviser and the Department of Defense. The result was that the decision was placed under review for several months; and finally, last month, even though the State Department and the National Science Foundation continued to support Soviet participation, the administration officially determined to withdraw the invitation for Soviet participation.

Apparently, the basic of this policy reversal was a Department of Defense assertion that it had been bypassed in the original decision-notwithstanding the Navy's role-and thus had never had the opportunity to bring technology-transfer considerations to bear on this issue of Soviet participation.

One could per haps understand such a development if there truly were a technology-transfer question involved. Despite the accompanying diplomatic embarassment, such a policy reversal could be justified by a legitimate determination, however belated, that Soviet participation would result in a conveyance of strategically significant in. l)rmation otherwise unavailable.

But in fact no serious assertion to this effect has been made, and it is difficult to imagine that one could be. The technology used aboard the JOIDES Resolution is commercially available on the world market, and the scientific information derived from the JOIDES effort is made immediately available to the world community. Accordingly, there appears no reason, beyond ideological instinct and conditioned bureaucratic response, for the negative decision regarding Soviet participation.

Obviously United States-Soviet relations can survive this misstep. But the costs are nonetheless lamentable. A modest opportunity for superpower cooperation has been needlessly extinguished. The administration has once again displayed a degree of unpredictability that can only be damaging to U.S. prestige. And the world is led inevitably to wonder at the rationality of an American foreign policy that purports to seek a major nuclear arms accord requiring extensive United States-Soviet cooperation-that indeed has avowed an intent to share advanced Star Wars technology with the Soviet Union-yet balks at involving the Soviets in a sample scientific project of exploring the ocean floor.

Mr. President, I deplore the administration's inability to reach a more rational decision in this matter and I hope some possibility may still exist for executive branch reconsideration. Toward this end, I have written to the President's National Security Adviser,

Mr. Carlucci, urging further review. While I hold no illusion that the interest of one Senator will be compelling cause for a policy reversal, I do believe that any objective review will reveal a strong case for discarding the cancellation decision and proceeding with what promises to be a modest but useful effort at superpower cooperation.

THE TRADE WAR HAS REACHED THE SENATE

Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, our mammoth trade deficit indicates America is losing the world trade war. Some of the battles are big. Some are little.

One of those trade battles is being fought right in our midst-in the gift shop in the Senate Dirksen Building.

The other day I was browsing through some picture postcards to mail to friends in Wisconsin. I selected some patriotic cards showing our Capitol Building, the monuments, the White House, and other symbols of America.

However, I noticed three words written in very small print in the bottom corner. It says, "Printed in Japan."

Talk about discouraging. My favoriate card was the one show

ing the Iwo Jima Monument. We thought we knew which side won that battle-but now we know who's really winning.

Somehow, this all does not make sense.

Do we see "Remember the Alamo" cards printed in Mexico?

Has anyone heard of Fourth of July calendars printed in Britain?

This business of U.S. Senate greeting cards being printed in Japan is anything but a two-way street. I am sure the Japanese Diet, their parliament, maintains a strict diet of Japanese-made items in their gift stores.

If we really are concerned about boosting American products, we ought to set the example. We can start right here by selling post cards which are printed in the U.S.A.

The Dirksen sundry shop is administered by the Senate Restaurant, which gets its policy direction from the Senate Rules Committee. Perhaps the committee should consider made-inthe-U.S.A. postcards.

To underscore my point, I am sending each of my colleagues an Iwo Jima postcard. The inscriptrion is going to ask, "Whose flag are they really raising?"

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I am sending to the Senate Rules Committee be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16105 U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC, June 15, 1987. Hon. WENDELL FORD, Chairman, Senate Rules Committee, Russell

Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. DEAR WENDELL: While rummaging through

the Dirksen sundry shop the other day, I was amazed to find that the scenic postcards we offer for sale to the people of America are printed in Japan!

A wonderful variety of choices is available: dramatic shots of the Capitol, the White House, and Arlington Cemetery. Ironically, our Japanese friends even make available a picturesque card featuring the Iwo Jima Memorial.

I wonder what Americans visiting the Capitol think when they return from the galleries after hearing our speeches on the trade deficit?

As those shops are administered by the Senate Restaurant, which receives its policy direction from the Rules Committee, I think the Committee should give consideration to the example we're setting in the Senate. I'm for made-in-the-U.S.A.

Best regards, ROBERT W. KASTEN, Jr.

THE DEFENSE BUDGET Mr. UOMENICI. Mr. President, I

rise today to talk with the Senate about the defense budget and the conference on the budget resolution that I read about.

Obviously, Senators know, and most Americans know, that the U.S. Senate produced a budget resolution that was not the product of this side of the aisle. I regret that very much. Some people say that the Senator from New Mexico, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, opted not to be a participant this year. That is not the case.

As a matter of fact, I listened, I observed, I committed myself in my normal manner, and I ended up concluding that I, representing the Republicans on the committee, could only have a marginal impact on what was going to happen and so I decided, as I viewed that marginal impact to let the Democrats produce the budget resolution this year.

In the past we have done it both ways. I have had to produce a budget resolution without any support from the then-minority of Democrats, and I have had the luxury of producing one that was bipartisan. But, Mr. President, over the weekend I read with some dismay a discussion about the level of defense spending in the Senate budget resolution and in the House budget resolution, and I read with dismay what some of the House Members have to say about the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator LAWTON CHILES and his refusal to cave, as some have said, on a defense number that obviously he believes he could not agree to.

Some suggest that he is being stubborn; but the most preposterous suggestion I have heard is that he is car-

rying the water for 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 Members of his party. headed by SAM NUNN, who are allegedly conservative-! do not know what that meansor what prodefense means, either, when it comes to this budget resolution.

I would just like to share once again with the U.S. Senate, or anyone who will listen, the kind of dilemma that the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has when he goes to conference with the U.S. House this year on the defense numbers.

I am not sure what motivated the House to come up with the defense numbers that they came up with. Let me try one more time to explain to the U.S. Senate and to anyone that wants to listen, what happened. Then let us pass judgment on whether the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and those who are with him on the other side of the aisle who have gone to conference refused to agree to a defense number on outlays that satisfies the U.S. House conferees and their leadership's requests.

Mr. President, I know that what I am going to tell you sounds like a fairy tale, and I know that there are those who are going to say well, it really must not have been intended to be the truth; it was probably just an interim st\ p; nobody really believed it.

But, Mr. President, these are the facts.

We have an authorizing committee, chaired by Senator NuNN of Georgia. The House has a defense authorization committee headed by the distinguished U.S. Representative LEs AsPIN. Both of these committees are supposed to be our experts on defense. We urge them, we beg them to bring us a blueprint of what we need in order to maintain our defense; in order to make sure that we pay for what we have ordered; and in order to make sure that we have personnel, equipment, spare parts, operation and maintenance money for what we have already bought. So they bring us their best estimate in the nature of a blueprint called a defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, what happened in the House is very, very simple. That committee, headed by the distinguished chairman, brought a bill to the floor that exceeded by a substantial margin the numbers that the Budget Committee had plugged into the defense budget in the budget resolution, especially on the outlay side, that is, what the programs you authorize can actu-ally spend for each year. ·

As a matter of fact, Mr. President, they were $13 billion in outlays apart-that is, the number for defense in the authorization bill and the number for defense in the budget resolution, were $13 billion apart.

Mr. President, I am not privy to what goes on behind the scenes in the

other Chamber. But it is quite obvious to the Senator from New Mexico that the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee was told: That bill that you have reported to the desk which we are going to consider is not going to pass the House unless-what? Unless you change it so that it is exactly the same as those numbers that we put in the budget resolution, even though the resolution is not binding. even though the numbers in the budget resolution are not binding, even though we frequently go below them-we very seldom go higher than those numbers-he was told, "You will not pass your authorization bill unless the numbers are there."

Now, Mr. President, he could not find a way to bring those numbers on the outlay side to the numbers in the budget resolution, and do you know what he did? I am convinced that even today scores of Members of the House and at least as many Senators do not understand what happened. A section was added to the authorization bill. It is called section 810 for purposes of this discussion, offered by the distinguished chairman, saying, "Here it is. With this we are in compliance with the budget resolution. Let us now proceed." And, Mr. President, the primary means of cutting the budget for the Department of Defense was this little provision called delay in certain payments. And let me tell you what it means. It said in very simple, plain language, "For the last 12 days of the fiscal year, we will not pay our bills."

Let me repeat, $6 billion of the savings in outlays is accomplished by a simple little phrase, "For the last 12 days of the fiscal year, we will not pay our bills."

Because that sounds quite onerous to some people who might have already furnished a service there is a small exception for small businessmen. If you are a small businessman, we will pay what we owe you during the last 12 days. But for everybody else doing business with the Defense Department, everyone with contracts for goods or services, we just will not pay during the last 12 days of September. And then they sent off to the Office of Management and Budget and asked "How many dollars do we save in the fiscal year if we do it that way?" And lo and behold, they finally got it down to the right number of days, and it is 12.

Now, Mr. President, this calendar cutting does not save any money. It does not cut any defense program. Why can we not do that in all of Government? We can get our outlays into enormously good shape. Why do we not take the budgets for agencies such as HUD and HHS, and if we are worried about saving money, why not go out and figure how many days of the

16106 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 year to ignore the bills owed to the creditors serving these agencies?

It almost sounds so preposterous I have difficulty drawing analogies with it. I know that if I use a Visa card, I cannot just say, "I made a new deal this year; whoever I owe money to, I will not pay for the next 12 days." All Americans know they cannot conduct business in this manner.

What will it be next year, Mr. President? Thirty days? Forty-five days? We already authorized the money. We meet the deficit target by saying we will not pay it out for 12 days.

Mr. President, I know that nobody seriously believes that should be the manner in which Congress takes care of the defense of this Nation. Yet we hear that because the Senate conferees will not agree to a reduced outlay number, somehow or another they are led by a group of prodefense Senators on the other side of the aisle who just do not want to compromise.

Well, Mr. President, do you really think that to accept any portion of a proposH ion which says we will not pay our bills for a portion of the year is a compromise? Or is it a copout? Is it some kind of newly-invented leap year? We used to only add a day on leap years. Next year we have everybody following a 366-day year, but we

are going to have the Defense Department, and everybody it owes money to, except small business, follow a 354-day year.

Mr. President, do we really think ultimately this is saving money in the Department of Defense or is it some kind of magic?

Now, I will admit that we have never been able to come within the outlay limits in defense, and there has been gimmick after gimmick. Last year, so that you will know that I know, both Houses slipped the pay date one day. For pay which is due on the last day in the fiscal year, you slip it one day, you slip it into the next year. That was last year's major gimmick. We saved well over $2 billion arithmetically doing that. This year we have outdone ourselves. · We found we cannot do that too often, however, because if we try that even one more time, we have to begin to cut pay for a whole quarter. We found that will not work. So this is the replacement gimmick.

Now, I came to the floor to explain this only because it does not seem fair to this Senator. And certainly somebody can come here and say-and I clearly will take whatever blame is mine-"You were not there; you refused to participate; it is not your

budget; it is our budget." Every bit of that is true. I wish I were there. I wish I could have been there to help because it sounds rather preposterous to lay blame on some group of prodefense Senators when you have this kind of synthetic savings, this kind of gimmickry, coming down to meet a budget target and then making noise like it is a real defense budget.

Frankly, I do not know who we are trying to leverage. Perhaps we start this year out by saying if we are low enough on defense, the President will scream uncle. Maybe he will go for taxes if we will just cut it enough, maybe he will join the party. I do not know what the theory is, but it does seem to me that this very simple but little-known fact about the defense budget ought to be on the table.

Mr. President, I have a table displaying budget authority for defense in the five budgets, what we have done to the defense budget the last 5 years, so that everybody who wants to understand the problem can look at it if they are interested. I ask unanimous consent that it be made a part of the RECORD.

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

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988, H.R. 1748 [Dollars in billions]

House-reported House-passed Difference

Budget authority

77.2 85 9 ~~~rs_:::: .. ·························· ········: ........ ................................... .

Procurment 83.9 RDT&E .... ... ...................... ................. .. .......... . 40.0

9.0 8.1

MiiCon & Housing ... . DOE, atomic energy .. . Other. ...... .. .......... .. ................. ...................................... ........ ..... .. ............. .. .. . 1.7 Delayed payment provision .. .. . . . . . . ................. .

Total 305.8

COMPARISONS OF 1988 DEFENSE FUNDING LEVELS [Dollars in billions]

Budget authority . Outlays ...................................... .. .............................. ...................... .

Prepared by Senate Budget Cllmmittee Minority Staff.

HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON THE DEFENSE BUDGET [Budget authority, dollars in billions]

President's request. Budget resolution:

Senate passed ..................................... .. .... .. ......................... . ........................... ....... ...... . House passed . ..... ................... .. .... . ... ............ .. .............. ... ............................ . .. . ....... .. ...................... ...... ........... .. .. .. ..... . ......................... . Cllnference agreement... . ......... ..... .. .................. ........... ........ .. ........... .................... . .......... .. .... ...... .. .. ....... ............. .

Appropriations bill.. . ............. .. ............ ........ . ................. .......... .. ......... . Appropriated level change from:

President's request ... .................. .. ................................................................ . Budget resolution

Senate passed ... ............................ . ............ .... ..................... .......................... .......... . House passed

Outlays Budget authority

76.3 76.5 83.3 83.0 82.2 76.4 36.4 35.8

8.1 8.3 8.0 7.8 0.2 0.9

294.5 288.6

000 authorization bill

Outlays

76.1 80.6 81.7 34.3 8.0 7 . .7

- 0.8 - 6.1

281.4

Budget authority

- 0.7 -2.9 -7.5 - 4.2 - 0.7 - 0.3 -0.8

- 17.2

Outlays

- 0.2 - 2.7 - 0.5 - 2.1 - 0.1 -0.3 -1.0 -6.1

-13.1

1988 budget resolution (H.Clln.Res. 93)

(HR. 1748) (S 1174) House-passed Senate-rep!. House-passed Senate-passed

1983

263.0

251.7 253.6 253.6 245.8

- 17.2

- 5.9 - 7.8

288.6 281.4

1984

280.5

270.7 263.9 268.6 265.2

- 15.3

- 5.5 1.3

1985

303.0 293.8

313.4

299.0 285.7 292.9 292.9

- 20.5

-6.1 7.2

1986

322.2

302.5 292.6 302.5 289.1

-33.1

- 13.4 - 3.5

288.7 281.7

1987

320.2

301.0 285.0 292.2 289.6

- 30.6

- 11.4 4.6

301.5 290.6

Total 1983-87

1.499.3

1.424.9 1,380.8 1.409.8 1,382.6

-116.7

- 42.3 1.8

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON THE DEFENSE BUDGET -Continued

1610~

Conference agreement .......... .. ....... . .................................... .. ..... .

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WIRTH). Is there further morning business? If not, morning business is closed.

SENATORIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of the unfinished business, S. 2, which the clerk will now report.

The legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (8. 2) to amend the Federal Election

Campai ' Act of 1971 to provide for a voluntary system of spending limits and partial public financing of Senate general election campaigns, to limit contributions by multicandidate political committees, and for other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time between now and 12 o'clock noon shall be equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority leaders or their designees.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I am

going to take a few minutes this morning to discuss in a very serious way-! am afraid sometimes I get too serious in thinking about this matter-the bill to modify and reform our election laws so far as expenditure of funds and the collection of those funds. There is potential evil in the present system. I say potential evil. I am not accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, a conscious violation of the law, but it is a potential that I think, too, will spread to our State elections and even to our county elections, thereby becoming almost beyond control of law.

I commend highly those Members of this body who have worked so hard, so diligently and so earnestly in the preparation of this bill, the collection of the data, the hearings, and all that goes with it. Someday the returns will come in and justify many times over all this splendid effort.

Mr. President, I believe we have reached a critical point in this debate on election campaign finance reform. We have discussed this issue for a long time and now I believe strongly that we must have action on the cost of Federal campaign financing.

[Budget authority, dollars in billions]

Not only have we debated campaign finance reform for the past several days, but we have debated and discussed this issue over and over for years. The bill that was introduced for passage in 1985, in the 99th Congress, was a good, solid bill, and it was a good place to start.

Many improvements and refinements have been made to the 1985 version of this proposed legislation, and I believe that within the spirit of known need, the current bill can be made acceptable to the vast majority of our Members. This practice in campaigning will spread as I have said-and I say again by way of warning-to the States and to the counties.

Over the years, I have watched with interest and have seen a gradual recognition of this problem of campaign finance. I am referring to my observation of the reaction of the people. Public opinion has grown in support of tht changing of the system of campaign finance.

I have, therefore, come to appreciate the grave nature of this problem far more than I had before. I am amazed and deeply concerned at the amount of money that is raised now and spent in races for membership in the Congress of the United States.

Last year, successful Senate candidates each spent an average of over $3 million in winning election to the Senate. At the same time, spending by political action committees reached roughly $140 million. This is an increase of roughly 25 percent over the level of PAC spending in 1984. These figures are almost unbelievable.

Skyrocketing campaign expenditures is particularly a problem in small, less wealthy States. In many States, there is a limited supply of campaign money from within the State which can be solicited. Each time a candidate in such a State raises the stakes by soliciting more money, he increases the temptation and necessity of his opponent to seek special interest money from outside his own State.

So, to a great extent, Mr. President, campaign fundraising becomes a vicious cycle, with each candidate trying to raise more money than his opponent from outside sources. At the same time, he is spending less and less time listening to and soliciting support from the voters in his own State.

Mr. President, that is a sad state of affairs. I think that the communications that pass between the candidate and the voters who support him or her

1983 1984 1985

- 7.8 -3.4

1986 1987

- 13.4 -2.6

Total 1983-87

-27.2

are important: the mental telepathy; what is said is part of the message; the ring of sincerity or the lack of it in the voice of those who seek support of the average person, who has gone to a speaking program or otherwise heard a program, most of them with intense interest and concern.

I believe the people in many areas of our country are outraged that the weight and influence of their votes is being diminished. In many precincts, in many counties, in many States, there is a process going on through this money-not illegal now-but a process that robs the occasion of its true import, its sanctity, and inwardly proves to the average voter the lack of sincerity, the lack of understanding, the lack of communication with the man or woman who seek his support at the polls.

In one experience after another, year after year, time after time, the average voter is far from having a proper concept and understanding of what it means to be a voter, what it means to be an office holder, and what it means to keep faith with voters. I believe that people in many areas of our country are outraged that the weight and influence of their votes is being . steadily and certainly diminished. Money from other areas is coming into these voting areas; and it has gradually taken over, is usurping the influence, is gradually getting control of our people's way of thinking.

There is an increase in the influence of the money brought in from outside sources. The voters are sick and tired of the current system. They want change, and they want it now.

For two reasons I believe we have reached a critical point. First, because the cost of election campaigns and the method of financing them has placed the integrity of the Senate in jeopardy. Second, because we must restore to the people the primary role and duty of electing their own representatives who are expressly and openly elected by the people at each precinct-not each State, not each county, not each municipality, but each precinct, down where the ballots are cast, where the people are assembled and discuss these matters with each other, neighbor to neighbor, friend to friend.

We have a historic opportunity to improve the current campaign laws and rapidly return the election of U.S. Senators to the people.

16108 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 We have a rule now that is wiser

than the original part of the Constitution, whose 200th birthday we celebrate this year. We have laws now that far exceed, I think, in value and quality what was originally written in the Constitution. The original rule was to have the members of the State legislatures, in the respective States, elect the U.S. Senators-two to each State, regardless of population or size. They were elected not directly by the people but by the people's elected representatives in their own State legislatures.

I remember when the law was changed. There was a lot of argument about it. But, as a whole, the people felt that they were being left out-left out in part, at least-in having a full chance to make their earnest selection, having a man on trial who was already in office, having a look at his record if he was already in office; if not, go back and find out, one way or another, the better part of that record, and then make a judgment.

The ·•Pople at large were denied that privilege. I remember the time when there was complaint because they were denied. Finally, the law was changed, and it now provides a very salutary, simple rule that Members of the U.S. Senate shall be chosen by the people, their constituents.

I wish we could rise to the occasion, not that we have another historic opportunity to improve the campaign laws, to improve the methods and limits of having the elections and making the choices-the people having a chance to make their choices. Then it will really be in the hands of the people.

Right now, the cost of campaigning for the Senate is so high that the ability of the average voter, the "little fellow," to affect the outcome of an election is seriously challenged and is becoming less and less a matter of his choice. There is too much money flowing, even at the ballot box.

Some claim that the cost of campaigning for the U.S. Senate is not out of line with what the American people spend advertising their products to the consuming public. But, Mr. President, we are not selling dog food, and we must not appear to be selling the office of U.S. Senator to the highest bidder.

Mr. President, I am not charging, let me make clear, any illegal act under the present system, nor do I insinuate that such acts will occur in the future. But the U.S. Senate must be held to a higher standard than technical compliance with the letter of the cold law. We must avoid even the appearance of impropriety to protect the integrity of this great body. This must be done.

I believe the American people are ready-and I believe the Members of the Senate are ready-to move forward on this issue. This bill may not

be perfect, but it is a good place to start. I congratulate my colleagues from West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Kentucky and all others who have worked on this matter for their great efforts.

The momentum is building and the stakes are high. We must seize the moment and adopt a bill which will return our elections to the time-tested principle of government by the people which was established in our Constitution 200 years ago. It has served us well indeed. It must continue to have our protection and dedication as the years come and go.

Recently I have been spending some time reviewing our Constitution of the United States which has served us so well in every major theme of our activity during the 200 years that it has served us. Its principles are needed today and shall be needed in the future. I firmly believe that the fact that the power to choose our leaders contributes more strength and leadership to us than any other phase of our system. May God guide us in keeping it strong.

Now, I do not want to be bellringing here predicting bad, bad things are going to happen, but I believe we will pay a terrible price if we postpone any longer putting on the books and gettil~~ started on its way this substantive campaign finance reform which will restore a faith in the average voter who comes to register his choice.

Those of us who work here day after day, week after week, come in contact with many things that we have some sense of concern about. We know the influences are not all good but we know, too, that as long as there is a continuity of feeling and understanding between the people at large, and those that they choose to represent them in the important halls of Government of this Nation from top to bottom, as long as we know that affinity is there and that understanding is there and the free will to make an honest choice is in operation, then we know that this country will travel a long, long way in the course of our next 200 years and we shall be standing on safe, sound ground.

On the other hand, if we get careless, if we neglect, if we fail to reach, dig hard and find the people with the right principles to exercise this power that originally really belongs to the people, if we fail in those things, then we fail in all things and we lose the foundation upon which our great system was developed and which has proven over and over during these decades its ability, its worth, and has kept things at the same time on high ground.

May we continue that path. I believe that one way or another we will, but it is essential in order to follow that course that we modify, rectify, and clear up and clean up our controlling

election laws so it can continue to be said that as long as those who are operating in good faith with a certain amount of knowledge and understanding, alertness, and willingness to lay aside things that should not control a vote, but look for the virtues that will control the office holder and the running of the Nation, so long as we can follow those courses we will find our way and we will continue a strong people of resolve and honor. May we find our way. Here is the pitfall that must have attention.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield

myself 3 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair recognizes the majority leader. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank

the distinguished Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] for his fine statement in support of the pending measure, S. 2.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT TO PLACE OMNIBUS TRADE BILL ON CALENDAR Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the dis

tinguished Republican leader and I have been talking, looking at the time further down the road when S. 2 will no longer be before the Senate. We all know that we are not going to be on S. 2 forever. There will come a time when that matter will have been resolved and we will be dealing with other important business before the Senate.

One of the important matters that will be coming before the Senate will involve trade and competitiveness. Early on this year, I indicated that I wanted the committees to report out by the first part of May or mid-May, whatever legislation that would be within their jurisdiction coming within the overall rubric of trade and competitiveness, and I indicated that I would be welding those several pieces of legislation, perhaps not all of them, but certainly most of those pieces of legislation into a single omnibus bill.

Several of the committees have reported measures and most of those measures I hope to be able to put into an omnibus bill.

I have discussed this matter with the leader on the other side of the aisle and I have inquired if it might be possible to get consent for such a piece of legislation to be put directly on the calendar. It can be put on the calendar in any event, by way of rule XIV. I can put the various titles together, the titles representing the legislation within the purview of the various committees, dealing with education, job training, agriculture products, copyrights, trademarks, scientific research, all these things. I have asked if I might get unanimous consent to put such a measure directly on the calendar without going by way of rule XIV,

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16109 and that I might also call it up at any time after I consult with the distinguished Republican leader. We have just had a discussion this morning about this matter and I would ask the distinguished Republican leader to respond at this time, if he will.

Mr. DOLE. I thank the distinguished majority leader.

I know we can proceed in a manner described by the majority leader. As I understand it, if, let us say, committee B reported out a bill that would become part of the overall trade bill, that would not be modified from the time it left the committee until it was included in the package. In other words, it may be an omnibus bill and it would be composed of-I do not know how many committees are involvedthe action taken by the several committee on this overall issue.

Mr. BYRD. Yes; I hope I am responsive to the distinguished Republican leader in saying that the bills that are reported from those committees to the calendar would be welded into an omnibus rill.

Mr. DOLE. Yes. Mr. BYRD. And I would proceed

then to ask unanimous consent that I may be able to put that bill directly on the calendar when the staffs have been able to forge the bills into one bill with several titles and I may also proceed to take up that bill at any time following consultation with the minority leader.

May I say that I do not plan to rush this matter. This is a very important matter. But getting this unanimous consent should be well understood by all. This does not mean that S. 2, on campaign financing reform is coming down tomorrow or the next day or the next day. I am in no big hurry to take that down, because I think that S. 2 is a very important matter. But it will not be before the Senate always and, at such time as it is no longer before the Senate, we need to get on with other pieces of legislation, the trade bill being one of those important subjects.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. DOLE. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I would just indicate for the record that the staff has been in contact and hotlined this on our side. We have no objection to proceeding as outlined by the distinguished majority leader.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Republican leader. This will certainly clear the way for expedited action in taking up the trade legislation. It will be legislation that cuts across several committees. It would be obvious, I think, that the Finance Committee has the centerpiece of the legislation, the overwhelming percentage of that legislation coming

91-059 0-89-23 (Pt. 12)

within the purview of ·the Finance Committee, but other committees have important areas in the bill. I would expect the chairman of the Finance Committee and the chairman of other committees to proceed, once the bill is before the Senate, to take up the bill title by title with each committee chairman having jurisdiction over a particular title.

So I thank the Republican leader. As I say, this does not mean that this bill will come up this week or by the middle of next week or whenever. I am in no hurry to take down S. 2, the campaign financing reform bill.

I thank the able leader. I hope that while we are still on S. 2, we can, from time to time, reach agreement with respect to other legislation so that we can move forward at some point in time and deal with other matters in due course.

RECESS UNTIL 2 P.M. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if theRe

publican leader has no problem with recessing, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from now until the hour of 2 p.m. to accommodate the weekly luncheon conferences of the two parties.

There being no objection, the Senate, at 11:23 a.m., recessed until 2:01 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer, Mr. BUMPERS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, in his capacity as a Senator from the State of Arkansas, suggests the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro

ceeded to call the roll. Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I ask

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

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


The Senate continued with the consideration of S. 2.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, am I correct that the time now is under control on S. 2?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct.

Mr. BOREN. I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, and I commend him for his excellent work on this bill.

Mr. President, I am new to the support of Federal money in the campaigns. I have opposed this through the years because, frankly, I thought the idea of the Federal Government

bankrolling campaigns was anathema to the tradition of American politics.

Mr. President, it is not too much to say that most of the time-in fact, the overwhelming amount of the time-in politics today is spent in raising money-not communicating to constituents, not making speeches, not dealing with the issues, not going to the clubs and to the highways and byways and mixing it up with people and making stump speeches and doing all those things which have been traditional. Oh, no, we may not even be in our States. We may be in New York, because that is where the money is, or we may be on the west coast, spending precious little time at home, coming back home in time to make a canned television spot and get in the air again and get out of town for other fundraisers.

Mr. President, something must be done. We passed an excellent bill, in my view, back in 1972; and the Supreme Court, in a decision almost unrivaled by its lack of perspicacity into the political process, created for us problem upon problem, dissecting that bill, throwing out the good parts, leaving in some of the bad parts, and leaving us with a crazy quilt of rules and regulations that defy logic and certainly defy practicality and do not make sense in the political scheme of things.

Somehow, it seemed to me not quite cricket to have the Federal Government bankrolling all kinds of candidates, some of whom may not be terribly deserving and some of whom might even be spending these Federal funds in a wasteful way.

Mr. President, I have never been against PAC's. Indeed, I have been a supporter of PAC's and remain a supporter of PAC's. I think that the idea of political action committees furnishing a conduit for little people to become involved in political campaigns-and not all PAC givers are little, but they are able to combine a large number of people with relatively small contributions, for the most part, in support of candidates who believe in what they believe in.

Of course, that is special interest. But, at bottom, each of us is a combination · of special interests, even if we define those special interests broadly. But there comes a point at which money becomes, if not corruptingand I think that may be too strong a word-at least overwhelming insofar as campaigns are concerned. I believe that we are overwhelmed by the money process in politics today. We wanted a drink of water, and we received a fire hose. We wanted a little dip in the pond, and they threw us in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.

Mr. President, I support this bill now, late in the day, with a change of heart, and maybe without the same

16110 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 pure feelings that others have-pure in the sense of being purely against political action committees or purely against private funding. I am not against political action committees, and I do not think that some contributions or a modest amount or a reasonable amount of contributions, are bad in campaigns. But I support this bill strongly because we are simply overwhelmed by money. We are drowning in the money process; and if we do not change that, we threaten to change the very fabric and nature of political campaigns. We threaten to deprive the people of what they really need, and that is a representative, a Senator, who can be in contact with them, available to them, with time to do something other than simply raise money 90 percent of the time.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oklahoma for his good work on this bill.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

I thank my colleague from Louisiana for hi~ very fine remarks and his insightfUl remarks. He is absolutely right: We need to be competing on the basis of ideas. We need to be competing on the basis of solutions to the serious problems faced by this Nation. We do not need to be competing in American politics solely on the basis of which candidate can raise the most money. We are spending too much time raising money and too little time dealing with the serious problems that face this Nation.

I think the Senator has outlined very well the need for basic reforms in the campaign system, and I appreciate his remarks very much.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President,

who is controlling the time on this side?

Mr. ADAMS. I am. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

time is controlled by the leaders of the respective parties or designees.

Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Republican side be under my control.

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

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Democratic side be under my control.


Who yields time? Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, I yield

such time as he may consume to Senator BUMPERS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this legislation, S. 2, may not be perfect, but it seems to me that it is infinitely superior to the substitutes that are being offered here.

What we are trying to do, basically, is prevent some abuses in campaign financing, and, second, limit the amount of money that a candidate can spend in his campaign.

You do not have to spend 10 minutes in the cloakroom until somebody who is up for election in 1988 walks in, and you ask "How much are you going to have to raise this year," they say.

"Well, in the race in my State last year the candidate that won down there spent $2.5 million. So I figure I am going to have to raise $3.5 million."

I have not heard one single incumbent in this body, Democrat or Republican, suggest that he or she is going to spend less money than we spent by the candidate in his or her respective party last year.

I ran for reelection last year, and I noticed in the Senate spending records that I was 26th in the amount of money spent amongst successful candidates. I am sorry I was not 33rd, but 26 is not bad.

In spite of that, last year I ranked 26th out of 33 or 34 Senators up for reelection and yet I spent twice as much money last year as I had spent on all the seven elections I had been in prior to last year.

But my point is, my campaign tu··ned out well even though I only spent one-tenth as much money as my opponent and won, but I didn't run because of money. There were a host of other issues, and the statistics are overwhelming that the people who spend the most money usually win.

Now, the reason I likeS. 2 is because I think contrary to some of the arguments that have been made on the floor of the Senate, it is fair to challengers. If you have been a country lawyer from a town of 1,500 people and jump into a race with 1 percent name recognition against seven wellknown Democrats and an incumbent Republican Governor, I will tell you, it is not fun trying to achieve recognition.

I want to make sure that people who want to challenge an incumbent in the future have an opportunity to do it, and the limits that are set in this bill will give any challenger that opportunity.

Something else: It will cause candidates to do something that we used to do, but don't do much any more, and that is recruit more and more volunteer labor. Nowadays if you have $3 million or $4 million or $5 million in the bank and somebody comes up and says, "I want to work for you," you do not say, "Are you willing to volunteer"; you say, "How much do you want?"

I know that Vice President Mondale had over 1,000 people on his payroll when he went to the Democratic National Convention. I am not criticizing. That is just the way the system works.

When I ran for Governor in 1970 I do not think on election day we had more than seven or eight paid employees, and now you hire everybody. It is almost like buying votes.

The point I want to make is that campaign spending is out of control. You can fuzz it up, and you can make all of those arcane arguments on the other side, but the bottom line is that campaign finance reform is desperately needed if we are going to save our political process.

Let me ask my colleagues what is the alternative. Look at the graphs and look at the charts for the last 20 years and see what has happened to the cost of running for office. When you talk about being a challenger out there like I was and a total unknown, what chance do you think that guy has now against a sitting incumbent Senator who knows he can go out and raise $1 million or $2 million with almost no sweat? And he can spend all he wants and if he happens to be rich he can literally drown his opponent in money.

I ran against an opponent one time, back when telephone banks were fairly new. He had 80 telephones, all computerized with a personal message from him, and this thing was programmed to call every single person in the State that had a number listed in the telephone book.

Mr. President, do you know what happened? That computer malfunctioned and it started calling people at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. It was one of the greatest things that ever happened to me. It woke up everybody in the State of Arkansas and gave them a 1 minute sermonette.

But what are the abuses? I looked over the last campaign financial reports and found that we have between 25 and 32 millionaires in the Senate. I want you to know I have nothing against millionaires. I have been trying to join them all my life. But you cannot say that a Senate with 100 Members and 32 of them millionaires is a microcosm of America.

The only people that are not genuinely upset, not only about that, but the way we are financing campaigns, are those that are not paying any attention. The people who are paying attention are genuinely upset because they see the corrosive effect that money is having on the greatest democracy on Earth.

There was a time when you could run a good respectable campaign in my State for $75,000 to $100,000. And today if you were going to run for statewide office and plan on spending less than $1 million, forget it.

Next year it will be $2 million and next year after that it will be $3 million, and on and on it goes. Where is it going to lead?

So what is the alternative? If you do not believe in campaign finance

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16111 reform now when do you? If you think that if we do nothing now things will settle down, I ask you how?

As a matter of fact one time in 1970 I bought a 30-minute television slot at 7 p.m. for $150. Today 30 seconds of prime time on that same station will cost you $2,000.

Number one, is money corrupting? Does it influence the outcome of elections? Well, statistics overwhelmingly show that yes, it does.

I admit I am a little bit partisan on this and people on the other side of the aisle say, "Well, you Democrats just want to take something away from us."

I'm not positive, but I think last year the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $100 million and the Democratic Committee raised $12 million or $13 million, and we were in debt at the end of the campaign.

There is a little bit of a disadvantage there. The opponents raised eight times as much money as we did.

Then there is this question of bundling.

Was Lhe Senator from Washington subjected to bundling last year?

Mr. ADAMS. I certainly was. I was subjected to it not as much as some others were but· I can tell the Senator this: I do not mind being outspent 2 to 1. When I saw the $100 million of the Senate Campaign Committee for the Republicans and ours could not come up with even the bare minimum, the bundling just fell right on top of it.

Mr. BUMPERS. I can remember talking about your particular campaign. We said:

Senator Adams has a great chance of being elected, but he just cannot get the money. If he could get the money, he could be elected, but he cannot get the money.

So it is a real tribute to you that you were able to pull it off even without matching your support in money.

But this bundling business to me is the most outrageous, insidious practice of all.

My opponent all of a sudden last year came up with $127,000. We wondered where on Earth he got it. We went to Secretary of State's office to look at who gave that money. My staff told me there was a list there that was almost 1 foot thick of the people who gave that $125,000 or $130,000. They started going through it and it was somebody from Colman, SD, somebody from Florida and people from Georgia and elsewhere, and they were $10, $15 contributions. The biggest one was $100.

We wondered how in the world all of those hundreds and thousands of contributions could have been given to my opponent; why all of a sudden have people who give $10 or $15 become interested in my opponent?

And the Arkansas Gazette was curious about it, too. So they started calling these people. They quit after they

made 10 calls. They called 10 people and not one of them had ever heard of my opponent.

You ask, what on Earth is going on here? Well, that is where people send their money to the National Committee and they insert the candidate's name on the check, I guess, and they send it out to the candidate. What kind of political process is that?

So the bill, S. 2, would prohibit bundling. The legislation offered by Senator McCoNNELL and Senator PAcKwooD does not sufficiently deal with the practice of bundling.

S. 2 puts a limit on how much money you can spend. S. 2 says that if you are a millionaire and you decide to spend a lot more than the limit provides, we are going to equalize things by helping your opponent. So if you are worth $100 million and you are prepared to spend $10 million of it for the honor of sitting in the U.S. Senate, we are going to try to level the playing field for your opponent. So the incentive for wealthy people to spend their own money is taken away.

I want to say here, in support of cleansing my own relationship with other Senators, some of the best Senators in the United States are the wealthiest. I am not suggesting they are not qualified. We have great SenatoJ · ~ here that are wealthy. But I am just saying that the people would feel better about the political process if they did not think somebody was capable of buying a seat here in this body.

Candidates come in here blearyeyed, red-eyed-somebody from New Jersey or Delaware or someplace else. "Where have you been?"

"Went to Los Angeles. Had to take that midnight flight back."

"Where are you going tonight?" "Going to New York tonight." "Where are you going tomorrow

night?" "Going to Chicago." "Where are you going after that?" "Going to Houston the night after

that." These people are elected by their

constituents to come here and study the legislation and do the people's business and try to make this great system of ours function at its optimum. You cannot blame them for going out and doing what the system says you have to do if you want to serve here. But you can blame the Members of the U.S. Senate for sitting idly by and not doing anything to try to correct that problem.

We already have seven people in the Democratic Presidential primary and I expect a couple more will join. But my guess is that the overriding consideration for every one of them was whether or not they could raise the money, not whether they are qualified, not whether they had an idea or a vision for the future of this country, not because they had leadership skills

and the country desperately needed them. The question was, "Can I raise the money?"

And you talk to every one of those seven Presidential candidates and ask them what they are doing with about 90 percent of their time and they will tell you they are on the phone pleading for money.

One of our best Senators decided not to run last year. And I was really saddened that he made the decision not to run. I walked up to him one day and I said, " I really am sad to see you go. Why have you made this decision?"

He said: Well, number one, I'm tired of laughing at

things that aren't funny. Number two, I'm tired of answering hate mail. And, number three, I'm tired of going around with my tin cup out.

Those are all perfectly compelling reasons. I guess people somehow or other think we politicians are oblivious to some of the more demeaning parts of being a U.S. Senator. It is a great job and I love it or I wouldn't have worked so hard to get here. But it is not all a bed of roses. There are parts of it that can be very distasteful on occasion. And when that Senator, particularly when he said, "I'm tired of going around with my tin cup out," there is not anybody in this body, Republican or Democrat, that cannot relate to that.

Well, Mr. President, the amendment to S. 2 now being considered would limit the maximum amount of money that a candidate, under normal circumstances, could qualify for in public funds to 40 percent of the total amount available. So that if you are going to run for the Senate and the limit in your State is $1 million, the most you could get from the U.S. Treasury is $400,000.

And that brings me to the last point I want to make on this bill, and it is this: People say, "I do not want my money going to finance campaigns. I don't pay taxes to help somebody run for office." That has been the principal argument I have heard against this bill. And the refutation, that is, the rebuttal to that argument, has been made time and time again, and I am going to make it again.

First the Presidential race is financed by checkoffs on your income tax return exactly as prepared in S. 2. If you do not support public financing for the Presidential campaign, do not put an X in that box on your income tax return. And if you do not support public financing for Senate or House races, do not check that box on your tax return.

I will check it off, because I think this type of campaign funding may help to save a political system that I think is being corrupted by money.

I am not here to say S. 2 is a perfect bill. But to me you either believe that

16112 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 campaign spending in this country has reached a level where something must be done about it or you do not.

Now, this bill is going to be subject to further amendment.

There is a thing about this bill I do not like and I have not decided quite yet just how I want to address it. But, in my State, the fights are always in the Democratic primary. We will cast anywhere from 600,000 to 800,000 votes in the Democratic primary and the most the Republicans have ever cast in a primary is 20,000 to 25,000. There are usually about 200 precincts in the Republican primary and about 2,400 precincts in the Democratic primary and 95 percent of the people will vote in the Democratic primary.

Now, they may vote for a Republican in the general, but you can see the way the limits set in S. 2, skew most spending toward the general election. It used to be in all the States of the old Confederacy, whoever won the Democratic primary was considered a sure winner in the fall.

Not -· nymore. We are a two-party State. 1t took the Democrats in my State a long time to recognize that the Republicans were a viable party. My predecessor, Win Rockefeller, was the first Republican Governor since Reconstruction in my State. The dean of the delegation in my State is a Republican.

But all I am saying is, it is very common for people to spend two or three times as much getting the Democratic nomination as they spend in the general election and this bill assumes that you need the money in the general election a lot more than you do in the primary. And in my State, that is not necessarily so.

So what I am trying to figure out is some way that we could give a candidate the right to choose which election is more important to him. Maybe we can work something like that out.

Well, Mr. President, everybody is just about talked out on this bill. I do not know of much that can be said about this bill that hasn't already been said. This is the second time I have spoken on it and I do not think I have said anything different today from what I said the first time.

I just feel strongly that the amount of money we spend on campaigns is going to have to be limited. I think the amount of money that P AC's give must be limited.

I heard somebody on the other side say the other day they were going to offer an amendment that would eliminate all PAC contributions. They might get my vote on it. But I am not going to vote for a bill limiting PAC giving to candidates, but which allows PAC giving to the national committee and the State committees.

But, in any event, let us at least try to stop their filibuster and get on with the people's business. Then if you

have an objection to it, offer an amendment upon cloture and let the Senate work its will. Then we can go home and face the American people and say, "We have done our best now. Let's try this and see if it won't improve our system."

I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, I hope

the Senator will continue. I think what he has said has been an excellent analysis of what we have to do if we are going to bring this bill up and if we are going to have it actually happen.

There is one point he made at the end of his presentation that I hope everyone understands. There have been complaints about public financing in this bill. The whole purpose of the public financing portion of this bill and the shifting of funds from one candidate to another is to be able to establish limits on the amount that will be spent. Under the Supreme Court decision, without that, there is no way that you can limit the spending.

The point that the Senator from Arkansas has made was absolutely a factor in my race last time and I feel very deeply about it, which is that if your opponent has so much money starting, whether it is that opponent's own money, his or hers, but committe, 1 to it, or has received, either through a campaign committee or another source, an overwhelming amount of money, you never get into the game at all.

So that the political contest does not become what the people should have, which is a contest of ideas, and a contest of who will govern better. Instead, it becomes a contest of who is a viable candidate.

Viable candidate, I speak from experience, does not mean how many years you were Governor, how many years you did something else, what kind of a person you are. Viability, under the present rules, starts with A. No. 1: Do you have enough money that when you arrive at the primary date? Our State is much like the Senator's State; not because we have the same kind of primary but because we have an open, blanket primary. You can vote on either side for either candidate, which makes it like a little general election. So, if you do not have enough money in that primary to at least be able to say to your volunteers and other poeple: We will be in the game; we will be able to establish a media presencenot as much as the other side, never raise that much money, but enough to at least let people know that you are there and that there is a contest-then there is no contest.

So, I think the Senator's remarks are very appropriate and I hope that we will vote cloture today so that we can deal with a fundamental American political problem, particularly in the Senate of the United States. Because,

if you are running a statewide race now, it requires that you have enough funding, or that neither of you has any funding. But, if one is on the public media, whether it be radio, cable or the network stations, and the other one is not, I think it was well pointed out by one of the other Members while we were discussing this: You could start on day one of the year before the campaign, and shake hands every day for 8 hours, all day, and you would never reach enough of the people to make a contest.

That is particularly true of States like Arkansas and Washington, which are not little States, but they are not big States either, but they are clearly dependent upon the people knowing there is a contest.

Then the shaking hands, the seeing people, the speeches take on meaning in each town as you go through. But if you are just somebody that is out running and your opponent is incredibly well-financed and has bought up all the media-which is another thing. That is unless you have cash up front, your opponent can go to the stations and buy up all the time. That is what is involved with what the bill we have before us is trying to address.

I do not know of any television stations, at least in my State-! might ask the Senator about his State-that give you television time on the cuff. I mean, it has to be in cash, paid so many days before you arrive; your copy has to be there, and so, if you have had your money cut off by somebody saying that you are not a viable candidate, you never get to them at all.

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is right.

Mr. ADAMS. I appreciate the Senator's comments.

Mr. PACKWOOD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. PACKWOOD. I yield myself 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Mr. PACKWOOD. The Senator from Arkansas has left the Senate with a misimpression that I think was unintentional. He talked about the checkoff. He said, "If you don't want to give any money to the campaign, don't want it to go to the wrong candidate, don't check it off." He said, "I am going to check mine off."

Mr. President, this is not a checkoff of a tax refund, ncr is it a checkoff of taxes that you might otherwise pay. This is nothing more than a checkoff that says: "Take $2 out of the general fund and give it to the candidates."

It is going to take roughly $300 to $500 million per election under this bill to fund the House and Senate races. That checkoff means: Take $300

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16113 to $500 million away from everybody and give it to the candidates. Take $300 to $500 million away, even from the people who say, "No, darn it, I am not going to do the checkoff. I don't want my money to go to some candidate I don't support."

Mr. President, your money is going to a candidate you do not support under this system. Do not allow yourself to think that the checkoff is your money, personally, individually, or tha.t it is coming out of your refund or your taxes. It is not. It is coming from our collective taxes and it is going to force people, with public funds, to finance candidates they do not wish to finance. No one should be operating under any other impression than that fact.

I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will

the distinguished Senator yield me 5 minutes?

Mr. PACKWOOD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senato· from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, America needs balanced election reform.

The American voters deserve a fairshake-for-all election law, one that stresses people, not P AC's.

It is for that reason that I am support ing dramatic changes in the Federal election law to prohibit any- ! repeat, any-contribution by a political action committee, a so-called PAC, to individual candidates for the Senate or the House of Representatives.

Why do I support such a radical change?

I am not doing it because I think PAC's are evil, or that PAC's use influence in an unhealthy manner. I don't believe that. But I do believe PAC's are farther from the people, and, given the decisions of the Supreme Court, PAC control appears to be the only constitutional way that is responsible to hold down the cost of congressional elections.

What no-PAC approach would achieve is a reversal in the rapid rise in campaign spending, and return politics to people.

This no-PAC approach, sponsored by the distinguished Senat or from Kentucky [Mr. McCONNELL] and my very good friend from Oregon [Mr. PAcKwooD] , reasserts the influence of the small contributor by holding the lid on personal contributions at the present level, $1 ,000. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, S. 1308.

The certain result: Spending on campaigns will drop significantly, something the American people demand.

There is no doubt that campaign spending is out of hand. During the 1986 elections, business and labor PAC's poured $45 million into Senate campaigns. That is about $1.3 million

per race, a staggering total. Those same PAC's spent $87.2 million on campaigns for the House of Representatives.

The American public dislikes the sharp rise in campaign spending. I do not like that trend. Some calling for "reform" now want the cost of campaigning shifted into the pockets of the taxpayers.

Yet the public focus is PAC's, not taxpayer dollars. PAC spending on races for Congress jumped by more than 25 percent from the 1984 campaign to the 1986 campaign. While personal contributions were up too, they rose by much less, about 18 percent.

So I have concluded that one effective way-probably the best way-to resolve the problems caused by the deluge in campaign spending is simply to drain the PAC cash out of campaigns. Let individuals decide who gets campaign dollars.

The first three words of the Constitution are key: "We The People." Politics is people; let's encourage that. Individual-and voluntary-participation builds a successful campaign; it builds a successful government.

When I first ran for the U.S. Senate, I used a slogan, "People for Pete." I used it again in 1978, then again in 19X4. I intend to use it when I run again.

Why? First, it does possess a nice, catchy alliteration. But the real reason I use the phrase "People for Pete" is that I believe it expresses what politics is all about, or what politics should be all about. And yet, as the Senate debates S. 2, the major alternative is a plan to finance a large portion of future Senate campaigns directly with tax dollars, to convert my next campaign into "Taxpayers for Pete."

That is wrong. Daniel Webster spoke of "the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people." How can you achieve that with a campaign bankrolled largely with taxpayers' dollars?

When I ran for reelection in 1984, I was supported with some 20,000 individual contributions, the most in the history of New Mexico. Personal contributions ranged from $1 to the legal limit, $1,000. I raised over $1 million in this way, most of it from my friends in New Mexico. Some may argue that no one else can match that enthusiasm in New Mexico. Maybe, maybe not. But is that not what the political process involves?

So, I am convinced that the McConnell-Packwood approach, S. 1308, is first and foremost a people's bill, one t hat emphasizes the role of the individual in politics.

The McConnell-Packwood bill also t ackles th e danger posed by t he superrich candidate. As a result of a Su-

preme Court decision, candidates may lavish family treasure onto a campaign to buy a Senate seat, despite limits on . other givers. Millions in family money has been spent by some wealthy Senate candidates, men who are members of this body.

Following the plan in my own election reform bill, S. 625, the McConnell-Packwood bill places a practical limit of $250,000 on self-funding by wealthy candidates.

S. 1308 also requires additional public disclosure, particularly on the financing of get-out-the-vote drives by business and labor.

Best of all, S. 1308 makes these improvements without spending a dime of our tax dollars. The McConnellPackwood bill leaves congressional campaigns where they belong, in the hands of individual members of the public, outside the grasp of the tax collector, the PAC's and the superrich.

Those are the strengths of McConnell-Packwood, ones also found in S. 1326, the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. STEVENS]. The Stevens approach does not go as far. It cuts PAC limits, but does not eliminate PAC contributions directly to candidates. Nevertheless, it is still an excellent step forward.

These are the strengths of those two approaches. And they are the weakness of the reported version of S. 2, as well as the substitute offered last week by Senator BYRD. These variations on S. 2 simply solve all our election problems and distortions by reaching into the pocket of the taxpayers.

The irony, of course, is that S. 2 started through the legislative process as a P AC-control bill, not a taxpayerfinanced scheme. Through a little sleight of hand, S. 2 suddenly emerged as a tax-financed bill, without much in the way of PAC controls. Under these versions of S. 2, a PAC can continue to donate $5,000 yearly to a candidate for primary campaigns.

Is that really the kind of election reform we want?

If S. 2 fails to control the top-dollar PAC giving for primaries, what does it do? First, it will require an expenditure of something between $50 million and $100 million in tax dollars every 2 years for Senate elections, then recycle that money back in a deluge of TV ads and bumper stickers. Do we really want that kind of "reform"? If it were broadened to cover the House of Representatives, it would pick as much as $400 million out of the pockets of the American taxpayer per election.

I know, I have heard the argument that S. 2 is "voluntary." It is about as voluntary as paying your taxes every April. What it really creates is a new Federal entitlement.

16114 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 Do we not have enough problems

with entitlements without putting Senate candidates on the dole?

But I would agree that S. 2 offers an ingenious approach. Let me describe how it would work, as redrafted in Amendment 305 by the distinguished majority leader [Mr. BYRDl. The amendment sets a spending limit for any candidate who "voluntarily" accepts tax money, then makes a privately financed, non-taxpayer-financed campaign prohibitively unattractive.

No candidate in his or her right mind would ignore the Siren's song of all that free Federal cash inS. 2.

If you doubt me, just look at how S. 2 works. And I will take the State of New Mexico as an example, a good one since 19 States would have the exact same limits. In New Mexico, a $950,000 spending limit is set for a Senate candidate, in return for a promise of taxpayer dollars to finance that campaign.

Once a Senate candidate in New Mexicc or another of the States with smaller populations, raises just $150,000 as an "entry fee" from as few as 600 contributors, that candidate goes to the U.S. Treasury to receive a tax dollar for every future dollar the candidate raises toward the additional $800,000 that he or she will be permitted to spend. If the candidate raises $400,000, the taxpayers contribute $400,000.

In other States, the entry fee would be higher, along with the potential taxpayer contribution. In Texas, an entry fee of $650,000 raised from 2,600 contributors nets the candidate an opportunity to receive $1,449,000 from the taxpayers, if the candidate can raise that much from contributors.

Aren't we cutting the link to the individual? Where is the Government "answerable to the people?" as Webster said.

Moreover, these entitlements are not limited to the major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Any third, fourth, or eighth party candidate who raises that $150,000, or whatever the entry fee may be, becomes eligible for a chest full of matching taxpayer cash.

Can you imagine the fringe candidates who will suddenly buzz around that honeypot of cash?

For the sake of argument, there might be a candidate somewhere who decides to ignore all that taxpayer largess because this candidate opposes, in principle, the idea of taxpayer-financed campaigns. This candidate might decide to go to work to meet his or her campaign needs by raising all of his or her own campaign cash. That would be quite legal under S. 2.

But is it realistic? Aren't we pulling a fast one in the name of giving the public an option? In New Mexico, the taxpayer-financed candidate raises the

$150,000 entry fee, then receives an additional $400,000 in tax dollars for the $400,000 raised separately.

Meantime, the "high-principled" candidate goes out and works hard to raise a like sum with no Federal help. But the moment the "high-principled" candidate raises even $1 over that $950,000 spending lid on the taxpayerfinanced candidate, the on-the-dole candidate receives another check from the U.S. Treasury, doubling his campaign war chest with another $950,000.

In New Mexico, the taxpayer-financed opponent could receive as much as $1,350,000 in total taxpayer cash under S. 2: The initial $400,000, plus the additional $950,000. Over in California, a Senate candidate could receive as much as $7,925,000 in taxpayer cash.

That buys a lot of bumper stickers. Is there any doubt that every candi

date under S. 2 will start at the Treasury window? They will start at the Treasury window in the general election, of course, only after they have loaded up on PAC money during the primary.

Part of the appeal of S. 2 is that it would lessen the blizzard of campaign advertising. We may give the public just as much; it may simply cost less. Another aspect of S. 2 is that the taxpa,,·er-financed candidate will receive cheap TV advertising rates, the "lowest unit rate" available.

If a candidate under this bill should decide to forgo the taxpayer entitlements and go his own way in campaign financing, that candidate does not receive cheap TV.

And there are other problems that seem to pose real difficulties in this bill. There has been a lot of discussion of the supposed need to control those outside, and independent, political committees that have become involved in some races.

Under S. 2 and amendment 305, .if a committee totally outside the control of the candidate decides to get involved in the campaign on the candidate's behalf, the opponent of that candidate will receive a bonus entitlement, cash equal to the value of that outside campaign.

Section 504(a)(3)(B) of amendment 305 provides tax cash "equal to the aggregate total amount of independent expenditures made or obligated to be made in the general election involved by any person in opposition to, or on behalf of an opponent of, such eligible candidate."

Can you imagine the mischief that will be possible under this kind of a provision?

That will be cash over and above the $950,000 he or she already has in the bank, in our small State example. So one candidate gets cash, and the other receives the possibility-the possibility-that the outsiders actually have helped.

And there are other problems for candidates. No longer will any candidate have access to national or statewide party help. S. 2 places a pennyper-eligible-voter limit on what State and local parties may spend on any candidate's behalf. This works out to about $10,000 for campaigns in New Mexico.

Mr. President, amendment 305 and S. 2 are proposals that are flawed, seriously flawed. They are proposals that need to be redrawn along the lines of the McConnell-Packwood bill, a bill that offers realistic election reforms, legislation that achieves reforms without picking the taxpayers' pockets.

I urge my colleagues to work to develop legislation that reforms campaign financing laws to hold down spending, but to do it in a way that stresses individual givers, not the taxpayers.

Mr. President, the other day I had a colloquy with my friend, Senator PACKWOOD, on the so-called election reform that is before us, discussing how Senate and House Members ought to pay for their own campaigns, and what is the role of the Federal Government.

Mr. President, we now have an amendment to the bill I addressed that day. Let me, for a few minutes, discuss how the Senator from New Mexico perceives this issue.

Mr. President and Members of tpe Senate, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled as it has, with reference to limitations on expenditures for the U.S. Senate, makes it very difficult to place restrictions on what can be spent. I am very thankful in this 200th year of the Constitution to have had the privilege of reading some of the history of how our forefathers put the Const itution together, how the Bill of Rights arose. I am literally thrilled when I read how this has worked, how we became a country of laws, and how the U.S. Supreme Court became the real interpreter of basic rights and concepts under this doctrine.

And so while I, and maybe 90 Senators may argue that we do not like the way the Court ruled, thank God for those 200 years. They have ruled, and, therefore, it is the law. That decision says that if you have $5 million, and you want to spend it, you can spend it. That decision says that independent entities wanting to advertise against Senator PETE DOMENICI are free to spend whatever they want. That decision says nobody can tell me I can only spend a half-million dollars, provided I follow the rules with reference to disclosure and other things.

So long as we try, in some circuitous way, to find a way around that, and so long as the lubricant to get around that is public financing, then let me suggest that the medicine is probably

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16115 worse than the ailment we are trying Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, to cure. will the Senator yield?

I am firmly convinced that while Mr. DOMENICI. I yield. most Americans, including the people Mr. PACKWOOD. You are one of in my State of New Mexico, think the people who proved that you can campaigns cost too much, they believe raise thousands of dollars or hundreds by a much larger percentage that the of thousands of dollars in small taxpayers ought not pay for those amounts from your constituents. You campaigns. had in New Mexico, which is not a big

The message, to me, is very simple, . State, over 20,000 individual contribu-very forthright, and very clear: We are going to have to find some other way to get around the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which says we cannot put campaign limitations on anyone :running for the U.S. Senate, unless they agree to them. If we continue to try to build a law on public financing, let me repeat, I believe that the medicine is worse than the ailment from which we suffer.

That is the essence of why many of us on this side of the aisle say this is not reform. All we have done is to substitute the taxpayers of the United States as the principal funders of elections for U.S. Senators. So long as that is the ·ssence of the reform, we are not going to support it. All those ads in support of reform will not work. We should apply truth in advertising, and put in equally bold letters, when they talk of the evils of PAC's: "We are substituting taxpayers paying for Senate elections."

They might just as well not run the ads, because the American people do not want that, either. That is why we are here on the floor.

S. 2 purports to be voluntary. But when you look at it, you are really stuck with accepting public financing for a large portion of your campaign, to the tune of as much as $100 million in cost to the taxpayers. The amendment changes it slightly, but when you add it up, it is not voluntary at all.

When you reach the limit you are supposed to voluntarily agree to, you may still get a big taxpayer bonus. If the other fellow did not want to accept Federal dollars, because the Senate has said you should not limit him, then you may get a very huge bonus, in the case of my State, another $950,000 from the taxpayers. That is to make up for the energy, enthusiasm, and perhaps downright orneriness of sombody who says, "I'm not going to take tax dollars. I'm going to do it myself."

As I understand it, this is the way around the U.S. Supreme Court decision, short of changing the Constitution, and I assume there are even some suggestions to that effect. If you cannot find some way that Congress thinks is reasonable, change the Constitution. But that will not be easy, either, because the only way to change it would be to give Congress the authority to decide what the rules should be for our elections. I am not sure that the American people will be too excited about that.

tions. Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. Mr. PACKWOOD. There is not a

single thing, Mr. President, that "reformers" -and I put that in quoteswant to accomplish that cannot be accomplished without public financing. You want to get rid of the P AC's and special interests? Get rid of them. Provide that they cannot give any money to candidates or the party, or bundle, and cannot spend it as soft money.

Next, you want to get the expenditures down? Instead of a $1,000 limit, put on a $500 limit, a $100 limit. That will bring spending down.

Senator DoMENICI has proved what you can do. If people believe in you, as they believe in him, you can raise thousands of dollars in small amounts from people in your State. Does it take work?

Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely. Mr. PACKWOOD. You have to talk

to 1 hose people. Mr. DOMENICI. You have to go to a

lot of meetings. Mr. PACKWOOD. You have to go to

a lot of meetings and say, "Give me $10."

Mr. DOMENICI. You have to beg them.

Mr. PACKWOOD. It is work. So the choice is going to be, are we

going to work or is the taxpayer going to work? It is a lot easier for us if the taxpayer works. Give us the money, and we will not have to work.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for raising this issue.

Frankly, I am not one of the Senators who thinks that PAC's are evil, per se. I have used PAC money. I do not think they have an undue influence on elections. But there should be full disclosure. If we are going to keep PAC's, we ought to make evey one of them tell us what their principal goal is. We should know that the Fred PAC is a lobby for Colgate-Palmolive, or that Uncle Willy's Foundation, which has a PAC, is part of General Motors.

We need disclosure. I am not one who thinks PAC's are inherently evil. I am not one who thinks that they have an undue amount of pressure. I have not felt that myself, having taken PAC money. But I have found that since PAC's have come into existence, there has been a tremendous flaming of the fire of increased costs for campaigns.

I thought that was what we were trying to fix. That was when we all said let us reform this; let us get the

costs down. There is no question we can do away with PAC's. They are our creature. They have been found valid by the U.S. Supreme Court as a mechanism for collective financing of campaigns; the court will find any reasonable regulation, including abolution, constitutional.

I agree with the Senator: If you want reform, do away with them; not $1,000 or $5,000; not a dime. Have every Senator ask individual constituents in his State or in this country to contribute. If you do not want individuals to give over $1,000, put $500 in. It just means you have to spend more time raising money, which is onerous and difficult. If your opponent is very wealthy, he can be campaigning while you are raising money. We will try to make it a little more difficult on the wealthy in anyone's bill, will we not? As I understand it, each bill-the McConnell bill, the Stevens bill-has the Domenici suggestion.

Mr. PACKWOOD. One of the great additions to these bills is the Domenici antimillionaire loophole closure. It works for anybody who wants to spend their own money. As you provided, then the contribution limit to you or the other poor person goes off.

Mr. DOMENICI. Put them on a par. Mr. PACKWOOD. Put them on a

par. We hope that will be a sufficient threat to the millionaire that he will try to raise his money in small amounts from the State or the country, also.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield. Mr. McCONNELL. In response to

the Senator's question, the ByrdBoren bill does not include the provision of the Senator from New Mexico, which provides for higher contribution limits from others. The bill of the Senator from Oregon and myself does include the inspired suggestion of the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. DOMENICI. Frankly, if we should get to the point where the subject matter is the amendment of the substitute by the majority leader, I would ask the Senate to vote on the antimillionaire, pay-for-his-own-campaign inhibition proposal of the Senator from New Mexico.

We have had 8 or 10 people who spent $3 million, $4 million, $5 million, and one who spent more than $10 million of his own money. We ought to at least let the opponent get out from under other limitations. We will offer that, and I asssume you will support that proposal.

Mr. McCONNELL. Absolutely. The only provision that the Byrd

Boren bill has to counter the millionaire is the second title, which is triggered when the millionaire encroaches on the limit.

16116 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 Mr. DOMENICI. So we trigger that

by spending more tax dollars to compete with the extremely rich person.

Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DOMENICI. As much as I want to do away with the unfairness of the extremely rich person using his own money, I would favor opening the doors to the public, on behalf of the opponent who does not have a lot of his own money, rather than using taxpayers' money. It would work.

You take the $1,000 limit off and make it $10,000 or $15,000 and he can go to his people around the country, and they will help him on the basis he has someone who is going to put in millions of his own. He can fund it on his own; he does not need the tax coffers to do it.

Mr. President, I do not have much more to say. As I indicated in my prepared remarks, I have tried to analyze this situation. I have given you my thesis of why this will not work, and why we ought to stop trying to endrun th • U.S. Supreme Court decision with one effort after the other, when the centerpiece of that effort is public financing.

I hope everybody understands that. At least for this Senator, that is why I oppose it.

I favor reform. I have just indicated I would be for as dramatic reform as you can get: Do away with all the PAC's; limit the individuals to less than $1,000, but do not use the tax coffers, and do not limit the ingenuity of an individual, do not limit his ability to ask his constituents and other individuals.

I want to make one other point about the substitute before us. In analyzing it, I found another thing that is most interesting.

As I indicated a while ago, we have this U.S. Supreme Court decision that, while many of us may not like it, it is a decision consistent with our 200-year heritage. It is the law of the land. The provision says that independent groups who have no connection with a campaign can spend as much as they want, and we cannot limit them. There is a very intriguing section in the Byrd substitute with reference to that. I am intrigued by it because I think it is very, very dangerous.

Let me tell you what it says, and what it does.

Very simply, I say to my friend, Mr. President, the junior Senator from Georgia, sitting in the chair, when and if you choose to run again, this amendment says that if an independent group spends money in opposition to you, you are entitled to taxpayers' dollars, dollar for dollar, for every bit of cash the independent entity spent.

That sounds neat. It sounds like we have found a way to get around the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Valeo case, and say to those independ-

ent groups "We do not want you doing this."

But I say to my friend sitting in the chair: What about the other fellow running against you who did not get any negative ads? He does not get any extra taxpayers' dollars to match your added taxpayers' dollars, which you get in this bill.

I see the seeds of mischief. I see independent organizations coming into a State, with the intention of helping a candidate by running innocuous antiads. They might just be repetitious. They might run an innocuous ad. in every newspaper for 3 months knowing full well that it is having no negative impact. But it says, "Don't vote for Jim Jones, he doesn't believe in Christmas; he is a bad guy."

And sure enough, Jim Jones, runs to the tax coffers and says, "I've got evidence that they spent a half million dollars against me; give me the half million dollars.''

This bill says he gets it. That other fellow running, who did not get the ad run "against" him by the independent group does not get the half-million dollars bonus, because no independent group came in.

Mr. President, every time we attempt to plug one of the provisions th'lt the U.S. Supreme Court found to be within our freedom of speech, whether we like the opinion or not, every time we try to plug one of those interpretations, we invent something that is equally mischievous.

Picture this situation. The Democratic Party puts up a liberal in New York. The Republican Party puts a conservative. The Conservative Party puts up Suzie Smith and the Right-toLife Party puts up Johnny Jones. They do not intend to run as serious candidates but they get Federal funding and all three of them, right-to-life, the conservatives, and the liberals all take out after the Democrat. The Democrat does not even get any additional matching funds. These are not independent expenditures. They all get public money and the Democrat gets it only once.

It is not hard to qualify for Federal money. All you have to do is raise your threshold, 75 percent in your State and 25 percent someplace else, and you qualify for Federal money. You get funds. These are not independent expenditures.

Your opponent does not get any matching funds out of the Treasury.

If you want to break down the twoparty system further, you want to encourage minor parties, do you know how many single-interest groups you would have in this country that would have no difficulty raising the threshold amount to qualify for Federal funds to get on the ballot to run against the incumbent? A piece of cake.

Mr. DOMENICI. Certainly that is not 3 or 4; that is 300 or 400 at least.

Mr. PACKWOOD. I think so. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President,

will the Senator yield on that point further for a brief observation?

Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. McCONNELL. Just assuming one independent candidacy in each State, just one, and I think there would be a proliferation of candidates under this new system, but just assuming one independent candidate in each race and assuming an independent expenditure level to which public funds could be gotten to respond, an independent expenditure level at the same level of 1986, you are going to have under S. 2 a 28-percent increase in spending reduction, I say to my friend from New Mexico, but an increase in spending, a conservative estimate of a 28-percent increase in spending of dollars with most of it coming out of the Treasury.

This bill is not to cap spending. It is going to set spending off in a whole new direction at the expense of the taxpayers.

Mr. DOMENICI. I do want to close on a lighter note. I have been trying, Mr. President, because it is the 200th anniversary of the Constitution, to read a little bit about the Constitution. I read a marvelous book, and I have been touting this book wherever I speak. It is called "Miracle at Philadelphia." The author of the book is Catherine Bowen. It bears a little bit on this discussion because they had a very serious discussion in Philadelphia about the terms for U.S. Senators. I would like to relate a little anecdote about our terms.

When the Senate first started, we were appointed, not elected, because we were supposed to represent our States. They had a lengthy debate in the Constitutional Convention to make sure that the very large States did not totally dwarf the small States. In fact, Rhode Island did not even go to the convention. It was so small, it was afraid they would not even be heard. So, all 13 States were not there.

But, when they got to the length of our terms, one of the very distinguished men got up. He was very well educated, but he had an interesting background. His father was a shoemaker. "You know, it takes 7 years to teach a man how to be a shoemaker," he said "I think the term for Senators ought to be 14 years, because clearly it ought to take about twice as long to learn how to be a National U.S. Senator than it takes to learn how to make shoes."

I do not know how I would have voted had I been there. Obviously, that discussion did not eliminate the debate that we have had here today because, whether it occurred every 6

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16117 or every 14 years, we are still confronted with the U.S. Supreme Court telling us what we can and cannot do. Each time we find some way around it, it is almost as bad as what we are trying to cure, at least that is the view of the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time? Mr. ADAMS. I yield such time as I

may use. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Washington [Mr. ADAMS] is recognized.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, I find this debate is very interesting in the number of assumptions that are made-assuming a party will be in the field, assuming two parties will be in the field and assuming a number of things that may happen.

I know that the person in the chair, the Acting President of the Senate, shares with me the agony of the last campaign. And I might state that I have run seven times before for the House ·f Representatives and ran this time ·for the U.S. Senate. And the problem we are trying to address-and this goes to the substitute that is presently pending-is that, in an effort to bring in both parties into this process so that it was not considered in any way to be either a Democratic bill or a Republican bill or an incumbents bill, an effort was made to reduce the amount of money that was to be offered to a candidate to make certain that that candidate was able to operate in the modern age. And by the "modern age," I mean the electronic age, which requires cash on the line and cash on the line early on.

We have in the substitute a proposal that says we will require not only threshold money from the candidates so that these small contributions must be made, but also that the candidate will not receive full funding from the public financing but just enough to make certain that that candidate has an opportunity if the opponent makes a decision to simply try to use an overwhelming amount of money to win the campaign or prevent the opponent from being in the race at all.

I think that is very important because we hear these large sums of money being talked about that the taxpayers are going to have to pay. Actually, the campaign structure, as proposed in the substitute, involves mainly voluntary money. But what it does do, as mentioned by the Senator from New Mexico, it provides some incentive to prevent the person with a great deal of individual money or with access to that money or with access to a party treasury that is overflowing with money from preventing there being a race at all, from preventing the political process from working.

Many of the civilized democracies of the world use short seasons to elect,

use limitations in amounts of money. We have not even tried, those of us who are interested in campaign reform, to bring those forward because of the Supreme Court decision, but, instead, have simply said that a candidate must raise enough money to be known to be a candidate but then cannot be shut out of the electoral process. And this is not just the excesses of large States.

I think it is very interesting, the comment made by the Senator from New Mexico, that the Constitution was basically founded in terms of the Congress on the proposition that certain States having large populations should not be able to dominate the other States which did not have the large numbers. And, yes, in the original system, Senators were not appointed. Senators were selected by the legislatures of those States so that they represented the smaller States. A good compromise; in fact, many have said it was the compromise that enabled the Constitution to be ratified. So the Senate does have a component in it of States that are perhaps smaller in size. Though, as I have previously stated, a State that has seven or eight congressional districts is not necessarily a small State. But the same kind of ru 1 P.S apply.

But let us look for a moment at what is happening in the small States which are supposed to be represented in the U.S. Senate, almost like going on the ark two by two, rather than with large numbers.

What happened last year in some of these States is simply staggering, in terms of the comments that have been made by my good friend from New Mexico that you can raise money in these small States and you will be able to overcome any advantage, be a credible candidate, you can reduce the amounts people give, all of these kinds of assumptions. But rather than talk assumptions, let us talk what Teally happened. People have heard about in California there was a $23 million race and that in Florida an epoch that cost almost $13 million. When you get down to it, in California and in Florida, the cost per voter ran around $3 to $4 per vote.

But let us look at what happened in the small States-this place where we are going to be able to raise money easily and not have the problem of overwhelming advantage to either an incumbent or to a wealthy person.

In South Dakota, 45th of the 50 States in population, they competed in that race for 293,000 people. That is the total number of people in the State. The spending in that State was $6.8 million. That comes to a cost of $23 for every voter in the entire State. And all of us know that not everybody votes and certainly not everybody contributes.

So start to think what you would have to do if you had a situation as was true in that State where it was almost divided in the number of votes and you had to raise $3 million. There would not be, and there was not, any way to do it.

In Nevada, the candidates had $4.7 million out of an eventual 280,000 voters, $19 apiece.

In Vermont, $3.2 million across 190,000.

In North Dakota, the average was just over $11.

What we are talking about here is not an attempt, as I mentioned earlier, to simply say that the taxpayers need to take care of all the people who are running. What we are saying here is that the system has been so warped by the total amounts of money that it becomes a money game rather than a people contest.

The substitute we have offered says that we will reduce the total amount of money so that we do not have as much participation but maintain the principle, the key principle, that someone can at least reach these 293,000 people in a small State, or 194,000 people, by appearing in the only way you can in a small Western State, in the electronic media. They are not in large, concentrated cities. You go to every town, but to go to every town you have to let people know that you have a name, a face, a proposition to talk about, and then you arrive in that town not matching the amount of money of your opponent but simply being an opponent.

This bill was never designed to match everything that could be spent by every possible candidate. It was carefully designed by Senator BoREN and a number of others, to whom we want to pay our compliments, to simply be certain that a person that tried to buy an election had a penalty for trying to do that, and that the other person in that election at least got into the contest.

It is a very simple bill. It is not a complicated measure to federally finance all things. It is a matter of elemental fairness. This is sensed, I believe, throughout the entire country.

I do not know anybody that you talk to generally throughout the country who does not say, "Wait a minute, this total money thing is out of hand." If we had a different solution, we would offer it.

We have had the opponents, the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Oregon, admit that the only way anybody has been able to think of to put a limit on under the Valeo case from the Supreme Court was to use public financing and make people accept limits. We did that in the Presidential elections. It works very well in the Presidential elections.

16118 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 So, Mr. President, I hope that we

will at least be allowed to proceed with this bill this afternoon. At 5 o'clock today, every Senator will have the opportunity to say, "We at least want to try to do something about this horrendous money machine, at least try."

That is what this cloture vote is. It is to proceed on this.

It is an incredible matter that we cannot even get to proceeding with the bill. That is what it is all about today.

Tomorrow we will argue the merits some more, but I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture today so that we can proceed to give elemental fairness to people in the United States to see their candidates.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator BOREN, be in charge of time on this bill in place of myself.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

Who yields time? Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I

believe I am in charge of the floor when ..-,enator PACKWOOD is off the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, with reference to the just completed speech of my friend from Washington, in terms of the evils of spending a great deal of money in small States, I think it is interesting to note that South Dakota, which was singled out by the Senator from Washington for its large spending, and he is correct, on a per-voter basis, the spending was greater in South Dakota than any other State. It is also interesting to note that the turnout was higher in South Dakota than any other State.

Mr. President, a number of people in support of S. 2 have said over the course of this debate that this is big spending, that all these races were driving down the turnout of the American people. Frankly, Mr. President, the facts are exactly to the contrary. The States in which there has been substantial spending, and, of course, that means substantial competition, are the States in which the turnout or the participation has been the greatest.

In South Dakota, as I indicated, on a spending-per-voter basis, it certainly was first in the 1986 cycle, first in spending but first in turnout. People in South Dakota obviously got very interested in that race. It was a tough race with lots of competition. Approximately 85 percent of the voters, Mr. President, turned out in South Dakota as a result of that intensely competedfor Senate race.

In Vermont, they numbered second in spending at $8 per voter, ranking fourth in turnout.

Idaho, Mr. President, which ranked third in per-voter spending, was second in voter turnout. Obviously, it stimulated a good deal of interest in Idaho as well.

In North Dakota, Mr. President, which was fourth in spending on a per-voter basis, they were tied with South Dakota in voter turnout, clearly a hotly contested, well followed race in which a huge number of people in that State chose to participate.

The only aberration in the top 10 is Nevada, a State which ranks fifth in per-voter spending. They came in 15th. They tied with one other State in voter turnout.

But the trend immediately turns back in the direction the Senator from Kentucky stated. Alaska, ranked sixth in spending, was fifth in voter turnout. Oregon, which ranked seventh in spending, was third in voter turnout. Colorado, which ranked eighth in spending, was sev·enth in turnout. Louisiana, which ranked ninth in spending, was eighth in turnout, tied with two other States. Missouri, lOth in spending, was 12th in turnout, tied with two other States.

Clearly, Mr. President, there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between the amount of participation or spending on the one hand and voter tu · nout on the other unless it is that the spending and the participation produced a greater turnout.

You look at the States in which the turnout was low and the spending was low because there was not much competition and there was not much interest.

The cap in spending, Mr. President, is something that does not cry out for a solution. The Supreme Court was wise in deciding that it was unconstitutional to put a limit on participation in America. Participation as evidenced by the contributing of money to candidates of their choice has increased the voter turnout and increased the interest. There is no correlation whatsoever between the allegations that have been made and that somehow the spending was turning off the voters.

I think that chart more than demonstrates, Mr. President, the falaciousness of the thinking that somehow all of this participation, as represented by financial contributions to candidates of our choice, is somehow driving the voters home. There is simply no truth to that suggestion.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I see no other speakers on our side at this moment.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma controls 36 minutes.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to myself.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to announce to my colleagues in the

Senate that the League of Women Voters of the United States has today decided to endorse cloture on Senate bill 2, and they have sent a memorandum to all Members of the Senate which I hope will be very seriously considered by our fellow Members. I want to read what is included in this memorandum.

The League of Women Voters urges you to vote for cloture to end the filibuster against the Senatorial Election Campaign Act, S. 2. We believe that public financing of Senate general elections and restrictions on the role of political action committees <PACs) in campaign finance are vital steps in building public trust in governmental institutions and the people who serve in those institutions. The League of Women Voters urges you to support S. 2.

The system for public financing of elections in S. 2 is familiar to the American voter-it is the same type of system that removed the appearance of special interest domination from presidential elections and restored public confidence after the Watergate scandal. The public financing mechanism in S. 2 would go a long way toward rebuilding public confidence in open, honest elections for the U.S. Senate.

Public financing will combat undue influence and the appearance of undue influence. It will also mean that Senators will again be able to devote their time to the public's business. For those who choose public financing, S. 2 will end a six-year cycle of unseemly and time-consuming fundraising efforts. The effect on the legislative process, and the individuals involved in that process, will be salutary.

The provisions in S. 2 for limiting the amount of PAC funds that a candidate may receive will also guard against the perception or reality of undue influence. S. 2 does not eliminate PAC participation in elections. Instead it provides for a balance in the proportion of funds that various types of contributors may provide and it ensures that PAC limitations are not so easily evaded.

The restoration of public confidence in congressional elections and processes is essential and long overdue. Ultimately it is a question of integrity-the integrity of public instititions and the integrity of individuals who serve the public. The League of Women Voters urges you to vote for cloture and to enact the Senatorial Election Campaign Act.

Mr. President, I am greatly encouraged by the ac ·.ion of this distinguished group of citizens. They have studied the issue of campaign finance reform for many years as a part of their ongoing effort to educate themselves and the American public about the functions of our Government. I think it will certainly improve the chances of our Government. I think it will certainly improve the chances for ultimate passage .of this legislation to have the support of a group like the League of Women Voters.

Mr. President, I think we should be clear: We are not advocating public financing, or any aspect of public financing, simply because we want public funds to finance our campaigns. That is not the point at all. What we

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16119 are trying · to do is restore some sense and some integrity to the election process.

Under the current system, the cost of campaigns is going out of sight. It has gone from $600,000 on the average to $3 million on the average in just 10 years. In some States we have had in excess of $20 million spent in the general election on senatorial campaigns. That is not good for the country.

Mr. President, we should not have the perception that elections are for sale to the highest bidder. We should not have an opportunity for one candidate or another to try and buy an election by simply outspending his opponent.

Yes, we need competition. The Senator from Kentucky is my good friend and colleague. We have worked together on many occasions. He has said again and again we need competition in the political arena.

Mr. President, I agree that we need competition. This country needs all of the talent that it can get. We need the best pr ~sible people to serve in public office and to come forward with their ideas to solve the serious problems that this country faces.

What is happening under the present system? Under the present system, over half 0r almost half of all the people elected to Congress got over half of all their campaign contributions not from the people back home but from special interest groups that have almost no connection with their home States. We had almost 200 Members of Congress receive over 50 percent of all of their campaign funds not from the people back home but from political action committees, many of whom do not have any members in that State, some of whom have members, directors who have not ever even been to that State; never even seen it, yet they are pouring money into campaigns for public offices in States with which they have little or no contact.

Mr. President, that simply is not healthy. In addition, 80 percent of all the political action committee contributions are going to incumbents. Those are the Senators and Congressmen who are already here. Those special interest groups know that they need access to them. Those are the people that serve on committees that are of key importance to those groups.

What happens at a time when we need to have new ideas, when we need to be encouraging talented people getting into politics? Eighty percent of all the political action committee contributions are going to incumbents, making it more and more difficult for new people with new ideas for solving the Nation's problems to come into the political process.

That is not good. That is not healthy. That is one of the reasons why we have introduced S. 2. That is

one of the reasons why we are trying to do something about campaign finance reform, so that we can try to bring to bear the greatest talent available in this country to solve the serious problems that we face.

What about the amount of overall campaign spending, Mr. President? We want to have competition in politics but we do not want elections to be decided on the basis of who is most capable when it comes to raising money. We do not want time oeing spent competing between the candidates on the raising of more and more money, millions and millions of dollars. We want the competition between the candidates to be on the basis of the ideas that they have for solving the problems; compete on the basis of their qualifications for office; compete on the basis of substance, not on the basis of money.

We must do something about it, Mr. President, so that Members who are elected here can spend their time grappling with the Nation's problems instead of spending their time out trying to raise more and more money in order to get elected.

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

Senator's time has expired. Mr. BOREN. I yield as much time as

nt ' essary to the Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator

from Oklahoma, the manager of this bill, yielding to me.

Of course, as has been done by many of those of us who have gone before me, I congratulate and applaud the leadership that he has shown with this bill.

Mr. President, at lunch today, I spoke with a friend of mine from Iowa. I asked him, basically, how the caucus races were going in the State of Iowa, the Presidential caucus race. He said, "Good. You know something, Harry? One reason they are going so well is that the candidates there are limited as to how much money they can spend."

Why are they limited? It is not some self-imposed constraint that has been placed on them. They have a limit on how much money each of those candidates can spend as a result of the Presidential election system that is now law in this country, and has been law for over a decade.

The Presidential election system has worked and it has worked very well. No better example is there than the State of Iowa. For instance, I said, "Have you heard how things are going in New Hampshire?" "They are also going well."

One reason they are going well is there are limits on what can be spent there. You cannot go in and overwhelm someone with money. One candidate may want to place some of his receipts into paid television spots and, as you know, in Iowa some of the can-

dictates have done this. Some have not decided to spend their money on that. They are doing direct mail. They have field workers they are paying. They have to allocate their resources so, when it is all over and done with, the message is gotten out to the people in Iowa or New Hampshire and the people spend basically the same amount of money.

I have listened with concern over the past several weeks as some of my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle have characterized S. 2 as being bad, not good for the American public. They have given a number of reasons. We want to look at a few of those for the next few minutes.

For instance, they have said that it would force the American taxpayer to pay for political campaigns. I think it has been clearly shown that that argument is fallacious. They go on to say, as perhaps Calvin Coolidge said of sin, that they are against S. 2 for all of those reasons.

Before, though, Mr. President, we made the mistake of equating S. 2 with sin, I have a few questions that I would like to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle.

I hope, for example, that my friend from Kentucky, Senator McCONNELL, will gratify not only me but this entire body with some answers to these questions. I ask a number of questions last week. They have not yet been responded to, and I think for obvious reasons, because the answers certainly bring up the fallacy of the argument that has been presented on the other side.

One question, the first question we will ask today: Is the Senator claiming or is the other side claiming that the taxpayer checkoff on income tax returns for Senate races is the same as--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, the Sergeant at Arms will see that the gallery is quiet, including the press gallery.

The Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. Thank you very much,

Mr. President. First, is the Senator claiming that

the taxpayer checkoff on income tax returns for Senate races is the same as forcing the taxpayer to pay for Senate elections?

The Senator may want to take a few of these questions at a time or answer them one at a time.

Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Nevada repeat his question, please?

Mr. REID. I would be happy to. Is the Senator claiming that a taxpayer checkoff system on income tax returns for Senate races is the same as forcing taxpayers to pay for these elections?

Mr. McCONNELL. Certainly the taxpayer does not have to check off. If he checks off the dollar, he diverts that away from some other Govern-

16120 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 ment program, he diverts the money away from such programs as women and infants and children feeding or programs for the elderly.

Mr. REID. Or maybe it would be a farm program.

Mr. McCONNELL. Well, the Senator can pick out whichever part of the budget he may find most offensive, but nevertheless it diverts that tax dollar away from other programs. And it was the position of the Senator from Kentucky that given the vast amount of public money which was going to end up being spent under S. 2 with respect to independent expenditures, with independent candidacies in the general election, there would be a huge amount of money required for the checkoff, diverting it from other Government programs to fund elections.

Mr. REID. With that answer in mind, if the taxpayer checkoff was to go into effect as a means of financing Senate campaigns, would the Senator, for example, refuse to accept any Federal fu'~ds derived from such a checkoff?

Mr. McCONNELL. Of course, S. 2 is constructed in such a way that it makes it very, very difficult for a candidate even as a matter of principle to set aside the public funding approach and go privately because, as the Senator from Nevada knows, there is in S. 2 a second entitlement check from the taxpayers which comes forth immediately when the candidate choosing not to fund his race publicly gets beyond the spending limit. So it is an enormous deterrent. Frankly, about the only candidates who could choose not to go the public funding route would be the multimillionaire candidate, which we probably both agree is a serious problem and we would like to solve it. Probably only that candidate could choose to go privately under S. 2 because he would not be significantly deterred by the second entitlement payment from the Government.

Mr. REID. So it seems clear that the Senator would accept those moneys because that is how one could be competitive is what the Senator is saying.

Mr. McCONNELL. No; it is not clear at all. The Senator from Kentucky is not sure what he would do in that situation. It would depend upon the qualities of his opponent, the nature of the election, a variety of other things that are very difficult to judge.

Mr. REID. OK, I accept that. Would the Senator then explain how this taxpayer checkoff for Senate races differs from the same method used to finance the Presidential campaigns.

Mr. McCONNELL. I do not know that it differs. I do not particularly support the Presidential public funding either. I made no effort to try to change it. Obviously, there is no particular sentiment for changing it. But I do not know specifically in what

ways it differs because I am not really an expert on the way the Presidential system works, not running for the Presidency.

Mr. REID. I understood from what the Senator said, he does not like the Presidential election system as it now exists.

Mr. McCONNELL. I am not crazy about it, but we are here to talk about S. 2, and if the question is about S. 2, I could probably respond. I am not an expert on the way the Presidential law, which we have had since 1976, works.

Mr. REID. It seems clear, however, that there are spending limits, the Senator would acknowledge, with the Presidential election system

Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. Mr. REID. And with S. 2 we propose

it on this side of the aisle. Mr. McCONNELL. Yes; there cer

tainly have been spending limits under the Presidential system, spending limits on cash.

Mr. REID. And that they are both checkoff systems, S. 2 and the 1976 Presidential election law.

Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is correct.

Mr. REID. So it would seem to me that we arrive at somewhat of a quandry in this instance because if in fa.·t the Senator-and I recognize the Senator cannot speak for everyone on that side of the aisle-does not like the Presidential system as it now existsand we have already established that it is very, very comparable to S. 2-would the Senator criticize Presidential candidates that accept money from the Presidential election system?

Mr. McCONNELL. That is a decision each candidate is going to have to make under the rules that then exist. We all operate under the existing rules. The distinguished majority leader, for example, has said quite clearly that he is going to continue to accept contributions from political action committees because that is the current law under which we operate.

I certainly would not single out any particular candidate for President for operating under the existing system if he so chooses.

Mr. REID. And of course the Senator from Kentucky is aware that President Reagan has accepted this taxpayer checkoff money the same way the money would come to the S. 2 program if we establish it-President Reagan accepted those moneys during his 1980 and 1984 Presidential campaigns and I assume the one prior to that in which he was not successful; is that right?

Mr. McCONNELL. The point of the Senator from Kentucky is that we should not pass S. 2 because the President of the United States has accepted public financing. I would say that is not a very good argument for passing s. 2.

Mr. REID. But my point is that there were a lot of objections in the early seventies about the method of selecting Presidents in the future, that something had to be changed to make it a better system, there had to be spending limits so people simply would not be buying eiections from various States, so in effect what was established is a program that relates to Presidential elections that is comparable to what we are taking about with s. 2.

It seems clear to me we have an interesting situation. We know that during the early seventies there was a problem with the election of Presidents for this country. The system was changed. I have not heard anyone complain about the way Presidents are elected now. It works very well. And I gave the example of the lunch that I had today with my friend from Iowa who said it works very, very well. And we got to talking about how it works there and how it works in New Hampshire. It works pretty well because people are playing on an equal playing field; it is level; people have to go the same distance for a first down.

So what I am saying is people complained about it, the system is now in effect, and people are not complaining any more. I would respectfully submit-this is what I talked about a lot last week-we are in a situation now where the American people are crying out for reform. As my friend from Washington said prior to my coming on the floor, the tremendous amounts of money spent, that has to change. The American people want it changed. And I would submit that if we adopted S. 2, in 3 or 4 years you would not hear a complaint about the system because suddenly the American people would realize, and those people seeking office would realize, that they are playing on an equal field, more people would be willing to get into the fray.

Now, I recognize, as I explained to this body last week, that S. 2 is not a perfect vehicle; it has some faults in it, and that is why the amendment was submitted by th, majority leader. I think it improved the legislation. Compromise is necessary. I would submit that before we can have reasonable compromise the public wants and certainly expects us to do something about spending limits such as what we have in the Presidential election.

I will be happy to yield for a question and answer at this time.

Mr. McCONNELL. One further observation about the Presidential system-and there are some things wrong with it. I do not want to concede that point entirely.

For example, one of the clear effects of the Presidential system is proliferation of candidates. We know that it is certainly very easy to run now and to

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16121 qualify for taxpayer's dollars. Some of the candidates have told me privately that this was certainly an enticement for their getting into it-with some minimal amount of effort on their part they can get a check from the Government to go on. I do not think that has necessarily been an improvement. In addition to that, Columnist David Broder pointed out in an article over the last couple of days about this whole issue-and he was for the most part sympathetic with my friend from Nevada-in the Presidential races under public spending and spending limits there is simply a drying up of individual voter participation. And as we all know and as I think I pointed out when the Senator was on the floor last week, we have seen a declining voter participation during the public funding. Before the Senator came to the floor earlier, I was pointing out that in all races, with the exception of your State-your State was the only aberration-the race in which there was the greatest spending in 1986 and in which there ,, ~ the greatest turnout, there was a clear correlation everywhere except Nevada, and I leave that to the Senator to explain. But in every other State, the more that was spent, the more participation, the higher the turnout.

It seems to me that that was a good result, encouraging participation, and not clamping down on participation, by saying to the candidates, "You can participate and spend this much and no more."

Mr. REID. I thank the Senator. It is clear to me that the American

people want some reform in this area. I think it is needed.

I repeat, for the third time this day, that the system we have works well so far as choosing Presidential candidates is concerned.

In response to the Senator from Kentucky, I indicate that I do not think there has been a proliferation of candidates running for the Presidency. Those people wanting the Democratic nomination, without exception, are of the highest caliber. I submit that if my friend looks at the people seeking the Republican nomination, some really high-caliber people are seeking that nomination. I am sure that the Senator from Kentucky would say that any of those seeking the Republican nomination-Vice President BusH, Mr. KEMP, Mr. LAXALT, Mr. DOLE-are people of fine, high quality.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from California [Mr. CRANSTON].

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. KERRY). The Senator from California [Mr. CRANSTON] is recognized.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I join in supporting the amendment offered by the majority leader and the Senator from Oklahoma. I support matching funds to provide the where-

withal for public financing, if we cannot reach agreement on a public grant.

I believe that we must have meaningful campaign finance reform.

The amendment which Senator BYRD and Senator BoREN introduced last week is a sincere effort to achieve that reform. The amendment is an effort to reach a compromise with those who oppose the amount of public funds in S. 2.

However, this amendment will significantly increase the nonpublic funds a candidate will be required to raise, particularly in large States like California. I gather from conversations with Senators from very small States that this would be a problem for them, too. Therefore, I believe it necessary to raise the aggregate PAC limits above the level currently proposed in S. 2, if we find that we can move with the amendment offered by the majority leader and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. BoREN].

Mr. President, the time has come for campaign finance reform. The legislation before us today will put an end to our present campaign finance system-a system which requires candidates to spend more time raising money than campaigning for votes.

The costs of running for the U.S. SE. rtate are simply too high. Too much time must be spent chasing money. No longer can we tolerate a system which requires candidates to spend at least half their time-often more-fundraising. The 1986 Senate elections were the most expensive in our Nation's history. Unless we enact spending limits now, spending in the 1988 Senate elections will exceed the $182 million spent in 1986. In my race in California, we broke the record for overall spending that was set 2 years before in California; and I assume that unless we change the system, that record set in California last year will be broken next year in California or Texas or New York or somewhere else. We must reduce the costs of Senate campaigns, and we must reduce the amount of time, money, and effort devoted to raising money to fund these campaigns. We need to stop the exponential escalation of election costs, and we need to do it now.

During my reelection campaign last year, my campaign managers advised me that I should spend half my time raising money. Time spent with contributors was time taken away from campaigning for office, time taken away from sharing ideas and programs with the voters, and, yes, sometimes even time taken away from the business of the Senate. Such a system must stop.

The legislation before us today would provide for true campaign finance reform. It would provide for public funding in the general election. It would provide for expenditure

limits, in both the primary and general elections. It would provide for aggregate PAC limits.

Mr. President, there must be an alternative to the countless hours spent trying to raise money to run a serious campaign. Senate candidates must be freed from the dependence on large contributors and political action committees which the current system necessitates. Without the need to spend over half their time raising money, candidates once again will be able to campaign for office. We once again will be able to share our ideas and our programs with the voters, in direct encounters with them, in meetings for that purpose in the course of a campaign, and not just through the medium of television and radio and the press.

Mr. President, there must be expenditure limits in both the primary and general elections. Without expenditure limits in both the primary and general elections, the pernicious level of spending which currently pervades our system will simply be moved from the general election to the primary election. Candidates will raise and spend as much money as they can during the primary, in order to maximize their competitive position in the general election. We must reduce the costs of Senate campaigns, and we must do it now.

Mr. President, there must be limits on the total amount of money which political action committees can give to candidates. We must remove the appearance of undue influence of special interest groups by limiting the amount of money which a candidate can accept from PAC's-while still allowing a role for PAC's in the electoral process, and there is a role for them.

Mr. President, the legislation before us addresses these issues. It provides for significant public financing of Senate general elections. It provides for expenditure limits. It sets aggregate PAC limits.

Mr. President, this legislation has other provisions which are necessary to reform our campaign finance system. The bill prohibits the use of bundling to circumvent expenditure limits. The bill provides recourse to candidates who are attacked by independent expenditure campaigns. The bill provides for disclosure of "soft money."

Mr. President, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have offered legislation which they identify as campaign finance reform; indeed, as real campaign finance reform. Yet how can there be real campaign finance reform without spending limits? How can there be real campaign finance reform when political action committees can continue to bundle campaign contributions? The McConnell-Packwood bill would do nothing to limit campaign

16122 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 spending. The McConnell-Packwood bill would prohibit only direct PAC contributions to candidates. The bill would place no limits on PAC contributions to political parties, nor would the legislation limit PAC's from bundling individual contributions and forwarding these contributions to candidates. The legislation proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is not campaign finance reform. S. 2 is.

Mr. President, we cannot let another election cycle pass without enacting campaign finance reform legislation. We must stop the escalating cost of Senate campaigns, and we must do it now.

Mr. President, another reason for moving ahead with campaign finance reform relates to the declining participation of voters or people who could be voters in our electoral processes. It has been going down steadily now for over 100 years.

If we do not arrest or alter the process of campaign financing, I believe it will cor tinue to go down.

That 1s one of the reasons, among several, for the declining participation. Many people feel left out of the process now when so much of the nature of campaigns is devoted to soliciting support only from those who can give large amounts of money by the direct activities of the candidates.

Unless we change that process and draw all the people back into the feeling they are part of the system, I

. think we will see a continuing decline in the number of people participating in our elections and that undermines democracy, and I think it is a threat to the survival of our democratic freedoms and our democratic system.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this reform legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture this afternoon.


Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an observation and question?

Mr. CRANSTON. I do not have much time. If the Sentor has time for the purpose, fine.

Mr. McCONNELL. I will be glad to use just a moment of my time, if the Senator from California has just a second.

I have listened with great interest to the Senator's observation about the correlation between the campaign spending and turnout. I know the Senator from California was not on the floor at the time I made the observations but I would just point out to him for his information that there is a direct correlation between campaign spending and turnout.

The correlation, however, is between spending and high turnout. · There is a direct correlation between spending and greater participation.

I pointed out to the Senate just a few moments ago the top 10 races in terms of spending were also with 1 exception in the top 12 in terms of turnout.

So it seems to be clear to the Senator from Kentucky that what drives spending is good competition and as the Senator from California knows, he has had a rough, competitive race in which a lot of people participated not only in California but across the country. Of course, he has a lot of television markets. The Senator from California can go out and shake hands until he is blue in the face and not have much of an impact with all those folks. The Senator from California knows he has to run a television campaign in order to reach the people, and that is expensive and, of course, the competition drove the expenditures and money raising.

Would the Senator from California not agree with that assessment of his race?

Mr. CRANSTON. I am not sure that the statistics which might seem to show that if more money is spent in a race more people vote in that race really make a point. As the Senator knows, you can prove almost anything with statistics. And I believe that the overall decline that started for other re.•sons and is still going on for many reasons in participation by the American people in the electoral process by voting in our country is in part attributable to the system that has developed since the invention of television which is so costly, of candidates spending more and more of their time in a limited circle of constituents who can contribute significant sums, the maximum under the present law, instead of devoting their time to campaigning among the populace in general.

Apart from whatever the consequences are of that system upon the turnout, I think it is improper in terms of the advantage, in terms of access that the present system brings to those who can make large contributions as against those who cannot.

As the Senator knows, when we have a moment when we suddenly have to make a decision to vote on something and there are 10 or 15 people clamoring to talk to you before you vote and you do not know most of them but one name is there of someone who made a major contribution to you that is the person you will see if you only have time to see one person probably. You may not do what that person wants, but that person has an opportunity to at least present a point of view to people who could not contribute who are not known to the candidate, to the Senator, to the House Member, who do not get that opportunity.

I think participation really relates in terms of who votes and who does not vote to their interest, and what has happened. They are confident that

their vote will possibly make a difference, much more than it relates to the matter of finance.

Mr. McCONNELL. It is interestingjust one further observation-it seems to the Senator from Kentucky that the really big contributions that the Senator from California refers to are not possible under the current law. One can give $1,000 in primary and $1,000 in a general. Of course, PAC's can give more than that, as the Senator from California knows. He did really quite well with political action committee contributions.

It seems to me that what happened in the race of the Senator from California is a whole lot of people participated or he would not have been able to raise the amount of money raised. He has a reputation of being an excellent fundraiser. Unless a lot of people believed in his candidacy and contributed, it would not have been possible for the Senator from California to raise that money had it not been raised by a whole lot of people.

Mr. CRANSTON. It is true that a great many people participated in my campaign by contributing. I believe we had somewhat beyond 135,000 contributors. That is probably the record number of contributors or very close to the record for any Senator in any campaign in any State. But after all, that is a fairly small number compared to the electorate in California which should be around 18 million. About 18 million people are of voting age in California. But in the last Presidential election, only 50 percent of the people who could vote-9.6 million Americans, Californians, of voting age, did not vote in the Presidential election of 1984. In the most recent election, last November, when I was running for reelection to the Senate, it was something like only 37 percent, a significant drop, of the people who could have voted did vote. There must have been somewhere around 10 million people who could have voted who did not vote.

I believe there are many factors behind that decline in participation but I am absolutely convinced that one of them is the present system of campaign financing and the cynicism it builds among the American people and potential electorate.

Mr. McCONNELL. I know the Senator from California has to leave. One further observation. The race to which the Senator refers, the Presidential race, of course, was publicly funded with spending limits since 1976. Of course, there has been a decline in participation in Presidential races in spite of a system much like S. 2 which the Senator from California supports.

I just further make the observation there appears to be no correlation whatsoever or no reasonable way to assume that if one were to put a clamp

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16123 on participation, that is the spending limits and fund the substantial portion of that amount that is allowed to be spent from the Treasury, that it will have a good effect on turnout.

I think all the indications are that hotly contested races with lots of participation and lots of money raised have big turnouts and races in which there are no competition, for example, my colleague from Kentucky was very fortunate as was the Senator from Oklahoma in 1984 not to have a very tough race, and in 1986 my colleague from Kentucky ranked last. Kentucky ranked last in turnout, and I tell my friend from California the reason for that was not tough competition. There was not a lot of interest.

We ought not to be passing bills that encourage that kind of thing. We ought to encourage participation. The current system does that.

As to the PAC contributions, the Senator did well in PAC contributions. I believe he ranked fourth in history in number of PAC contributions raised. r again commend him for his fundraising expertise.

It seems to me if there is any part of this system that could arbitrarily be called undue or special interest, it is PAC contributions.

The Senator from Kentucky said we would be happy to see PAC contributions that go not only to candidates but to parties. I think if we want to pass a special influence bill, we can simply try to do something about the PAC's.

I wonder how the Senator from California feels about that.

Mr. CRANSTON. The measure I am supporting does place some limits on PAC contributions. I think there is a place for PAC contributions and I would not eliminate them totally. I think we have all kinds of PAC's. I think people are entitled for the opportunity to contribute through PAC's. There are many PAC's that do not represent any particular industry or any particular corporation but represent issues like environmental issues, like war and peace issues. I think the opportunity for people to be involved in the process through that sort of PAC and through any sort of PAC is quite appropriate.

On the matter of Presidential campaigns and the fact we do not have public financing in the general election-and there is still a decline in Presidential election turnouts-yes, the decline has been going on since about 1876. But I would like to point out that there is still vast sums spent in Presidential elections in the primary, vast, vast sums. So in the primaries the candidates spend a great deal of time, or the campaigns do, raising money.

For example, I may not have the exact figure, but I believe the ReaganBush campaign for reelection in 1984

raised and spent something like $25 owns 2 newspapers accounting for 2 million in the course of the primary. editorials, and the list goes on and on. That is a vast sum and that is why I So, I guess, Mr. President, the favor limits in primaries as well as in bottom line is that more than half of general elections. the newspaper editorials entered into

I would like to finally note that the the RECORD came from newspapers Senator from Kentucky apparently owned by 23 huge corporations, some recognizes there is something wrong of them multimillion-dollar corporawith the system because the Senator is tions, some of them even multibillionproposing what the Senator calls a dollar corporations. And when you halreform. We really do not differ on the ance that against my own experienceneed for reform. We simply differ on and maybe other Senators have had how we reform. other experiences-you wonder wheth-

Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Sena- er these editors represent the views of tor from Oklahoma. the average American people. I do not

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a week think they do. I do not think we can ago the distinguished majority leader, conclude that the views of 23 of these for whom I have the greatest affection giant newspaper publishing companies and respect, placed some 240 newspa- actually represent the views of the per editorials in the CoNGRESSIONAL American people. RECORD. These editorials were offered In fact, of all the special interests by Senator BYRD to exemplify the that would prosper from the passage "substantial outpouring of support" of s. 2, I can think of none that probfor S. 2 which is, of course, the cam- ably would benefit more than these paign financing legislation.

In the first place, Mr. President, I media conglomerates that would ac-have taken my own poll, as seldom do quire the power of influence that I engage in a telephone conversation would be taken from the American with anybody from my State or from people. any other State when I do not ask Now, in my State, we have a number them if they wish to be taxed to fi- of what you would call big city newsnance senatorial campaigns, and today papers. And they are certainly imthe poll results are about 200 too. pressed with their own power. Their

Nobody out there in Americaland only trouble is they seldom elect anywe. nts the taxpayer financing of sena- body. And what they would like to do torial campaigns. is foreclose on any candidate daring to

We found that this "outpouring of run against a favored candidate; that support" probably did not represent is to say, a candidate favored by the quite the divergence of views as one newspaper editors in the big cities. would lead us to believe. I am, of So I can understand why the editors course, referring to the editorial com- might like to see the campaign limitament that Senator BYRD placed in the tions and the other undesirable asRECORD last week. pects of S. 2, but I do not believe the

So, we and "we" being my staff and people do. I, took a close look at this "outpouring In my own campaign, we had a of support" among the newspaper edi- couple hundred thousand contributors. tors, averaging something like $15 to

We discovered that Gannett Pub- $20 apiece from all over the country. lishing, Inc., owns 10 of the newspa- Now, nobody put a gun to the head of pers which accounted for 15 of the edi- any of those contributors and said to to rials listed; Copley Newspapers send money. They did it voluntarily, Group owns 7 of the papers account- presumably because they were philoing for 12 editorials placed in the . sophically attuned to this Senator. RECORD by Senator BYRD; Thomson Meanwhile, the major newspapers Newspapers, Ltd., owns 8 of the news- were pounding day after day on behalf papers listed accounting for 14 edito- of the challenger. He did not quite rials; New York Times Co., owns 7 make it, evidenced by the fact that I newspapers accounting for 8 editorials; am standing here at 6:22 p.m. on this Knight Ridder Group owns 7 newspa- day. pers accounting for 8 editorials; So, Mr. President, it depends on Scripps League Newspapers/Scripps whom you ask. And I have asked a lot Group owns 5 newspapers acounting of people and, as I said earlier, I have for 6 editorials; McClatchy Newspa- yet to find any taxpayer who is repers Group owns 4 newspapers account- motely interested in being taxed furing for 5 editorials; Ogden Newspaper ther to finance the senatorial camowns 4 newspapers accounting for 4 paigns of literally hundreds if not editorials; Miller Group owns 4 news- thousands of senatorial candidates, papers accounting for 6 editorials; when you include the challengers and Donrey Media Group owns 4 newspa- the incumbents. pers accounting for 4 editorials; Multi- Now, a great deal has been said media, Inc., owns 3 newspapers ac- about the political action committees. counting for 5 editorials; Hearst Back on March 4, Morton Blackwell Group/Hearst Newspaper Group owns wrote an excellent article, published in 3 newspapers accounting for 3 edito- the Washington Times, and I presume rials; North Jersey Newspaper Group other newspapers around the country.

16124 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 Mr. Blackwell is president of the Leadership Institute. He was on President Reagan's Federal Election Commission transition team from 1980 to 1981, and he was Special Assistant to the President for Public Liaison from 1981 to 1984. This piece, written by Mr. Blackwell, was headed "What Stirred Their Anti-PAC Passions?"

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Washington Times, Mar. 4, 1987] WHAT STIRRED THEIR ANTI-PAC PASSIONS?

[By Morton Blackwell] Before there was a Federal Election Com

mission, way back in 1943, the militantly liberal Congress of Industrial Organizations <CIO) formed the very first political action committee <PAC).

For the next 30 years, the labor union P ACs enjoyed a virtual monopoly in the PAC field. Liberals in that era knew how wholesome P ACs were: what a marvelous vehicle by which union members might pool their resources to support the candidate of their cr · ce.

Of course, more than 90 percent of the union PAC money has always gone to Democratic Party candidates, but liberals for 30 years could see the civic value of this outpouring of citizen participation.

But curiously, for the past 15 years, liberals have gradually changed their minds about PACs. Now hardly a week goes by without some thundering liberal media attack on PAC money in politics.

Liberal print and broadcast journalists pour forth editorials and stories, supplemented by enough graphs and statistics to frighten almost anyone with a sociology Ph.D. or a press card. Our political system, they allege, is being taken over by big P ACs, sinister forces with big money.

Central now to the liberal case against the 4,157 PACs of all types is the charge that PAC money is, in effect, a lobby strong enough to buy any politician. And liberals most often claim that the dangerous PAC powers today are the corporate and trade association P ACs.

That is nonsense. The biggest, most powerful special interest in American politics is organized labor. The union bosses have an effective veto power over Democratic candidates in almost every region of the country. Virtually anywhere, a Democratic candidate is wasting his time running for Congress (or for dogcatcher) if the barons of organized labor are against him. He probably can't get nominated. But if he beats the odds and wins a Democratic nomination, he's almost surely doomed in the general election if the unions don't support him.

No single interest group has such a strangle hold on the Republican Party, surely not business corporations or trade associations. Unions are virtually a monolith; business is split up all over the lot.

At first glance, union-oriented, Democratic Party liberals might be expected to be happy with the PAC system as it is. After all, Democrats consistently get more than half of all PAC contributions.

Well then, why the hue and cry against PACs from liberal Democrats?

The answer is they don't like real competition. The closer they could get to a monopoly of political action, the better they would like it.

They know they can't go back to the good old days when unions had a virtual monopoly on PACs.

But, if they can cripple or destroy all PAC participation in elections, the unions literally secret political weapon would give them close to a monoply once more. Happy days would be here again. Elections would revert to being contests of the Republican Party vs. the Democratic party plus their union masters.

Here 's why: PACs are now only the tip of the iceberg of union political power. The unions greatest influence on elections is through "in-kind" goods and services for union-supported candidates. These activities are not disclosed to the public. They are entirely outside the federal reporting requirements, which apply to P ACs but not to union-funded political activity such as voter registration drives, booming propaganda efforts, telephone phone banks, and most important, union staff time.

Expert labor columnist Victor Riesel estimated that in 1976 these "in-kind" union campaign activities cost more than $100 million. Today the secret total is surely several times larger-far, far more than all the candidate support by all types of P ACs put together.

Right now about half a million staff members are working for local, regional, state, and national union organizations. That's more than 1,000 paid employees of unions per congressional district. Each year these union staffers, mostly paid with compulsory union dues, flood into the campaigns of the union's hand-picked candidates, almost all lib ral Democratic candidates.

It is no coincidence that virtually all the politicians agitating against PACs are liberals cozy with Big Labor. Limiting or abolishing PACs will have no effect on this massive "in-kind" campaign activity by labor unions. That in my judgment, is why unions and the liberal politicians they have elected are willing to sacrifice their PACs. They want to regain their monopoly of private political activity.

P ACs should be defended on free speech grounds as the federal courts have done repeatedly.

The liberal news media are free to print and broadcast unlimited endorsements and condemnations of candidates as they choose. It's downright unseemly for them to urge clamping down on political speech for anyone who doesn't own a media outlet.

By law every contribution to a PAC of any kind must be entirely voluntary. And all PAC gifts to candidates must be promptly disclosed on the public record.

If Americans want to join together politically for any shared electoral purpose to pool resources for or against any political cause they should have the right to so so.

The amount of money contributed to P ACs is growing but not excessive in a country of 240 million people. We spend much more money each year on car washes or even on dog food.

In truth PACs have broadened not limited public access to politics. They have greatly expanded the number of people who voluntarily contribute to election campaigns. That is surely healthy.

Mr. HELMS. Now, Mr. President, back to the newspaper conglomerates which so enthusiastically supportS. 2, they are not what you would call the average run of the mill citizen in any way that you might want to consider it. For example, the Gannet Publish-

ing Co., to which I alluded a little bit ago, had revenues last year of $2,210,000,000. The Copley Newspaper Group had a substantial amount of sales; The Thomson Group had sales of $954,150,000; the New York Times had revenues of $1,390,000,000; Knight Ridder had revenues of $1,730,00,000, and so on. The point being that this Senator, at least, believes that it does not matter so much what the newspaper editors say. What does matter is what the American people think about this business of requiring the taxpayers to finance the campaigns of candidates for U.S. Senate, be they incumbents or challengers.

I am unalterably opposed to taxing the taxpayers to pay the campaign expenses of candidates, because that would be forcing them to finance their own misery.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time? Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, how

much time remains on this side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Oklahoma has 7 minutes remaining.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. President, we are getting ready to vote in just a few moments on whether or not to proceed ahead to take up the issue of campaign finance reform in a meaningful way. We are not getting ready to vote on the bill itself. There will still be the opportunity to consider amendments to this particular proposal. We have an opportunity to consider ways to improve it and Members of the Senate may come up with suggestions with making improvements to this piece of legislation.

But I would urge my colleagues, let us not wait. Let us not let another year go by, another session of the Senate go by, without dealing with this critical problem of the integrity of the elections process itself.

How long are we going to wait to act? What is it going to take to make us see that something is wrong?

We had almost 200 Members of Congress who were elected in the last election with over half of their campaign contributions coming not from the people in the grassroots, not from people in their home States, but from outside special interest groups. How long are we going to wait? Are we going to wait until we have 535 Members of Congress receiving 80 or 90 percent of all of their campaign contributions from people who have nothing to do with their home States before we act?

We have already heard, and I recited to the Senate, that the political action committees in the last election gave over 80 percent of all of their contributions to incumbents, discouraging

June J6, 198 7 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16125 new people with new ideas from entering into the political process. How long are we going to wait, Mr. Presidentuntil we recognize that something is wrong, until we recognize we who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the constitutional process-to do something about it? How long are we going to wait, Mr. President, to do something about the alarming increase in campaign spending that is causing races to really be waged on the basis of how effective Members are at raising money, instead of on their character, instead of on their qualification for office, instead of on their ideas for solving the Nation's problems.

Only 12 years ago, it cost $600,000, on the average, to run for the U.S. Senate. This last election cycle, it cost $3 million. If you project it forward to 12 years from now, when those who are high school seniors today are eligible to run for the U.S. Senate, it will cost $15 million, on the average, to run for the U.S. Senate.

How ,,mg are we going to wait, Mr. President, before we recognize that something is wrong, that we should not have the highest offices in this land on the auction block for sale to the highest bidder? How many people in this country have marched under the banner that we should have no limit on campaign spending, that we should allow any candidate who is able to raise the millions of dollars to try to buy elections instead of getting elected on the basic of ideas and qualifications? How long will we wait, Mr. President?

Should we wait until the average cost of the U.S. Senate race is $30 million? Should we wait until it costs $100 million to run for the U.S. Senate?

Look at what happened in some States. It was already in excess of $20 million in the last election. We must not wait any longer.

I yield myself 1 additional minute. Mr. President, it is so ironic. I was

discouraged when I heard some on the other side of the aisle come forward, including the distinguished minority leader, and say, "We are ready to talk about campaign reform. We are willing to negotiate about campaign reform, but we will not put on the table for negotiation any spending limits at all. We don't want any restraint at all on the amount of money that a person can spend trying to buy an election."

Well, Mr. President, to say we are ready and willing to negotiate about campaign finance reform but we will not talk about limits of spending is like saying, "Yes, you can go swimming, but please do not go near the water."

We must have true reform, Mr. President. We cannot stall any longer. The American people expect us to grapple with this problem. We should vote today not to pass this particular,

bill but we should vote today to move ahead to get this item on the agenda and deal with this problem and obtain true finance reform for the people of this country before it is too late. We should not continue to wait until it is too late for us to act.


Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 32 minutes remaining.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I listened with interest to my friend from Oklahoma. We all know the way bills get written in this body and it is not out here on the floor of the Senate. The distinguished Republican leader, myself, and others have said frequently we are prepared to sit down and discuss what we believe is true campaign finance reform.

Among those items that we are willing to discuss is restrictions on political action committees or the elimination of their contributions to both candidates and parties altogether. Among those items we are willing to discuss is the reporting of soft money, that vast amount of unreported money going into political campaigns. Nobody has any idea, Mr. President, how much th.tt is. We think it ought to be disclosed and we are willing to discuss that. We are willing to talk about putting some disclosure requirements on independent expenditures.

A number of our colleagues have been subjected to the vicious and unwarranted attacks that are, unfortunately, constitutionally protected under our current system. We think some disclosure ought to be required of those independent expenditures. We are willing to strengthen the disclosure requirements on the finances of political parties.

Everybody stands up and talks about the millionaires buying office. All of us would like to do something about that. S. 2 does not solve that problem, nor does the bill of the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Oregon solve that problem. And the reason we cannot solve the millionaires' loophole problems, Mr. President, is that it is a constitutional problem.

I might say the Senator from Kentucky is having prepared at this time a constitutional amendment, and I will be glad to welcome the support of any who are here in this body to solve that problem. But you cannot solve it by legislation.

We are willing to talk about the bundling practice that has been discussed at length in this body. So there are plenty of things to talk about.

The issue, Mr. President, is whether we talk about it out here on the floor or whether we do what is normally done in putting together a package

that is going to pass-the leadership group sits down and gets down to the business of ironing this out one section at a time so we could have true campaign finance reform for the American people. And those of us on this side of the aisle who oppose a limit on participation-and that is what spending limits are-those of us on this side who oppose taxpayers involuntarily financing of campaigns, are willing to sit down and talk about meaningful, true campaign reform with the Senator from Oklahoma, the distinguished majority leader, or anyone else at any time. But we think that is where it ought to be done.

So I would urge my colleagues not to invoke cloture on this proposal. It is only cosmetically different from the earlier version of S. 2 which we refused to invoke cloture on last week.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. , Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose time does the Senator suggest the absence of a quorum?

Mr. STENNIS. The proponents, the authors of the bill.

Mr. McCONNELL. I might say to the chairman and the distinguished President pro tempore, I see no reason, frankly, for reserving my time, so you could have the quorum call on my time. I believe the vote is to occur at 5, is it not?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro

ceeded to call the roll. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask


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

Mr. KERRY. I ask my distinguished friend from Kentucky if he would permit me to ask him a couple of questions on his time since we do not have very much time remaining. I am not sure we have any left.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 40 seconds remaining and the Senator from Kentucky has 24 minutes remaining.

Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts 3 minutes of my time.

Mr. KERRY. I thank my friend. I really just wanted to follow up with the Senator who understands this process well. I am perplexed, and I wonder if he would help me a little bit. He said that he was willing, and people on his side of the aisle are willing, to talk about bundling. Bundling is already a proposed portion of the bill that is before us. He said he was willing to talk about restrictions on

16126 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 political action committees. Well, there are restrictions on political action committees which are part of the bill before us. He said he is willing to talk about strengthening disclosure and a couple of other items. But he is willing to talk.

It seems to me that the normal process here, if he wants to talk about normality, is to allow the bill to come to the floor. There is no limit to the debate. The debate can go on. There is plenty of time to have meetings in closed rooms. But it also allows the American people to share part of this debate. I wonder why it is that the Senator will not even let this bill come to the floor. Why can we not proceed on it, engage in debate, offer amend~ ments, take votes on those amendments? How can they be serious about discussing campaign finance reform when as a prestatement to any discussion, they say, "We are not even going to discuss the question of limits." I wonder if he would answer that.

Mr. McCONNELL. I may say to my friend 4'rom Massachusetts we are still quite far apart. There are many of us on this side of the aisle, and some, quietly, on that side of the aisle, who do not favor limitation on participation. That, in fact, is what a limit on spending is. Virtually everyone on this side of the aisle and many on that side of the aisle do not favor taxpayer funding. That is what S. 2 is all about.

I might say that I think the appropriate way to resolve this impasse is for the leadership group on both sides-and we know who those folks are who originated this issue and carried the debate and have been working on it-to sit down as the Republican leader has suggested on numerous occasions, as the Senator from Kentucky has suggested on numerous occasions, but those meetings have not occurred yet. It is our feeling that we ought to have some of those meetings and maybe go on with some of the other pending business of the Senate, which is enormous.

The only way you are going to have a campaign finance reform bill is if it is bipartisan. I think it should be pretty clear by now to my friend from Massachusetts and others, that a bipartisan campaign finance reform bill without a limitation on the participation of our citizens in the process, with public funding, is the problem. We should start talking about these matters in leadership meetings.

Mr. KERRY .. I am not sure that the answer really deals with the question of why we are not engaging in debate on the bill and have amendments to the bill. It seems to me that we could then make judgments about where we would go from there. But as to the issue of participation, if participation is going to be measured by the ability to spend dollars, it is clear we have a distorted sense of how this country is

going to participate in its electoral process.

We had a system, which most of the Republicans here voted for, where we were spending Federal dollars on elections. We had a tax credit and a tax deduction. Five percent of the Americans shared in that. We spent $536 million in each election cycle to get that 5 percent participate in the election process. Most Republicans supported that. You never heard them scream about spending Federal dollars on elections.

Now we are talking about spending far less than the tax credit lost annually in millions of dollars. We are talking about spending a few million dollars with a matching program and you would still have almost as much money to spend as most campaigns have had in the history of this country. But you would not have this untoward sense that people have in America that money makes all in the difference in politics.

I think that is a pretty fair compromise.

Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend that the only money in politics that it seems would be inappropriate is that money that millionaires can spend in their own behalf. Does S. 2 solve that problem? That is a constit~tional_ probiem and I think we ought to pass a constitutional amendment to deal with it. All the rest of the money in politics comes from a whole lot of people in fairly small denominations. If there is any story that is untold in American politics, it is the story about how participation is increasing. More and more people are increasing their participation. What is wrong with that form of participation being in a check?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired. Does the Senator yield additional time?

Mr. McCONNELL. I yield myself additional time.

It seems that tiat form of participation is what is being discriminated against in S. 2 in favor of other forms of participation, whether it is soft money or whether it is a get-out-thevote drive, voter registration or other kinds of participation.

We do not think there ought to be that kind of discrimination against the guy who is working for a living who does not have time to go door to door. They can write out a small check and send it to their candidate. The number of people doing that in our process has increased dramatically in recent years.

Mr. KERRY. I appreciate getting more people to participate in the process. But I think there is a problem where we begin to measure participation by dollars contributed, and second, I think if you will look at the way in which the process is working, if you had a lesser amount of money spent in a campaign, then the tendency will be for candidates in order to

guarantee election to organize more. You will require more people power, more shoe leather power to go out and knock on more doors, organize more people, and appeal to them to participate to make up for the fact that you cannot just fashion an image on television and put it out there with unlimited spending.

As to the question of the millionaires' club, I would respecfully suggest that the structure of this bill will, in fact, address that issue because with that millionaire who thinks they can outfox the system by going out and spending unlimited sources of their own funds, there is an enormous deterrent built in by virtue of that part of this bill that says if they opt out of the voluntary system and spend more, you have the option, the other candidate who uses the voluntary system, to spend their funds and to go into a higher plane of expenditure.

So there is a clear disincentive to somebody to believe that they are somehow going to outspend the system.

Mr. McCONNELL. Frankly, I say to my friend, it is not much of a disincentive. All that can happen if a millionaire exceeded the threshold, it would trigger the second entitlement payment from the Treasury to his opponent. The most that anyone could spend if they were under this S. 2 bill in Massachusetts would be $2,992,000.

We have people in this body who are terrific Senators, who nevertheless have spent well in excess of that, in order to come here. So, I would say to my friend, there is not much of a deterrent in S. 2, other than additional taxpayer expenses, to the millionaire problem.

Let me add, it is a real problem. We would like to solve that. That is one of the things I just said to the Senator from Massachusetts we would like to sit down together and try to work out. Maybe it is a constitutional amendment.

With regard to the other observation my friend made, and I believe he was not on the floor a few minutes ago when we talked about this business of spending and participation, it has been said by a number of people on that side of the aisle in support of S. 2 that all of this spending is turning off the voters. In fact, the statistics indicate just the contrary.

In the race in which the spending was ·the greatest per voter last year, South Dakota, they had the highest turnout in the country. And so on, right down through the top 10. The more that was spent, in other words the more people that contributed and participated in the process, the higher the turnout.

In my State of Kentucky, in which my senior colleague was fortunate enough not to have much of a race-I

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16127 would like to have that some day. There was a very low turnout. As a matter of fact, Kentucky ranked last in the 1986 cycle. Why? There was not much competition, there was not much spending, and not much interest. So there is clearly no correlation whatsoever between the amount of money spent and voter turnout or turning off the voters.

Mr. KERRY. I was not on the floor, I was in the chair, presiding, at the time. I did hear the argument. I think my colleague from California answered it and answered it well. I think it is clear where you have a highly competitive race, as you did in California, as we had in North Carolinawhere you had the $16 million expenditure by Governor Hunt and, I think, close to $16 million expenditure by the Senator from North Carolina, in a State with about 2. 7 million peopleyou are clearly, I think, overspending.

I forget the figures. I do not have them right at hand. But the amount of money expended per voter was far in exc' c;;s of the amount of money spent per voter in most other States in the country whe:re people adequately discussed the issues.

What was happening is you have this escalation by which everybody felt that, since there was an unlimited ability to raise money and an unlimited ability to spend money, people went ahead and did it.

So there is automatic ratcheting up of the process, which simply raises the costs of campaigns without a true relationship to whether or not that was, in fact, necessary to get the message across or to adequately do a job of campaigning.

In the process of that-let me just finish quickly-we are driving a lot of people out of the process. There are too many people who simply cannot even make the choice of running for office because they do not know where they would ever get $16 million, and the process of raising the $16 million has clearly come from an imbalance.

Let me give you an example. As chairman of the campaign committee, we raised $12.2 million last year for the Democratic Party. The Republican Party raised $90 million, outspent us 10 to 1. Is that the structural difference that we want to institutionalize for years and years to come?

Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend that it could be the case that there is more support for the Republican Party and we ought to be free to get it. If we can get a lot of additional support out there, why should we not be free to get it? I certainly would provide the same opportunity to my friend.

With regard to the North Carolina race, I think my friend from Massachusetts would have to agree he did not pick out a typical race. The North Carolina race in 1984 was, in many re-

spects, a national race. The personalities involved had nationwide identity. It generated a huge amount of interest and support around the country. That is not the typical Senate race. The Senator has picked out clearly an aberration. There has been an increase in spending in recent years.

Another way of looking at it: There has been an increase in the number of people giving and participating in the process. As the Senator from Kentucky has pointed out, the result is, whether the voters choose to participate in greater numbers; as the spending in the races has gone up, the turnout has gone up.

In the one race we have in this country where there is a cap on spending, spending limits, and public funding, the Presidential race, the turnout has gone down, so I do not know that there is any correlation whatsoever between the amount of interest and participation and spending and voter turnout.

Mr. KERRY. But, if you couple-! am not sure that the principal argument here is one that is based on a question of interest. The principal argument, made by this Senator and others, is that we ought to be here doing our work as Senators. We ought to be able to spend more time dealing wi · h the committee meetings that we have difficulty getting to. We ought to be able to be back in our home States, able to participate more in the events in those States rather than having to schedule events in Florida, in California, in those States which have become the principal fundraising centers of the country.

I think, if you look at the dynamics of who is raising money where, there has been a clear increase in the need to reach each of those States and to divert one's energy and time from other efforts. I think that is one of the reasons.

Mr. McCONNELL. If I may, we are on my time.

Mr. KERRY. Let me just finish, if I may. Let me quickly give the second reason. The second is that there is a perception, a very real and strong perception by the American people, that money has an undue influence on this process.

If that perception may not yet have reached a reality in everybody's mind, it is enough of a reality that we need to respond to that. We need to restore people's sense of faith in the process that they feel that it is not really an issue of what money or other that is pushing an issue in the U.S. Congress.

I think that we have a responsibility to respond to that.

Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend that there is a perception out in the country of undue influence, and that is related to the political action committee contributions. The Senator from Oregon and myself have offered

a proposal and we are willing to broaden it. We have offered a proposal to eliminate PAC contributions to candidates and we are willing to broaden that to parties.

Mr. KERRY. Let us have a vote on it.

Mr. McCONNELL. The letters this Senator gets and I hear the letters other Senators get are not crying for spending limits or public financing; they are saying, "Why don't you do something about the PAC's, Senator?" That is the perception out there, that the PAC's are a problem.

With regard to the Senator's other observation that it is time consuming to run for public office, specifically the U.S. Senate, I would say that it is. And the question is, How easy should it be to run for the U.S. Senate? Certainly, under S. 2 it would be fairly easy. One can go out and raise a fairly modest amount of money and get a check from the Teasury for the balance up to the limit.

In a general election, any independent candidate who wants to do the same thing can go out and raise a rather modest amount of money and get a check from the Treasury. Certainly, it would be easy to run for public office under S. 2.

I ask the question of my colleague: Is that a desirable thing? Is that what we want to do? Do we want to make it so easy to run for public office at the taxpayers' expense that we have a proliferation of candidates? I would predict that under S. 2, running for national office is going to be a national pastime. I can see a time when, every morning, somebody looks in the mirror to do their shaving or comb their hair, and says, "By golly, I think I see a U.S. Senator in there; and I am going to go out under S. 2, and try to run at public expense."

Mr. KERRY. I think, as my colleague might know, a lot of people who look in the mirror and see a U.S. Senator, so might a lot of U.S. Senators look in the mirror and see a President. So why should they not?

Mr. McCONNELL. I might say to my friend, all but one. We are on my time--

Mr. KERRY. Well, 99 of them do, anyway. One was not born in this country.

But, if I can speak to the Senator's point, this bill is not going to do that. That is a red herring and the Senator knows it. Because, first of all, there is a threshold amount of money that you have to raise and, in larger States, that is $600,000 or so.

That is a lot of money. Not everybody can go out and raise $600,000 to be able to qualify for the public funding. But more importantly, we are only talking about the general election. We are talking about those who won the nominations of their parties. In order

16128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 to win the nomination of their party they have to first run in a primary, and when they run in the primary, they there have to raise money on their own. They are not covered by public funding. So the notion that somehow this opens up the process to everybody is just false.

I do not think the measurement of whether or not you can run for the U.S. Senate or any other office in this country ought to simply be money. I think that is wrong. There are loads of qualified people who have a lot to offer this country who may not have that choice because they just do not have the easy avenue and the country would be better off I thjnk and the political debate be better off.

We have gone on much longer than the original 3 minutes.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 6 minutes remaining, the Senator from Massachusetts has 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. 1\1cCONNELL. The Senator from Massachusetts will have to proceed further on his own time.

Mr. KERRY. I would like to continue this with my colleague but I have to proceed to a meeting with the leadership to discuss this very issue, but I hope in the course of the debate we will ultimately come back to this. I thank the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would just repeat, as I said earlier, that pockets of compromise are there. The Senator from Oregon and myself have said repeatedly throughout this debate we would be more than happy to sit down and discuss those areas upon which we can agree. We would be happy to talk about eliminating PAC contributions. We would like to talk about the disclosure of soft money. We would like to talk about the disclosure of independent expenditures and on and on an on.

"But so far, unfortunately, Mr. President, those discussions have not occurred so I would urge my colleagues not to invoke cloture on this bill; only cosmetic changes have been made in the bill since the last time we voted on cloture. This is still a public funding bill. It still has enormous exposure of taxpayers' money, and it still clamps down on participation so that those who want to participate in politics by making a contribution will simply not be allowed to do so.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Oregon has approximately 31/2 minutes remaining.

Mr. PACKWOOD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I do not know if this is the third or fourth or fifth or sixth

day that we have now been on this bill. There has yet to be a person who has argued in favor of S. 2 that could honestly respond to the question, "What is wrong with attempting to achieve campaign reform throughand I will define it as two things because these are the only two things you are hearing: One, getting rid of the special interests, however you choose to define them, PAC's or otherwise; and two, bringing campaign spending down-I have yet to find anyone on the other side who supports S. 2 who can answer the question, "Why can this not be done by, one, getting rid of the political action committees, just wipe them out, they cannot give to campaigns, they cannot give to parties, they cannot bundle, period, get rid of them; and two, lower the amount of money that individuals can give?" I do not care if that amount is $500 or $1,000, $300-I prefer $100-but get it down low enough that literally a candidate cannot raise $6 million or $7 million or $8 million or $9 million, or $16 million if that is what was spent in North Carolina, with a $100 contribution limit. The real reason, Mr. President-and everyone knows this on both sides of the aislethat the principal proponents of S. 2 want S. 2 is to get spending limitati<...rls-and I have said this before and I will say it again-so that the minority party, and that is Republicans, can spend no more money than the majority party. And all things being equal, the majority party wins more often than the minority party. Second, Mr. President, all things being equal, incumbents win more often than challengers.

So if you are an incumbent and you are in the majority party, it benefits you to have a bill that says your challenger can spend no more money than you can spend, and especially your minority party challenger can spend no more money than you can spend. You have got better name familiarity; you have been in the Senate, you have 85, 90, 95 percent name familiarity. Your challenger starts out with 10 percent, 15 percent, 29 percent, unless the challenger is the Governor, but that is not the normal situation. You do anything you can do to keep that challenger down, keep that challenger off of television, keep that challenger from getting publicity benefits, and that is what this bill is about.

There is a second benefit to the majority party under S. 2. This bill, if you have spending limitations, does benefit powerful special interest groups that have thousands or hundreds of thousands of members and spend money getting their members out to vote and the organizations happen to be 60, or 70, or 80 percent committed to one party. S. 2, the so-called reform bill, does not cover those organizations, that so-called soft money. It does not

have to be reported. The fact that that might be a nonprofit organization, the fact that it might be a labor union, the fact that it might be a teachers' association, allows them to spend all the money they want getting out their members, contacting other members, contacting others who are not their members to vote for a particular candidate.

Now, Mr. President, it usually happens-not always, but it usually happens-that many of those mass membership organizations have more often tilted toward the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. So you put a campaign limit on the Republicans, which is the minority party, you put a campaign limit on challengers, more than Republican than Democratic because there are more Democratic incumbents, and then you exempt from any spending limits or reporting limits organizations who are working to turn out their members, their members' spouses, their members' children, their members' friends, this being more likely to occur in the majority party, and you have put together a package that is guaranteed to tilt the system as strongly as possible in favor of incumbent Democrats.

Mr. President, that is not fair. It is not fair to the minority party; it is not fair to this country. So I would ask those who really want serious reform to join with Senator McCoNNELL and myself, support a bill that gets rid of PAC contributions altogether. I would ask those who are really serious to join with me and lower the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $100, thereby forcing all of the candidates who go out to raise their money on a very broad basis, from thousands and thousands of people in $10 and $20 and $30 and $40 amounts. That would be good for democracy. But that would take a lot of work, Mr. President. Many of those who support reform do not want to work that hard themselves; they do not mind making the taxpayers work that hard, and we will then just take the taxpayers' money and put it in our campaign pockets and we will not have to work hard collecting $10 and $20 and $30 and $40 from thousands and thousands of people.

That is what this bill is all about, Mr. President. It is not reform. We can get real reform without robbing the taxpayers. We can get real reform without giving so much power to massive membership organizations which will not be required to report or in any other way tell us what they are doing in politics. We can get real reform if we want real reform without tilting this bill so much in one direction that it is all but designed to disenfranchise the minority party.

The majority leader wants to know how long we intend to go on with, as

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16129 he calls them, obstructive tactics. I can only paraphrase Ulysses S. Grant: I am prepared to fight it out on this line all summer if necessary. I like Washington in August.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Oregon has expired.

Mr. PACKWOOD. I thank the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the minority has expired. The majority has a minute and a half remaining.

Does anyone of this side seek time? Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I sug

gest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask


The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. CoNRAD). \Vithout objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. lYRD. Mr. President, I have discussed with the distinguished Senator from Oregon the going forward with the vote and waiving the automatic quorum, and I sense that that may be agreeable.

I ask unanimous consent that the automatic quorum be waived.


The hour of 5 p.m. having arrived, under the previous order the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

The legislative clerk read as follows: CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on the committee substitute for S. 2, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for a voluntary system of spending limits and partial public financing of Senate general election campaigns, to limit contributions by multicandidate political committees, and for other purposes.

Senators Spark Matsunaga, David Boren, Daniel P. Moynihan, Wendell Ford, Alan Cranston, Kent Conrad, Carl Levin, Wyche Fowler, Jr., Terry Sanford, Tom Harkin, Paul Sarbanes, Jim Sasser, Patrick J. Leahy, Barbara A. Mikulski, John Kerry, and Donald Riegle.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the committee substitute for S. 2, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, shall be brought to a close?

The yeas and nays are automatic under the rule, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that

the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BIDEN], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GoRE], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. SIMON], are necessarily absent.

I further announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. LEAHY] is absent on official business.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GoRE] would vote "yea."

Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Nevada [Mr. HECHT] is necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?

The yeas and nays resulted-yeas 49, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.] YEAS-49

Adams Dodd Mitchell Baucus Ex on Moynihan Bentsen Ford Nunn Bingaman Fowler Pell Boren Glenn Proxmire Bradley Graham Pryor Breaux Harkin Reid Bumpers Inouye Riegle Burdick Johnston Rockefeller Byrd Kennedy Sanford Chafee Kerry Sarbanes Chiles Lautenberg Sasser Conrad Levin Stafford Cranston Matsunaga Stennis Daschle Melcher Wirth DeConcini Metzenbaum Dixon Mikulski

NAYS-46 Armstrong Heflin Quayle Bond Heinz Roth Boschwitz Helms Rudman Co· 11ran Hollings Shelby Cot.cn Humphrey Simpson D 'Amato Karnes Specter Danforth Kassebaum Stevens Dole Kasten Symms Domenici Lugar Thurmond Duren berger McCain Trible Evans McClure Wallop Garn McConnell Warner Gramm Murkowski Weicker Grassley Nickles Wilson Hatch Packwood Hatfield Pressler

NOT VOTING-5 Biden Hecht Simon Gore Leahy

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 46, three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.

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

majority leader. Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President,

may we have order? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senate will be in order. It we could withhold conversation, please, so that we can hear the majority leader.

The majority leader.

CLOTURE MOTION Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send a

cloture motion to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report the motion. The legislative clerk read as follows:

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby

move to bring to a close debate on the committee substitute for S. 2, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for a voluntary system of spending limits and partial public financing of Senate general election campaigns, to limit contributions by multicandidate political committees, and for other purposes.

Senators Robert C. Byrd, Donald Riegle, Tom Daschle, Bill Proxmire. Max Baucus, David Boren, Timothy H. Wirth, Daniel K. Inouye, Claiborne Pell, Spark Matsunaga, Harry Reid, Lawton Chiles, Brock Adams, John D. Rockefeller, Terry Sanford, Alan Cranston, and Wyche Fowler.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate first went to this bill on Wednesday, June 3. That was 2 weeks ago tomorrow. There has been no inclination-Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.

Mr. BYRD. I want Senators to hear what I am going to try to say to the Senate. Perhaps there will be a better understanding of what we have ahead of us.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will Senators halt conversations so we can hear the majority leader?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as I was saying, the Senate went to this bill on June 3, 2 weeks ago Wednesday, tomorrow. There has been no inclination on the part of the leadership to push the Senate toward cloture. This is only the second cloture vote we have had. I thought it best to engage in debate on this bill-it is a very important billand I know there are feelings on both sides that are strong. But, Mr. President, we have had good debate on the bill. As I say, I did not, as so often we have done in years past, bring up a bill and immediately put a cloture motion on it or put a cloture motion on it the next day. I have felt that this is a matter that ought to be aired, that ought to be debated, and we have had good debate. This is only the second cloture vote.

However, Mr. President, we are going to be having cloture votes daily. The matter has now been before the country for 2 weeks. It is not going to go away. The matter is vitally important to this institution and it is vitally important that we make up our minds that the Senate is going to work its will on this bill.

There will be a cloture vote this Friday. We had four absentees on our side today. I knew there would be absentees today. But those four absentees, had they been here, would have voted for cloture. We got 49 votes and that would have been 53 votes-still not enough.

There are times that there are measures on which I am careful to say,

16130 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 "Well, we do not want to have a cloture vote on that day because we will drop one or two votes because we have some absentees."

Mr. President, that is not the case here. If we have absentees, those who are here will still vote, and the people will know who is not voting because the people more and more and more have their attention drawn to this issue. It is an idea whose time has come. We cannot fail just because of those who, utilizing their rights under the rules-and I do not quarrel with that-intend just to wear down this Senate and obstruct it and stop it and not let it vote on this matter.

We also cannot stand here and say that we really are for campaign finance reform on the one hand and say, on the other hand that we are against campaign expenditure limitations. The two just are at odds with one another. We cannot have real reform, genuine reform, effective, meaningful reform on the one hand, if we say on the other hand, "But, but, but, b1 , t-. there must be no spending limitations."

That will not wash and the American people know that. They know we h ave a problem. They know something has to be done about it and we know something has to be done about it.

So, Mr. President, there will be a cloture vote tomorrow, and I have asked the distinguished Republican leader if '.t is agreeable to vote about 5 o'clock.

On Thursday, there will be another cloture vote and there will be a cloture vote on Friday.

We are to the point now where we close the Senate down 1 day a week so that the Senators can go out and raise money. It is a money chase. We have already closed the Senate down 1 day a week for several months. We are fast getting to the point where we are not going to have votes on Tuesdays until the twilight falls, and not going to have votes on Fridays after 10 or 11 o'clock in the morning. That will get us down to where we are going to be in session only on Wednesdays and Thursdays and half days or less on Tuesdays and Fridays.

I think it time that we draw the line and say for the sake of this institution, and for the sake of representative democracy, we have to do something about this money problem. There is a scandal out there waiting to happen. We all know that it is coming sooner or later. It is almost a scandal now when Senators have to leave their work and leave their families and to out all over this country and live out of suitcases, running from one airport to another trying to raise money in order that they can stay in public service. Many of us are dedicated to public service. I have been in public service for 41 years and I do not want to get out of it yet because I think I still have a lot to offer to the people in my

State and to the people of this country.

So if there are Senators who have an idea that this is just going to go away, I would like to debunk that idea right here and now, and to the people on the outside who are helping in this cause, I hope they will redouble their efforts, redouble their efforts, because we are going to be on this bill for awhile. I am not in a big hurry to take it down, but I do want to reach a vote on it. There will be a cloture vote on Friday. Who knows, we may be back here Saturday.

We have been here many times · on Saturdays in the past.

We have had plenty of debate. We have only had two cloture votes. Nobody can accuse me of having tried to shut off debate early. I will be happy to reach an agreement now or at any time to vote on the pending substitute to the committee substitute-to vote on it tomorrow.

I thank Senators for listening. I now would ask the distinguished Republican leader if we can agree to vote on the cloture motion tomorrow at 5 o'clock.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I pose a question to the majority leader?

Mr. BYRD. Yes. l\1:r. MURKOWSKI. I would respect

fully remind the majority leader that this weekend is Fathers Day, which is very significant, particularly for those of us who live a long distance. I have to travel for 13 hours. I intend to attempt to be home with my family for Fathers Day. I wonder if the leader could perhaps accommodate the Friday vote to coincide with the only nonstop airplane schedule across the country. I would again respectfully remind him, in fact, that Fathers Day is very important, as is the cloture matter before the Senate. I would appreciate whatever consideration he could give. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. He mentioned a very persuasive point. When he talks about Fathers Day, that touches us all. Every day is Fathers Day. What I am trying to do is make it possible for fathers to stay home with their families and childern and grandfathers to stay home with their families and their grandchildren a little more often each year, not just on 1 day alone.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on cloture occur tomorrow at 5 p.m.


Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to yield to the Republican leader and then I would like to put the Senate into morning business and go out for the day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to the distinguished majority leader. I know he feels strongly about this particular legislation, but I think, as he has correctly observed, there are others who feel just as strongly on the other side. There is fundamental difference of opinion on how we should finance our campaigns.

I just say, if there is a groundswell out there, the American people demanding that we pay for our campaigns with their taxes, it has not reached my office yet. Maybe, since the American people have raised our pay this year, now we are going to finance our campaigns and that may be what the American people want.

I did have many good letters on the pay raise, but I have not gotten any flood of mail saying "I can hardly wait to pay more taxes so we can fund your campaign for the U.S. Senate." I think that is the fundamental difference.

I would also say, as a Republican, we are trying to build our party in certain parts of this country, and putting on a campaign expenditure limit is, in effect, putting a brake on our growth in certain parts of this country. It may not be intended, but that is going to be the result.

So there are a couple of fundamental differences between many of us on this side and many on the other side. I hope that we would go back and dust off the so-called Boren-Goldwater bill of last year. It did not say anything about public financing. I do not know where public financing .crept into it. But there are a number of Senators on this side, I think most every Senator on this side, willing to sit down and try to talk about campaign reform.

The majority leader is right: We are spending too much money. Why not limit the amount political action com- . mittees can give? That is one way to reduce the amount of spending. That was in last year's bill, but surprisingly, it is not in the Democratic proposal now. It has been replaced with public financing. Get all the PAC money you can but also get some public financing.

Soft money ought to be disclosed. It ought to be limited if you are going to limit everything else. Phone banks; labor leaders move in with paid help. Not many are working on this side of the aisle. That is not touched in that bill and I do not think the American people are going to believe for very long that this is designed for the goodness of everybody in this Chamber. It is an assault on the Republican Party. It is an assault on the American taxpayer. And we are sorry, we cannot vote for cloture.

If there is a real interest in compromise, OK. I get as frustrated as the majority leader, with a lot of other things waiting to be done, and I commend him for all the things he has

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16131 done. There is hardly anything on the calendar as far as I know. It is clean.

That is why we can take this kind of time, because we have been so cooperative on this side, that we can take up this business. He has all this extra time that we can spend on cloture votes for campaign finance reform. For that, I compliment my colleagues on this side of the aisle. But we are going to continue that.

This morning at about 11 o'clock, the majority leader was able to get unanimous consent to put all the trade bill together and bring it out at any time he wishes and we want to cooperate with the leadership. Without it, it would be chaos.

But I must say for nearly every Republican and some Democrats, that there is a fundamental differenceand I know Common Cause is out there-but they do not say very explicitly that this is public financing that is coming from taxpayers. They say, well, we are going to treat this like Presidential races. I am not certain how many people know how we treat Presidential races. But, if you put this question to the American people, Do you want your tax money to be spent for everybody running for Congress, I would bet the answer would be no. And that is a very fundamental difference between many in this Chamber and others in this Chamber.

I would just say, trying to be very candid, we would like to be the majority party someday. Truly the majority party. If we start accepting expenditure limitations in certain parts of this country, primarily the South, it is never going to happen. You can talk about ideas and the merits; you are not kidding anybody in politics. You have to spend more money to get out your ideas. You have to spend more money to get people to the polls, particularly in one-party States. A lot of support for this bill is coming from one-party States.

So, if we want to talk about campaign finance reform, we are prepared but, as I have indicated to the majority leader is a private note the other day, we had a caucus and they voted. They said there are only three things that separate us from agreement: public financing, expenditure limits, and applying to Senators and not applying to House Members.

Why would we pass a bill in the Senate that did not apply to the House? Talk about chaos; if we are going to have one set of rules and the House will have another set of rules, I am not certain what would happen. We would have a lot of House Members probably running for the Senate. Maybe that would be helpful.

In any event, we will be here tomorrow, Thursday, and Friday; I hope not Saturday. We were planning a little outing Saturday. It is called a retreat.

We have been doing a lot of retreating since last November on this side.

[Laughter.] So we are going to go off to Wil

liamsburg on Saturday and reflect on how to retake the Senate and other things. But if there is a cloture vote, we would have to be here.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the distinguished minority leader yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the Senator yield to me first for a question? I did not want to interrupt him.

Mr. DOLE. I yield, Mr. President, to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. BYRD. The distinguished minority leader has touched me by what he has said, and we will not have a session on Saturday, because I would not want to stop the distinguished Republican leader and his party from retreating.

[Laughter.] Mr. DOLE. It is only for a day. [Laughter.] Mr. BYRD. Well, I speak seriously,

not facetiously. We will not interfere with the leader's retreat.

But, while the distinguished Republican leader is in this gracious and cooperative mood-and he is in such a mood because he referred to our agreeing this morning to take up the trade bill at some point after consultati<.. n between the two leaders-could we get the same kind of agreement now on the defense authorization bill, that we could take it up by unanimous consent; that the majority leader could take it up at any time after consultation with the distinguished leader on the other side?

Mr. DOLE. Let me say to the majority leader, let me explore that with the members of the committee. That is where it was initiated in the last instance. Those are the only two items about which we really have any disagreement. As far as I know we have had a couple of other minor disagreements, but I know they are major bills and they must be addressed. I am not certain this should be addressed, but DOD should be addressed. Maybe we could substitute DOD for this legislation.

I would be happy to check that and report to the majority leader in the morning.

Mr. BYRD. Very well; I thank the distinguished Republican leader.

May I just say one thing further, if the distinguished leader will yield?

The distinguished leader speaks of public financing aspects of this bill. The taxpayers have been financing Presidential elections for quite some time now. Mr. Reagan has been one of those who has taken the greatest advantage of the tax checkoff, the public financing of Presidential elections.

May I say to my good friend [Mr. DOLE] that I would not be at all surprised to see him on the ticket next year as the standard-bearer for the

GOP. If he is that standard bearer, I daresay that he probably will be very eager to accept the public financing that is now provided through the tax checkoff. I do not blame him; I would do so as well.

So I hope that we will not be persuaded, too much, by those who protest loudly about public financing, about what all this is going to cost the taxpayers, when, in fact, the taxpayers already do this voluntarily, in the case of Presidential elections. They would also do the tax checkoff voluntarily in the case of senatorial races.

But I think the real, the real raw nerve here is not so much public financing, but it is that of putting a limitation on campaign spending, and I hope that we can get down to that in the next few days. That is where the real problem is.

I thank the distinguished Republican leader.

Mr. DOLE. Let me just respond. I remember when we passed the

other checkoff we were told it was a unique office because all the American taxpayers were potentially voters for the President. That is why we should take this one little step, because of that importance. If somebody repeals it, that would be all right with me. But that was the argument at that time. We are not asking for any other office.

I would have to go back and check the RECORD and find out for certain, but I remember the argument being that the President of the United States represents all the people and therefore we can justify dipping into the Treasury for this one race. But now we are talking about thousands of races. I do not know where we stop once we start down the line. The bill has limitations as to how many people can qualify. Again, maybe the American people will focus on this issue in the next couple weeks-! do not see it. And I have been out there talking to people as much as I can. I do not get many questions on it. They say, "Are you for campaign reform?" And I say, "Yes." Then I say, "Are you for public financing, I mean the taxpayers paying for my race?" And they say, "No." I think there is a lot of confusion about what is really going on.

But I do not want to be the wet blanket. I am an optimist. It seems to me there is still an opportunity for us to have 90 votes for some bill out of this body. That is what we discussed earlier this morning, if there is some way to do that, and I do not wish to break all the china. We are open. I know the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has worked months and months and months. But there are a couple of fundamental differences and maybe sooner or later there will be enough erosion on this side that cloture would be invoked. However, as yet I do not see that happening.

16132 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 I will be happy to yield to the Sena

tor from Iowa. Mr. HARKIN. I thank the distin

guished minority leader for yielding. I do not mean to mingle in the minority leader's party. We have enough problems of our own. But I know the distinguished minority leader has spent a lot of time out in my State of Iowa and has some interest out there.

Mr. DOLE. I have not been there since Friday, Saturday.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator will probably be there next Saturday, too, and a lot more times. I have a feeling the distinguished minority leader is interested in helping us with a rather reasoned program. He might want to just check with the Iowans as to how they feel about this issue. In all of the town meetings that I have out therea lot of Republicans come to these meetings, too-it is all how you put it. If it is a voluntary checkoff, where they voluntarily check off on their taxes, yes, they are for it because at least then they can say yes or no. I have fr • md overwhelming support out in Iowa among people in both political parties for, No. 1, a limit on campaign financing, to limit the amount of money spent on campaigns, and, secondly, for this checkoff. I hope the distinguished minority leader might tap that out in Iowa and take a look at it as he travels around. It might be the source of some great strength for support out there.

Mr. DOLE. As the Senator knows, I am looking for great strength and support or even weak strength and support. I will take anything I can find. But it would be a little better if it was money put in by the taxpayer voluntarily-let the IRS be the collection agency but not take it out of the Treasury. If I have coming a refund of $436, and I want to put a dollar in the pot, then that would be a little different public financing. But the other way around it comes right out of the Treasury.

I appreciate the offer of assistance of the distinguished Senator from Iowa. Anything the Senator can do to help me will be appreciated.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to leave the room.

Mr. BOREN. I hope he will not because I would like to ask him a question. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOLE. Yes. Mr. BOREN. I say to the distin

guished minority leader I have been very encouraged by the comments he has made about the willingness to try to work to see if we can come up with something. I understand the reluctance to move to public financing and in fact in this latest proposal that we offered at the end of last week we cut the amount of public financing involved to a maximum possible public

contribution of only 24 percent of the combined primary and general election limit. Dropping it down was a signal from this side that we are certainly willing to enter into negotiations on that matter. I would have to say in all candor the thing that has discouraged me the most thus far has been the indication ·that we could not at least put on the table discussion of some campaign spending limits, or the concept of campaign spending limits because in a way to say we are willing to talk apout campaign reform but we are not willing to talk about any kind of constraint on overall spending is sort of like saying you can go swimming, but you cannot go near the water.

I understand what the Senator from Kansas has said; there are some States where one party has been at a disadvantage for a long time; that happens to both parties in certain States, or an incumbent is well entrenched, an<.l the challenger has to certainly have an opportunity to spend an adequate amount of money to get his or her story out, to say what they are for, to have a chance. Would the Senator agree that there is at least some point where you finally reach an amount that is simply so enormous that it is not good for the system to spend it? I de not know what that point is. We have gone from $600,000 up to $3 million. Is that point $3 million? Is it $5 million? Is it $6 million? Is it $50 million? At some point in time philosophically there must be some limit. I ask the distinguished minority leader, would he be willing to at least explore that possibility of some outer limits, if we did it in the context of making certain that the limits were high enough that they would not prevent someone who is starting out as a challenger, starting out at a disadvantage from a party point of view, from having an opportunity to raise an adequate amount of money? Is it a possibility that we could at least look at the question of some outer limits, if we did it within the context of making certain--

Mr. DOLE. I speak for myself. I hope so. It seems to me there have to be some limits. But in some States the registration is 9 to 1 against Republicans, though many Democrats might vote Republican, but to participate in primaries they have to be Democrats, and they may have different views on Senate races and Presidential races. There is a built-in disadvantage. You can have all the brilliant ideas you want and you can have all the merits and you can have the best candidate but you have to climb a pretty high mountain to overcome a 5-to-1, 4-to-1, 3-to-1, even a 2-to-1 margin. It may not be intended that way, but that is precisely the result if we start putting caps on expenditures. It in effect kills the Republican Party in some of these

States for a long, long time. I think if there is some way to avoid that-! think spending $16 million a side is a lot of money, or $12 million a side in California, or 11 and 12, or 11 and 10; $3 million is a lot of money in my State. So the answer is yes.

Mr. BOREN. I say again I am very encouraged by the minority leader's answer because it is certainly not our intent, and in fact when we first introduced this bill we talked about the fact that if you set limits which were too low you could discourage a challenger, you could make it difficult for a challenger to be able to have an adequate opportunity to state his or her case, especially going against an incumbent who has had the ability to have a lot of publicity, newsletters, mailings over a period of time, the franking privilege, and the rest. But I hope that we could at least explore this idea. Senator Goldwater has indicated in the past that what bothered him more than anything else as he was leaving the Senate was the amount of money that he had to spend to get elected.

We do have aggregate PAC limits in this bill that we have introduced. It is very, very similar to the bill that Senator Goldwater and I introduced in that regard last year and the year before. I hope that at least within reasonable bounds, making it possible for those parties that are in the minority in a particular State or those that are in the challenger situation to raise sufficient amounts of money to get their case out, at least theoretically there are some outer limits, be it to raise in an extreme case-certainly you should not have to spend $50 million in a small State to have an opportunity to get your side out-that could be set that would be fair, that would still constrain this runaway increase that we have seen over the last decade, and I am encouraged by the Senator's answer.

MORNING BUSINESS Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, not to extend beyond 30 minutes, and that Senators be permitted to speak therein for not to exceed 5 minutes each.

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

WALTER HELLER Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to

take just one moment to extend my condolences to the family of Walter Heller, the noted economist, who died Monday night.

In addition to a distinguished career in academia, Walter Heller spent

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16133 many years in Government service-as Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and as a Governor of the Federal Reserve Board.

Although he was associated with democratic administrations, his concept of cutting taxes in order to stimulate economic growth, has become bipartisan-and a foundation of President Reagan's economic policy.

Walter Heller testified before the Finance Committee many times when I served as chairman. His insights and experience were always welcome and respected, and we send our condolences to his family.

NO MORE MAVERICKS OR. F-15's Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, the

Reagan administration has notified Congress that it intended to sell Saudi Arabia 1,600 Maverick-D missiles, which I understand have never been sold to any other country. These Maverick-D missiles, which have infrared capabilities, would give the Saudis an increaE · d ability to fly 24 hours a day. Consequently, this would greatly improve the Saudi offensive operations and resources. Moreover, this would significantly increase the defensive requirements of Israel. In addition, Saudi Arabia does not deserve these missiles in light of their continued opposition to United States interests in the Middle East. However, the President said last week that he was reconsidering this proposal. Let me quote from his statement:

I deeply regret the necessity, temporarily, to withdraw the proposal to sell moderate Maverick air-to-ground missiles to Saudi Arabia because of strong congressional opposition.

Mr. President, I point out that President Reagan is carefully selecting his words on this subject. The key word in his statement is "temporarily." The administration has also discussed the possibility of selling the Saudis 12 to 15, F-15 fighters. I have introduced a resolution of disapproval, along with Senators LAUTENBERG, CRANSTON, WILSON, D'AMATO, DURENBERGER, DIXON, and WEICKER, on this potential sale, and quite frankly, I am concerned that the President may now try to sell a hybrid package of Mavericks and F-15's to the Saudis.

I strongly recommend to my colleagues that we carefully monitor the administration's activities in regard to future arms sales to Saudi Arabia. We should be concerned about any and all possible sales proposed by this administration to Saudi Arabia.

DISLOCATED WORKERS Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President,

the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee has filed its report on S. 538, the Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance

Act. This legislation, approved with bipartisan support, is the biggest Federal effort to help dislocated workers in this Nation's history. The bill will come to the floor within the next few weeks.

Since 1981, over 11 million hardworking American men and women have lost their jobs in plant closings across this country. American workers in the prime of their lives with families to support are out of jobs and in need of help.

My bill responds to that need. It provides nearly $1 billion per year for retraining and readjustment services. Hundreds of thousands of dislocated workers will benefit from this Federal assistance. American men and women will have a chance at a better life through new careers and job opportunities.

But their best chance is if they get help before they lose their jobs, before the plant shuts its gates. If we can reach these workers early enough, we can help them find new jobs by the time the plant closes and at the same time save hundreds of millions of dollars in unemployment insurance.

That is one reason why this bill requires employers to give workers and the community at large at least 90 days advance notice of a plant closing. Bt,t a more basic reason is that mandatory advance notice is simply a matter of fundamental common decency.

That is why I do not understand the controversy that has arisen because of the advance notice provision. Let us look at the facts. Is it right for an employer to give only 7 days notice to its loyal workers whose sweat and effort have generated the firm's profits and paid the executives' high salaries? Of course it is not, but 7 days notice is the national average for blue-collar workers. Is it right for a business to give 14 days notice of a closing to its management personnel who have directed the operations of a company? Of course, it is not, but 14 days notice is the national average for white-collar workers. Is it right for companies to tell unorganized workers who have given their all to the employer that they will be out of a job with a mere 2 days notice-2 days notice and the plant is going to be closed? Of course, it is not right; in fact, it is shameful, but nonunion bluecollar workers in this country get an average of 2 days notice.

Who do these employers think they are? Do they own the world? Does the world owe them a living? You cannot treat people like machines that you use up and throw away. Loyal and productive workers must have time to adjust and retrain for a new career or begin to line up a new job.

Some opponents have argued that madatory notice is unfair government interference and would discourage companies from taking risks in the

future. What about the risks communities took when they gave companies tax exemptions, new roads, free sewer hookups and other incentives to open plants? The champions of free enterprise did not complain about government interference when these communities gave them the financial help they were seeking. Why should not the communities that helped these plants open and then invested in their future be given the chance to prepare for the hardship of their departure?

Mandatory notice will not be a burden for companies. Canada has mandatory notice and it has worked well. The congressional Office of Technology Assessment studied the Canadian experience and it reports no loss in productivity at the plants during the notice period.

We are not telling companies they must stay open. We are not telling them they must consult with their employees before they leave. We are telling them only that they owe their employees and their communities a chance to make it without them.

I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Ohio has yielded the floor.

The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me.

SYRIA THREATENS LEBANON'S DEMOCRACY

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about developments over the past few days in Lebanon and about the lack of a coherent and forceful American policy in support of President Amine Gemayel and Lebanese democracy.

The United States should support, through timely and effective action, the continuation of Lebanese democratic institutions in the face of a brutal occupation by Syrian and Iranian troops. There is no substitute at this time for tangible assistance to the constitutional armed forces of Lebanon in order to maintain democratic processes and to afford a measure of stability in this war torn nation.

Mr. President, while our attention has been diverted to the Persian Gulf, in the eastern Mediterranean Sea we now confront a situation in which Syria is poised to take advantage of American preoccupation with gulf affairs in order to crush Lebanon's constitutional democracy. In the wake of the assassination of Prime Minister Rashid Karami on June 1, which reliable observers believe to have been arranged by Syria itself, Lebanon stands at yet another crossroad in her ancient struggle for democracy and sovereign independence.

16134 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 The acting Prime Minister, who is

pro-Syrian, has called for the resignation of President Gemayel. The Speaker of Parliament, under Syrian pressure, has resigned his position and Syria has threatened the lives of potential replacements. Because the acting Prime Minister, following Syrian instructions, refuses to have the cabinet conduct business on a caretaker basis, there is no government. Because the Speaker of the House has resigned, Parliament cannot conduct its business. President Gemayel, therefore, has been isolated in the constitutional succession with no legal successor should he, through Syrian intervention, be assassinated or forced to resign. In effect, then, the Government of Lebanon is paralyzed today.

In light of this artificial political vacuum created by Syria, we must ask ourselves whether Syria will unleash drastic actions in the coming days and weeks to destroy Lebanese sovereignty and independence. There is widespread fear in Lebanon that Syria will. Such ,. "tion could even include the forcible removal of President Gemayel from office as well as the use of major military force. Just last week, there was a rock-at attack against the Presidential Palace.

I would remind Senators that Lebanon is the oldest democracy in the Middle East. While under the French mandate established after World War I, Lebanon had its first presidential and parliamentary elections in 1926. In 1943, with the assistance of the United States, Lebanon became a fully sovereign and independent country. Throughout this period, the people of Lebanon have been committed to constitutional democracy.

Mr. President, democracy in Lebanon has very ancient roots. In fact, before even the Greeks, there were democratic institutions in Phoenician cities such as Tyre, Byblos, and Sidon. According to tradition, while these cities had Kings they also had elected senates. Among the greatest supporters of democratic institutions was King Hiram who did so much to consolidate democracy in Tyre in addition to providing his neighbor Solomon with cedar for the construction of the temple.

On May 21 of last year, I spoke in some detail about Syrian expansionism in the Middle East and about its support of international terrorism. At that time, I drew Senators' attention to the Syrian imperial concept of a "Greater Syria" which in the minds of Syrian expansionists includes not only present day Syria but also Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, parts of Cyprus, and parts of Turkey. Today, Syria threatens to expand its occupation of Lebanon and threatens to actually seize power directly in Lebanon by destroying the constitutional government and democratic processes.

Mr. President, under the Lebanese Constitution elections for the Presidency, which are conducted by the Parliament, are to occur in August 1988. It is feared that the situation in Lebanon over the past few days, however, may lead to a direct Syrian takeover of Lebanon. Today, there is no Prime Minister in Lebanon and there is no Speaker of the Parliament owing to extraordinary Syrian pressure. Additionally, Syria through a number of channels...:...including the temporary acting Prime Minister who is proSyrian, Dr. Salim Hoss-is trying to force President Gemayel to resign.

There are some 40,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon including about 7,000 in Beirut. This outright Syrian occupation of large parts of Lebanon has not proven to be a positive contribution to Lebanese democracy. It is a brutal intervention and occupation and nothing more. Any hope that Syria could play a positive role in Lebanon has been long proven unrealistic by events. In fact, Assad's minority Alawite dictatorship in Syria cannot afford a flourishing and prosperous democracy in Lebanon because it sets an example for Syrians who want democracy in their own country. It will always be a maxim of Assad's and his supporters' policy to create chaos in Lebanon in or ier to prepare the way for outright annexation into a so-called "Greater Syria."

Mr: President, a short chronology of key events in Lebanon over the past week is instructive. On June 1, the Prime Minister, Rashid Darami was assassinated. While he was a proSyrian politician in Lebanon close to the Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Kaddam, nonetheless, informed observers believe that he was killed on the order of Syria. This fits into the pattern of brutal intimidation, including assassination, which Syria has used in Lebanon to exercise its influence over events.

On the same day, President Gemayel designated Dr. Salim Hoss as the acting Prime Minister and requested Dr. Hoss to represent him at the Karami funeral in northern Lebanon in the town of Tripoli.

On June 3, the Karami funeral took place. Shortly after attending the funeral, the Syrian Vice President Khaddam summoned Muslim and proSyrian leaders to a meeting in Tripoli. Included in the meeting were the acting Prime Minister, the Speaker of Parliament Hussein Husseiny, the Grand Mufti, Soviet ally Walid Jumblatt, and other influential figures.

According to reliable information, the Syrian Vice President berated the Lebanese leaders for supporting President Gemayel and reminded them that Syria had stepped up its pressure to unseat the President. Additionally, Khaddam threatened the leaders if they continued their support. Khad-

dam is well known as a fanatic partisan of the so-called "Greater Syria" concept.

The practical results of this policy of intimidation were that the Speaker of the Parliament resigned and the position remains vacant. Also, the acting Prime Minister, following the Syrian line, broke off the dialog that had started with President Gemayel and called upon President Gemayel to step down immediately even though the Lebanese Constitution calls for elections next year. A number of influential Lebanese leaders have received death threats in recent days directly in telephone calls from high Syrian Government officials.

Mr. President, in addition to Syrian operations in Lebanon, I would point out the very significant Iranian military and paramilitary presence. It is no secret that Khomeini has several thousand Iranian revolutionary guards, Pasadaran, stationed in the Bekaa Valley which is under Syrian control. It is no secret that Khomeini has an extensive terrorist infrastructure established in Lebanon. It is also no secret that Khomeini supporters in Lebanon have called for the establishment of an "Islamic Republic" in Lebanon modeled on the Tehran regime.

I would point out that Khomeini sees the south of Lebanon as a stepping stone for his planned war to conquer Jerusalem. In fact, Khomeini uses Lebanon as an arena of direct confrontation with the United States through kidnaping and bomb attacks. Khomeini then turns his successes in Lebanon into internal propaganda campaigns in Iran to show that his revolution can confront the United States with impunity.

Mr. President, Lebanon represents a barometer of American policy in the Middle East. All eyes in the Middle East focus on Lebanon for an indication of the direction of American policy and for an indication of American commitment and leadership in the Middle East. As the oldest democracy in the Middle East and the oldest friend of the United States in the Middle East, America simply cannot abandon Lebanon to the terrorist Syrian regime and its expansionist policies.

The policy of the United States with respect to Lebanon should be squarely based upon the maintenance of the sovereignty and independence of the country. This means that all foreign forces should be removed from Lebanon. In this respect the Department of State has a disgraceful record of double dealing. Officially, we classify Syria as a terrorist sponsoring state. Yet, while the State Department publicly talks about Lebanese sovereignty, behind the scenes the State Department coddles the Syrian dictatorship and its Soviet sponsors. The Depart-

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16135 ment of State should be ordered to drop this policy toward Syria.

There are some 33,000 troops in the constitutional armed forces of Lebanon. They constitute a highly trained and capable professional force. However, they are hard pressed for adequate modern supplies. The United States should make such supplies available on an urgent emergency basis. I would remind Senators that there are some 40,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon who have over 1,500 top-of-the-line Soviet main battletanks at their disposal not to mention other heavy weaponry.

I am deeply concerned about proposals for the partition of Lebanon between Syria and Israel. Such proposals are completely unacceptable from an American point of view. The United States must never be a party, directly or indirectly, to any arrangement which partitions Lebanon. Israel should recognize the obvious fact that it needs strategic depth and that this can only be achieved by having moderate states as neighbors. Partitioning Lebanc"1 would only bring Syria permanently closer to Israeli territory posing an even more serious threat to the long-term security of Israel.

Mr. President, as for Iranian involvment in Lebanese affairs, it is clear that Khomeini has chosen to use Lebanon as an arena of confrontation against the United States. The United States must, therefore, meet the Iranian challenge directly and head on in Lebanon. To do otherwise severely undermines our credibility in the region. If our credibility is undermined then our ability to promote peace is undermined.

Hasn't the Khomeini regime been directly responsible for the kidnaping and murder of numerous American citizens? Wasn't the Khomeini regime directly responsible for blowing up our Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon? Wasn't the Khomeini regime directly responsible for the TWA 847 highjacking? Wasn't the Khomeini regime responsible for the bomb attack against our Embassy in Lebanon? What more reason do we need for replying to an endless train of Iranian insults with lethal force?

Mr. President, there is no question in my mind that an effective and severe blow to Khomeini's international and domestic position would be an immediate and forceful policy of support for the constitutional Government and democratic processes in Lebanon. The first step would be to assist the constitutional Government of Lebanon in its efforts to exclude all forms of Iranian influence in Lebanon including Khomeini's military and paramilitary forces in Lebanon. This means they must clean up West Beirut. This means we must provide the Government with proper military equipment. By providing the constitutional Armed Forces of Lebanon with

the necessary equipment to clean up West Beirut we will concretely assist in the war against terrorism.

To date, the United States, in spite of oceans of rhetoric out of "Foggy Bottom" has yet to respond effectively to Iranian terrorism against private American citizens as well as military and diplomatic personnel in Lebanon. Our primary response should be directed against the Iranian presence in Lebanon. We can do this, as I have said, by immediately giving substantial military supplies to bolster the constitutional armed forces of Lebanon. They can then get on with the job of cleaning up Beirut. They do not need any American troops to assist them.

The United States should put its full weight behind President Gemayel with concrete actions. President Gemayel has bent every effort to resist Syrian and Iranian pressures but, lacking full United States support, there are limits to the President's ability to continue this course.

As I stated earlier, Lebanon is in a state of political paralysis. There is no working Prime Minister and no working caretaker cabinet government. There is no Speaker of Parliament and Parliament is, therefore, not able to conduct its business. The only remnant of Lebanese democracy that exists in today's crisis is President Gemayel himself as the duly elected constitutional President. He is the last remaining symbol of democracy in Lebanon and as such the United States must lend him full support.

The most significant action that could be taken at this time to support Lebanese democracy would be to provide immediate delivery of emergency military supplies for Lebanon's constitutional armed forces. In addition, the United States should make it clear to Syria that we will not tolerate any further interference in internal Lebanese affairs which would destroy its constitutional order and sovereign independence.

It is time that the United States undertake a major diplomatic initiative aimed at the removal of all foreign troops from Lebanese soil. Unfortunately, many observers believe that the United States Ambassador in Beirut, Mr. Kelly, has lost most of his credibility with the people of Lebanon owing to his involvement in the Iran affair. We need to have an Ambassador in Lebanon who has credibility.

Mr. President, the preservation of the sovereign independence of Lebanon and the preservation of Lebanon's constitutional democracy must be a fundamental principle of American policy in the Middle East. We must not abandon the people of Lebanon to a reign of terror under Syria and Iran. We must not avoid our historic responsibilities and our past commitments to support a democratic Lebanon.

THE TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY-SOURCE OF HOPE FOR THE FUTURE Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I would

like to take this time to address the Senate and bring to its attention a very important matter. Various articles have appeared in many national newspapers which have condemned the economic worth and future potential of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. It seems to me a bit premature for these journalists to decry this project since this waterway has only been in operation for 2 years.

Water resource projects such as the Tennessee-Tombigbee are authorized by the U.S. Congress on the basis of a 50-year life, yielding both physical and economic returns. These projects are not expected to be short-term investments because they will generate benefits to the Nation through several generations.

Notwithstanding that the Tenn-Tom was completed only 2 years ago, these news stories have already predicted failure for this project. This conclusion is not only premature and unfounded but totally misrepresents the long-term value of the waterway.

NEGATIVE IMPACT OF ADVERSE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

In light of today's eonomic conditions, the Tenn-Tom could not have opened for business at a more inopportune time. Waterways typically transport bulk-type goods such as coal and grain. These kinds of commodities have suffered the most from our inability to compete in overseas markets. Global economic conditions have also greatly hindered production capabilities of U.S. manufacturers of heavy goods such as steel, chemicals, and paper products. In better economic times, these manufacturers would take full advantage of the opportunities provided by the Tenn-Tom Waterway, and I believe that you will see an increase in traffic on the waterway as our trade deficit shrinks and as we become more competitive overseas.

Even in the face of these factors which have impact.ed negatively on the traffic of all waterways TennTom's commerce has steadily grown. The waterway's commercial traffic for 1986 was double that of 1985, the waterway's first year of operation. When viewed in comparison with other waterway systems in our Nation, one can see that this growth is quite an accomplishment. In the last few years, waterway systems across the Nation have experienced a marked decline in traffie. Commerce on the Missouri River navigation system, which has been in operation for nearly 40 years, declined by 20 percent from 1985 to 1986. The poor agricultural economic situation and reduced exports of grain have resulted in lower tonnage for this waterway for 3 consecutive years.

16136 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 Likewise, the Arkansas River Water

way has experienced a similar decline in traffic during recent years. After it was completed in 1970, traffic increased gradually throughout the decade, reaching its highest level of 9.8 million tons in 1978. However, because of adverse economic conditions, traffic has been well below this level throughout the 1980's. Although 1986 was considered by some to be a recovery year, traffic still did not surpass the 1978 level, according to available figures. And so far this year, there has been a decline in traffic of 55 percent along its Oklahoma sections for the months of January and February of this year alone. Traffic on the waterway as a whole is down 40 percent when compared with figures from last year. Yet, as I have said, traffic on the Tenn-Tom doubled between 1985 and 1986.

Furthermore, with the exception of the transport of coal, the traffic of all commodities, including grain, has steadily increased each year on the Tenn-T"m, and the traffic of some commodities has increased many times over. For example, traffic of forestry products, a major industry in the waterway region, increased over tenfold in 1986-from 44,000 tons in 1985 to 460,000 tons last year. This figure demonstrates the tremendous growth potential the Tenn-Tom has to offer.

TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS OF TENN-TOM

I believe that the reduced transportation costs afforded by the Tenn-Tom waterway provide U.S. companies with their best opportunity to increase productivity and continue to be competitive with foreign suppliers. First, the Tenn-Tom will connect the Gulf of Mexico and the Port of Mobile with the Tennessee, the upper Mississippi, and the Ohio River valleys to yield a waterway system in which 16,000 miles of water travel will be available.

The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway has additional benefits, as well. Because of the system of locks and dams which have been constructed along the waterway, there is a good deal of what is called slack water, which offers less resistance than the strong downstream current of other waterways, especially the Mississippi River Waterway. Thus, northbound traffic is much cheaper. Additionally, because the Tennessee River flows from south to north all the way from the shoals area of northwest Alabama to Paducah, KY, where it joins the Ohio River, northbound traffic will actually be flowing with the current, or through lakes which have been built along this route. This benefit saves both time and money for shippers.

One trend which has been emerging in the last few months is for shippers to use the Tenn-Tom, with its slack water and northerly current, for northbound traffic. When returning south, the shippers will travel down

the Mississippi River Waterway, taking advantage of its swift southerly current. This practice enables shippers to use a tow which is half the size of that which would be required to travel the Mississippi going upstream. The gas savings are tremendous, and the time savings are impressive, as well. I know that as time passes, many other benefits such as this will be recognized and utilized. However, it takes time for these to develop.

Tenn-Tom's low transportation costs have already greatly expanded markets for many of the region's natural resources and finished products. For the first time, the American Colloid Co. in Aberdeen, MS, is exporting bentonite ore to Malaysia. Company officials stated that the 200,000 tons now exported each year would not be possible without the availability of the Tenn-Tom.

Finished lumber products are being shipped from west Alabama to northern locations as far away as Pittsburgh. The waterway's cheap transportation costs provide these lumber producers with their first opportunity to compete against heavily subsidized Canadian imports in these Midwestern markets. The waterway also links Birmingham, long a steel center in the South, with Pittsburgh, a steel center in ' he North.

Another example of the waterway's favorable impact on the economy is the Scott Paper Co.'s use of barges to transport pulpwood to its plant in Mobile instead of shipping the raw materials by truck or rail. The company saves an estimated $25 million in costs each year.

The Tenn-Tom traverses one of the most economically depressed regions in the United States. Some counties of my State have unemployment ra.tes as high as 30 percent. For the last 3 years, the people of this area have been wondering when they, too, could share in the scattered economic boon which has affected parts of our country. The waterway has brought this troubled area a sense of renewed hope and optimism for the future. The people have faith that they now have some control over their destinies and they are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. With the TennTom, they have access to markets which were never before open.

The bullish outlook for the future of the region is not unfounded. Already, over $300 million of new industrial development has occurred in the waterway corridor. Again, the waterway, according to the companies' officials, was a contributing factor in the location of these new private investments which have created over 1,100 new jobs in a primarily rural area.

TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO MOBILE, AL

Additionally, the Tenn-Tom is expected to provide great economic bene-

fits to Mobile, AL. A first benefit is the stimulus it will provide to chemical plant location at the southern end of the waterway, near Mobile. The cost savings for chemical transport which have been evidenced on the waterway are substantial; $9.50 per ton for shipments between Alabama and Tennessee of carbon bisulphide, $21.63 per ton for shipments from Alabama to Iowa of sodium, $7.01 per ton for shipment of ammonium sulphur between Alabama and central Tennessee.

Mobile is also on the Gulf of Mexico, thus giving access to chemical movements along the Intracoastal Waterway west to Texas or east to Florida. And there is already a great deal of chemically skilled labor in the Mobile area. Furthermore, the utility rates offered by Alabama Power Co., which provides electricity to the area, are among the lowest-if not the lowest on the gulf coast. When viewed together, these factors make the Mobile area a very attractive location for chemical companies.

In fact, several chemical plants have already located along the stretch of the Tenn-Tom running from Mcintosh, AL, which is about 35 miles north of Mobile to Theodore, AL, which is 10 miles south of Mobile. I believe that Mobile will see a greater expansion of chemical plants in the future, as industry officials recognize the great benefits which the city has to offer. It is entirely possible that such plant locations will transform Mobile into a premier industrial center of the south.

All foresee the future use of Mobile as a port of exit for exports of coal, grain, and chemicals shipped down the Tenn-Tom and destined for locations throughout the world, but I believe that efforts should also be made to realize the great potential that Mobile holds as a port of entry. Because of the savings made possible by more economical northbound traffic for the reasons that I have mentioned previously, Mobile is an ideal entry port for goods and materials destined for Birmingham, north Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and many other places. This role must be developed, but it is well within reach.

PROMOTION AND ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN NEEDED FOR WATERWAY

However, it will take some time for existing businesses to accommodate their transportation needs to the Tenn-Tom waterway. And it will probably take a little more time for new businesses to locate along the waterway area. Yet, I have no doubt that with each year that passes, a rise in traffic along the Tenn-Tom waterway will be seen. One can look at the development of other waterway projectsthe Tennessee River, the Mississippi River, the Arkansas River, and the

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16137 Black Warrior-Tombigbee-and see that they, too, initially experienced a slow, but steady rise in traffic.

In fact, when the Arkansas River waterway became fully operational in 1970, the total commercial traffic was less than 4 million tons. And this was during an era of great agricultural and industrial exports. Yet, slowly, year by year, commercial traffic increased. In 1978, traffic on the Arkansas River waterway reached its highest point thus far, totaling more than 9.8 million tons. Since then, because of economic factors which, as I have said, have negatively affected traffic on all waterways, tonnage figures have been lower. However, the initial growth of traffic for the Arkansas River waterway, as with all waterways, was one of relatively slow, consistent growth.

One important way in which business and industry can be attracted to the Tenn-Tom is through a promotional campaign that would inform business officials of the savings and the great opportunities which are availal-1

". Like every new device or development, the Tenn-Tom needs a sophisticated sales pitch to inform people of the value of the program. Even established products such as soft-drinks or detergents must continue in their use of advertising so that the public will be aware of what attributes they have to offer. This promotional campaign for the Tenn-Tom must work to actively recruit business for the waterway. This will lead to an expansion of commercial use that will also prove beneficial to business interests, as their transportation and ope_rating costs will be lowered.

Hopefully, a five State joint promotion campaign can work with or under the authority of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Development Authority, which was so ably led for so long by Grover Wilkins, who worked for the TennTom since the end of World War II. I know that the Tenn-Tom Development Authority will continue to play an important, and much needed role in the future under the leadership of Don Walden. And I cannot stress too highly the important work of traveling ambassadors and salesmen. Lambert Mims, the former mayor of Mobile, served, for a while, as the only full-time salesman of the waterway, and spoke all over the potential market area of the Tenn-Tom. Unfortunately, this salesman job has been abolished.

RECREATIONAL USE OF THE WATERWAY

While there may be some who disagree with me on the progress TennTom is making toward the fulfillment of its commercial potential, no one will argue about the tremendous recreational benefit the waterway has generated.

Visitation to the waterway and its recreational attractions has already greatly exceeded original projections.

Nearly 5 million people enjoyed the waterway for boating, fishing, and other forms of leisure last year alonean increase of nearly 1.5 million people over 1985. All in all, the TennTom has attracted about 8.5 million tourists since the project was completed.

These increased recreational and tourist activities have created a myriad of new small business opportunities. The people along the waterway have found that it is much easier to pick a tourist than a cotton field.

Most all transient pleasure vessels now use the Tenn-Tom since it is the shortest and safest route between the Midwest and Florida and the gulf. On average, about 100 yachts pass through each month. Amazing benefits have already been experienced throughout the waterway. At the northern end of the waterway, just beyond the Tennessee State line, a marina which sells gasoline to pleasure craft witnessed its gasoline sales quadruple in just 1 year. Likewise, the Dog River Marina in Mobile witnessed its annual repair business for pleasure craft rise from $150,000 in 1984 to $2 million for 1985, and again 1986. These are incredible results, and I believe this trend will continue for many businesses in the future.

. \dditionally, the April edition of Sports Afield magazine has listed the Tennessee-Tombigbee as one of America's 20 Hottest Bass Lakes. Specifically, the Gainesville, Aliceville, Columbus, and Aberdeen Lakes of the waterway were listed as areas where as many as 50 bass per angler-day are not uncommon. As fishing stories about the region spread around the country, I am sure that tourism will be further increased, and that much enjoyment will be had by all.

INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE

The Tennessee-Tombigbee deserves a chance to mature and allow history to prove that it is a worthwhile investment. Other public works projects have had this opportunity and traditionally have generated even more benefits than originally estimated. There is no doubt in my mind that the Tenn-Tom waterway will produce results that are any less than ultimate predictions, and they will likely be greater. And as I hope I have made clear, the actual benefits of the TennTom should never be based solely on the number of tons of commodities that were transported. Conclusions based on such limited evidence are themselves limited.

This year may find the Congress approving the first $1 trillion budget for the Federal Government. A close in·· spection of this megabuck budget will reveal that a very small percent of the total anticipated outlay will result in improvements to the Nation's transportation infrastructure. This is one of the few budget functions that can be

considered an investment, generating returns for this and future generations. Most of the other funds included in the budget are transfer payments, or interest on the debt, which will not generate any long-term economic growth or benefit to the Nation.

Yet, we are now reaping the rewards of investment decisions made during the 1950's and 1960's, such as development of our Interstate Highway System, which like the Tenn-Tom, came under heavy criticism at the time of its conception.

Future generations will be indebted to those visionaries who have labored to ensure continued investments in our transportation infrastructure, including our inland waterway system and the Tennessee-Tombigbee. I urge those soothsayers of doom who so quickly criticize or pronounce sentence upon the Tennesses-Tombigbee waterway to mark the future development of the Tenn-Tom. They will be proven wrong.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there will

be no more votes today.

REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE TO MEET

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today at 5:15 p.m. to consider the nomination of M. Peter McPherson to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.


Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on behalf of a Senator on this side I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE TO MEET

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be deemed to have had authorization to meet during the session of the Senate today at 5:15 p.m. to consider the nomination of M. Peter McPherson to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Is there objection?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec

tion is heard.

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I inquire

of the distinguished acting Republican leader, Mr. HELMS, as to whether or not the following nominations have been cleared on that side of the aisle: Beginning with nominations under the

16138

CON

GR

ES

SIO

NA

L

RE

COR

D

-

SEN

ATE

June 16, 1987

Arm

y

on

pag

e

2

of

the

Ex

ecu

tiv

e

Ca

l-

en

dar

,

Ca

len

dar

Ord

er

No

.

199

,

and

co

nti

nui

ng

un

der

the

Ai

r

For

ce,

nom

i-

na

tion

s

con

tain

ed

in

Cal

end

ar

Ord

ers

No

s.

200

,

201

,

201

con

tin

ue

d

on

pag

e

3,

202,

203,

204,

205,

206,

207,

208,

209,

210,

211,

and

,

on

page

6

all

nom

ina-

tio

ns

pla

ced

on

the

Se

cre

tary

's

des

k

in

the

Air

For

ce,

Arm

y,

Ma

rine

Co

rps

,

and

Nav

y.

Mr

.

HE

LM

S.

Mr

.

Pre

sid

ent

,

I

wil

l

say

to

the

disti

ngui

shed

majo

rity

lead

er

that

,

inde

ed,

all

of

thes

e

have

bee

n clea

red

on

this

side.

Mr.

BY

RD

. Mr

.

Pre

sid

ent

, I

tha

nk

the

dis

ting

uis

hed

Se

nat

or.

EX

EC

UT

IVE

SE

SSI

ON

Mr

.

BY

RD

.

Mr

.

Pre

sid

ent

,

I

ask

una

nim

ou

s

con

sen

t

tha

t

the

Se

nat

e

go

into

exe

cut

ive

sess

ion

to

con

side

r

the

nom

inati

ons

beg

innin

g

on

page

2

wh

ich

wer

e

enu

mer

ated

ear

lier,

beg

in-

nin

g

wit

h

Ca

len

da

r

Ord

er

No

.

19

9,

cont

inuin

g

thro

ugh

page

s

3,4,

5,

and

6;

that

the

nom

inat

ions

be

cons

ider

ed

en blo

con

firm

ed

en

bloc

;

tha

t

a

mo

tion

to

reco

nsid

er

be

laid

on

the

tab

le,

and

tha

t

the

Pre

sid

ent

be

no

ti-

fied

of

the

conf

irma

tion

of

the

nom

i-

nees.

Th

e

PR

ES

ID

ING

OF

FIC

ER

.

Wi

th-

out

obje

ction

, it

is

so

orde

red.

The

no

min

atio

ns

con

sid

ered

and

con

firme

d

en

bloc

are

as

follow

s:

IN THE A

RMY

The

follo

win

g

nam

ed

offi

cer

und

er

the

pro

visio

ns

of

title

10,

Unit

ed

State

s

Cod

e,

sect

ion

601,

to

be

assi

gned

to

a

pos

ition

of

impo

rtan

ce

and

resp

ons

ibility

desig

nate

d by

the

Pre

siden

t und

er

title

10,

Unit

ed

Sta

tes

Co

de,

sec

tion

3033

:

To òe ch

ief of stajy

Gen.

Carl

E.

Vuo

no,

.

U.S.

Army.

IN T

HE A

IR FoRCE

The

follo

wing

name

d

offic

er

for

app

oint-

men

t to

the

grad

e of

lieut

enan

t gene

ral

on

the

retire

d

list

purs

uant

to

the

prov

ision

s of

title

10,

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Code

, sect

ion

1370

:

To

be

lieute

nan

t gen

eral

Lt.

Gen.

Cha

rles

J.

Cun

ning

ham

, Jr.,

FR,

U.S.

Air

Force

.

The

follow

ing

name

d offic

er

for

appo

int-

ment

to

the

grade

of lieut

enan

t gener

al on

the

retire

d

list

purs

uant

to

the

prov

ision

s of

title

10,

Unite

d Stat

es

Code

, sect

ion

1370

:

To

be

lieute

nan

t gener

al

Lt.

Gen.

Leo

Marqu

ez,

FR,

U.S.

Air

Forc

e.

The

follo

win

g nam

ed

offic

er,

unde

r the

provis

ions

of

title

10,

Unite

d State

s Cod

e,

sectio

n 601,

to

be

assi

gned

to

a

pos

ition

of

impor

tance

and

respo

nsibi

lity

desig

nated

by

the

Presi

dent

unde

r title

10,

Unite

d State

s

Code

, sectio

n 601:

To

be

Ziet¿

tenan

t gen

eral

Maj.

Gen.

Mich

ael

J.

Duga

n,

FR,

U.S.

Air

Forc

e.

The

follo

win

g

nam

ed

offic

er,

und

er

the

prov

isions

of

title

10,

Unite

d

State

s Code

,

sec

tion

601

, to

be

ass

igne

d to

a

pos

ition

of

impo

rtanc

e and

resp

onsi

bility

desig

nate

d by

the

Pres

iden

t unde

r title

10,

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Cod

e, sec

tion

601:

To

be

Zieu

ten

ant

gen

era

l

Ma

j.

Gen

. Ch

arle

s

C.

Mc

Don

ald,

F

R,

U,S

. Air

For

ce.

Th

e

follo

win

g

nam

ed

offic

er

und

er

the

pro

visio

n s

o

f

ti tle

10,

Uni t

ed

State

s

Cod

e,

sec

tion

601,

to

be

rea

ssig

ned

in

his

curr

ent

gra

de

to

a

pos

ition

of

imp

orta

nce

and

re-

spo

nsi

bility

des

igna

ted

by

the

Pre

side

nt

und

er

title

10,

Unit

ed

Sta

tes

Code

, sec

tion

601:

IN THE ARMY

The

follo

wing

nam

ed

offic

er

to

be

plac

ed

on

the

reti

red

list

in

gra

de

indi

cat

ed

und

er

the

prov

isio

ns

of

titl

e

10,

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Code

, sec

tion

1370

.

To

be

lieu

ten

an

t gen

ere

ll

Lt.

Ge

n.

Th

om

as

F.

Hea

ly,

,

U.S

. Ar

my.

IN T

HE NAVY

The

follo

win

g

nam

ed

offic

er,

und

er

the

prov

ision

s

of

title

10,

Unit

ed

Sta

tes

Cod

e,

sec

tion

601,

to

be

ass

igned

to

a

pos

ition

of

impo

rtan

ce

and

resp

ons

ibility

desig

nate

d by

the

Pre

side

nt

und

er

title

10,

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Cod

e,

sect

ion

601

:

To be admiml

Vice

Adm

. Pow

ell

F.

Ca

rter,

Jr.,

U.S.

Nav

y.

The

foll

owin

g

nam

ed

offic

er

to

be

place

d

on

the

ret

ired

list

in

grad

e

indic

ate

d und

er

the

prov

ision

s

of

title

10,

Unit

ed

Sta

tes

Cod

e,

sec

tion

137

0.

To be

vice admirai

Vic

e

Adm

.

Cec

il J.

Kem

pf,

/

U.S

. Na

vy

.

'. tie

follo

win

g

nam

ed

offi

cer,

unde

r

the

pro

visio

ns

of

title

10,

Unit

ed

State

s

Cod

e,

sec

tion

601,

to

be

ass

igned

to

a

pos

ition

of

imp

orta

nce

and

resp

onsib

ility

des

ignat

ed

by

the

Pres

iden

t und

er

title

10,

Unit

ed

State

s

Cod

e, sec

tion

601:

To be vice admiral

Rea

r

Adm

.

Joh

n

H.

H.

Fe

tterm

an,

Jr.,

U.S

. Navy

.

The

follo

win

g

nam

ed

offi

cer,

unde

r

the

pro

visio

ns

of

title

10,

Unit

ed

State

s

Cod

e,

sect

ion

5137

, to

be

app

ointe

d

in

the

grad

e of

vice

adm

iral

as

Chie

f of

the

Bure

au

of

Med

i-

eine

and

Sur

gery

and

Sur

geon

Gene

ral:

To

Òe

chie

f of the

bure

au

of me

dicin

e and

surge

ry and

surg

eon

gen

eral

Rea

r

Adm

. Jam

es

A.

Zimb

le,

Med

ical

Corp

s.

U.S.

Nav

y.

The

follow

ing

nam

ed

Cap

tain

in

the

staf

f

Cor

ps

of

the

U.S

. Navy

for

prom

otio

n

to

the

perm

ane

nt

grad

e

of

rear

adm

iral

(low

er

hal

f)

purs

uant

to

title

10,

Unit

ed

Sta

tes

Code

, sec

tion

624,

sub

ject

to

qua

lifica

tions

there

for

as

prov

ided

by

law:

HE

ALT

HCA

RE

PR

OF

ESS

ION

AL

To be rear admiral (Zoloer haU)

Jose

ph

P.

Sm

yth.

The

follo

wing

nam

ed

offic

er,

unde

r

the

prov

ision

s of

title

10,

Unit

ed

State

s

Code

,

sec

tion

601,

to

be

ass

igned

to

a

pos

ition

of

imp

orta

nce

and

resp

onsi

bility

des

ignat

ed

by

the

Pres

iden

t und

er

title

10,

Unit

ed

State

s

Co

de

. se

cti

on

60

1:

To be

vice

admiml

Rea

r Adm

.

John

T.

Park

er,

Jr.,

U.S. Navy.

NO

MI

NAT

IO

NS

PLA

CED

ON

TH

E

SEC

RET

AR

Y'S

DESK

IN

THE

AIR

F'0RC

E,

ARMY

, MAR

INE

CO

RPS

,

NAV

Y

Air

Forc

e nom

inatio

n of

Beck

y L.

Gerin

g,

whic

h

was

rece

ived

by

the

Sena

te

and

ap-

pe

are

d

in

the

CO

NG

RES

SIO

NA

L RE

CO

RD

of

June 2, 1987.

Air

For

ce

nom

inati

ons

beg

inni

ng

Rog

er

D.

Billica

, and

endi

ng

Jose

ph

D.

Cam

acho,

whi

ch

nom

inatio

ns

were

rece

ived

by

the

Sen

ate

and

app

eare

d in

the

CONG

RES

SION

AL

REc

ORD

of

Jun

e

2,

198

7.

Air

Forc

e

nomi

natio

ns

beg

innin

g

Robe

rt

J.

Acht

erbe

rg,

and

end

ing

The

odor

e

P.

Yur-

kos

ky,

whi

ch

nom

inati

ons

were

rece

ived

by

the

Sen

ate

and

appe

ared

in

the

CONG

RES

-

SIO

NA

L RE

CO

RD

of

Ju

ne

2,

19

87.

Air

Forc

e nom

inati

ons

begi

nnin

g Joh

n R.

Abel

, and

endi

ng

John

F.

Zimm

er,

whic

h

nomi

natio

ns

were

recei

ved

by

the

Sena

te

an

d ap

pe

are

d in

the

CON

GR

ES

SIO

NAL

REC

OR

D

of June 2, 1987.

Air

Forc

e nom

inatio

ns

begi

nning

Joh

n L.

Alon

ge,

and

end

ing

Pau

l R.

Ziay

a,

whic

h

nom

inati

ons

were

recei

ved

by

the

Sena

te

an

d ap

pea

red

in

th

e CO

NG

RES

SIO

NA

L RE

COR

D

of June 2, 1987.

Arm

y nom

inati

ons

begi

nning

Ken

neth

N.

Hall,

and

end

ing

Carl

A.

Kulo

, whic

h nom

i-

nati

ons

wer

e recei

ved

by

the

Sena

te on

May

18

, 19

87

, an

d ap

pe

ar

ed

in

the

CO

NG

RE

SS

ION

-

AL

RECO

RD

of

May

19,

1987

.

Army

nom

inatio

ns

beg

innin

g Isaa

c A.

Al-

vara

do,

Jr,

and

end

ing

Gun

ther

Mar

k,

whi

ch

nom

inatio

ns

were

rece

ived

by

the

Sena

te

on

May

18,

1987

,

and

appe

ared

in

the

CONG

RESS

IONA

L RECO

RD

of

May

19,

1987

.

Army

nom

inatio

n

of Edw

ard

R.

Hoffm

an,

whic

h

was

receiv

ed

by

the

Sena

te

and

ap-

pe

are

d in

the

CO

NGR

ES

SIO

NAL

REC

OR

D

Of

May 29, 1987.

Arm

y nom

inat

ions

beg

innin

g Cha

rles

V.

Adam

s, and

end

ing

Jimm

y

L.

Youn

g,

whic

h

nom

inati

ons

wer

e rece

ived

by

the

Sen

ate

an

d ap

pe

ar

ed

in

th

e

CO

NG

RE

SSI

ON

AL

RE

CO

RD

of Ju

ne 2

, 1987.

Arm

y

nom

inati

ons

beg

innin

g

Joh

n

A.

Bau

er,

and

end

ing

Leo

nard

Vans

coy,

whic

h

nom

inat

ions

were

rec

eived

by

the

Sena

te

an

d ap

pe

ar

ed

in

th

e

CO

NG

RE

SSI

ON

AL

RE

CO

RD

of

Jun

e 2,

198

7.

Arm

y

nom

inat

ions

begi

nnin

g Jef

frey

Ad-

dic

ott,

and

en

ding

Edd

y

Wil

liam

son

,

whi

ch

nom

inat

ions

wer

e

rece

ived

by

the

Sen

ate

an

d ap

pe

ar

ed

in

th

e

CO

NG

RE

SSI

ON

AL

RE

CO

RD

of

Jun

e

2,

198

7.

Mar

ine

Cor

ps

nom

inat

ions

beg

inni

ng

Joh

n

C.

Astle

,

and

end

ing

Rob

ert

B.

Wri

ght,

whi

ch

nom

ina

tion

s

wer

e

rec

eive

d

by

the

Se

nate

and

app

eare

d

in

the

CO

NGR

ESS

IONA

L

REC

ORD

of

Ma

y 29,

198

7.

Ma

rine

Cor

ps

nom

ina

tion

s beg

inn

ing

Pau

l

C.

Aan

ons

en,

and

end

ing

Gre

go

ry

K.

Tesc

h,

whi

ch

nom

ina

tion

s

wer

e

rece

ived

by

the

Se

nate

and

app

eare

d

in

the

CO

NGR

ESS

IONA

L

REC

ORD

of

Jun

e

2,

198

7.

Na

vy

nom

inat

ions

beg

inni

ng

Gre

gor

y

Hug

h

Adk

isso

n,

and

end

ing

Sam

uel

Sidn

ey

Wi

lliam

s,

whic

h

nom

inat

ions

were

rece

ive

d

by

the

Sen

ate

and

app

eare

d

in

the

CON

GRE

S

SIO

NA

L RE

CO

RD

of

Ju

ne

2,

19

87.

Na

vy

nom

ina

tion

s

beg

inni

ng

Ric

hard

Le

wis

Aa

rnes

,

and

end

ing

Cha

rles

Ant

hon

y

We

igan

d,

whic

h

nom

ina

tion

s

wer

e

rece

ived

by

the

Sen

ate

and

app

ear

ed

in

the

CON

GRE

S-

SION

AL

REC

ORD

of

Jun

e 2,

1987

.

LE

GI

SL

AT

IVE

SE

SS

IO

N

Mr

.

BY

RD

.

Mr.

Pre

side

nt,

I

ask

una

nimo

us

cons

ent

that

the

Sen

ate

retu

rn

to

legis

lativ

e

sess

ion.

The

PR

ES

IDI

NG

OF

FIC

ER

.

Wit

h-

out

obje

ction

, ît

is

so

orde

red.

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-...

xxx-...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-...

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-...

xxx-...

xxx-xx-...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx...

xxx-x...

xxx-x...

xxx-x...

xxx-xx-...

xxx-...

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16139 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.)

NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO IRAN-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT-PM 46 The PRESIDING OFFICER laid

before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with accompanying papers; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:

To the Congress of the United States: This report is made pursuant to sec

tion 204(c) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1703(c), and, as with previous reports, discusses only matters concerning the national emergency with respect to Iran that was declared in Executive Order No. 12170 of November 14, 1979. This report covers events through May 14, 1987, including those that occurred since my last report on N ovember 21, 1986 . .

1. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal <the "Tribunal"), established at The Hague pursuant to the Claims Settlement Agreement of January 19, 1981 <the "Algiers Accords"), continues to make progress in arbitrating the claims before it. Since my last report, the Tribunal has rendered 44 awards, for a total of 304 awards. Of that total, 228 have been awards in favor of American claimants: 139 of these were awards on agreed terms, authorizing and approving payment of settlements negotiated by the parties, and 89 were decisions adjudicated on the merits. The Tribunal has dismissed a total of 20 other claims on the merits and 44 for jurisdictional reasons. Of the 12 remaining awards, 1 was withdrawn and 11 were in favor of the Iranian claimant. As of April 30, 1987, total payments to successful American claimants from the Security Account held by the NV Settlement Bank stood at approximately $854 million.

To date, the Security Account has fallen below the required balance of $500 million five times. Each time, Iran has replenished the account, as

required by the Algiers Accords, by transferring funds from the separate account held by the NV Settlement Bank in which interest on the Security Account is deposited. The most recent replenishment occurred on April 8, 1987, in the amount of $20 million, bringing the total in the Security Account to $516,532,511.28. Prior replenishments were for $100 million, $100 million, $50 million, and $100 million.

In claims between the two governments based on contracts, the Tribunal to date has made four awards in favor of the United States and three in favor of Iran. The Tribunal has dismissed 2 claims that had been filed by the United States and dismissed 10 claims that had been filed by Iran. In addition, Iran has withdrawn 13 of its government-to-government claims (prior reports have overstated this number by 2 as a result of a clerical error), while the United States has withdrawn 3.

American arbitrator Charles N. Brower was temporarily absent from the Tribunal in January, February, and March due to his appointment as Deputy Special Counsellor to the President. During his absence, American substitute arbitrator Carl Salans served in his place for several hearings. The Tribunal accepted the resign::,~ I ion of Iranian arbitrator Mohsen Mostafavi, to become effective upon the appointment by Iran of a replacement. Mr. Koorosh-Hossein Ameli served as the Iranian arbitrator on an ad hoc basis in a number of cases.

2. The Tribunal continues to make progress in the arbitration of claims of U.S. nationals for $250,000 or more. Over 57 percent of the non-bank claims have now been disposed of through adjudication, settlement, or voluntary withdrawal, leaving 220 such claims on the docket. Among recent cases, two U.S. companies received awards in excess of $36 million each, and one U.S. company received an award for $8.5 million. Other decisions were notable for the legal precedents set by the Tribunal. In one case, a claimant born in Iran of United States parents, who had lived most of his life in the United States, served in the U.S. military, and had other substantial contacts with the United States, was found to possess dominant and effective United States nationality, so as to bring his case within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, notwithstanding his contacts with Iran. In another case, an American subcontractor's claim for recovery directly against an Iranian respondent was upheld based on unjust enrichment, where the Iranian entity had not paid the general contractor for the work. Such favorable decisions should prove helpful to other U.S. claimants before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal continues to process claims of U.S. nationals against Iran of

less than $250,000 each. While the Tribunal's progress is slower than we would like, a total of 127 small claims have been resolved, 15 of them since my last report, as a result of decisions on the merits, awards on agreed terms, or Tribunal orders. Six contested claims were decided in three a wards issued by the Tribunal since my previous report, raising the total number of contested claims decided to 11, eight favoring the American claimant. These decisions will help in establishing guidelines for the adjudication or settlement of similar small claims. To date American claimants have also received 20 awards on agreed terms reflecting settlements of claims under $250,000.

There remain 139 small claims currently under active Tribunal consideration. The Tribunal has held hearings in five of these claims since my last report, and the Department of State has filed additional pleadings in more than 50 such claims. The Tribunal has recently assigned the remaining small claims, totaling more than 2,500, to three-person chambers. We expect these chambers to make further selections of claims for active arbitration in the near future.

4. The Department of State continues to coordinate efforts of concerned governmental agencies in presenting U.S. claims against Iran, as well as response by the United States Government to claims brought against it by Iran. Since my last report, the Department has filed pleadings in five government-to-government claims based on contracts for the provision of goods and services. The Tribunal finally dismissed a number of Iranian claims against the United States based on alleged violations of Iranian customs regulations. Thirty-seven governmentto-government claims remain pending.

In addition to work on the government-to-government claims, the Department of State, working together with the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, filed five pleadings in disputes concerning the interpretation and/or performance of various provisions of the Algiers Accords. Since my last report, the Tribunal has held three hearings on interpretive disputes.

As noted in my last report, in August 1986 the Tribunal ordered the United States and Iran to negotiate in good faith on the terms of a transfer to Iran of some $500 million of Iranian funds that have been held by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York since 1981, and to transfer the funds as soon as an agreement had been reached. Following remarks by high-level Iranian officials linking U.S. compliance with the Tribunal order to the fate of hostages in Lebanon, the United States requested the Tribunal in January 1987 to take appropriate steps to

16140 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 clarify that no such linkage exists. On the following day, Iran filed a written submission with the Tribunal, accusing the United States of bad faith in the negotiations and requesting the Tribunal to resolve the technical issues.

On May 4, 1987, the Tribunal issued an award in which it orders the United States to retain about $65 million at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pay outstanding claims, and immediately to transfer the balance (about $454 million) to Iran's account at the Bank of England. The Tribunal adopted the substance of the release proposed by the United States that protects the United States against any possible future claims in connection with its administration of the account. The Tribunal stated that Iran has already publicly affirmed that there is no linkage between the United States' transfer of the funds and Iran's efforts to secure the release of hostages in Lebanon, and itself declared that "there "an be no room for any doubt that this Case . . . [hasl no relation or link whatsoever to the issue of hostages held in Lebanon or any other political matter." The United States complied with the Tribunal's award on May 13, 1987.

5. Since my last report, three bank syndicates .have completed negotiations with Bank Markazi J omhouri Islami Iran ("Bank Markazi," Iran's central bank) and have been paid a total of $622,807.26 for interest accruing for the period January 1-18, 1981 ("January Interest"). These payments were made from Dollar Account No. 2 at the Bank of England. Negotiations have been completed and payment of $1,222,306.11 is pending for January Interest owed to three other bank syndicates, and Bank Markazi and additional bank syndicates are now negotiating January Interest settlements, with agent banks requesting the necessary participant consents.

6. Since my last report, there have been no amendments to the Iranian Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 535, administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department.

7. The situation reviewed above continues to implicate important diplomatic, financial, and legal interests of the United States and its nationals and presents an unusual challenge to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. In particular, the Iranian Assets Control Regulations issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 12170 continue to play an important role in structuring our relationship with Iran and in enabling the United States properly to implement the Algiers Accords. I shall continue to exercise the powers at my disposal to deal with these problems and will con-

tinue to report periodically to the Congress on significant developments.

. RONALD REAGAN. THE WHITE HOUSE, June 16, 198 7.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COR-PORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT-PM 47 The PRESIDING OFFICER laid

before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: To the Congress of the United States: In accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 396(i)), I transmit herewith the Annual Report of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for Fiscal Year 1986. The report states that the Corporation will seek appropriations at the full amount authorized through 1990. This does not reflect my views and exceeds my budget by $44 million in 1988, $88 million in 1989, and $122 million in 1990. I request that the Congress appropriate no more than the level I have proposed.

RONALD REAGAN. THE WHITE HOUSE, June 16, 1987.

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE "R.ECEIVED DURING ADJOURNMENT Under the authority of the order of

the Senate of February 3, 1987, the Secretary of the Senate, on June 12, 1987, during the adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing that the House disagrees to the amendments of the Senate to the bill <H.R. 27) to facilitate the provision of additional financial resources to the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation and, for purposes of strengthening the reserves of the Corporation, to establish a forebearance program for thrift institutions and to provide additional congressional oversight of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and the Federal home loan bank system; it agrees to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. ST GERMAIN, Mr. ANNUNZIO, Mr. HUBBARD, Mr. BARNARD, Mr. LAFALCE, Ms. 0AKAR, Mr. VENTO, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. LEHMAN Of California, Mr. ROEMER, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. WYLIE, Mr. LEACH of Iowa, Mr. SHUMWAY, Mr. PARRIS, Mr. WORTLEY, Mr. DREIER Of California, and Mr. McCOLLUM; and as additional conferees solely for the consideration of title I of the House bill and title III of the Senate amendments Mr. NEAL and Mr. BARTLETT as managers of the conference on the part of the House.

The message also announced that the House has passed the following joint resolution, without amendment:

S.J. Res. 5. Joint resolution designating June 14, 1987, as "Baltic Freedom Day."

The message further announced that pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 99-371, the Speaker appoints Mr. Dennis B. Gjerdingen, of Northampton, MA, as a member from the private sector, on the part of the House, to the Commission on Education of the Deaf, vice Nanette Fabray MacDougall, resigned.

ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled joint resolution:

S.J. Res. 5. Joint resolution designating June 14, 1987, as "Baltic Freedom Day."

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE At 4:19 p.m., a message from the

House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Berry, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 307. An act to designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 315 West Allegan Street in Lansing, Michigan, as the "Charles E. Chamberlain Federal Building and United States Post Office";

H.R. 436. An act to designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse at 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota, as the "Warren E. Burger Federal Building and United States Courthouse";

H.R. 517. An act to designate the Soldier Creek Division Unit in Topeka, Kansas, as the "Lewis M. Paramore Diverson Unit";

H.R. 614. An act to designate the United States courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama, as the "Hugo L. Black United States Courthouse";

H.R. 1274. An act to name the lake formed by the Felsenthal Dam on the Ouchita River, Arkansas, as "Lake Jack Lee";

H.R. 1473. An act to designate the building which will house the Federal Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Lufkin, Texas, as the "Ward R. Burke Federal Court Building"; and

H.R. 2100. An act to designate the border station at 9931 Guide Meridian, Lynden, Washington, as the "Kenneth G. Ward Border Station".

The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following concurrent resolutions, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H. Con. Res. 74. Concurrent resolution expressing the appreciation of the Congress to President Virgilio Barco and the people of Colombia for their efforts to combat drug trafficking and drug abuse, and for other purposes; and

H. Con. Res. 113. Concurrent resolution concerning military unrest in Argentina.

MEASURES REFERRED The following bills were read the

first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

H.R. 307. An act to designate the Federal Building· and United States Courthouse located at 315 West Allegan Street in Lansing, Michigan, as the "Charles E. Chamberlain

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16141 Federal Building and United States Post Office"; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

H.R. 436. An act to designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse at 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota, as the "Warren E. Burger Federal Building and United States Courthouse": to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

H.R. 517. An act to designate Soldier Creek Diversion Unit in Topeka, Kansas, as the "Lewis M. Paramore Diversion Unit": to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

H.R. 614. An act to designate the new United States Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama, as the "Hugo L. Black United States Courthouse": to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

H.R. 1274. An act to name the lake formed by the Felsenthal Dam on the Ouchita River, Arkansas, as "Lake Jack Lee"; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

H.R. 1473. An act to designate the building which will house the Federal Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Lufkin, Texas, as the "Ward R. Burke Federal Court Building"; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The 1ullowing concurrent resolutions were read, and referred as indicated:

H. Con. Res. 74. Concurrent resolution expressing the appreciation of the Congress to President Virgilio Barco and the people of Colombia for their efforts to combat drug trafficking and drug abuse, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

H. Con. Res. 113. Concurrent resolution concerning military unrest in Argentina: to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and placed on the calendar:

H.R. 2100. An act to designate the border station at 9931 Guide Meridian Road, Lynden, Washington, as the Kenneth G. Ward Border Station.

ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTION PRESENTED

The Secretary of the Senate announced that on June 12, 1987, he had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled joint resolution:

S.J. Res. 5. Joint resolution designating June 14, 1987, as "Baltic Freedom Day".

EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred as indicated:

EC-1394. A communication from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, transmitting, pursuant to law, a cumulative report on rescissions and deferrals; jointly, pursuant to the order of January 30, 1975, to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on th e Budget.

91-059 0 -89- 24 (Pt. 12)

EC-1395. A communication from the Secretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report regarding United States expenditures in support of NATO; to the Committee on Armed Services.

EC-1396. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, a listening of contract award dates for the period July 1, 1987 to August 31, 1987; to the Committee on Armed Services.

EC-1397. A communication from the Director of the Defense Security Assistance Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, information concerning the Department of the Navy's proposed Letter(s) of Offer to Egypt for Defense Articles estimated to cost $50 million or more: to the Committee on Armed Services.

EC-1398. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the value of property, supplies, and commodities provided by the Berlin Magistrate for the quarter January 1, 1987, through March 31, 1987; to the Committee on Armed Services.

EC-1399. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, transmitting, a draft of proposed legislation to amend chapter 19 of title 37, United States code, relating to the administration of pay for members of the uniformed services, to provide for payment during time of war, hostilities, or national emergency; to the Committee on Armed Services.

EC-1400. A communication from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, reports rega ··riing the Federal Home Loan Bank Boa.rd's financial Statements for the years 1986 and 1985, and the Bank Board's system of internal accounting controls and its compliance with laws and regulations: to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

EC- 1401. A communication from the Secretary of Commerce, transmitting, a draft of proposed legislation to amend the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act and the Fish and Seafood Promotion Act of 1986 to allow use of moneys in the Staltonstall-Kennedy Fund solely for marine fishery resource programs; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

EC-1402. A communication from the Secretary of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report regarding Federal Railroad Administration contractors and subcontractors; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

EC-1403. A communication from the Secretary of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report regarding activities of the Department during Fiscal Year 1986; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

EC-1404. A communication from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on a project negotiated under the Department's Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program: to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

EC-1405. A communication from the Deput y Associate Director for Royalty Management, Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report regarding refunds of offshore lease revenues: to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

EC- 1406. A communication from the General Counsel of the United States Department of Energy, transmitt ing, pursuant to law, a notice of meetings related to the International Energy Program: to the Committee on Energy and Natural R esources.

EC-1407. A communication from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the Department's Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement Program for calendar year 1985; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

EC- 1408. A communication from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the use of alcohol in fuels during calendar year 1986; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

EC-1409. A communication from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the "Research Outlook 0988-1992) which describes the Agency's 5 year plan for research, development, and demonstration: to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

EC-1410. A communication from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide the coverage of railroad workers under the Federal-State unemployment compensation system, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

EC-1411. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, a draft of proposed legislation to amend the Social Security Act to make program and administrative improvements in the programs of aid to families with dependent children and child support enforcement and in the social services block grant, to authorize consolidated funding of certain program grants to Indian tribes, and for other purposes: to the Committee on Finance.

EC-1412. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 1987 Social Security Annual Report: to the Committee on Finance.

EC-1413. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, international agreements other than treaties; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

EC-1414. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to Americans traveling or residing in that country; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

EC-1415. A communication from the Chairman to the Board of Foreign Scholarships, transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual report regarding the Board's Fulbright Program; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

EC- 1416. A communication from the Chairman of the Board of Governors, transmitting, pursuant to law, a semiannual report on the civil misrepresentation activities of the United States Postal Service, October 1, 1986-March 31, 1987; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC- 1417. A communication from the Administrator of the General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report summarizing activities of the Office of Inspector General over a 6-month period ending March 31, 1987; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-1418. A communication from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, a semiannual report on the activities of the Office of Inspector General, covering the period October 1, 1986, through March 31, 1987; to the Commit t ee on Government Affairs.

EC- 1419. A communication from the Comptroller of the General Services Admin-

16142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 istration, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the Presidents Retirement System for fiscal year 1986; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-1420. A communication from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, a semiannual report of the activities of the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency, covering the period October 1, 1986, through March 31, 1987; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-1421. A communication from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, a semiannual report of the Department's Inspector General for the period October 1, 1986, through March 31, 1987; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-1422. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, an altered record system submitted by the Defense Nuclear Agency; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-1423. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, new record systems submitted by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences [USUHSJ; to the Committee on Governmental " ffairs.

EC-14..:;4. A communication from the Secretary of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a semiannual report of the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation for the period October 1, 1986, through March 31, 1987; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-1425. A communication from the Deputy Administrator of the Agency for International Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, a semiannual report of the inspector General of the Agency, covering the period October 1, 1987, through March 31, 1987; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-1426. A communication from the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report for fiscal year 1986 on the competition advocacy program; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-1427. A communication from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report concerning the claim of M. Bibianne Cyr to be relieved of liability for repayment of $750 in travel expenses that were erroneously paid to her by the Department of the Air Force; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-1428. A communication from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, held in Washington, DC on March 17, 1987; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-1429. A communication from the Federal-State Coordinator, Office of the Governor of Montana, transmitting, pursuant to law, a draft of proposed legislation to provide mutual assistance in the event of attack or natural disaster; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-1430. A communication from the Secretary of the American Battle Monuments Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the Commission's administration of the Freedom of Information Act during Calendar year 1986; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-1431. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, a document regarding the Bilingual

Vocational Instructor Training Program, which has also been transmitted to the "Federal Register" for Scheduled Publication; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

EC-1432. A communication from the Chairman of the National Council on Vocational Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 1986 annual report entitled "Preparation for a Productive Future; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

EC-1433. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, a document regarding the Patricia Roberts Harris Fellowships Program, which has also been transmitted to the "Federal Register" for scheduled publication; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

EC-1434. A communication from the Director of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Institute's publication, entitled "Atlas of U.S. Cancer Mortality in Whites: 1950-1980;" to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

EC-1435. A communication from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, United States Small Business Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual report, entitled "Annual Report of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy on Implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act"; to the Committee on Small Business.

EC-1436. A communication from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting, pursuant to law, notice of the intention of the Department of the Navy to donate the Gokoku ·; Bell to the Shuri Historical Museum, Okmawa, Japan; to the Committee on Armed Services.

EC-1437. A communication from the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the fourth annual report on the activities and expenditures of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management covering 1986; jointly to the Committee on EnP.rgy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

EC-1438. A communication from the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, an updated plan for the disposal of the Nation's commercial and defense high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel; jointly to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS The following petitions and memori

als were laid before the Senate and were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:

POM-182. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Hawaii; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

HOUSE RESOLUTION 11 "Whereas, President Reagan's proclama

tion of March 10, 1983 established ownership, control, and sovereign rights over all living and nonliving resources within the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone; and

"Whereas, these marine resources, both known and yet to be discovered, are of vital importance to the United States; and

"Whereas, the impacts of the development of the U.S. EEZ fall disproportionate-

ly on the coastal states, affecting the general welfare of their citizens; and

"Whereas, the marine, coastal, and terrestrial environments are an independent system that must be managed in a manner that transcends existing Federal-State boundaries; and

"Whereas, recognized principles of international law distinguish this Nation's defense and foreign policy interests from its domestic resources management regime within the U.S. EEZ, and that the coastal states have direct and clear interests in the management of these resources; and

"Whereas, the historical, vested interest of coastal states in the activities of this area is magnified in Hawaii's case since the State is comprised of a series of small islands; and

"Whereas, throughout history, the people of Hawaii have always depended on the ocean for their livelihood, from the very first landing of the Polynesians over 1,000 years ago to the modern technological age; and

"Whereas, in order to maintain the unique lifestyle developed by all of Hawaii's peoples and to expand economic activities the State must be able to continue to utilize all of its resources; and

"Whereas, the State of Hawaii must retain the right to insure that coastal air and water quality will not be degraded by any activities; and

"Whereas, in order to meet the State's needs, it must continue to take an active role in the planning and management of its land and water resources of its coastal zone and adjoining ocean; and

"Whereas, Hawaii must be a full participant in decision-making related to EEZ activities that could have a major impact on the State such as those involving the longterm use of fixed ocean sites, direct linkages with the shore, and major shore and oceanside demands and risks; and

"Whereas, the Hawaiian EEZ comprises between 600,000 and 850,000 square miles, making Hawaii in an economic sense, one of the largest states in the Union; and

"Whereas, the State of Hawaii has already demonstrated its interest in the management and control of ocean areas now within the Hawaiian EEZ, by issuing a permit for OTEC-1; by regulating the taking of precious coral off Oahu; by the placement of fish aggregating devices in the waters surrounding the Hawaiian islands; by its implementation of the Federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972; by participating on a joint StateFederal Task Force for ocean mining of manganese crusts in waters surrounding Hawaii and Johnston Island; and by participating in the Coastal States Organization's efforts to unify costal states in achieving an effective EEZ management role; and

"Whereas, the Hawaii State Legislature recognizes that a more effective State role in Ocean management requires clearly defined legal authority and increased public support; now, therefore,

"Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Fourteenth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 1987, That the State of Hawaii is committed to attain an effective, shared management role with the federal government in the Exclusive Economic Zone; and

"Be it further resolved, That certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Rep-

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16143 resentatives, and members of Hawaii's congressional delegation."

POM-183. A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Hawaii; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:

"HOUSE RESOLUTION 24 "Whereas, the Surgeon General of the

United States has determined that smoking contributes to cancer, heart disease, bronchitis, emphysema, complications in pregnancy, and delivery of lighter weight and more premature babies with greater health risks; and

"Whereas, medical researchers have found that non-smokers who live with or work with smokers inhale significant amounts of nicotine; and

"Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency office of air and radiation has stated that tobacco smoke has become one of the most deadly indoor pollutants and can be expected to kill between 500 and 5,000 non-smokers a year; and

"Whereas, the recirculation of stale air in commercial airplanes results in all passengers and employees in an airplane being forced to breathe passive smoke during an entire flight, including those passengers who art .eated in the non-smoking section; and

"Whereas, there are presently no federal standards regarding air quality in airline passenger cabins; and

"Whereas, federal regulation of air filtration systems to insure that such systems remove all the harmful elements of 'passive smoke' from the air prior to recirculation within the airplane should be considered; and

"Whereas, a federal initiative for airlines to offer periodic 'smokeless flights' where smoking is prohibited entirely on certain flights in another viable option to be considered; and

"Whereas, Hawaii's major inter-island carriers; Aloha, Hawaiian, and Mid-Pacific airlines have addressed this concern by banning smoking entirely on all inter-island flights; now, therefore,

"Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the Fourteenth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 1987, That the United States Department of Transportation is urged to implement measures to enable airline passengers to travel in an environment free from the hazards of passive smoke; and

"Be it further resolved, That certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, and to Aloha, Hawaiian, and Mid-Pacific airlines."

POM-184. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Nevada; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:

"ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION No.5

"Whereas, The transportation of hazardous materials creates situations which greatly increase the danger that any related accident may cause serious harm to persons and property; and

"Whereas, State and local governmental agencies are primarily responsible for responding to any such accident; and

"Whereas, Advance notification that a shipment of hazardous materials will be entering the state would enable the proper

agencies for law enforcement and public safety to prepare to respond to any accident involving that shipment; now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of Nevada, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of Nevada urges the Congress of the United States to require each federal agency which transports hazardous materials through this state to enter into a written agreement with Nevada's Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety and the Public Service Commission of Nevada regarding the procedure for notification of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety and the Public Service Commission of Nevada regarding the procedure for notification of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety and the Public Service Commission of Nevada by the federal agency of each intended entry of hazardous materials into this state; and be it further

"Resolved, That each such agreement must set forth any exceptions to the general policy that advance notice of each such shipment must be given; and be it further

"Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to the Vice President of the United States as presiding officer of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the members of the Nevada Congressional Delegation; and be it further

"Resolved, That this resolution becomes effective upon passage and approval.

:POM-185. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:

"RESOLUTIONS MEMORIALIZING THE CONGRESS

OF THE UNITED STATES TO ENACT LEGISLATION TO REQUIRE THE FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION TO HIRE SUFFICIENT NUM

BERS OF QUALIFIED AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

LERS

"Whereas, air traffic in the United States is constantly increasing; and

"Whereas, the growth in air traffic activity has caused controller workload to reach a point where the chance of accident is enhanced; and

"Whereas, studies have shown that the present air traffic control system does not provide the same level of safety as before the 1981 controllers strike; and

"Whereas, it is the role of the Federal Government to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens, now therefore be it

"Resolved, That the Massachusetts general court respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to formulate and enact legislation to require the Federal Aviation Administration to maintain a proper margin of air safety and, in so doing, take into account the concerns of air traffic controllers, supervisors and facility managers; and be it further

"Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be transmitted forthwith by the clerk of the Senate to the President of the United States, to the Presiding Officer of each branch of Congress and to each Member thereof from this Commonwealth."

POM-186. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:

RESOLUTIONS MEMORIALIZING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ENACT LEGISLATION TO BAN SMOKING ON AIRLINES

"Whereas, a panel of the National Acade-my of Sciences has recommended that smoking be banned on airlines; and

"Whereas, the smoking of tobacco products aboard airlines adversely affects the health of nonsmoking passengers, flight attendants and others; and

"Whereas, the smoking of tobacco products aboard airlines constitutes an unnecessary risk of fire, which threatens the lives and safety of everyone on board; and

"Whereas, the smoking of tobacco products annually

"0 > Kills over three hundred and fifty thousand Americans;

"(2) Harms the health of millions of others, both smokers and nonsmokers; and

"<3> Causes at least seventy-four thousand fires which kill at least two thousand three hundred Americans and inflict burn injuries on at least five thousand eight hundred others; and

"Whereas, it is the role of the Federal Government to protect the welfare of all its citizens in both a physical and economic sense; now therefore be it

"Resolved, That the Massachusetts General Court respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to enact legislation to prohibit smoking aboard domestic aircraft in the United States; and be it further

"Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be transmitted forthwith by the clerk of the Senate to the President of the United States, the Presiding Officer of each branch of Congress and to the Members thereof from this Commonwealth."

POM-187. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:

"RESOLUTION 5

"Whereas, pipelines in Minnesota carrying hazardous substances present a hidden danger to the citizens of the state; and

"Whereas, the state currently has very limited authority to regulate the safety of pipelines; and

"Whereas, the regulation of pipelines by the United States has proved inadequate to prevent injury and death to Minnesota residents and damage to property and the environment; now, therefore,

"Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota that Congress should speedily enact legislation to give states more authority to regulate the safety of pipelines, and to mandate more effective federal regulation of pipelines. This legislation should require the Federal Department of Transportation to:

"(1) play an affirmative role in helping states develop inspection programs for interstate natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines;

" (2) increase the number of inspectors to a level sufficient to comprehensively inspect each interstate pipeline once per year;

"(3) sponsor or conduct increased research on pipeline safety technologies, including standards for pipeline materials;

"(4) upgrade regulations covering hazardous liquid pipelines to be comparable in stringency and thoroughness to regulations covering natural gas pipelines;

"(5) review and update existing standards for pipe manufacture, pipeline construction and pipeline operation, and incorporate the

16144 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 best available technology into new standards;

"(6) analyze the effectiveness of double piping or casing and incorporate requirements for these systems into required standards if the systems are cost-effective; and

"(7) study the need for additional registration, licensing and certification requirements for pipeline design and construction personnel.

"The legislation should require the Federal Department of Transportation, or permit the states to:

" (1) require higher safety margins for operating pressures on hazardous liquid pipelines located in populated or environmentally sensitive areas;

"(2) require that pipeline operators periodically submit comprehensive reports on the condition of their hazardous liquid and natural gas transmission pipelines, and require appropriate testing based on concerns identified in these reports. These requirements should apply much more rigorously to transmission pipelines in populated or environmentally sensitive areas;

"(3) require pipeline operators to establish contingency plans for the abandonment or utilization of pipelines that do not perform to federal or state standards;

"(4) require that hazardous liquid pipeline operato improve their ability to rapidly locate and isolate pipeline leaks or spills through use of remote-control shut-off valves and remotely monitored pressure gauges;

"(5) require emergency response procedures and thorough training for shutting down pumps, locating leaks and spills, and shutting down appropriate valves as rapidly as possible;

"(6) conduct on site inspection of pipeline construction projects to ensure that standards are being met;

"(7) require remote shut-off valves on all new pipelines; and

"(8) incorporate technologies that can detect and locate pipeline leaks and spills into standards for new pipelines;

"Finally, the legislation should mandate that the National Transportation Safety Board sponsor or conduct increased research on pipeline safety technologies and conduct a comprehensive study on the extent to which longitudinal seams in some electric resistance welded pipelines are prone to experience failures;

"Be it further resolved That the Secretary of State of Minnesota is directed to transmit certified copies of this memorial to the President of the United States, the President and the Secretary of the United States Senate, the Speaker and the clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and to Minnesota's Senators and Represent-atives in Congress." ·

POM-188. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Utah; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 15 "Be it resolved by the Legislature of the

State of Utah, the Governor concurring therein:

"Whereas, a bill has been proposed that would increase the size of Canyonlands N ational Park from 337,258 acres to 754,600 acres;

"Whereas, Utah already has a vast amount of land locked up in its five national parks, Park Service and Forest Service recreation areas, Department of Defense bombing and gunnery ranges, and Indian

reservations, which has been designated as single use land that cannot be developed or follow the multiple-use concept;

"Whereas, the land surrounding Canyonlands National Park that would be included in an expansion of the park has been managed for many years by the Bureau of Land Management, which has protected and preserved the anthropological and archaeological integrity of the area;

·':whereas, since the Bureau of Land Management has the same authority to enforce cultural resource laws as the National Park Service, the scenic, aesthetic, and cultural values of the Canyonlands area can be protected under current management without expansion of the park;

"Whereas, keeping the area around Canyonlands National Park under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management will provide continuity of land management in the area, and allow appropriate multiple use of the land;

"Whereas, although the Bureau of Land Management allows appropriate livestock grazing and the development of mineral resources in the area, if the Canyonlands area is included in the national park area, National Park Service management of the land will prohibit grazing, mineral development, and other appropriate activities and development, which would devastate the local economies that are heavily dependent on activities allowed under the Bureau of Land Management's multiple-use management;

"Whereas, because one-half of the royalties derived from oil and gas production on federal land are returned to the state, mainta, · ing mineral options in southeastern Utah is important to the economic welfare of the entire state;

"Whereas, expanding Canyonlands National Park would curtail future mineral development in the area, and deny the state much-needed revenue from mineral development that could help pay for the education of our children, the state's most precious resource;

"Whereas, expanding Canyonlands National Park will handicap economic development in southeastern Utah since the integral vista concept limits the development that is allowed around national parks, and with a larger national park the perimeter lands that cannot be developed will necessarily increase; and

"Whereas, the expansion of Canyonlands National Park, which would result in the loss of future revenues from developable mineral resources and the further handicapping of local economies, is clearly not in the best interest of the people of Utah.

" Now, therefore, be it resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, is opposed to the proposed expansion of Canyonlands National Park.

"Be it further resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor declare it to be in the best interest of the people of Utah to have the Canyonlands area remain under the careful management and protection of the Bureau of Land Management, rather than under the National Park Service.

"Be it further resolved, That a copy of this resolution be prepared and sent to the director of the Division of State Lands, the members of the Utah State Land Board, the director of the state Bureau of Land Management, the director of the federal Bureau of Land Management, the members of Utah's congressional delegation, the Vice-President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the

chairman of the United States House of Representatives Interior Committee, and the chairman of the United States Senate Interior Committee."

POM-189. A resolution adopted by the Nineteenth Guam Legislature; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

"RESOLUTION No. 92 (COR)

"Be it resolved by the Legislature of the Territory of Guam:

"Whereas, the island of Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States; and

"Whereas, the economic well being of Guam and her Inter-regional trade network is a genuine concern of the United States Government; and

"Whereas, the United States Government has amended Customs Regulations to implement provisions of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 which authorizes the Customs Service to assess a harbor maintenance fee of four hundredths of one percent (0.04%> on the value of commercial cargo loaded or unloaded from commercial vessels at ports within the definition of the Act; and

"Whereas, the discussions are now in place to address the impact assessment of Title XIV Revenue Provisions for Guam, Hawaii and the U.S. Possessions <Section 1401), cited as the "Harbor Maintenance Revenue Act of 1986"; and

"Whereas, according to the revenue provisions under Title XIV of the Act, the intraregional trade between Guam and Hawaii shall be adversely effected; and

"Whereas, in the Pacific, distances between metropolitan points are significantly greater than those between urban centers in the continental United States; and

"Whereas, the overseas network links at least one large metropolitan point, generally located on the rim of the Pacific Ocean, to a mid-Pacific metropolitan point such as Guam and Honolulu; and

"Whereas, the inter-island network generally takes cargo from the Pacific metropolitan harbors (i.e. Guam from Honolulu> and distributes the same cargo to smaller urban centers within the region via inter-island transport service; and

"Whereas, from Hawaii, there is a periodic/weekly distribution service to Guam, which in turn provides intra-regional distribution of goods to destinations like Saipan and other Micronesian ports; and

"Whereas, this view of an overseas "hub and spoke" network within the Pacific Islands is dependent upon the United States for overseas domestic carrier service to and from Guam via Hawaii, which varies from bi-weekly to bi-monthly with goods arriving on Guam weekly; and

"Whereas, the applicability of the Harbor Maintenance Fee to the intra-regional movements between Guam, the U.S. possessions and Hawaii is clearly expressed with the full intention to exempt the intraregion between Hawaii and her U.S. Pacific neighbors from the fee; and

"Whereas, Congress recognized this great dependency and granted Guam limited exemptions from 0.04% ad valorem tax contained in the revenue provisions of this law; yet, with these exemptions, the assessment of Title XIV (P.L. 99-662) for Guam and U.S. Possessions shows that there may be some adverse impacts to these areas; and

"Whereas, the United States Government deems it appropriate to include the State of Hawaii as eligible to be non-exempt from

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16145 the new intra-regional cargo tax, which shall affect Guam directly; and

"Whereas, the Government on behalf of the People of Guam has been duly notified that the U.S. Department of the Treasury of the United States Customs Services shall imposed the 0.04% "Harbor Maintenance <Ad Valorem) Tax" on the Port of Hawaii, thus adversely affecting the cost of consumer goods destined for Guam; and

"Whereas, it is still unclear how cargo shipped to Guam from Hawaii and her regional neighbors are to be exempted or at least to avoid the adverse effects from the imposed "Harbor Maintenance Tax"; and

"Whereas, Title XIV Revenue Provisions <P.L. 99-662) for the State of Hawaii and the U.S. Possessions show that the Ad Valorem tax went into effect April 1, 1987, payable on a quarterly basis; and

"Whereas, the population of Guam and her neighboring islands, over 232,000 citizens, shall feel the ill effect from a rise in cost for consumer goods which shall undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer by no later than July 1, 1987; and

"Whereas, Hawaii's harbors and shipping networks in the U.S. insular areas are the lifeline for everyone on Guam and her neighboring islands as direct beneficiaries of Hawaii'<- Pacific port system; and "Whet~;as, there is no realistic alternative

for transporting consumer goods of which 80% are imported and 98% are transshipped by ocean going vessels, most of which provide items needed daily by those depending on ocean shipping both on Guam and other U.S. Possessions; and

"Whereas, Guam and Hawaii are major trading partners to Micronesia where annual trade dollars amount to $11.4 Million (1982) for Hawaii and $24.6 Million <1983) for Guam; so the ad valorem burden on Micronesia would be about Fourteen Thousand, Four Hundred Dollars <$14,400) per annum; and

"Whereas, with $6.61 billon dollars worth of goods imported to our islands annually, the regional ad valorem assessment on all goods would be $741,500, ($610,000 for Hawaii and $187,000 for Guam) excluding the Northern Marianas; and

"Whereas, if Guam should export to Hawaii as one of its few means to further its own economic development, Guam shall be affected by the Harbor Maintenance Tax; and

"Whereas, the people of Guam and her regional neighbors are already heavily burdened with an altogether too high cost of living above and beyond the normal standards currently realized in the Continental United States; now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the Legislature of the territory of Guam respectfully request that the Department of the Treasury United States Customs Services and the Congress of the United States institute a reassessment of Title XIV revenue provisions <P.L. 99-662) for Guam and other U.S. Possessions in the Pacific which shall feel the effects of the Ad Valorem Tax imposed on Hawaii; and be it further

"Resolved, That Guam's Delegate to Congress, Ben Blaz, initiate and continue in the effort to reassess the effects of the Ad Valorem Tax and obtain an exemption from the effects of this tax on Guam and her neighboring islands in the Pacific; and be it further

"Resolved, We request that domestic cargo between the U.S. Mainland and Hawaii destined for Guam and her neighboring islands be exempted from the ad valorem tax in

such a way that there is no adverse effect on Guam's consumer goods and other interisland type cargo destined to U.S. Possessions in the Pacific from Hawaii; and be it further

"Resolved, That the impact assessment of Title XIV Revenue Provisions for Guam and U.S. Possessions shipped from Hawaii <Section 1401), cited as the "Harbor Maintenance Revenue Act of 1986, be hereby addressed in such a manner where there is an amendment of the GENERAL RULEChapter 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 by inserting after the chapter heading a new subchapter: A-Harbor Maintenance Tax under Section 4461 <Imposition of Tax), which shall greatly reduce the adverse impact that the ad valorm tax would have on Guam and U.S. Possessions, because of their almost total dependency on waterborne transportation of goods; and be it futher

"Resolved, That the Speaker certify to and the Legislative Secretary attest the adoption hereof and that copies of the same be thereaft€r transmitted to the President of the United States, to the President of the Senate of the United States; to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; to the Guam's Delegate to the United States Congress; to the Secretary of the Treasury; to the Secretary of the Interior; to the Governor of Hawaii; to the Director of the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation; to the Governor of American Samoa; to the Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; to the President of the Senate and th· Speaker of the House of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; to the President of the Association of Pacific Island Legislatures <APIL); to the President of the Guam Chamber of Commerce; and to the Governor of Guam."

POM-190. A current resolution adopted by the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works; "RESOLUTIONS MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS To

PASS LEGISLATION WHICH EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZES THE AUTHORITY OF STATES CONCERNING CERTAIN MATTERS PERTAINING TO NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

"Whereas, nuclear power plants pose a potentially serious threat to public health and safety from routine and accidental releases of radiation into the environment; and

"Whereas, current Federal regulations give the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission discretion to ignore violations of reactor license conditions and standards; and

"Whereas, all major Federal environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, set minimum Federal standards and allow States to adopt and enforce stricter standards; and

"Whereas, the Congress of the United States declared when ordering the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop reactor siting regulations in 1980 that

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to provide that the Commission shall have any authority to pre-empt any State requirement relating to land use or respecting the siting of any utilization facility, except that no State or local land use or facility siting requirement relating to the same aspect of facility siting as a requirement established pursuant to this section shall have any force and affect unless such State or local requirement is identical to, or

more stringent than, the requirement promulgated pursuant to this section"; and

"Whereas, the Clean Air Act amendments of 1977 authorized States or political subdivisions to regulate radioactive air emissions from nuclear reactors, provided that such standards are not less stringent then Federal standards; therefore be it

"Resolved, that the Massachusetts general court hereby urges the Congress of the United States to expressly recognize the authority of each State to establish and enforce standards for the protection of the public health and safety from radiological hazards of nuclear reactors, in addition to those rights established under the Clean Air Act, and such standards may provide a level of protection of the public health and safety identical to or more stringent than that provided under Federal law; and be it further

"Resolved, that the Congress of the United States explicitly recognize that the chief executive officer of each State within ten miles of a nuclear reactor has the express authority to veto or revoke the issuance of a reactor operating license, if sur.h chief executive officer determines that the operation of such facility would be contrary to the best interest of such State; and be it further

"Resolved, that copies of these resolutions be forwarded by the clerk of the House of Representatives to the President of the United States, the presiding officer of each branch of Congress and to the Members thereof from this commonwealth."

POM-191. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works:

"HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 29 "Whereas, Louisiana has attempted and is

attempting to manage the waste generated within its borders in a reasonable and environmentally sound manner, without exporting its liabilities and obligations to other states; and

"Whereas, the citizens of Louisiana cannot become vulnerable to waste practices or products over which this state has limited or no influence; and

"Whereas, the acceptance of waste or waste products from outside of Louisiana must be carefully monitored and the amount limited if Louisiana is to exercise reasonable and prudent control of waste or waste practices within Louisiana; and

"Whereas, the importation into Louisiana of wastes which are infectious or otherwise hazardous to human health represents an unacceptable risk to Louisiana residents; and

"Whereas, the prompt and diligent actions taken by the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and her staff have prevented an unwarranted and socially undesirable precedent for the management of waste in Louisiana, and are indicative that our past legislative and regulatory efforts to protect Louisiana's environment have been successful and should continue to be successful in the future if diligence is maintained in enforcing the available environmental laws and if these laws are allowed to evolve as necessary to confront and anticipate environental dilemmas.

"Therefore, be it resolved that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby commend the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and her staff for their recent protective action taken against

16146 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 National Waste Contractors of New York, thwarting the company's attempt to establish Louisiana as a recipient of waste from the state of New York.

"Be it further resolved that the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality is hereby directed to review any and all statutory and regulatory law, which governs or should govern this issue, for the purpose of insuring that Louisiana's environmental laws are adequate to preclude Louisiana from becoming the dumping ground for any type of waste produced outside of this state.

"Be it further resolved that a copy of this Concurrent Resolution shall be transmitted to the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.

"Be it further resolved that the president and the Congress of the United States are hereby urged and requested to establish regulations which encourage each state to accept responsibility for storing, treating, or disposing of its own waste; and, that copies of this Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to the president of the United States, to the president of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, to each member of the Louisiana delegation to the United States f''~ngress, and to the secretary of the United .:->tates Environmental Protection Agency."

POM-192. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; to the Committee on Finance: "RESOLUTIONS MEMORIALIZING THE CONGRESS

OF THE UNITED STATES To ENACT LEGISLATION To CORRECT THE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS DISPARITY KNOWN AS THE "NoTcH" AcT "Whereas, the nineteen hundred and sev

enty-seven change in the social security retirement benefit formula has affected all eligible persons born in the "Notch" years: The years nineteen hundred and seventeen through nineteen hundred and twenty-one, whose work records are otherwise similar to work records of those born in nineteen hundred and sixteen or after nineteen hundred and twenty-one, but are penalized by receiving lower social security benefits; and

"Whereas, this disparity in benefit amounts is unjust and unfair and has caused great hardship; therefore be it

"Resolved, that the Massachusetts general court hereby urges the Congress of the United States to enact legislation to correct this unfair disparity in social security benefits; and be it further

"Resolved, that copies of these resolutions be transmitted by the clerk of the Senate to the President of the United States, the presiding officer of each branch of Congress and to the members thereof from this commonwealth."

POM-193. A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois; to the Committee on Finance:

"HOUSE RESOLUTION No. 312 "Whereas, The State of Illinois has been a

leader in welfare reform initiatives; and "Whereas, Innovative programs in Illinois

have been directed, within federal restrictions, to provide benefits to welfare recipients to maintain a standard of living compatible with health and well-being, while providing education, training, and support in finding jobs and developing self-sufficiency; and

"Whereas, Despite the best efforts of the State of Illinois, reforms of the Federal Welfare System are necessary to encourage recipients to become independent and to strengthen families; therefore, be it

"Resolved, by the House of Representatives of the eighty-fifth General Assembly of the State of Illinois, that the United States Congress take the following actions to restructure the Federal Welfare System:

"Change mandatory employment and training participation requirements for AFDC recipients from the current requirement of adults with children age 6 and over to one which will enable states, at State option, to require adults with children age 3 and over to participate; and

"Assure continued Federal funding and flexibility for State-administered welfare-towork programs in the replacement of the WIN Program and for education, training, and innovative programs, such as grant diversion and welfare-recipient-operated business entrepreneurship; and

"Expand tax incentives to private employers to hire welfare recipients through the Federal Targeted Jobs Tax Credit provisions; and

"Authorize Federal funding to match State costs for extended medical and day care services to recipients who lose cash assistance eligibility due to employment; and

"Freeze the cost of Federally funded public housing for newly employed welfare recipients during the transition from welfare to work; and

"Allow the Federal Earned Income Tax Credit <EITC) to vary by family size to br;•1g the EITC more in line with the poverty Lhreshold which varies by family size; and

"Authorize State Demonstration Projects as proposed by the White House to cash out AFDC, Food Stamps, Energy Assistance and Medical Services for families with children for selected counties in the State; and

"Authorize State Demonstration for Cashout of Food Stamps and Energy Assistance for General Assistance Recipients to fund Public Work Projects that pay wages instead of assistance benefits; and

"Simplify States' administration of the AFDC and Food Stamp programs by having consistent definitions of income, resources, sanctions, and other program requirements for both programs; and

"Eliminate Federal requirements under the AFDC-Unemployed Parent program denying AFDC to a two parent family in which a wage earner works over 100 hours per month or does not have a sufficient work history (connection to labor force); and

"Require the Federal Government to meet established time standards (60 days) for determining eligibility for SSI; and be it further

"Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and to each member of the Illinois Congressional Delegation."

POM-194. A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Hawaii; to the Committee on Finance:

"HOUSE RESOLUTION No. 34 "Whereas, under federal tax law as it ex

isted prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, if an individual received all employee contributions within the first three years after the starting date of retirement, all distributions were considered a return of the em-

ployee's contributions until the individual's basis was recovered; and

"Whereas, this three-year basis recovery rule effectively eliminated the tax burden on distributions received during the first three years by employees who had contributed to their retirement plans during their working years; and

"Whereas, this type of treatment was fairest to the employees because they had returned to them tax free during the first years of retirement, contributions which had already been taxed at the time that money was earned; and

"Whereas, under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the three-year basis recovery rule was repealed retroactive to July 1, 1986 and replaced by a requirement which calls for retired employees to be taxed on a pro-rata portion of the distributions received; and

"Whereas, under the new law, the nontaxable portion of the distributions is determined by taking a ratio of the employee's contribution over the accrued benefits as of the date of retirement, which ratio is then applied to the retirement distribution to determine the portion representing the recovery of the retiree's basis; and

"Whereas, this new method of recovering the retiree's basis: < 1) Substantially increases the period over which retirees recover their own contributions upon which they have already been taxed, thereby effectively and unconscionably giving the federal government the use of the retiree's money for a long period of time; and (2) Substantially increases the tax burden on retirees taking various forms of lump sum distributions, thereby restricting the options available to retirees who had formulated retirement plans over a period of years in reliance on the reasonable assumption that those retirement options would be available without the tax consequences recently imposed; now, therefore,

"Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the Fourteenth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 1987, that the Congress of the United States is urged to reinstate the three-year basis recovery rule for employee contributions to retirement plans as the law existed before the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986; and

"Be it further resolved that copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of Hawaii's Congressional delegation."

POM-195. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the State of Washington; to the Committee on Finance:

SENATE RESOLUTION 1987-8666 "Whereas, Thousands of employees of

common carriers travel across state lines in the regular course of their daily employment; and

"Whereas, These employees who are not residents of these states impose no tax burden on the states through which they travel; and

"Whereas, The employers of these nonresidents are common carriers which pay a substantial share of state and local taxes in the states in which they operate, such as fuel taxes and registration fees, and various other excise and property taxes, to cover the cost of governmental services from which they benefit while present in the state; and

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16147 "Whereas, It is patently inequitable for

one state to tax another state's residents for purpurted benefits received from governmental services when the nonresidents taxed are neither living, nor working to any substantial degree, in the taxing state; and

"Whereas, Current federal law allows withholding of state income tax by common carriers from their employees' wages if more than fifty percent of the distance traveled by the employee is within a state other than the employee's state of residence; and

"Whereas, In i!nposing state income taxes, these states are taxing nonresidents who as such have no vote or voice in the imposition of the tax or its rate, and receive no benefit from the expenditure of their tax money; and

"Whereas, The fact that current federal law allows this taxation without representation does not make the collection of such taxes from these nonresident employees equitable; and

"Whereas, Taxing nonresidents while traveling through another state raises questions regarding the exclusive power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and the ensuing right to travel freely as expressed in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States;

"Now. therefore, be it resolved, That the Senate the State of Washington recognizes the impropriety of the State of Idaho taxing nonresident employees of common carriers and believes that the United States Congress should change federal law to ensure more fair treatment of employees of common carriers who cross state lines; and

"Be it further resolved, That copies of this Resolution be immediately transmitted to the Director of the Internal Revenue Service, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and each member of Congress."

POM-196. A petition from a citizen of Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, favoring changes to the Social Security Act to remedy the "notch"' effect; to the Committee on Finance.

POM-197. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Alaska; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

"HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 35 "Be it resolved by the Legislature of the

State of Alaska: "Whereas plutonium is a long-lived,

highly radioactive, and extremely toxic material that is used to construct nuclear weapons and as fuel in nuclear reactors; and

"Whereas the United States and Japan are presently negotiating a 30-year nuclear cooperation agreement that would permit the shipping of plutonium as reprocessed reactor fuel from reprocessing plants in Europe to Japan; and

"Whereas the shipments would begin by air carrier in the early 1990's and would occur every two weeks in amounts of 500 to 600 pounds each, which is enough plutonium to build 40 bombs of the size dropped on Nagasaki, Japan at the end of World War II; and

"Whereas the polar route planned for the shipments would necessitate a refueling stop in Alaska; and

"Whereas a cask for the economical and safe transportation of plutonium that meets the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not been developed; and

"Whereas a loophole in the Atomic Energy Act <42 U.S.C. 2011-2296) may allow the cask standards of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be overlooked in favor

of the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency that require the cask to meet only 1/lOth of the impact velocity required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and

"Whereas a cask that met the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency recently failed a test that simulated an airplane crash; and

"Whereas the shipped plutonium will be in the form of plutonium oxide powder, which is easily airborne, and minute quantities of which, if inhaled, can cause cancer; and

"Whereas the signing of the agreement would substitute a blanket 30-year approval for the present case-by-case review process that gives the United States ongoing control over the safety and security of plutonium shipments; and

"Whereas the signing of the agreement would mean United States acquiescence in the development of a plutonium-fueled nuclear industry, which would result in the increased proliferation of plutonium and the attendant danger of nuclear weaponry falling into the hands of other countries and terrorist groups; and

"Whereas an environmental impact statement has not been prepared for the proposed agreement, although there is court precedent for the proposition that the movement of nuclear fuel qualifies as a major federal action requiring preparation of an impact statement; and

"Whereas AS 18.45.027 expressly prohibits the transportation of used nuclear reactor fuel except for purposes of disposal outside thr state; and

· · Whereas allowing the planes carrying the plutonium to land in the state would have tremendous consequences for the health and safety of the state's residents and the protection of the state's environment:

"Be it resolved the Alaska State Legislature opposes the proposed 30-year nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and Japan that would allow the shipment of plutonium by air between Europe and Japan by polar route, resulting in refueling stopovers in the state during the shipments; and be it

"Further resolved that the Legislature respectfully requests the Governor to prevent to the greatest extent possible under the authority of AS 18.45.027 the use of state airports for shipments of plutonium by air between Europe and Japan.

"Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Ronald Reagan, President of the United States: the Honorable George Bush, Vice President of the United States and President of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Defense; the Honorable John S. Herrington, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy; the Honorable George P. Shultz, Secretary of the U.S. Department of State; the Honorable Elizabeth Hanford Dole, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation; the Honorable Jim Wright, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable LandoW. Zech, Jr., Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and to the Honorable Ted Stevens and the Honorable Frank Murkowski, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress."

POM-198. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Michigan; to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

"SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 48 "Whereas, The present record-high water

levels of the Great Lakes are ravaging the vast shoreline of Michigan. It is predicted by most experts that the lakes will continue to rise in the spring of 1987, and no one foresees a lessening of the record levels that have existed over the past year. The cost of the damages from land erosion and flooding has been estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers at 100 to 150 million dollars for 1986 to the United States and Canada. The eight states and two provinces which border these natural wonders teem with major population centers, manufacturing sides, and scenic vistas. Since Michigan possesses more shoreline than any other state or province in the Great Lake Basin, we are well aware of the numerous dangers that the high levels create; and

"Whereas, Although this problem is a natural disaster of emergency proportions, the federal government has yet to recognize it as such. As a result, we have not been allocated the financial help necessary for adequate protection. In the last two and onehalf years, the State of Michigan has spent several million dollars to preserve homes and communities, but we need federal aid for increased short-term protection measures; and

"Whereas, The climatic causes of the problem are beyond our control. However, many experts have outlined courses of action that can be taken to alleviate this danger. Since the issue threatens the economic well-being and quality of life of Great Lakes shoreline residents, we recommend that all possible solutions be examined; and

"Whereas, The governments of Canada and the United States should begin immediate negotiations on the closure of the Ogoki and Long Lac diversions which transfer water from the James Bay Basin in Canada to Lake Superior. It is also possible to construct channels and gates which would increase the flow from Lakes Erie and Ontario out the St. Lawrence Seaway. By decreasing the levels in these three lakes, the levels of all the Great Lakes will be decreased. However, these steps alone will not solve the problem. The governments of Canada and the United States must also examine other long and short-term methods to improve the situation. The International Joint Commission undertakes studies and makes recommendations, but it is the governments of both nations which must enact the necessary solutions; and

"Whereas, While this natural disaster is the cause of very real human, economic, and environmental hardships, the gravity of the situation lies in the fact that the current situation may only be the beginning of even greater danger; now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by the Senate <the House of Representatives concurring), That we urge the Congress of the United States and the International Joint Commission to take decisive and affirmative action regarding the dangerously high levels of the Great Lakes; and be it further

"Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the members of the Michigan Congressional delegation, and the International Joint Commission.''

POM-199. A resolution adopted by the Washington State Association of Letter Carriers relating to the preservation of the

16148 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 Olympia postmark; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

POM-200. A petition from the Mayor of the District of Columbia proclaiming June 8, 1987 as "U.S.S. Liberty Memorial Day" in the District of Columbia; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

POM-201. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Indiana; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

"RESOLUTION-INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY "Whereas, The United States is a nation

composed primarily of immigrants and descendants of immigrants, who have come from all the other nations of the world; and

"Whereas, The people from other countries have brought to the United States their languages, their cultures, and their traditions, all of which contributed to the richness, diversity and success of the United States; and

"Whereas, The strongest bonds shared by all Americans that have helped to make us an effective, single nation are the Consti~ution of the United States and the English language; and

"Whereas, It is desirable and to be encouraged that Americans learn foreign languages for the benefit of the individuals and for the benefit of the United States, especially ir 'oday's more interdependent world, and thb proposal is by no means intended to curtail the teaching of other languages; and

"Whereas, English is the dominant language of the culture, history, politics, economy, education, and social conduct of the United States, and those who are not fluent and literate in English are thereby handicapped in their full participation as citizens of the Nation; and

"Whereas, The supporters of this proposal also encourage the most effective means of helping both children and adults achieve fluency and literacy in English; and

"Whereas, English has been, de facto, the official language of the United States for almost 300 years, which does not exclude, however, the exceptional circumstances such as emergency operators for police and fire departments and translators for defendants accused of crimes, in which non-English assistance must be provided to those who require it; and

"Whereas, This State and many others have established English as the official language within their jurisdictions by both Constitutional and legislative means, but such a declaration can only be fully effective if made at the national level and by means of a Constitutional Amendment: therefore,

"Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, the House of Representatives concurring:

"Section 1. That the General Assembly of the State of Indiana urges the Senate and House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States to propose and adopt an amendment to the United States Constitution which establishes English as the official and legal language of the United States.

"Section 2. That the amendment provide that all communications, including ballots, produced by governmental entities in the United States be in English, and instruction in the public schools and colleges be conducted in English unless the nature of the course would require otherwise.

"Section 3. That the Secretary of the Senate is directed to transmit official copies of this resolution to the leadership of both houses of Congress and to the Congressional delegation of the State of Indiana."

POM-202. A resolution adopted by the Council of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, commending Senator Matsunaga on his introduction of legislation to reauthorize the Older Americans Act; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

POM-203. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

"RESOLUTIONS URGING CONGRESS To HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE COMMONWEALTH IN NINETEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVEN ON A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM "Whereas, the votes of the Common-

wealth of Massachusetts passed a nonbinding referendum on November 4, 1986 urging Congress to enact a national health program; and

"Whereas, approximately sixty-seven per cent of Massachusetts voters were in favor of the referendum; now therefore be it

"Resolved, that the Massachusetts general court respectfully urges key Members of Congress who are responsible for health care legislation in America to hold two or more public hearings in the Commonwealth during nineteen hundred and eighty-seven in order to receive testimony concerning the goals set forth in the Massachusetts national health care referendum and to discuss how and when they can be achieved, whether nationwide or in the form of interim statewide demonstration projects launched with Federal financial support; and be it further

· Resolved, that copies of these resolutions be transmitted forthwith by the clerk of the Senate to the President of the United States, the presiding officer of each branch of Congress and to the Members thereof from this Commonwealth".

POM-204. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs:

HOUSE CONCURRENT MEMORIAL 2001 "Whereas, the State of Arizona has

sought for many years to have a national veterans cemetery established in this state; and

"Whereas, federal legislation has been enacted to acquire the large state veterans cemetery for designation as a national cemetery but without appropriating money to do so; and

"Whereas, legislation has been introduced in Congress to fund the acquisit ion of the state veterans cemetery by the United States. Wherefore your memorialist, the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the State concurring, prays:

" 1. That the Congress of the United States acknowledge the broad consensus in this state desiring a national cemetery and enact legislation funding the acquisition of the state veterans cemetery for use as a national cemetery.

"2. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of the Memorial to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and to each member of the Arizona Congressional Delegation."

POM- 205. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of t he State of Utah; ordered to lie on t he t able:

"HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 12 "Be it resolved by the Legislature of the

State of Utah, the Governor concurring therein:

"Whereas, during the 1986 session, Congress failed to pass the Highway Transit Reauthorization bill, which appropriates money from the Federal Highway Trust Fund to states for construction, repair, and maintenance of the Federal highway system;

"Whereas, as a result of Congress's failure to pass the bill, Utah is left with only those funds reserved from appropriations made in other years, which total about $60 million, to use until Congress sees fit to approve an appropriations bill;

"Whereas, if Congress had passed the bill before adjourning the 1986 session, the state would have received approximately $130 million for highway construction;

"Whereas, the state's highway building program will therefore be short approximately $70 million in funds that the state had planned to receive;

"Whereas, there are currently two bills before Congress-one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives- that would reauthorize transfers to the states from the Federal Highway Trust Fund for much-needed work on the nation's highways;

"Whereas, each of the two bills presented this session is almost identical to the bill that was before each house during the 1986 session, and the differences between the two houses were so complete as to lead to total deadlock on the issue between the House and the Senate during the last session;

"Whereas, the funds in the Federal Highway Trust Fund are derived from gasoline taxes, paid by motorists in the expectation that they will be used to fund timely highway construction, repair, and maintenance;

"Whereas, Utah has tried to keep faith with the federal government by working hard to complete its share of the interstate highway system, and has always tried to maximize the funds the state has been given to complete federally-designated roads;

"Whereas, the delay in receiving funds will put the state further behind in trying to complete the system of roads outlined by the federal government;

"Whereas, by failing to pass a federal highway appropriations bill in a timely manner, the federal government has broken faith with the states, and with the motorists who paid the fuel taxes;

"Whereas, because the bill was not passed during 1986, contractors are losing work and are being forced to lay off employees, who are sometimes unable to pay income taxes and are often forced to draw unemployment, becoming a drain on already scarce state resources;

"Whereas, the ripple effect from the loss of the highway funds extends into many other areas of the state's economy;

"Whereas, unless Congress is able to agree on a single bill, and quickly pass it, the entire 1987 highway construction season will be lost; and

"Whereas, the shameful inaction of Congress on the Highway Transit Reauthorization bill penalizes states for Congress' failure, and represents a breach of faith with individual states and motorists.

"Now, Therefore, be it Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the Governor concur ring therein, urges Congress in t he strongest possible terms to agree on a

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16149 single Highway Transit Reauthorization bill, and pass it by the end of February.

"Be it further Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor warn that if the bill is not passed by the end of February, an entire highway building season will be lost, which will damage Utah's economy.

Be it further Resolved that a copy of this resolution be prepared and forwarded to the members of Utah's congressional delegation, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Vice-president of the United States, and the National Highway Users Federation."

POM-206. A resolution adopted by the Second Olbiil Era Kelulau; ordered to lie on the table:

"Whereas, the former non-voting Delegate Won Pat of Guam was the first Guamanian to occupy the newly created elective seat for Guam in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1973, as well as holding many important positions in the Government of Guam; and

"Whereas, the former representative of Guam, Won Pat, was one of the Guamanian delegates to lobby and successfully gain the passage of the Organic Act of Guam in the United States Congress in 1949; and

"Whereas, for half a century, Mr. Won Pat has '1een a dominant figure on Guam as a teachta, businessman and political leader, and is termed by his friends and the people of Guam as a •·pioneer in Guam politics", having served as Speaker of both the Guam Assembly and the Guam Legislature; and

"Whereas, in 1965 when the 7th Guam Legislature enacted a law creating a liaison office to represent Guam in Washington, Won Pat resigned as Senator that year and successfully won his bid for the Washington representative position; and

"Whereas, Mr. Won Pat was elected by the people of Guam in 1973 as their delegate in the United States House of Representatives, and successively won every election thereafter to the same until 1984 when he gave up his seat to Delegate Ben Blaz; and

"Whereas, former Delegate Won Pat was probably more actively and intimately involved than any other individual with the political evolution of the island of Guam from the Navy rule towards self-determination; and

"Whereas, former Delegate Won Pat, although gave up his seat to Delegate Ben Blaz, continued to appear at the Congress for visits and for business; and

"Whereas, on May 3, 1987 at 5 a.m. at the Holy Cross Hospital in Silver Spring, Maryland, the former Delegate Antonio Borja Won Pat was called to eternal rest in the Grace of Our Lord at the age of 78; and

"Whereas, the later former Congressman Won Pat is survived by his wife, the former Ana Salas Perez, eight children-Mark, Tony, Marilyn, Rosalind, Jacqueline, Aveline, Judy and Owen and numerous grandchildren and great grandchildren, his sister, Eulaulia Cepeda and a brother, Vinvente Won Pat; and

"Whereas, the people of Palau and their leaders, both elected and traditional, experience a great loss of one of the greatest leaders of Guam and the Pacific areas; now, therefore,

"Be it Resolved by the Senate of the Second Olbiil Era Kelulau, Tenth Regular Session, May 1987, the House of Delegates concurring, that the people of Palau, through their elected representatives in the Olbiil Era Kelulau, wish to express deepest sympathies and condolences to the family

of the late former Delegate Antonio Borja Won Pat, his relatives, friends and the people of Guam for the greatest loss of one of the best statesmen and patriots of Guam and the Pacific areas; and

"Be it further resolved that the people of Palau assure the family, relatives, friends of former Congressman Won Pat and all the people of Guam that they equally share the burden of sorrow of the loss of the beloved husband, father and statesman, and whatever assistance the Palauans can offer to lighten the sadness of the loss of this great man they will be more tLan willing to offer; and

"Be it further Resolved that may the soul of the late former congressman Won Pat rest in eternal peace with the risen Christ; and

"Be it further Resolved that certified copies of this joint resolution be transmitted to the family of the former Congressman Won Pat; to the Governor of Guam, to the Speaker of Guam Legislature; to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress; to the President of the Senate of the United States Congress; to His Grace, Archbishop Anthony Apuron of the Archdiocese of Agana; to the President of the Republic of Palau; to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates of the Second Olbiil Era Kelulau; and to Delegate Ben Blaz."

POM-207. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Hawaii; to the Committee on Commerce, Science anu Transportation:

"HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No.6 "Whereas, President Reagan's proclama

tion of March 10, 1983 established ownership, control, and sovereign rights over all living and nonliving resources within the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone; and

"Whereas, these marine resources, both known and yet to be discovered, are of vital importance to the United States; and

"Whereas, the impacts of the development of the U.S. EEZ fall disproportionately on the coastal states, affecting the general welfare of their citizens; and

"Whereas, the marine, coastal, and terrestrial environments are an independent system that must be managed in a manner that transcends existing Federal-State boundaries; and

"Whereas, recognized principles of international law distinguish this Nation's defense and foreign policy interests from its domestic resources management regime within the U.S. EEZ, and that the coastal states have direct and clear interests in the management of these resources; and

"Whereas, the historical, vested interest of coastal states in the activities of this area is magnified in Hawaii's case since the State is comprised of a series of small islands; and

"Whereas, throughout history, the people of Hawaii have always depended on the ocean for their livelihood, from the very first landing of the Polynesians over 1,000 years ago to the modern technological age; and

"Whereas, in order to maintain the unique lifestyle developed by all of Hawaii's peoples and to expand economic activities the State must be able to continue to utilize all of its resources; and

"Whereas, the State of Hawaii must retain the right to insure that coastal air and water quality will not be degraded by any activities; and

"Whereas, in order to meet the State's needs, it must continue to take an active role in the planning and management of its land and water resources of its coastal zone and adjoining ocean; and

"Whereas, Hawaii must be a full participant in decision-making related to EEZ activities that could have a major impact on the State such as those involving the longterm use of fixed ocean sites, direct linkages with the shore, and major shore and oceanside demands and risks; and

"Whereas, the Hawaiian EEZ comprises between 600,000 and 850,000 square miles, making Hawaii in an economic sense, one of the largest state in the Union; and

"Whereas, the State of Hawaii has already demonstrated its interest in the management and control of ocean areas now within the Hawaiian EEZ, by issuing a permit for OTEC-1; by regulating the taking of precious coral off Oahu; by the placement of fish aggregating devices in the waters surrounding the Hawaiian islands; by its implementation of the Federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972; by participating on a joint StateFederal Task Force for ocean mining of manganese crusts in waters surrounding Hawaii and Johnston Island; and by participating in the Coastal States Organization's efforts to unify coastal states in achieving an effective EEZ management role; and

"Whereas, the Hawaii State Legislature recognizes that a more effective State role in ocean management requires clearly defined legal authority and increased public support; now, therefore,

"Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Fourteenth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 1987, the Senate concurring, that the State of Hawaii is committed to attain an effective, shared management role with the federal government in the Exclusive Economic Zone; and

"Be it further Resolved that certified copies of this Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and members of Hawaii's congressional delegation.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES RECEIVED DURING ADJOURNMENT Under the authority of the order of

the Senate of June 11, 1987, the following reports of committees were submitted on June 12, 1987:

By Mr. JOHNSTON, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with amendments and an amendment to the title:

S. 748: A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to establish a comprehensive, equitable, reliable, and efficient mechanism for full compensation of the public in the event of an accident resulting from activities undertaken under contract with the Department of Energy <Rept. No. 100-70).

By Mr. BENTSEN, from the Committee on Finance, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:

S. 490: A bill to authorize negotiations of reciprocal trade agreements, to strengthen, U.S. trade laws, and for other purposes <Rept. No. 100-71).

16150 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 By Mr. KENNEDY, from the Committee

on Labor and Human Resources, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:

S. 406: A bill to provide additional Federal education programs designed to strengthen competitiveness of American industry, and for other purposes.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees

were submitted: By Mr. BYRD (for Mr. BIDEN), from the

Committee on the Judiciary, without amendment:

S. 938: A bill to authorize appropriations for the purpose of carrying out the activities of the Department of Justice for fiscal years 1988 and 1989, and for other purposes <Rept. No. 100-72).

By Mr. KENNEDY, from the Committee on Labor and Human Resources:

Report to accompany the bill <S. 406> to provide additional Federal education programs designed to strengthen competitiveness of American industry, and for other purposes <with minority views) (Rept. No. 100-73).

E)..ECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following executive reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. BENTSEN, from the Committee on Finance:

Mr. Peter McPherson, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.

<The above nomination was reported with the recommendation that it be confirmed, subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before a duly constituted committee of the Senate.)

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 indicaterl:

By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself and Mr. INOUYE):

S. 1362. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for a 2-year budget cycle, 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 if one committee reports, the other committee has 30 days of continuous session to report or be discharged.

By Mr. GRASSLEY <for himself and Mr. HARKIN):

S. 1363. A bill to provide for modification of the voluntary agreement between the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the State of Iowa under section 218 of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage of certain policemen and firemen; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. BREAUX: S. 1364. A bill to amend the Internal Reve

nue Code of 1954 to exempt from tax earning on certain investment accounts for savers and investors; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr.

MATSUNAGA, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, and Mr. MITCHELL):

S. 1365. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish presumptions of service connection for certain diseases of former prisoners of war; to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. STAFFORD, Mr. WEICKER, Mr. METZENBAUM, Mr. MATSUNAGA, Mr. DODD, Mr. SIMON, Mr. PELL, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. GoRE, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. CHAFEE, and Mr. KERRY):

S. 1366. A bill to revise and extend the programs of assistance under title X of the Public Health Service Act; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

By Mr. CHILES (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM):

S. 1367. A bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to preserve certain wetlands and historic sites in the St. Johns River Valley, FL. and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

By Mr. HEFLIN: S. 1368. A bill for the relief of Meenakshi

ben P. Patel; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. MATSUNAGA, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. KERRY, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. BINGAMAN, and Mr. SANFORD):

S. 1369. A bill to strengthen the technological literacy of the Nation through demonc:tration programs of technology educatio.u; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

By Mr. BUMPERS: S. 1370. A bill to provide special rules for

health insurance costs of self-employed individuals; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. MOYNIHAN <for himself, Mr. SIMON, Mr. BuRDICK, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. BENTSEN):

S. 1371. A bill to designate the Federal building located at 330 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, as the "Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building"; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

By Mr. JOHNSTON: S. 1372. A bill to provide for the unitiza

tion of common hydrocarbon-bearing areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

By Mr. PELL: S. 1373. A bill to authorize the Secretary

of Education to provide financial assistance to States for use in expanding educational programs in juvenile and adult correctional institutions to assist in the rehabilitation of criminal offenders, and for othe1 purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. WILSON, Mr. HATCH, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. COHEN, Mr. D'AMATO, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. QUAYLE, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. DOMENICI):

S. 1374. A bill to provide for a comprehensive program relating to acquired immune deficiency syndrome; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

By Mr. GLENN: S. 1375. A bill to suspend until December

31, 1990, the duty on Ornithine; to the Committee on Finance.

S. 1376. A bill to suspend until December 31, 1990, the duty on Teicoplanin; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. GRASSLEY: S. 1377. A bill extending the existing sus

pensions of duty on certain chemicals until January 1, 1991; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. HEINZ <for himself, Mr. GLENN, Mr. CHILES, Mr. WARNER, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. PRESSLER, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. JoHNSTON, Mr. REID, Mr. DODD, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. DECONCINI, and Mr. MATSUNAGA):

S.J. Res. 159. A joint resolution to designate July 1, 1987, as "National Centenarians Day" in honor of all Americans 100 years old and older; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. LAUTENBERG <for himself, Mr. ADAMS, Mr. BOSCHWITZ, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CHILES, Mr. CoNRAD, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. DOLE, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. GARN, Mr. GLENN, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HEINZ, Mr. JoHNSTON, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. NUNN, Mr. PRESSLER, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. REID, Mr. SANFORD, Mr. SIMON, Mr. STAFFORD, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. WIRTH):

S.J. Res. 160. A joint resolution to designate July 25, 1987, as "Clean Water Day"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. DOLE <for himself, Mr. WILSON, Mr. HATCH, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CoHEN, Mr. D' AMATO, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. QUAYLE, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. DOMENICI):

S. Res. 233. A resolution to express the sense of the Senate with respect to the appropriation of funds for the Public Health Emergency Fund and for the provision of medical treatment for veterans with acquired immune deficiency syndrome; to the Committee on appropriations.

By Mr. BYRD <for himself and Mr. DOLE):

S. Res. 234. A r ~solution to direct the Senate Legal Coun1>el to represent, and to authorize the testimony of the production of documents by, Senate employees in the case of United States v. Carrothers; considered and agreed to.

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself and Mr. INOUYE):

S. 1362. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for a two-year budget cycle, 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.

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16151 FISCAL PROCEDURES REFORM ACT

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, last night President Reagan addressed the Nation and declared that it is time for Congress to put its fiscal house in order. In doing so, the President joined a chorus of other voices, including many in this Chamber, calling for action to sort out the procedural and budgetary quagmire created-with the best of intentions-by a series of past reform efforts.

Today, I am joining with the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. INOUYE, in introducing legislation that responds to this demand, the Fiscal Procedures Reform Act of 1987. While I am not certain this is what the President, or anyone else, has had in mind, I believe it is an essential starting point for serious debate on how we in Congress do the Nation's business.

In introducing this bill, I am well aware of past efforts, and present proposals by others, to accomplish procedural reform. In just the past few years, we have had the Pearson-Ribicoff stt..liy, and the special commission headed by Senator QuAYLE. These various efforts have produced many proposals, but few concrete changes.

Alice Rivlin, director of the Congressional Budget Office from 1975 to 1983, commented in an important speech on January 18, 1987, "that our economic policy system has gradually become so complex, diffused and fragmented that it impedes rather than fosters informed choices on major issues."

The legislation that Senator INOUYE and I introduce today is not merely another effort to tinker with Senate rules or the budget process. Instead, it seeks fundamental change by shifting the balance of power back toward the leadership on both sides of the aisle.

I am sure this proposal will be subject to all kinds of instant objections. It may be branded as too radical or too sweeping. It undoubtedly has flaws and requires careful thought and even modifications. Neither I nor Senator INOUYE would suggest that it be adopted today without debate or change.

However, I will say again that I believe this bill, or one like it, is the essential starting point for genuine improvements in the operation of the Senate. The time for bipartisan commissions and expert studies is past. It is time for those of us who must live and work in our present straitjacket of procedure to debate and act on this problem.

I believe, Mr. President, that the heart of our problem is that power in the Senate is too diffused to be exercised effectively. This trend has been under way for roughly two decades and has some legitimate causes. It also has many pernicious effects that are most evident in a kind of procedural paralysis.

The bill we are introducing seeks to cure this problem by focusing increased power, and an equally increased responsibility, in the hands of the majority and minority leaders and committee chairmen and ranking members. It would do so by giving these leaders both the power to write a budget and the power to enforce the budget after it is adopted. At the same time, it would make absolutely clear who is responsible for both functions.

The balance of my statements further describes how t his would occur but I will conclude for now by citing one other possible vir tue of this bill. It could force us to stop debating procedure and engaging in abstract arguments about the deficit and begin debating the spending priorities of the Nation. This bill will not outlaw smoke and mirrors, but it would help pinpoint their sources.

This measure would greatly enhance and expedite the legislative process of Congress by consolidating fiscal policy responsibilities under a single leadership committee in each House, replacing the present three-tiered system of budgeting, authorizing, and appropriating with a simplified process, and eliminating existing procedural constraints on the effective exercise of congressional policy prerogatives. Tl1 ose objectives would be achieved through a series of changes in substantive law, and changes in Senate and House rules described below.

I realize, Mr. President, that each House of Congress has a constitutional right to make its own rules. That is a right that both bodies insist on defending from incursions, and rightly so, I say that, Mr. President, as a preface to saying that the proposed changes in House rules included in this measure are offered in a spirit of comity, and are included to achieve the conformity on which the success of much of this initiative depends. If this measure should receive favorable consideration I would fully anticipate, and expect, our friends in the other body to formulate any changes they might desire to make in their own standing rules.

The measure I am introducing would establish a 2-year budget and appropriations cycle, with consideration of routine budget and appropriations measures confined to the first session of each Congress. The responsibility for such legislation would be consolidated, and vested in the appropriations committees within each House. Through this revision, the responsibility of the appropriations committees for fiscal policy in general, and spending decisions in particular, would be greatly enhanced. In recognition of that fact, the membership of the appropriations committees would be reconstituted to vest this increased decisionmaking responsibility in the hands of those who would have to contend,

most directly, with the policy implications of those decisions.

The membership of the appropriations committees, as reconstituted under this measure, would include the chairmen and ranking members of the existing appropriations committees in each body, and the chairmen and ranking members of all other committees which currently have legislative jurisdiction over programs or activities which require regular annual appropriations or for which direct spending legislation currently exists.

The membership of all other committees of the Congress would remain unchanged, and such committees would maintain their current areas of legislative jurisdiction, except for the budget .committees of the two Houses, which would be abolished.

All legislation which included either an authorization of appropriations, or a direct spending authorization, once reported from an authorizing committee, would be sequentially referred to the appropriations committees for further action. Legislation which did not contain spending authorizations would continue to be reported directly to the floor.

Upon sequential referral, the appropriations committees would be responsible for adding appropriations language directly to authorizing legislation. Such language would be confined to the purpose of appropriating budget authority. The appropriations provided could not exceed authorized levels and could not materially change authorizations. The appropriations committees would be under no obligation to fund any program or report any legislation received through sequential referral.

In those instances where the legislation referred to the Appropriations Committees contained entitlement language, or modified existing entitlement language, the Appropriations Committees would be permitted to make modifications to such language, the effect of which would be to reduce anticipated spending under such programs. Thus, entitlement authorizations would not be covered by protections against programmatic changes provided for authorizations subject to appropriations.

By vesting this combination of authority and responsibility in the Appropriations Committees of the two Houses, a number of efficiencies would be achieved. First, decisionmaking would be centralized. All legislation prioritizing, authorizing, or funding the activities of government, would flow through a single committee. Second, those charged with prioritizing spending would also have primary responsibility for allocating funding. Third, authorizations and appropriations would flow to the floor in a single legislative measure.

16152 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 As a further step toward improving

congressional efficiency, the legislation I am introducing repeals those provisions of the Budget Act which provide for budget reconciliation. By centralizing congressional fiscal policy decisionmaking in the Appropriations Committees, most of the benefits of reconciliation can be achieved without resorting to the jurisdictional incursions associated with reconciliation. All appropriated spending and all entitlement spending will pass through the Appropriations Committees which will have set 2-year targets with which such spending must conform. Therefore, to the extent that programatic reductions are required, the decision to make such reductions-and more importantly-the decisions as to which programs must be reduced, will not longer be primarily shaped by a panel with no responsibility for the policy implications of those decisions.

The measure I am introducing also repeals all provisions of the GrammRudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and E'''ergency Deficit Control Act, except Lhose provisions which tighten up pre-Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Act points of order. It is, in my opinion, absolutely impossible for Congress to reassert its policymaking prerogatives, vis-a-vis the executive branch, as long as this legislation remains on the books.

The enactment of Gramm-RudmanHollings constituted a quantum setback for hopes of reasserting congressional legislative policy making prerogatives. When we enacted GrammRudman-Hollings, we arbitrarily decided that the military, social, and political implications of our policy decisions were secondary, not to just economic considerations in general, but to a single economic consideration in particular-a balanced budget.

We have arbitrarily designated a balanced Federal Budget as more critical to the future of the Nation than-to pick a few examples at randomachieving political stability in the Middle East, maintaining overseas bases that provide national technical means for verifying compliance with arms control agreements, or guaranteeing the solvency of the national banking system. It's not hard to understand why we are losing policy influence. We will continue to lose influence until we revise our procedural ground rules to make the structure for legislative deliberation policy neutral.

I realize this initiative will be immediately, and roundly denounced in some quarters, as fiscally irresponsible. However, unless one believes that Congress has recently been fiscally responsible, that charge lacks credibility. Repealing a procedural framework that has failed to achieve its desired objective should be a simple commonsense decision-especially when that framework is flawed in its design, and

consumes inordinate amounts of legislative time with little to show for the effort.

The willingness to make tough decisions is a commodity that can neither be legislated nor repealed. Despite the best of intentions, the present structure hasn't produced fiscal responsibility. By the same token, this legislation will not preclude it. Nothing in the bill I am introducing prohibits Congress from legislating in a fiscally responsible fashion. It does not force any Member of Congress to vote for more spending, lower revenues, or bigger deficits. It does not prohibit any Member of Congress from voting for less spending, higher revenues, or smaller deficits. It does not repeal freedom of choice in Congress, in fact it enhances it.

Procedural controls have a great deal in common with price controls. First, neither addresses underlying, fundamental problems. Second, both create market distortions which lead to serious commodity shortages. The commodity in short supply these days in Congress is regular annual appropriations bills. If and when the Federal budget is ever again balanced, it won't be because of procedural legislation. Such legislation simply clogs up the decisionmaking process and ereat q an atmosphere where legislating in a responsible, timely fashion becomes impossible.

The final provision of this legislative initiative is repeal of the statutory ceiling on the public debt. Because debt ceiling bills are "after the fact" fiscal controls, they must be enacted. We always raise the debt ceiling because we are legally obligated to settle the contractual obligations we have incurred. We always have voted to pay our debts. I assume we always will. So why must we tie up the legislative process?

Recently, the answer to that question has been so we can enact further procedural legislation. The debt ceiling increase, as we all know, is the vehicle that brought us GrammRudman-Hollings. This year it appears to be the prime candidate on which efforts to further expand procedural controls will be attached. The effort will, of course, once again prove counterproductive.

Enactment of the bill I am introducing today would provide Congress with an opportunity to regain a prominent position in the formulation of national policy. It would also provide a real opportunity for making our policy deliberations a meaningful exercise. Rather than repeat the budget, supplemental appropriations, and debt ceiling exercises of April and May 1987 every year, we could, in fact, actually make decisions of substance on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a

summary of the legislation be printed in the RECORD.

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

s. 1362 Be it enacted by the Sen ate and House of

Representatives of the Uni ted States of America i n Congress assem bled, SECTION I. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES IN ACT.

(a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the "F iscal Procedures Reform Act of 1987".

(b) REFERENCES IN ACT.-Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this Act an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment to or repeal of, a section or ot her provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to that section or other provision of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. SEC. 2. REVISION OF TIMETABLE.

Section 300 (2 U.S.C. 631) is amended to read as follows:

"TIMETABLE "SEc. 300. The timetable wit h respect to

the Congressional budget process for any Congress is as follows:

"First Session

"On or before: Action to be completed: 15th day ......... .. ........... President submits budget for the two-year after the session fiscal period beginning on October I of the same

begins calendar year (including current services budget) .

February 15 ....... ..... Congressional Budget Office submits report to Appropriations Committees with respect to the two-year fiscal period.

March 15 .. . .................. Committees and joint committees submit reports to Appropriations Committees with respect to the two-year fiscal period.

April 15 ... ..... Appropriations Committees report concurrent res-olution on the budget for the two-year fiscal period to their Houses.

May 15 .. ........ .. ... . . ... Congress completes action on the concurrent resolution on the budget for the two-year fiscal period.

September 30 .. Congress completes action on all appropriation bills for the two-year fiscal period.

October I ..... Two-year fiscal period begins.

"Second Session

"On or before: Action to be completed: January 15 ......... .. ........ President submits revised budget for the two-

year fiscal period beginning on October I of the preceding calendar year.

March 31.... . ......... Congressional Budget Office submits report to Appropriations Committees with respect to the two-year fiscal period.".

SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS.

(a) PURPOSES.-SL.Ction 2(2) (2 U.S.C. 621<2)) is amended by striking "each year" and inserting in lieu thereof "every two years" .

(b) DEFINITIONS.-(1) Section 3(1) <2 U.S.C. 622{1)) is amend

ed-<A> by striking "fiscal year" and inserting

in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period"; and <B) by striking "such year" and inserting

in lieu thereof "such period". (2) Section 3(4) <2 U.S.C. 622<4)) is amend

ed to read as follows: "(4) The term 'concurrent resolution on

the budget' means-"(A) a concurrent resolution setting forth

the congressional budget for the United States Government for a two-year fiscal period as provided in section 301; or

"(B) a concurrent resolution on the budget revising the congressional budget for

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16153 the United States Government pursuant to section 304.".

(3) Section 3 <2 U.S.C. 622) is further amended-

< A> by striking paragraphs (6),(7), and <8>. by redesignating paragraphs <9> and

00) as paragraphs <6> and <7> respectively, and

<C> by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraphs:

"(8) The term 'two-year fiscal period' means the twenty-four month period beginning on October 1 of each odd-numbered calendar year.

"(9) The term 'appropriation bill' means a bill or joint resolution making appropriations <other than special, supplemental, or deficiency appropriations> for programs, projects, and activities of the United States Government for a two-year fiscal period.".

(C) CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.-(1) Section 20Ha><2> <2 U.S.C. 601(a)(2)) is

amended by striking "the Budget" and inserting in lieu thereof "Appropriations".

<2> Section 201<0 <2 U.S.C. 60Hf>> is amended by striking "fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period".

(3) Section 202<a> <2 U.S.C. 602(a)) is amended-

< A> b; :triking "BUDGET COMMITTEES" and inserting in lieu thereof "APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES", and

(B) by striking "the Budget" and inserting in lieu thereof "Appropriations".

<4> Section 202(b) (2 U.S.C. 602(b)) is amended-

< A> by striking "ON APPROPRIATIONS, WAYS AND MEANS, AND FINANCE" and inserting in lieu thereof "HAVING LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION", and

 by striking "the Committee on Appropriations" and all that follows through "House," and inserting in lieu thereof "a committee having legislative jurisdiction in either House of the Congress,".

<5> Section 202(f)(l) (2 U.S.C. 602<00)) is amended-

< A> by striking "February 15 of each year" and inserting in lieu thereof "February 15 of each odd-numbered calendar year";

(B) by striking "the Budget" and inserting in lieu thereof "Appropriations",

< C > by striking "the fiscal year commencing" and inserting in lieu thereof "the twoyear fiscal period commencing"; and

(C) by striking "such fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "such two-year fiscal period".

<6 Section 202(f) (2 U.S.C. 602(f)) is further amended-

<A> in paragraph <2>-(i) by striking "the Budget" and inserting

in lieu thereof "Appropriations", and (ii) by striking "paragraph (1)" and insert

ing in lieu thereof "paragraphs (1) and (2)"; in paragraph (3)-(i) by striking "each year" and inserting in

lieu thereof "each even-numbered calendar year",

<ii> by striking "the fiscal year ending September 30 of that calendar year" in clause <A> and inserting in lieu thereof "the twoyear fiscal period beginning October 1 of the preceding calendar year",

<iii> by striking "the fiscal year ending September 30 of that calendar year" in clause and inserting in lieu thereof "such two-year fiscal period", and

<iv) by striking "fiscal year beginning October 1 of that calendar year" and inserting in lieu thereof "succeeding two-year fiscal period";

<C> by redesignating paragraphs <2> and (3) as paragraphs <3> and <4>, respectively; and

(D) by inserting after paragraph O> the following new paragraph:

"(2) On March 31 of each even-numbered year, the Director shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate such revisions of the report required by paragraph < 1 > as may be necessary due to changing economic conditions and due to any revisions in the budget transmitted by the President to the Congress on January 15 of that year pursuant to the last sentence of subsection <a> of section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.".

(d) BIENNIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET.-

(!) Section 301<a) <2 U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended-

< A> by striking "April15 of each year" and inserting in lieu thereof "May 15 of each odd-numbered year";

(B) by striking "the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of such year" the first place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "twoyear fiscal period beginning on October 1 of such year";

<C> by striking "the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of such year " the second place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "such two-year fiscal period"; and

<D> by striking "ensuing fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "ensuing two-year fiscal periods".

(2) Section 30Hb> (2 U.S.C. 632(b)) is amended to read as follows:

. b) ADDITIONAL MATTERS IN CONCURRENT RESOLUTION.-A concurrent resolution on the budget for a two-year fiscal period may set forth, if required by subsection (f), the calendar year in which, in the opinion of the Congress, the goals for reducing unemployment set forth in section 4 of the Employment Act of 1946 should be achieved.".

<3> Section 30Hd> <2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is amended by striking "February 25 of each year" and inserting in lieu thereof "March 15 of each odd-numbered year".

<4> Section 30He> <2 U.S.C. 632(e)) is amended-

< A> in the first sentence by striking "fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "twoyear fiscal period";

(B) by inserting between the second and third sentences the following new sentence: "On or before April 15 of each odd-numbered year the Committee on Appropriations of each House shall report to its House the concurrent resolution on the budget referred to in subsection (a) for the two-year fiscal period beginning on October 1 of that year."; and

<C> in paragraph <6>-(i) by striking "five fiscal" and inserting in

lieu thereof "six"; (ii) by striking "such fiscal year" and in

serting in lieu thereof "the first year in such two-year fiscal period,"; and

<iii> by striking "each fiscal year in such period" and inserting in lieu thereof "each two-year fiscal period in such six-year period''.

(5) Section 301<0 <2 U.S.C. 632(f)) is amended-

<A> in paragraph (1) by striking "five-year period" and inserting in lieu thereof "sixyear period", and

 by striking "fiscal year" each place it appears in paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period", and

<6> Section 301 (2 U.S.C. 632) is further amended by striking subsection (i).

(7) Section 301, as amended by the preceding paragraphs of this subsection, is further amended-

<A> by striking "the Budget" each place it appears in subsections (c), (d), and (e) and inserting in lieu thereof "Appropriations", and

 in subsection <h> by striking "BUDGET" and inserting in lieu thereof "APPROPRIATIONS".

(8) The section heading of section 301 is amended by striking "ANNUAL" and inserting in lieu thereof "BIENNIAL".

(9) The table of contents set forth in section Hb> of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking "Annual" in the item relating to section 301 and inserting in lieu thereof "Biennial".

(e) COMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS.-(!) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section

302(a) (2 U.S.C. 633(a)) are amended-<A> by inserting "for a two-year fiscal

period" after "budget" the first place it appears in each such paragraph; and

(B) by inserting "for such two-year fiscal period" after "estimated allocation" each place it appears.

<2> Section 302(b) (2 U.S.C. 633(b)) is amended to read as follows:

"(b) REPORTS BY COMMITTEES.-As soon as practicable after a concurrent resolution on the budget is agreed to, every committee of the House and Senate to which an allocation was made in such joint explanatory statement shall, after consulting with the committee or committees of the other House to which all or part of its allocation was made, < 1> subdivide such allocation among its subcommittees or among programs over which it has jurisdiction, and (2) further subdivide the amount with respect to each subcommittee or program between controllable amounts and all other amounts. Each such committee shall promptly report to its House the subdivisions made by it pursuant to this subsection.".

<3> Section 302(c) (2 U.S.C. 633(c)) is amended-

< A> by striking "for a fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "for a two-year fiscal period"; and

(B) by striking "for such fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "for such two-year fiscal period".

<4><A> Section 302<f><l> <2 U.S.C. 633(f)(l)) is amended-

(i) by striking "for a fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "for a two-year fiscal period", and

(ii) by striking "such fiscal year" each place it appears in the matter preceding subparagraph <A> and inserting in lieu thereof "such two-year fiscal period".

 Section 302<0<2> is amended-(i) by striking "for a fiscal year" and in

serting in lieu thereof "for a two-year fiscal period", and

(ii) by striking "for such fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "for such two-year fiscal period".

<5> Section 302(g) <2 U.S.C. 633(g)) is amended-

( A) by striking "BUDGET" and inserting in lieu thereof "APPROPRIATIONS", and

 by striking "the Budget" and inserting in lieu thereof "Appropriations".

(f) SECTION 303 POINT OF ORDER.-(!) Section 303<a> <2 U.S.C. 634(a)) is

amended by striking "fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period".

16154 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 <2> Section 303 <2 U.S.C. 634(b)) is

amended-< A> by striking "fiscal year" each place it

appears and inserting in lieu thereof "twoyear fiscal period"; and

 in the matter following paragraph (2)-

(i) by striking "any calendar year" and inserting in lieu thereof "any odd-numbered calendar year". and

(ii) by striking "general". (g) PERMISSIBLE REVISIONS OF CONCURRENT

RESOLUTIONS ON THE BUDGET.-Section 304 (2 U.S.C. 635) is amended-

<1> by striking "(a) IN GENERAL.-", <2> by striking subsection . <3> by striking "fiscal year" the first two

places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period",

(4) by striking "for such fiscal year", and <5> by inserting before the period "for

such two-year fiscal period". (h) PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF

BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.-(1) Section 305<a> <2 U.S.C. 636(a)) is

amended by striking "the Budget" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "Appropriations".

(2) Section 305 <2 U.S.C. 636(b)) is amended-

< A> in oaragraph (3)-(i) by . riking "the concurrent resolution

on the budget for a fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "a concurrent resolution on the budget for a two-year fiscal period", and

(ii) by striking "the Budget" and inserting in lieu thereof "Appropriations". and

(B) in paragraph 4) by striking "the Budget" and inserting in lieu thereof "Appropriations".

(i) LEGISLATION DEALING WITH BUDGET PROCESS.-Section 306 (2 U.S.C. 637) is amended-

(!) by striking "BUDGET" and inserting in lieu thereof "APPROPRIATIONS", and

(2) by striking "the Budget" each place it appears and inserting in lieu the'reof "Appropriations".

(j)(l) Section 307 (2 U.S.C. 638) is amended to read as follows:

"REFERRAL OF CERTAIN LEGISLATION TO COMMITTEES ON APPROPRIATIONS

"SEC. 307. (a) IN GENERAL.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any provision of the Standing Rules of the Senate or the Rules of the House of Representatives, whenever any committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate reports a bill or resolution that-

"( 1) authorizes the enactment of new budget authority, or

"(2) provides spending authority of a type described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or <E> of section 40l<c><2>. such bill or resolution shall be immediately referred to the Committee on Appropriations of the House or the Senate, as the case may be.

"(b) AMENDMENTS BY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.-A bill referred to the Committee on Appropriations of the House or the Senate under subsection <a> may be reported by the Committee-

"(!) in the case of a bill or resolution described in subsection <a><l>. with amendments that would, if enacted provide new budget authority under the authorizations contained in the bill or joint resolution, and

"(2) in the case of a bill or joint resolution described in subsection (a)(2), with amendments that would, if enacted, limit the spending authority provided in the bill or resolution to amounts that do not exceed

the appropriate allocations made pursuant to section 302 for the two-year-fiscal period involved.".

<2> The item relating to section 307 in the table of contents in section l <2 U.S.C 621 note) is amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 307. Referral of certain legislation to Committees on Appropriations.".

(k) REPORTS AND SUMMARIES OF CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACTIONS.-

(l)(A) Section 308(a)(l) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 <2 U.S.C. 639(a)(l)) is amended-

(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)-

(1) by striking "<other than continuing appropriations)", and

<II> by striking "fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period",

(ii) in subparagraph <A> by striking "fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "twoyear fiscal period", and

(iii) in subparagraph <C> by striking "such fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "such two-year fiscal period".

(B) Section 308(a)(2) (2 U.S.C. 639(a)(2)) is amended-

(i) by striking "<other than continuing appropriations)", and

(ii) by striking "fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period".

(2) Section 308(b)(l) (2 U.S.C. 639(b)(l)) is amended-

<A> by striking "fiscal year" the first place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "t· 0-year fiscal period";

(B) by inserting "for such two-year fiscal period" after "concurrent resolution on the budget"; and

<C> by striking "the fiscal year preceding such fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "the two-year fiscal period preceding such two-year fiscal period".

(3) Section 308(b)(2) <2 U.S.C. 639<2>> is amended by striking "the Budget" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "Appropriations".

(4) Section 308(c) (2 U.S.C. 639(c)) is amended-

( A) by striking "FIVE" in the subsection heading and inserting in lieu thereof "Six";

 in the matter preceding paragraph (1)-

(i) by striking "each fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "each two-year fiscal period",

(ii) by striking "period of 5 fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "6-year period", and

(iii) by striking "such fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "such period"; and

<C> by striking "each fiscal year in such period" each place it appears in paragraphs (1) through (5) and inserting in lieu thereof "each two-year fiscal period in such 6-year period".

(l) COMPLETION OF ACTION ON APPROPRIATION BILLS.-

(1) Section 309 (2 U.S.C. 640) is amended to read as follows:

"COMPLETION OF ACTION ON APPROPRIATION BILLS

"SEc. 309. On or before September 30 of each odd-numbered calendar year, the Congress shall complete action on all appropriation bills for the two-year fiscal period beginning on October 1 of that year.".

(2) The item relating to section 309 in the table of contents in section l<b) (2 U.S.C. 621 note) is amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 309. Completion of action on appro-priation bills.".

(m) RECONCILIATION PROCESS.-(!) Section 310 <2 U.S.C.641> is repealed. (2) The table of contents in section l<b) <2

U.S.C. 621 note) is amended by striking the item relating to section 310.

(n) SECTION 311 POINT OF 0RDER.-(1) Section 311<a) <2 U.S.C. 642(a)) is

amended-(A) by striking "for a fiscal year" and in

serting in lieu thereof "for a two-year fiscal period";

(B) by striking "such fiscal year" the first, second, and third places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "such period";

<C) by striking "concurrent resolution on the budget for such fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof " concurrent resolution on the budget for the two-year fiscal period"; and

<D> by striking "or, in the Senate" and all that follows through "such subsection)".

(2) Section 3ll<b) (2 U.S.C. 642(b)) is amended-

( A) by striking "such fiscal year" the first place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "a two-year fiscal period"; and

(B) by striking "such fiscal year" the second place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "such two-year fiscal period".

<3) Section 311(c) (2 U.S.C. · 642(c)) is amended by striking "for a fiscal year".

<o> BILLS PRoviDING NEW SPENDING AuTHORITY.-

(1) Section 401(a) (2 U.S.C. 65l<a)) is amended by striking "fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period".

<2> Section 401(b) (2 U.S.C. 651(b)) is amended-

( A) by striking "during the calendar year in" in paragraph < 1) and inserting in lieu thereof "after the date on", and

 by striking "fiscal year" each place it appears in paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period".

(3) Section 401(d)(3)(A) (2 U.S.C. 651(d)(3)(A)) is amended by striking "the date of the enactment of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985" and inserting in lieu thereof "December 12, 1985".

(p) ANALYSIS BY CBO.-Section 403(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 653(a)) is amended-

( 1) in the matter preceding paragraph < 1) by striking "(except the Committee on Appropriations of each House)'',

(2) in paragraphs (1) and (2) by striking "fiscal year in which it is to become effective and in each of the four fiscal years following such fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period in which it is to become effective and in the two succeeding two-year fiscal periods".

(q) RESCISSIONS.-(!) Section 1012<a> <2 U.S.C. 683(a)) is

amended by striking "fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period".

<2> The last sentence of section 1013(a) (2 U.S.C. 684(a)) is amended by striking "fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "twoyear fiscal period".

<3> Section 1014(e) <2 U.S.C. 685(e)) is amended by striking "fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period".

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16155 SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 31, UNITED STATES

CODE. (a) REPORTS.-Section 331 of title 31,

United States Code, is amended-< 1) by inserting "or prior two-year fiscal

period, as the case may be" after "prior fiscal year" each place it appears in subsection (a);

(2) by striking "fiscal years" in paragraph (2) of subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal periods"; and

<3> by inserting "or prior two-year fiscal period, as the case may be," after "prior fiscal year" each place it appears in subsections (b) and (c).

(b) DEFINITION.-(1) Section 1102 of title 31, United States

Code, is amended to read as follows: "§ 1102. Two-year fiscal period

"In all matters of accounts, receipts, expenditures, estimates, and appropriations-

"(!) there shall be, through September 30, 1987, a fiscal year of the United States commencing on October 1 of each year and ending on September 30 of the following year; and

"(2) there shall be, beginning on October 1, 1987, a two-year fiscal period of the United States beginning on October 1 of each odd-numbered year and ending on September 10 of the succeeding odd-numbered year. "Accounts of receipts and expenditures required under law to be published each year shall be published for the fiscal year or twoyear fiscal period, as the case may be.".

<2> The analysis of chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 1102 and inserting in lieu thereof the following new item: "1102. Two-year fiscal period.".

(C) BUDGET CEILING.-Section 1103 of title 31, United States Code, is amended-

(!) by inserting "or two-year fiscal period, as the case may be," after "fiscal year"; and

(2) by inserting "or period" after "that year".

(d) BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT.-Section 1104 of title 31, United States Code, is amended-

(!) in subsection (b) by striking the third sentence, and

(2) in subsection (c)-(A) by inserting "or prior two-year fiscal

period, as the case may be," after "fiscal year", and

 by striking "and on the Budget". (e) BUDGET CONTENTS AND SUBMISSION TO

THE CONGRESS.-(!) So much of section 1105(a) of title 31,

United States Code, as precedes paragraph < 1) thereof is amended to read as follows:

"(a) On or before the fifteenth day after the day on which the first session of a Congress convenes, the President shall transmit to the Congress, the budget for the two-year fiscal period beginning on October 1 of such calendar year. The budget transmitted under this subsection shall include the President's Budget Message, summary data and text, and supporting detail. The budget shall set forth in such form and detail as the President may determine-".

(2) Section 1105(a)(5) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after that year" and inserting in lieu thereof "the two-year fiscal period for which the budget is submitted and the two succeeding two-year fiscal periods".

(3) Section 1105(a)(6) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "the fiscal year for which the budget is submit-

ted and the 4 fiscal years after that year" and inserting in lieu thereof "the two-year fiscal period for which the budget is submitted and the two succeeding two-year fiscal periods".

<4> Paragraphs <7>. <8>, and <9> of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, are amended by striking "fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period".

(5) Section 1105(a)(12) of title 31, United States Code, is amended-

<A> in subparagraph (A) by striking "the fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "the two-year fiscal period", and

(B) in subparagraph by striking "4 fiscal years after that year" and inserting in lieu thereof "two succeeding two-year fiscal periods".

<6> Section 1105<a><13) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "the fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period".

<7> Section 1105Ca><14) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "that year" and inserting in lieu thereof "that two-year fiscal period".

<8> Section 1105Ca><16> of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "the fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "the two-year fiscal period".

<9> Section 1105Ca><17> of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period".

00) Paragraphs 08) and 09) of section 1105Ca) of title 31, United States Code, are amended-

~ \) by striking "the prior fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "the prior two-year fiscal period";

<B) by striking "that year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "that period".

Cll) Section 1105Ca) of title 31, United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: "By January 15 of each even-numbered year, the President shall transmit to the Congress any revisions the President may desire to make in the Budget transmitted in the previous year.".

(f) ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES OF LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES.-Section 1105(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking " each year" and inserting in lieu thereof "each even-numbered year".

(g) RECOMMENDATIONS TO MEET ESTIMATED DEFICIENCIES.-Section 1105(C) of title 31, United States Code, is amended-

(!) by striking "fiscal year for" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period for";

(2) by inserting "or current two-year fiscal period, as the case may be," after "current fiscal year"; and

<3> by striking "that year" and inserting in lieu thereof "that period".

(h) STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN CHANGES.-Section 1105(d) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period".

(i) CAPITAL INVESTMENT ANALYSIS.-Section 1105Ce)(l) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "ensuing fiscal year" in the matter preceding subparagraph CA) and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period to which such budget relates".

(j) MAXIMUM DEFICIT AMOUNT.- Section 1105<0 of title 31, United States Code, is repealed.

(k) SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTIMATES AND CHANGES.-

(1) Section 1106Ca) of title 31, United States Code, is amended-

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)

by striking "for the fiscal year for which the budget is" and inserting in lieu thereof "most recently", and

 in paragraph (1) by striking "that fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "the two-year fiscal period to which that budget relates";

(C) in paragraph (2)-(i) by striking "4 fiscal years" and insert

ing in lieu thereof "4-year period", and <iD by striking "fiscal year for which the

budget is submitted" and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period to which that budget relates",

CD) in paragraph (3)-(i) by striking "future fiscal years" and in

serting in lieu thereof "future two-year fiscal periods"; and

(ii) by striking "fiscal year for which the budget is submitted" and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period to which that budget relates".

(2) Section 1106(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted" and inserting in lieu thereof "the twoyear fiscal period to which the budget most recently submitted under section 1105(a) relates".

<3> Subsection (c) of section 1106 of title 31, United States Code, is repealed.

(1) CURRENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES EsTIMATES.-

(1) Section 1109(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended-

<A> by striking "On or before the first Monday after January 3 of each year Con or before February 5 in 1986)" and inserting in lieu thereof "At the same time that the President submits the budget for a two-year fiscal period under section 1105";

 by striking "the following fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "such two-year fiscal period"; and

<C> by striking "during that year" and inserting in lieu thereof "during that period".

(2) Section 1109(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting "oddnumbered calendar" after "each".

(m) YEAR-AHEAD REQUESTS FOR AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION.-

(1) Section 1110 of title 31, United States Code, is amended-

<A> by striking YEAR-AHEAD" and inserting in lieu thereof " ADVANCE" in the section heading,

CB) by striking "fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period", and

(C) by striking "year before the year in which the fiscal year begins" and inserting "second calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the two-year fiscal period begins".]

(2) The table of sections of chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 1110 and inserting in lieu thereof the following new item:

"1110. Advance requests for authorizing legislation.".

(n) FISCAL, BUDGET, AND PROGRAM INFORMATION.-Section 1112Cc)(3) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "and on the Budget".

(O) BUDGET INFORMATION ON CONSULTING SERVICEs.-Subsections (a) and Cb) of section 1114 of title 31, United States Code, are each amended-

16156 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 ( 1) by striking "The" and inserting in lieu

thereof "For each two-year fiscal period, the", and

(2) by striking "each year" each place it appears.

(p) APPLICATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-Section 1301(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended-

(1) by striking "a regular, annual" and inserting in lieu thereof "an" ; and

(2) by striking "fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof " two-year fiscal period".

(q) USE OF FOREIGN CREDITS.-Section 1306 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "annually" and inserting in lieu thereof "biennially" .

(r) TELEPHONE AND METERED SERVICES.Section 1308 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting ", two-year fiscal period," after "fiscal year" each place it appears.

(S) PROCEDURE FOR ISSUING 0BLIGATIONS.Section 1321(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "annual" and inserting in lieu thereof "biennial".

(t) OFFICIALS CONTROLLING APPORTIONMENTS.-Section 1513 of title 31, United States Code, is amended-

< 1) by striking "fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "twoyear fis 1 period"; and

(2) by striking "entire year" and inserting in lieu thereof "entire two-year fiscal period' '.

(U) ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN APPROPRIATIONS.-Section 1534 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof " two-year fiscal period".

(V) PROCEDURE FOR APPROPRIATION AcCOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR DEFINITE PERIODS.-

(!) Section 1552(a) of title 31, United States ·Code, is amended by striking paragraphs ( 1) and < 2) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new paragraphs:

" (1) The obligated balance is transferred"(A) for any fiscal year commencing on or

after October 1, 1976 and before October 1, 1987, on September 30 of the second fiscal year after the period of availability ends; and

"(B) for any two-year fiscal period commencing on or after October 1, 1987, on September 30 of the second calendar year beginning after the two-year fiscal period for which the appropriation is available for obligation, to an appropriation account of the agency responsible for paying the obligation. Amounts transferred from all appropriation accounts for the same general purpose are merged in the account for paying obligations.

"(2) The unobligated balance is withdrawn at the end of the period of availability for obligation and reverts to the Treasury or, if derived only from a special or trust fund and not otherwise provided, reverts to the fund from which derived. The withdrawal shall be made not later than-

"(A) for any fiscal year commencing on or after October 1, 1976, and ending before October 1, 1987, the November 15 occurring after the period of availability ends; and

"(B) for any two-year fiscal period commencing on or after October 1, 1987], November 15 of the first even-numbered year calendar following the end of the two-year fiscal period in which the period of availability for obligation ends. When the head of the agency decides that part of a withdrawn unobligated balance is required to pay obligations and make ad-

justments, that part may be restored to the appropriate account.".

(2) Section 1552(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting "or two-year fiscal period, as the case may be," after "fiscal year".

(3) Section 1552(d) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "2d complete fiscal year after the fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period after the two-year fiscal period".

(W) REVIEW OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS.Section 1554 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "fiscal" each place it appears.

(X) WITHDRAWAL OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.-Section 1555 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "2 consecutive fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "a full two-year fiscal period".

(y) ADJUSTING AccouNTs.-Section 3530(d) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking "fiscal year" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "two-year fiscal period". SEC. 5. TITLE AND STYLE OF APPROPRIATION

ACTS. (a) IN GENERAL.-Section 105 of title 1,

United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "§ 105. TITLE AND STYLE OF APPROPRIATION ACTS

"(a) The style and title of all Acts making appropriations for the support of the Government shall be as follows: 'An Act making appropriations <here insert the object) for the two-year fiscal period ending September 30 <here insert the odd-numbered calendar year.).'.

· b) All Acts making regular appropriations for the support of the Government shall be enacted for a two-year fiscal period.

"(c) For purposes of this section, the term 'two-year fiscal period' has the same meaning as in section 3(8) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 u.s.c. 622(8))." .

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective with respect to Acts making appropriations for the support of the Government for any two-year fiscal period commencing on or after October 1, 1987. SEC. 6. TERMINATION OF BUDGET COMMI'ITEES

AND TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMI'ITEES

(a) TERMINATION OF BUDGET COMMITTEES.The Committee on the Budget of the Senate and the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives are terminated.

(b) SENATE.-( 1) The membership of the Committee on

Appropriations of the Senate shall consist of-

(A) the chairman and the ranking minority member from each of the committees listed in paragraph 2 of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate; and

(B) two other members, one of whom shall be designated as the chairman and one as ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations may not serve as the chairman or ranking minority member of any committee listed in paragraph 2 of rule XXV.

(2)(A) The table contained in paragraph 3(a) of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by striking out the item for the Committee on Appropriations.

(B) Paragraph 1 of rule XXV of the Standing rules of the Senate is amended by striking out subparagraph (e) and redesig-

nating subparagraphs (f) through (p) as subparagraphs (e) through (n), respectively.

<C) Subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1 of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read as follows:

"(b)(1) Committee on Appropriations, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:

"(A) Concurrent resolutions on the budget <as defined in section 3<a)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) and all other 'matters required to be referred to that committee under titles III and IV of that Act, and messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating thereto.

"(B) Appropriation of the revenue for the support of the Government.

"(C) Rescission of appropriations contained in appropriation Acts <referred to in section 105 of title 1, United States Code).

"(D) The amount of new spending authority described in section 401(c)(2) (A) and (B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 which is to be effective for a fiscal year.

"(E) New spending authority described in section 401(c)(2)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 provided in bills and resolutions referred to the committee under section 401(b)(2) of that Act (but subject to the provisions of section 401(b)(3) of that Act>.

"(2) Such committee shall have the duty" (A) to report the matters required to be

reported by it under titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974;

"(B) to make continuing studies of the effect on budget outlays of relevant existing and proposed legislation and to report the results of such studies to the Senate on a recurring basis;

"(C) to request and evaluate continuing studies of tax expenditures, to devise methods of coordinating tax expenditures, policies, and programs with direct budget outlays, and to report the results of such studies to the Senate on a recurring basis; and

" (D) to review, on a continuing basis, the conduct by the Congressional Budget Office of its functions and duties.".

(C) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.-( 1) The jurisdiction and authority of the

Committee on the Budget the House of Representatives is transferred to the Committee on Appropriations the House of Representatives.

(2) The membership of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives shall consist of-

(A) the chairman and ranking member of each standing committee of the House with the authority to report legislation authorizing appropriations; and

<B) two other members, one of whom shall serve as chairman and one of whom shall serve as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. SEC. 7. BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFI

CIT CONTROL ACT. (a) . REPEAL oF SEQUESTRATION MECHA

NISM.-Part C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) is repealed.

(b) REPEAL OF MAXIMUM DEFICIT AMOUNTS.-

( 1) For provisions eliminating references to maximum deficit amounts in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, see the amendments made by section 3 of this Act.

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16157 (2) Section 27l<b) of the Balanced Budget

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1974 <2 U.S.C. 621 note> is amended-

<A> by striking "301(i), 302(f), 304(b), 310(d), 310(g), and 311(a)" and inserting in lieu thereof "302<f> and 31l<a)", and

(B) by striking the second sentence. SEC. 8. STATUTORY LIMIT ON PUBLIC DEBT.

<a> REPEAL.-Section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is repealed.

(b) CONFORMING CHANGE.-Rule XLIX of the Rules of the House of Representatives is repealed. SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.

SEc. 8. The provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the first day of the One Hundredth Congress. SEC. 10. FISCAL YEAR 1987.

SEc. 9. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act and the amendments made by such sections, the provisions of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as such provisions were in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act> shall apply with respect to concurrent resolutions on the budget for the fiscal year beginning on October 1 1986, bills and resolutions providing new budget authority or new spending authork for such fiscal year, bills and resolutions authorizing the enactment of new budget authorit~ for such fiscal year, the rescission and deferral of budget authority for such fiscal year, and the responsibilities of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office for such fiscal year.

FISCAL PROCEDURES REFORM AcT Purpose: To increase the efficiency of

Congress in formulating and executing fiscal policy decisions including budget resolution deliberations and appropriations legislation, and to remove existing procedural impediments to legislative policy making in general.

Approach: The bill attempts to promote efficiency by < 1 > increasing centralization of responsibility for fiscal policy decisions within the Congress, <2> reducing the number of Congressional layers in the fiscal policy decision making process, and < 3) eliminating existing arbitrary procedural rules which act to delay legislative policy action.

Structural reforms: Reconstitution of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. Membership to be composed of existing chairman and ranking member, plus the chairmen and ranking members of all existing committees with jurisdiction over appropriated and/or entitlement spending.

Elimination of Senate and House Budget Committees.

Procedural reforms: Structuring the congressional budget and appropriations processes on a two year, rather than an annual basis.

Vesting of Budget Act responsibilities, including the responsibility for reporting a congressional budget resolution, with the Appropriations Committees of the two Houses.

Sequential referral of all legislation authorizing appropriations or modifying entitlement programs in either House to the Appropriations Committees.

Combining legislative language with respect to program authorizations and appropriations in a single bill, with appropriations being added to authorizations during sequential referral, prior to reporting for floor consideration.

Statutes repealed: Budget Act provisions providing for reconciliation.

Budget Act provisions providing for "maximum deficit amounts", and all other provisions of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, except provisions which strengthen pre-GrammRudman-Hollings Budget Act points of order.

The statutory limit on the public debt. Explanation and comments: The responsi

bility of the appropriations committees for fiscal policy in general, and spending decisions in particular, would be greatly enhanced. In recognition of that fact, the membership of the appropriations committees would be reconstituted to vest this increased decision making responsibility in the hands of those who would have to contend, most directly, with the policy implications of those decisions.

All legislation which included either an authorization of appropriations, or a direct spending authorization, once reported from an authorizing committee, would be sequentially referred to the appropriations committees for further action. Legislation which did not contain spending authorizations would continue to be reported directly to the floor.

Upon sequential referral, the appropriations committees would be responsible for adding appropriations language directly to authorizing legislation. Such language would be confined to the purpose of appropriating budget authority. The appropriations provided could not exceed authorized levels and could not materially change authnrizations. The appropriations committee., would be under no obligation to fund any program or report any legislation received through sequential referral.

In those instances where the legislation referred to the appropriations committees contained entitlement language, or modified existing entitlement, language, the appropriations committees would be permitted to make modifications to such language, the effect of which would be to reduce anticipated spending under such programs. Thus, entitlement authorizations would not be covered by protections against programatic changes provided for authorizations subject to appropriations.

By vesting this combination of authority and responsibility in the appropriations committees, a number of efficiencies would be achieved. First, decision making would be centralized. All legislation prioritizing, authorizing, or funding the activities of government, would flow through a single committee. Second, those charged with prioritizing spending decisions would also have primary responsibility for allocating funding. Third, authorizations and appropriations would flow to the floor in a single legislative measure.

By centralizing congressional fiscal policy decision making in the appropriations committees, most of the benefits of reconciliation can be achieved without resorting to the jurisdictional incursions associated with reconciliation. All appropriated spending and all entitlement spending will pass through the appropriations committees which will have set two-year targets with which such spending must conform. Therefore, to the extent that programatic reductions are required, the decisions to make such reductions-and more importantlythe decisions as to which programs must be reduced, will no longer be primarily shaped by a panel with no responsibility for the policy implications of those decisions.

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. HARKIN):

S. 1363. A bill to provide for modification of the voluntary agreement between the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the State of Iowa under section 218 of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage of certain policemen and firemen; to the Committee on Finance. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT FOR SOCIAL SECU

RITY COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN

e Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleague from Iowa, Senator HARKIN, to introduce legislation which, if passed, will permit the State of Iowa to validate earnings of police and firemen in certain Iowa municipalities which were erroneously reported to the Federal Social Security Program. This legislation would also permit future coverage of those employees under the system.

Under terms of this legislation, the State of Iowa will be able to validate past contributions to the Federal Social Security Program for service performed in policemen's or firemen's positions which were required by the Iowa code to be covered, during the same period in which Social Security contributions were being withheld, by a municipal retirement system.

The Social Security contributions for these employees were made invalid as a consequence of an Iowa Supreme Court decision, City of Waverly versus Iowa Department of Job Service, handed down March 19, 1986, in which the court held that if a municipality had an organized police and fire department it was required by Iowa law to provide a pension for those policemen. Because the agreement between the State of Iowa and the Federal Government with respect to Iowa's participation in the Social Security Program stipulated that any employees covered by a public pension program would be exempted from participation in the Social Security Program, this Iowa Supreme Court decision had the effect of invalidating the contributions to the system that these municipalities and their police and fire department employees had been making and, at least as far as the Social Security Administration is concerned, placing them out of the Social Security Program.

If this legislation becomes law, the methodology for determining whether these employees would remain in the Social Security system or get out would be determined between the State of Iowa and each affected municipality. The decision made would embrace all affected employees of a particular municipality; it will not be possible for some employees of a municipality to stay in the system and for some to get out. Furthermore, once

16158 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 the decision is made, the policemen and firemen in particular affected cities and towns will be either in, or out, of the Federal Social Security system: Past contributions to the system will be validated and the employees will remain in the system henceforth; or past contributions will be returned to the employees and employers and no further contributions will be made. In order for the State of Iowa to modify its agreement with the Federal Government so as to validate past contributions, the State must have paid to the Federal Government the Social Security contributions required for those employees over the time to be covered under Social Security.

Mr. President, at present, in the event of disability, death, or retirement, those affected by this situation, even though they may have contributed to the Social Security system, will not be eligible for the benefits for which they thought they qualified. I believe that this legislation, when it becomt law, will eliminate the present uncertainty which the involved municipalities and their police and fire employees face with respect to the Social Security benefits for which particular employees might be eligible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the municipalities in question, and the bill, be printed in the RECORD.


s. 1363 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT WITH

IOWA TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN.

Notwithstanding subsection (d)(5)(A) of section 218 of the Social Security Act and the references thereto in subsections (d)(l) and (d)(3) of such section 218, the agreement with the Sate of Iowa heretofore entered into pursuant to such section 218 may, at any time prior to January 1, 1989, be modified pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of such section 218 so as to apply to services performed in policemen's or firemen's positions required to be covered by a retirement system pursuant to section 410.1 of the Iowa Code as in effect on July 1, 1953, if the State of Iowa has at any time prior to the date of the enactment of this Act paid to the Secretary of the Treasury, with respect to any of the services performed in such positions, the sums prescribed pursuant to subsection (e)(l) of such section 218 (as in effect on December 31, 1986, with respect to payments due with respect to wages paid on or before such date). SEC. 2. SERVICE TO BE COVERED.

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (e) of section 218 of the Social Security Act (as so redesignated by section 9002(c){l) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986), any modification in t he agreement with the State of Iowa under section 1 shall be made effective with respect to-

< 1) all services performed in any policemen's or firemen 's position to which the modification relates on or after January 1, 1987, and

<2> all services performed in such a position before January 1, 1987, with respect to which the State of Iowa has paid to the Secretary of the Treasury the sums prescribed pursuant to subsection <e><D of such section 218 <as in effect on December 31, 1986, with respect to payments due with respect to wages paid on or before such date) at the time or times established pursuant to such subsection (e)(l), if and to the extent that-

<A> on refund of the sums so paid has been obtained, or

(B) a refund of part or all of the sums so paid has been obtained but the State of Iowa repays to the Secretary of the Treasury the amount of such refund within 90 days after the date on which the modification is agreed to by the State and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

CITIES AFFECTED BY IOWA SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION

Algona, Bettendorf, Colfax, Cresco, Creston, Eagle Grove, Eldora, Fairfield, Hamburg, Hawarden, Missouri Valley, Monticello, Mount Pleasant, Nevada, Waukon, West Union and possibly, Red Oak, and Dyersville.e e Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague from Iowa, Senator GRASSLEY, in offering legislation which will correct a problem fa ing several Iowa communities concerning Social Security coverage for their police and fire personnel.

The need for this legislation developed as a result of a 1986 decision by the Iowa Supreme Court in the case of the City of Waverly versus Iowa Department of Job Service. The court held that those communities, under a 1953 State law, were deemed to have established disability and retirement plans for their police and fire personnel, and thus were exempt from Social Security System, even though these communities had failed to establish their own individual retirement systems. The effect of this decision was to invalidate the Social Security contributions of 18 Iowa municipalities and their public safety employees. Thus, these Iowa communities have been erroneously paying into the Social Security System, and their police and fire personnel, who believed they were covered under Social Security, find themselves without any retirement plans at all.

Currently, this situation has left these communities with only one option-to request a refund of these contributions from the Social Security Administration, and return them to their employees. Our bill would grant these communities an alternative. It would allow the State-designated agency, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System, to modify its agreement with these municipalities in order to let them decide if they would like to stay in the Social Security System or not.

Under our bill, if a municipality decides to join the Social Security System, all of these municipalities' employees would have their past contributions validated, thus permitting them to remain in the Social Security program henceforth. If a municipality decided not to join the system, all of their employees' contributions would be refunded, and the employees and employers would no longer contribute to the Social Security system. In other words, this bill would not mandate coverage, but would simply allow those who want to continue under the Social Security system to do so.

This legislation was developed in consultation with the Social Security Administration, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System, the House Committee on Ways and Means, and Senate Finance Committee. In fact, committee staff indicated that this bill amounts to a technical amendment of the Social Security Act and that the same problem in other States has been handled in a similar manner.

Mr. President, the passage of this legislation will maintain coverage to these employees who have contributed to the Social Security program, and will remove the uncertainty now facing these municipalities concerning the pension coverage of police and fire personnel. I encourage prompt action .on this matter.e

By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. MATSUNAGA, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, and Mr. MITCHELL):

S. 1365. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish presumptions of service connection for certain diseases of former prisoners of war; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

COVERAGE OF CERTAIN SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES OF FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR

e Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, few Americans have given as much to the cause of freedom and paid as heavy a price in doing so as this country's servicemen who were captured and held prisoner during times of war. Their treatment was often brutal, harsh, and unforgiving. As a result, many still bear painful physical and emotional scars. At discharge time, they were told to put the past behind them, to get on with their lives. But that hasn't always been easy. At least not for those who every day of their lives have had to confront the reality of permanent injury.

I am introducing legislation today that takes another step toward more fully recognizing that reality. Joining me as original cosponsors are Senators CRANSTON, MURKOWSKI, MATSUNAGA, DECONCINI, ROCKEFELLER, and MITCHELL. This bill would allow ex-POW's to qualify for presumptive compensation

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16159 in three physical categories-peripheral neuropathy, a condition that results in muscular atrophy in the foot and wrist, irritated bowel syndrome, sometimes referred to as spastic colon, and peptic ulcer disease. Former prisoners who were held in captivity for 30 or more days would not be required to present documentative proof of injury in these cases in order to qualify for compensation payments, provided that these conditions existed within 10 years after the last date of the veteran's detention.

Although we all owe these veterans a special debt of gratitude for their sacrifices, that is not why I am introducing this legislation today. I am introducing this bill simply because of its practical merits. And the merits are compelling.

Health records necessary to establish service-connected disability obviously were not kept while these servicemen were detained in prison camps. Moreover, upon discharge ex-POW's did not. undergo thorough physical exams. The reasons were twofold. Many, understandably, wanted to put their nightmarish experiences behind them and get home as quickly as possible. The armed services in turn did not see the need for thorough physical examinations.

Despite the absence of medical records, however, medical studies have established that the conditions experienced by ex-POW's while in captivity-severe malnutrition, extreme stress, and exhausting physical exertion-likely are significant risk factors for these three diseases.

This bill does not establish a precedent. Instead it simply represents another step toward recognizing that the starvation, deprivation, and brutality so common to the experience of POW's could damage any body system. This point has been unanimously underscored by the VA POW Advisory Committee and that's why the Congress already has seen fit to include on the presumptive list such conditions as frostbite and traumatic arthritis.

Mr. President, let me reemphasize one thing. Through no fault of their own ex-POW's do not have the medical records to prove service-connected disability when it comes to these three conditions. This Congress, fortunately, does have access to medical studies which do establish the connection. We should act on these findings and act on them soon.e e Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators GRAHAM and CRANSTON, in proposing legislation which will further recognize the dedicated military service of those veterans who are also former prisoners of war. This legislation will, if enacted, ease the burdens these veterans face in establishing service connection for peripheral neu-

ropathy, irritable bowel syndrome, and peptic ulcer disease.

Few veterans have endured experiences more brutal, more arduous, more debilitating, and more destructive to health than those who endured captivity at the hands of our Nation's enemies. The harshness of their experience is made more bitter by the fact that their captors kept no records of the physical effects on those POW's of their mistreatment, hard labor and malnutrition. The harsh conditions of captivity increased the likelihood of disability and illness. The lack of documents, on the other hand, decreased the likelihood that the VA will be able to recognize subsequent disabilities as service connected.

Mr. President, over the years the Congress and the VA have done an admirable job of responding to this situation. The Congress has declared that a former POW who suffers from any of 12 named diseases may be presumed to have incurred that disease while in service. The Congress has also provided former POW's with a high priority for medical care. The VA has generally implemented this legislation with care and sensitivity to the special concerns and needs of former prisoners of war.

Tiowever, a problem still remains in determining the origin of many diseases or conditions which are associated with the harsh conditions of captivity, but which also frequently occur in the normal process of aging. This legislation addresses these concerns for three diseases. It would recognize that these conditions may be the result of captivity and allows them to be service connected without documentation. It also recognizes that it is not appropriate to compensate veterans, no matter how worthy, for the normal effects of aging. The legislation would maintain the link between service and disability by limiting the presumption of service connection to only those instances where the disease has become manifest within 10 years of release from captivity. Maintaining this link is a critical protection for the integrity of the veterans' disability compensation system.

Mr. President, I would also like to address a question usually unstated, but sometimes implied, when the question of benefits for former prisoners is discussed. That question, in effect, asks: why should there be special consideration given to those who sat out the war after surrendering to the enemy; when so many of our troops had to spend the war in combat?

This question, if asked, is based on a complete misunderstanding of the prisoner of war experience. This question, if asked, is an insult to the integrity of men who have proven their dedication and loyalty to our Nation under circumstances few of us can

imagine and none of us would willingly endure.

Few, if any, former POW's chose to be captured. Their aircraft were shot down, their ships were sunk or their positions were overrun. Many, like those captured at Bataan and Corregidor, were surrendered by their commanders after fighting beyond the limits of human endurance. Since the largest portion of the military serves in a supply or support role, almost all former POW's spent more time in combat than most other veterans. These former POW's were, by definition, close enough to the enemy to be captured.

Former POW's did not sit out the war. Almost universally, their captors forced them to perform hard labor with little food, primitive sanitation, inadequate shelter and little or no medical care. The large number who died in captivity are eloquent testimony to the hardship they endured.

Nor can one rightly question the integrity of our former POW's. It is easy for most Americans to profess loyalty to our Nation. There is no penalty for doing so, and frequent reward. Not so for a POW. POW's lived months or years in the hands of our enemies. They depended on our enemies for every inadequate morsel of food they received. They were subject to mistreatment or torture at the whim of their captors. They saw fellow prisoners beaten or executed at the sole discretion of their captors. Their loyalty was tested by pain, malnutrition and mind numbing fatigue. In such an environment the price of loyalty was high, the reward for treason real and immediate. And yet, Mr. President, our former POW veterans paid the price for their loyalty. They endured, persevered, and ultimately triumphed. The 80,000 former prisoners of war living in America today are a proud affirmation of the loyalty of the American service member and proof of the value to the human spirit of the continuing American political experiment in liberty and freedom.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join in the introduction of this legislation and ask my colleagues to join me in its support.e

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am very pleased to join, along with the ranking minority member of the committee, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. MURKOWSKI], and four of our fellow committee members, the Senators from Arizona, Hawaii, West Virginia, and Maine [Mr. DECoNcrNr, Mr. MATSUNAGA, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, and Mr. MITCHELL], with the Senator from Florida [Mr. GRAHAM], also a member of the committee, in introducing S. 1365, a bill which would establish presumptions of service connection for certain diseases of former

16160 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1.987 prisoners of war. The basic purpose of these provisions is to lessen the burden on a former POW to submit evidence to the Veterans' Administration that certain disabilities are service connected for purposes of applying for VA disability compensation.

At the outset, I want to recognize the efforts in the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, where Representatives APPLEGATE and McEWEN have introduced a similar bill. I look forward to working with them and the House committee toward the enactment of legislation which would facilitate the award of compensation for these deserving veterans for the three conditions recognized by this measure under certain circumstances-peripheral neuropathy, peptic ulcer disease, and irritable bowel syndrome.

Mr. President, over the many years I have served on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, both as its chairman and ranking minority member, I have come to know very well the deep concerns that many have-and which I fully s' ~re-for those of our Nation's veterans who made great sacrifices and endured extreme hardships as prisoners of war. Their strength, courage, and love of freedom helped to preserve our country, and we truly owe them a debt that can never be fully repaid.

In a Veterans' Administration study undertaken as a result of legislation I authored in Public Law 95-479, the VA found that, although the particular type and source of hardship differed significantly according to place and time of internment, American POW's from each of the three most recent wars-World War II, Korea, and Vietnam-were subjected to widespread hardships that often included extreme malnutrition, great psychological stress and abuse, inadequate medical care, brutal living conditions and, very frequently, physical and psychological torture.

The study also found cause for concern that some disabilities of exPOW's that may well be attributable to their internment are not considered to be service connected by the VA. The report on the study cited the statements of physicians to the effect that the conditions to which POW's were subjected can have long-term effects that may not be identifiable for extended periods of time and that, because of the lack of definitive medical knowledge regarding the effects of internment, might never be diagnosed as having their origins in the POW experience. It was also noted that most American physicians have difficulty in recognizing the residuals of malnutrition.

In general, the VA report concluded: Serious limitations in knowledge as to the

delayed effects of such stresses and deprivations as [were] experienced by prisoners of war [are] ... a major obstacle for decision-

makers [in the VA claims adjudications process].

In addition to suffering from disabilities that are difficult to detect or difficult to attribute to a specific cause, ex-POW's from World War II and Korea claiming service connection are often confronted with problems arising from the absence of records of their repatriation examinations. According to the VA report, physicians who reviewed a sample of claims folders of World War II European and Pacific theater ex-POW's-who comprise the largest group of former POW'sfound that less than one-fifth of the European theater ex-POW's and only three-fifths of those from the Pacific theater who had filed claims for compensation had evidence of a repatriation examination. The physicians also found that many of the examinations had significant omissions and that over half contained either no medical history prior to capture or a poor history. Accordingly, a record of health conditions manifested during service, which would provide the necessary information to establish a service-connected and therefore compensable disability, is unavailable in many cases.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Rl.cORD at this point a table showing the distribution and current status of ex-POW's by service period.


TABLE 1.-0VERVIEW OF AMERICAN FORMER POW POPULATION

Total WWI WWII Korea Vietnam

No. of POW's .. ·············· 142,227 4,120 130,201 7,140 766 Died while POW ........ 17,026 147 14,072 2,701 114 Alive as of Jan. 1,

1987 80,800 271 76,403 3,505 615

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, the limited research funding which has been available for morbidity studies of ex-POW's has resulted in an insufficiency or absence of scientific confirmation of claimed increased incidences of various disabilities as a result of captivity. In addition, diagnosis ofand thus research on-the diseases under consideration here is made difficult because their symptoms, particularly in the case of peptic ulcer disease and irritable bowel syndrome, can vary greatly from one individual to the next, and because of a necessary reliance on evaluation of subjective factors, such as pain. The scientific information concerning the diseases discussed below has come primarily from studies of the general population; there are few controlled studies which confirm excess incidences of these diseases among former POW's. However, the information which is available from these more general studies indicates that the conditions experienced

by ex-POW's while in captivity-such as severe malnutrition, extreme stress, and exhausting physical exertionlikely are significant risk factors for these diseases.

'The only significant morbidity study of former POW's is the NAS' longitudinal study of a group of former POW's, which began shortly after WW II ended and still is ongoing. However, that study did not include any direct clinical assessment of its subjects. In August 1986, therefore, the NAS began a comprehensive medical examination survey of former POW's from World War II and the Korean conflict, which is expected to be completed in August 1988. Two thousand ex-POW's and 2,000 matched controls are undergoing physical examinations and will be completing medical questionnaires, providing data which will be analyzed by the NAS.

The NAS study has been criticized because the examinations are being conducted at different V AMC's across the country. Although the examinations are being conducted in accordance with the standardized format established in the V A's protocol for POW examinations, which has been used by the VA since 1983, key variables such as the length of the examination, the level of training provided the relevant VA personnel, and the overall thoroughness of the examination, likely will vary from one V AMC to another. The NAS study also has been criticized for emphasizing psychological morbidity in ex-POW's, which already has been the subject of several significant studies, rather than physical morbidity, about which much less is known.

These criticisms of the study are not without some merit, and the NAS and the VA Advisory Committee on ExPOW's-advisory committee-agree that conducting all of the physical examinations at one facility would reduce any variability among examinations. However, that has not been possible due to funding limitations, and both groups have expressed confidence about the scientific validity of the study. I certainly do not believe that the study has been compromised or that its results should automatically be discredited. However, because of the relatively small size of the study population, results indicating the absence of an excess of incidence of a particular disease may indicate only that the study was not powerful enough to detect such excess, not that the excess was not present. Accordingly, although I think that the NAS study will prove to be a valuable and significant contribution to our knowledge regarding the long-term health effects of internment, I do not believe that where, as in the cases of the diseases addressed here, present scientific evidence already supports a causal

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16161 connection between internment and a particular disease, we must delay providing compensation to our ex-POW's while we wait for results from the NAS study, which may very well prove equivocal.

However, in the case of those diseases for which a causal link with captivity is merely suspected but has not been scientifically validated, good public policy and the interests of fairness to all veterans, including former POW's, dictates that we look to the NAS physical examination study for further evidence to support or possibly to negate such links.

The biennial report of the advisory committee is expected to be submitted to the Administrator by July 1, 1987. I understand that the advisory committee will be supporting presumptive compensation for the three diseases included in our bill, which they have addressed in the context of a review of H.R. 1811.

Thus, it seems clear that, although many ex-POW's have been awarded disabW• v compensation, an ex-POW with a disability resulting from the conditions of his or her internment may often face practical difficulties in proving that internment actually contributed to the disability. Indeed, in recognition of some of these difficulties, Public Law 91-376 was enacted to create rebuttable presumptions of service connection with respect to certain disorders. And, since that time, as new scientific evidence has demonstrated the relationships between the conditions experienced by ex-POW's while in captivity and certain other disorders, I have worked to provide for the enactment of additonal presumptions. I will continue to do so.

Such is the case with the three disorders addressed by S. 1365. Recent studies of both ex-POWs and the general population indicate that the conditions experienced by ex-POWs during internment-including severe malnutrition, extreme stress, and exhausting physical exertion-are significant risk factors for peripheral neuropathy, peptic ulcer disease, and irritable bowel syndrome. The bill provides presumptive compensation for these diseases where manifestation first occurs within 10 years after the last date of the veteran's internment, and which manifestation recurs on a continuous and regularly intermittent basis thereafter. The addition of the circumscribing language would eliminate the presumption where the disease first appears many years after release from captivity, and therefore likely is attributable to intervening causes.

PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

This disease involves foot or wrist "drop" -that is, inability to move the foot or wrist-muscular atrophy, numbness and tingling in the foot or wrist followed by a sensation of heat,

and loss of reflex. This particular type of neuropathy is causally related to cold injury, exhausting physical activity, and vitamin deficiency resulting from extreme malnutrition-conditions which were experienced by most former POW's during captivity.

A 1986 study conducted by the Livermore V AMC of 52 ex-POW's found evidence of persisting peripheral neuropathy in 25 of 32 Japanese camp exPOW's and in 9 of 20 German camp ex-POW's. The study concluded that nutritional deficiency likely was the primary cause among the Japanese camp survivors, and that cold injury to the feet and legs likely was the primary cause-with nutritional deficiency secondary-among the German camp survivors. Exhausting forced labor also was listed as a contributing factor.

A 1985 Australian study of gastrointestinal disease among ex-POW's also found that 48.8 percent of the 170 exPOW's examined suffered from "happy feet," a symptom of peripheral neuropathy, in contrast to only 4.1 percent of the non-POW control group. In addition, a survey conducted of 41 former POWs treated at the Lorna Linda V AMC, the results of which were published in 1987, revealed th~t over 30 of the men reported symptoms of peripheral neuropathy.

Dr. Theodore Woodward, a member of the advisory committee, testified before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs at its June 1985 hearings that the severe malnutrition experienced by POW's frequently led to beriberi, a common manifestation of which is peripheral neuropathy.

IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME

Irritable bowel syndrome nBSJ, sometimes referred to as spastic colon, is a motor disorder-that is, a syndrome composed of a number of conditions, rather than a disease-consisting of altered bowel habits, abdominal pain and the absence of detectable organic pathology. Symptoms are markedly influenced by psychological factors and stress. IBS is confirmed by positive clinical and laboratory findings, including the exclusion of organic disease. It is one of the least understood gastrointestinal diseases. However, stress and malnutrition have been identified as probable significant risk factors.

No studies have been conducted evaluating the incidence of IBS among exPOW's. However, "Gastrointestinal Disease" by Marvin Sleisenger and John Fordtran, one of the basic treatises on gastrointestinal diseases, in a discussion of IBS, lists stress as one of its known significant causal factors. Additionally, the Lorna Linda survey found that all of the ex-POW's suffered from gastrointestinal disorders in captivity, and that 35 of the 41 still experienced such problems.

PEPTIC AND DUODENAL ULCERS

Gastric ulcers which occur where the gastrointestinal tract is exposed to hydrochloric acid and pepsin are called peptic ~leers. Duodenal ulcers are peptic ulcers which occur in the duodenum. The appropriate term for these conditions, which would encompass both types of ulcers, is peptic ulcer disease. The same risk factorsincluding stress and malnutrition-are associated with both peptic and duodenal ulcers. Studies pertaining to the incidence of one type of ulcer can be used with respect to the other type with a certainty of 70 percent or more.

The 1985 Australian study of 170 former POW's-with matching controls-clinically assessed the incidence of gastrointestinal disease. The study found that duodenal ulcers were most prevalent in the ex-POW group than in the control group-24.7 percent compared to 10.5 percent. Malnutrition and extreme stress were identified as the probable causes of the increased ulcer rate. The study also cited several other noncontrolled studies which also found increased rates of peptic and duodenal ulcers.

Dr. Woodward, in his testimony before the House committee, cited the strong link between extreme stress, as experienced by POW's in captivity, increased stomach secretions, and ulcers.

CONCLUSION

Mr. President, our Nation will always honor its former POW's, and, although we can never fully express our continuing gratitude to these courageous and valiant patriots, it is my hope that this bill will at least enable them to obtain the compensation which they earned at such great cost. I urge my colleagues to give their wholehearted support to this measure.

By Mr. KENNEDY <for himself, Mr. STAFFORD, Mr. WEICKER, Mr. METZENBAUM, Mr. MATSUNAGA, Mr. DODD, Mr. SIMON, Mr. PELL, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. GORE, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. CHAFEE, and Mr. KERRY):

S. 1366. A bill to revise and extend the programs of assistance under title X of the Public Health Service Act; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS

e Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs, title X of the Public Health Service Act.

The primary purpose of title X is simple: the provision of services and information to lower the incidence of unintended pregnancy, to improve maternal health and to reduce abortion.

Since its enactment in 1970, the title X program has proven itself effective

16162 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 time and time again. A nationwide system of over 4,500 local clinics provides nearly 5 million low-income women (including one and a half million adolescents) with ~cess to family planning primary care services. Health centers financed through title X often are the first place that low-income women-especially teenagers-receive formal medical care. State and local health departments serve 40 percent of these clients; Planned Parenthood organizations serve 27 percent; hospitals serve 13 percent; and other nonprofit agencies such as HMO's, neighborhood health centers, and free clinics serve the remaining 20 percent.

This network of clinics has also been recognized as a valuable resource in addressing other closely related health problems, such as this country's distressing infant mortality and teen pregnancy rates, and most recently, the AIDS epidemic.

Title X is the single largest source of public funds for these services. It comprises :l4 percent of the total federal and Sta..,e expenditures in this area. In the United States today, there are approximately 9.5 million low-income women and 5 million teenagers at risk of unintended pregnancy. Despite the accomplishments of the title X program, millions of women go unserved. Only about two thirds of the lowincome women who are eligible for the program are currently being served. Though an additional 3.2 million women were able to obtain services from private physicians, the rest did not receive them.

The title X Family Planning has special relevance to our national problem of infant mortality. The United States ranks 17th among industrialized nations in infant mortality, behind Singapore and Hong Kong.

A large body of research indicates that the timing of a birth, adequate intervals between births, and family size are all closely related to maternal and infant health. The Institute of Medicine in its report, Preventing Low Birthweight <1985), concluded that "family planning services should be an integral part of overall strategies to reduce the incidence of low birthweight in infants." A 1986 report by the National Academy of Sciences on strategies to alleviate the problems of teenage pregnancy and childbearing reached a similar conclusion.

Adolescent pregnancy has been well recognized as a major contributing factor to infant mortality. In addition, there is a new urgency about the provision of comprehensive family planning services. In recent months, U.S. Surgeon General Everett Koop and other public health officials have recommended that clinics help provide voluntary AIDS testing and counseling services to prevent the tragedy of babies born with AIDS.

The title X program is also cost-effective. The Center for Population Options, a Washington-based group, has recently reported that taxpayers spent nearly $18 billion last year on food stamps, medical care and cash assistance for families begun as a result of teenagers giving birth. The report also said that babies born to teenagers last year will cost the Nation a total of $5.5 billion over the next 20 years. The Federal family planning program could save $3 for every $1 now spent to provide services to the children born to adolescents. Continued Federal investment in the title X program is one of the most cost-effective investments the Nation can make.

Unfortunately, funding for title X has been cut significantly over the past 6 years. It was reduced by 25 percent in 1981, as was funding for most discretionary health programs. Since 1982, many of these programs have had their funding restored. But, title X funding levels remain nearly 12 percent below the 1981 appropriations level-and-percent the current services level, based on 1981 funding.

Each year since taking office, the administration has proposed the elimination of title X as a separate program, and its folding in to a block grant with se· ·eral other health programs.

This year, the administration's proposal would turn all title X dollars over to the States, abandoning the national standards for medical care and the national reporting system which have helped to insure the provision of high quality, cost-effective family planning services over the years.

At present, the Department of Health and Human Services makes grant awards to State health departments and regional councils which subcontract with local agencies. Of the 89 direct grantees, 44 are State agencies and the remainder are county and local health d\'partments or private, nonprofit organizations. The administration's current proposal would cause a serious disruption of services in a system which has proven effective over the years.

Title X has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Congress and throughout the Nation in the past 17 years since it was first authorized. Participation is completely voluntary, and a full range of safe and effective services are offered, including natural family planning methods.

Since its enactment in 1970, section 1008 of title X statute has specifically prohibited the use of program funds for abortion. Yet, the program has been under attack by organizations which oppose family planning and which would deny funds to provide full information to women regarding their options for dealing with an unintended pregnancy. Ironically, these efforts to dismantle or destroy title X,

would initially lead to more unintended pregnancies and more abortions.

Past allegations that grantees have not complied with section 1008 led to a congressionally requested investigation by the General Accounting Office, and examinations by the Office of the Inspector General in the Department of Health and Human Services. Both agencies reported in September of 1983 that all title X clinics studied were operating in full compliance with the law. In 1984 and 1985, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler specifically reaffirmed that clinics were in full compliance with the prohibition. This same assurance was repeated by the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Otis R. Bowen, in early 1987.

The legislation we are introducing today provides a 4-year reauthorization of title X, with modest increases in funding for basic services.

The legislation includes two modest new initiatives designed to address problems of growing public concern. The first would increase the research already being conducted under the auspices of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for the development of new and improved methods of contraception in order to reduce the high incidence of unintended pregnancy.

The second new initiative would expand the existing authorization for information and education services under title X to permit grants to public and private nonprofit organizations for community-based information and education programs, especially for teenagers and parents, to help prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Title X offers an appropriate vehicle for providing such additional assistance to enhance the efforts already underway by many State and local governments, school systems, churches, and community organizations.

More than ever before, because of the current budget crisis, Congress needs to focus on preventive, cost-effective health programs. Over the past 17 years, title X has established a proven track record in helping women plan their pregnancies and prevent the need for abortion, as well as improving overall maternal and child health. I urge the Senate to enact this important legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill may be printed in the REcORD.

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


Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Family Planning Amendments of 1987".

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16163 FINDINGS

SEc. 2. The Congress finds that-(1) comprehensive voluntary family plan

ning services still are not readily available to all individuals in the United States desiring such services;

(2) new and improved contraceptive devices, drugs, and methods are needed in order to ensure optimum safety and choice for each individual desiring to use such devices, drugs, and methods;

(3) the high incidence of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases has made it essential that the public receive information to prevent such pregnancies and diseases, as recommended by the Surgeon General of the United States; and

(4) sound medical practices require that all individuals be fully informed of their options in making decisions about their health care, and such practices should be promoted in the Nation's family planning program.

REFERENCE

SEc. 3. Whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Public Health Service Act.

pnoJECT GRANTS AND CONTRACTS

SEc. 4 . .::>ection 1001 is amended by striking out subsections <c) and (d) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(c) For the purpose of making grants and contracts under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $155,500,000 for fiscal year 1988, $163,000,000 for fiscal year 1989, $171,000,000 for fiscal year 1990", and $179,500,000 for fiscal year 1991.".

TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS AND CONTRACTS

SEc. 5. Section 1003 is amended to read as follows:

"TRAINING GRANTS AND CONTRACTS

"SEc. 1003. <a> The Secretary may make grants to public or nonprofit private entities and may enter into contracts with public or private entities and individuals to provide technical assistance, clinical training for personnel (including obstetric-gynecologic nurse practitioners), training for educators and counselors, and training of other personnel, to carry out the family planning service programs described in section 1001 and the information and education programs described in section 1005.

"(b) For the purpose of making grants and contracts under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $4,300,000 for fiscal year 1988, $4,515,000 for fiscal year 1989, $4,741,000 for fiscal year 1990, and $4,978,000 for fiscal year 1991.".

FORMULA GRANTS

SEc. 6. <a> Section 1002 is repealed. (b) Section 1006<c> is amended by striking

out "or 1002". CONDUCT OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

SEc. 7. Section 1004 is amended-{ 1> by inserting "and evaluation" after

"development''; (2) by inserting before the period the fol

lowing: "and research to improve the clinical management and direct delivery of family planning services";

(3) by inserting "(a)" before "The"; and (4) by adding at the end thereof the fol

lowing new subsection: "(b) To enhance the ongoing work of the

National Institutes of Health under section 301 and under subsection (a) in applied contraceptive research and evaluation, and spe-

cifically to promote the development, marketing, and evaluation of new and improved contraceptive devices, drugs, and methods, the Secretary may conduct, and make grants to public and nonprofit private entities and enter into contracts with public and private entities and individuals for the conduct of-

"(1) applied research into the development of new or improved contraceptive devices, drugs, and methods; and

"(2) evaluations of the acceptance, convenience, safety, efficacy, and cost of contraceptive devices, drugs, and methods.

"(c) For the purpose of making grants and entering into contracts under subsection (b), there are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1988, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1989, 1990, and 1991. Amounts appropriated under this subsection shall be in addition to amounts allocated under section 301(a)(2) for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.".

INFORMATION AND EDUCATION


"COMMUNITY-BASED INFORMATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

"SEc. 1005. <a> The Secretary may make grants to or enter into contracts with public and nonprofit private entities to establish community-based information and education programs to assist individuals in making responsible choices concerning human sexuality, pregnancy, and parenthood, and to enable individuals to prevent un. ; 1tended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Programs supported under this section shall place special emphasis on the provision of information and education to parents and adolescents, and shall include information about the availability of a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning methods and services.

"(b) The Secretary shall-"( 1) conduct, or make grants to public and

nonprofit private entities and enter into contracts with public and private entities and individuals for the conduct of, training and technical assistance activities to assist in carrying out subsection (a); and

"(2) make grants to public and nonprofit private entities and enter into contracts with public and private entities and individuals for the development, evaluation, and dissemination of educational and informational materials that are consistent with the objectives specified in subsection (a) for information and education programs.

"(c) For grants and contracts under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1988, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1989, 1990, and 1991. Not more than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated under this preceding sentence for a fiscal year shall be available to carry out subsection (b).".

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION


DATA COLLECTION

SEc. 10. <a> Title X is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

" DATA COLLECTION

"SEc. 1010. <a> The Secretary shall collect on an annual basis data concerning-

"(1) the number of low-income and marginal-income individuals, and the number of

adolescents, at risk of unintended pregnancies;

"(2) the sources of funding available for family planning services in the United States;

"(3) the number of individuals who receive family planning services from entities that receive grants and contracts under section 1001 and the age, gender, race, and family income of such individuals; and

"(4) the types of family planning services chosen by individuals who receive services from entities which receive grants and contracts under section 1001.

"(b) The Secretary may make grants to public and nonprofit private entities and enter into contracts with public and private entities and individuals for the collection of data under this section. The Secretary shall make available to the public data and information collected under this section.".

 Section 1009 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(d) Each plan prepared under this section shall be based upon data collected under section 1010.".

EFFECTIVE DATE

SEc. 11. The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on October 1, 1987.e e Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Family Planning Amendments of 1987, a bill to reauthorize title X of the Public Health Service Act.

Title X authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to public and private, nonprofit entities for the provision of voluntary family planning services. These services enable individuals and families to obtain accurate, objective information about family planning methods, and thus make informed decisions about their reproductive options. In order to receive title X funds, grantees must offer a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning methods and services.

The reauthorization we introduce today will extend the Family Planning Program through fiscal year 1991, with modest annual increases in the authorized funding level. Further, the bill authorizes additional funding for the conduct of contraceptive research by the National Institutes of Health. In recent years, the number of private companies involved in such research has dwindled, with only one company currently carrying out contraceptive research. This decline is due to several factors, including limited funding for research, and product liability insurance costs. At the same time, the number of available and effective contraceptive methods are also declining in the United States. Under these circumstances, additional support for research is needed at the Federal level.

The bill makes no change in the current abortion prohibition contained in section 1008, which states that "none of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." Despite reviews by Federal offi-

16164 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 cials concerned with enforcement of the prohibition over the last several years, there has been no evidence to indicate that title X grantees have violated this prohibition.

The bill also provides a greater emphasis on educational efforts, particularly those targeted toward parents and adolescents. In view of the high incidence of teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, it is imperative that adolescents have access to complete information that will enable them to make responsible decisions concerning their sexuality, and avoid unintended pregnancies and disease transmission.

This reauthorization is long overdue. The authority for the Title X program expired at the end of fiscal year 1985, and despite the efforts of the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Mr. HATCH, and other members of the committee, a reauthorization reported by the committee in December 1985, failed to reach the Senate floor during the la." 4 Congress. It is my hope that the Senate will demonstrate its strong commitment to family planning by prompt consideration and passage of this legislation.e e Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleagues in introducing a bill to reauthorize title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the mainstay of the Nation's efforts to expand access to family planning services among low-income women and teenagers, thus minimizing the incidence of unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion.

Five million women receive care and services under this act. For some of these women, health care funded by title X represents their only source of medical attention of any kind. For all of these women, title X represents a solid commitment to the future of this Nation's family planning program.

Mr. President, last year this country spent $17.9 billion on programs to deal with the consequences of teenage pregnancy. And this is only part of the tremendous price our country pays when our young people are burdened with unwanted pregnancies resulting in poverty, and welfare dependence. We know through experience that countries with the most accessible contraceptive services for teenagers have the lowest rate of teenage pregnancy. It is not surprising that one report has shown that the services of title X have prevented 800,000 unintended pregnancies, about 425,000 of them among teenagers.

No efforts to reduce the problems of poverty in the future are likely to succeed unless we do something to address the adolescent pregnancy rate. Over 1 million teenagers become pregnant each year. One study has projected that 4 out of every 10 girls will become pregnant before they are 20.

Adolescent pregnancy and parenthood are clearly connected to poverty and long-term welfare dependency. Teenage mothers face a greater risk of medical complications during pregnancy; they are more likely to drop out of school; they often must raise their children alone and are less likely to be self -sufficient.

Those who have children during their teens are increasingly likely to have large families which are difficult to support. This leads to chronic welfare dependency by teenage parents and women who were teenage parents. It has been estimated that more than 60 percent of AFDC recipients under the age of 30 are teenage parents.

Teenage parents pay a heavy price in a lifetime of lost opportunities and this is deeply troubling for those of us who want our young people to have the best chance for fulfillment.

The measure that I join in introducing today does more than simply reauthorize this crucial program for 4 more years. Indeed it goes beyond that, adding modest increases in funding levels and providing for general improvements in the training of clinic personnel. The measure also continues the biomedical research authority and adds a separate $10 million authorizatirn for a new initiative with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHDJ to promote the development, marketing and evaluation of new contraceptive devices, drugs and methods. Finally, an additional $10 million authorization will broaden community-based information and education programs to assist individuals in discussing and making responsible choices concerning sexual activity, pregnancy and parenthood.

The performance of abortions with title X funds is, and has always been, prohibited by the authorizing statute. The title X program helps reduce the number of abortions, by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. This is a measure we should all be able to support. Family planning is a basic health and social service that is needed and wanted by millions of American women and their families. Even with the significant achievements of the National Family Planning Program, there are glaring reminders that much more needs to be done. More than half of the 6 million pregnancies that occur each year are unintended. It is clear that our commitment to this program must continue.e

By Mr. CHILES <for himself and Mr. GRAHAM):

S. 1367. A bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to preserve certain wetlands and historic and prehistoric sites in the St. Johns River Valley, FL, and for other purposes; to the Com-

mittee on Energy and Natural Resources.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE ST. JOHNS RIVER VALLEY

e Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to enhance the protection and interpretation of important historic sites and to preserve critical wetlands of Duval County, FL.

This region of northern Florida provides a remarkably rich tapestry of the history of European settlement in North America. My colleague in the House who is offering a similar measure, Congressman CHARLES BENNETT, is a well-respected historian who has dedicated years to studying these sites. He has published five books about the historical significance of this area, which includes the site of the American Revolutionary Battle of Thomas Creek; two spanish 16th century forts; and an 18th century English fort.

The wetlands surrounding these sites provide a rich food source for numerous species of fish and shellfish. In fact, many biologists consider them to be among the most productive wetlands in the United States. The loss of these marshes could be devastating to the marine fisheries of northern Florida. Further, Mr. President, the wetlands offer refuge to the endangered manatee.

Recognizing the scarce resources available for land acquisition, my legislation authorizes the Department of Interior to acquire at least 50 percent of the land for creation of the Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve through donation or use of donated funds. It is my understanding that a number of parcels are already expected for donations.

Mr. President, Duval County is one of the fastest growing counties in the country. It is important that we not allow those places which carry the rich history of our past to be overrun in our zealous attempts to grow and expand. We must take deliberate steps to preserve these sites and the surrounding wetlands from encroaching development. These irreplaceable landmarks offer a physical link to our past that history books cannot duplicate.e e Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my distinguished colleague, Senator CHILES, in introducing this important piece of legislation. The bill calls for the preservation of specific wetlands and historic sites in the St. Johns River Valley in Florida. Preservation and acquisition of these lands is crucial to furtherance of the ecological, as well as the historical, integrity of the area. A companion bill was introduced in the House by my esteemed colleague, Congressman CHARLES BENNETT, who has an extensive record of contributions to the

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16165 preservation of America's natural resources and historical heritage.

Among other things, the bill establishes a museum in Fort Caroline Historic Park. By making Fort Caroline Park a principal interpretive center for this historic area through the establishment of museum facilities, we will be. able to display the important artifacts that illustrate the history and prehistory of the region. Established by the French in 1564, Fort Caroline provides a taste of the European settlement of North America.

The bill also gives the Secretary of Interior the authority to acquire by donation or · purchase with donated funds, several other properties of historic significance: The Spanish 16th century forts of San Gabriel and San Estaban; the Spanish 18th century fort of Dos Hermanas; the English 18th century forts at St. Johns Bluff and Fort George Island; Spanish 16th and 17th century mission of San Juan Del Puerto; the site of the American Revolutionary War Battle of Thomas Creek; ~'he Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation, with its 18th and 19th century buildings; and the Spanish American war fortification on St. Johns Bluff.

This bill also calls for the establishment of the Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve. The Timucuan Indians lived in this area of the St. Johns River Valley in prehistoric and historic times, and the wetlands are rich with diverse species of plant and animal life. The tidal marshes and Hammock Islands within the preserve, 500 acres adjacent to Fort Caroline National Memorial, contain a variety of submerged grasses, mangroves, corals, estuarine and aquatic marine mammals, birds, shellfish, and mollusks. Also making the area their critical habitat is the endangered Atlantic salt marsh snake, the endangered West Indian manatee, the rare spotted turtle, and the rare Florida marsh mink. By requiring that at least 50 percent of these preserve lands are to be acquired by donation or exchange, we are meeting our fiscal responsibility head on.

In closing, I would like to reemphasize the unique combination of historic and ecological signficance of the area to be acquired under the bill. Preservation and acquisition of these precious acres would not only benefit Florida and her residents, but also the entire Nation.e

By Mr. HEFLIN: S. 1368. A bill for the relief of Meen

akshiben P. Patel; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

RELIEF OF MEENAKSHIBEN P. PATEL

e Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would reunite Meenakshiben Patel with her family in the United States.

Meenakshiben Patel is 41 years old and currently lives in Lusaka, Zambia.

Ms. Patel and her family lived in India until they moved to Zambia in 1970. Although Meenaskshiben suffered a childhood accident leaving her moderately retarded, she was a strong and active member of the Patel family and helped raise her brother's children while he pursued his education. This selfless act on her part allowed Mr. Harshad Patel to complete his education in the field of engineering. Without the stability of Meenakshiben, Mr. Patel and other family members would never have achieved their educational goals.

Meenakshiben Patel has been denied entrance into the United States because the moderate retardation caused by her childhood accident disqualifies her from access to a visa into the United States. Meenakshiben's family ties do not qualify her for any of the waivers under the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

Because Meenakshiben Patel is unable to enter the United States, the family members must continually return to Zambia to ensure Meenakshiben's well-being and safety. Their continual traveling not only severely hinders the advancement of their own lives, it also does not provide the security and protection that Meenakshiben ne0ds.

Such inter-continental living is not only hard on the Patels but it is also politically dangerous to them. The political stability in this part of Africa is questionable at best. South Africa has already made several raids on Zambia; the natives of Zambia are not friendly toward Indian merchants and their families; and there have already been riots in Lusaka due to internal strife. Meenakshiben's safety is certainly not ensured while residing in Zambia.

Mr. Patel is committed to attaining legal passage into the United States for his sister. His commitment is so great that Harshad is willing to post bond and state in writing that he will provide for his sister for the remainder of her life and that she would never become a burden for the United States to maintain. Mr. Patel has been trying for 8 years to reunite his family by bringing his sister to his new American home.

I ask that you join with me in supporting this bill to grant Ms. Patel legal admittance to the United States to join her family and to give her the opportunity to become a permanent resident alien.e

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER <for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. MATSUNAGA, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. KERRY, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. BINGAMAN, and Mr. SANFORD):

S. 1369. A bill to strengthen the technological literacy of the Nation through demonstration programs of

technology education; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

TECHNOLOGY LITERACY ACT

e Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Technology Literacy Act of 1987 with my distinguished cosponsors, Senators LEVIN, MATSUNAGA, MITCHELL, KERRY, BURDICK, CONRAD, BINGAMAN, and SANFORD. This bill is almost identical to S. 1823, which I introduced on November 1, 1985. Both then and this year, Congressman RicK BoucHER, representing the 9th District of Virginia, has sponsored the companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The Technology Literacy Act seeks funding of $3 million in each of the fiscal years 1988 through 1990 for demonstration programs in technology education at the secondary level. Our goal is to provide the seed money necessary to develop curriculum, teaching capability, and classroom experiences in a field which is demonstrating considerable promise.

A common message can be heard in the wave of reports on education reform in the past several years. In its excellent study of high schools published in 1983, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching warned that the United States is jeapordizing its economic future by raising a largely "technologically illiterate" generation. The concern that the study of technology has yet to be introduced in most schools has been echoed by the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Engineering, the National Science Teachers Association, the U.S. Department of Education, and others.

Technology education is the most commonly used phrase for an area of education devoted to teaching students about technology, what it has done for our society in the past, where it is taking us now, and what its potential is for the future. At the high school level, which is the focus of my legislation, technology education is aimed at exposing students to applications of math and science-with the objective of increasing their interest and abilities in studying, working with, and even inventing technology. In the limited number of courses offered so far in some States, special attention is paid to technology's role and potential in communication, transportation, construction, manufacturing, and product development.

The Carnegie Foundation recommends the study of technology in its high school report that I perviously cited, saying that:

All students <should) study technology: the history of man's use of tools, how science and technology have joined, and the ethical and social issues technology has raised.

But the authors then point out that they were "frankly disappointed that

16166 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 none of the schools <they) visited required a study of technology,"

Mr. President, I believe we must get the Federal Government involved in stimulating the development of technology education programs and classes throughout our educational system. As the National Science Foundation noted in "Educating Americans for the 21st century" 0983):

Technological literacy needs to be part of general literacy. • • • In a sense we are speaking of "basics" in education, and we are identifying the knowledge and understanding of technology as basic.

By providing the proposed $3 million a year for the next 3 years, we will be investing in learning for tomorrow. The thrust of the Technology Literacy Act is to develop more curriculum in this field, and therefore create teaching methodologies and materials that prove to be most effective in instilling both excitement and knowledge among our young people about technology. I believe that this modest effort will spur educators at all levels to ad(.,! 't technology education programs-and I hope this will inspire schools to make the commitment to equipping students with the skills they need to compete and thrive in an increasingly technological society.

Mr. President, I am grateful for the favorable response that has been shown so far toward this initiative. On June 3, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources approved an amendment offered by Senators PELL and STAFFORD that authorizes $2 million for a 1-year technology education program. Thus, the prospects look good for support for an initial effort in this area. With my distinguished cosponsors, I will attempt to obtain approval for a longer term commitment as proposed in the Technology Literacy Act.

In my view, we should feel a sense of urgency about the education of today's children and young people. The rapidly changing world calls for a level of technological awareness and ability that is unprecedented. In both personal and professional life, technological literacy will be the key to success for all Americans. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in supporting this modest legislative proposal to help take crucial steps forward to preparing our young people for the technological demands and opportunities of the future.

Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the RECORD following my statement.



Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE SEcTION 1. This Act may be cited as the

"Technology Literacy Act of 1987". PURPOSE

SEc. 2. It is the purpose of this Act to assist the States in developing a technologically literate population through instructional programs in technology education.

DEFINITIONS SEc. 3. For the purposes of this Act-( 1) the term "technology education"

means a comprehensive educational process designed to develop a population that is knowledgeable about technology, its evolution, systems, techniques, utilization in industry and other fields, and cultural significance;

(2) the term "local educational agency" has the meaning given such term in section 198(a)00) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965;

(3) the term "State educational agency" has the meaning given such term in section 198(a)( 17> of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965;

(4) the term "institution of higher education" has the meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965; and

(5) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Education.

TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

SEC. 4. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.-Subject to the availability of appropriations under this Act, the Secretary of Education shall establis. a program of grants to local educational agencies, State educational agencies, and institutions of higher education to establish not to exceed ten demonstration programs in technology education for secondary schools.

(b) APPLICATION.-0) A local educational agency, State educational agency, or institution of higher education which desires to receive a grant under this Act shall submit an application to the Secretary. Applications shall be submitted at such time, in such form, and containing such information as the Secretary shall prescribe and may be approved only if such application-

<A> describes a demonstration program for carrying out the purposes under subsection <c>;

(B) contains an estimate of the cost for the establishment and operation of the program;

<C> sets forth such policies and procedures as will ensure adequate evaluation of the activities intended to be carried out under the application;

<D> contains assurances that Federal funds made available under this Act will be so used as to supplement and, to the extent practicable, increase the amount of State and local funds that would in the absence of such Federal funds be made available for the uses specified in this Act, and in no case supplant such State or local funds; and

(E) provides for making such reports, in such form and containing such information, as the Secretary may reasonably require.

<2> Amendments of applications shall be subject to approval in the same manner as original applications.

(3) In making grants under this Act the Secretary shall consider the equitable geographic distribution of such grants.

(C) USES OF FUNDS.-( 1) Funds made available under this Act may be used to develop a model demonstration program for technology education which, to the extent practica-

ble, address the components described in paragraphs <2> through 01>.

(2) Educational course content based on(A) an organized set of concepts, process

es, and systems that is uniquely technological; and

 fundamental knowledge about the development of technology and its affect on people, the environment, and culture.

(3) Instructional content drawn from introduction to technology education courses in one or more of the following areas:

<A> communication-efficiently using resources to transfer information to extend human potential;

(B) construction-efficiently using resources to build structures on a site;

<C> manufacturing-efficiently using resources to extract and convert raw or recycled materials into industrial and consumer goods; and

<D> transportation-efficiently using resources to obtain time and place utility and to attain and maintain direct physical contact and exchange among individuals and societal units through the movement of materials, goods, and people.

(4) Assistance to students in developing insight, understanding, and application of technological concepts, processes, and systems.

<5> Education of students in the safe and efficient utilization of tools, materials, machines, processes, and technical concepts.

(6) Development of student skills, creative abilities, confidence, and individual potential in utilizing technology.

<7> Development of student problem-solving and decisionma.k.ing abilities involving human and material resources, processes, and technological systems.

(8) Preparation of students for lifelong learning in a technological society.

(9) Activity-oriented laboratory instruction which reinforces abstract concepts with concrete experiences.

00) Emphasis on the practical application of carrying out technological work.

01) Each project shall include the following developmental activities:

<A> A program for the purpose of developing teacher capability in the area of technology education.

<B) Research and development of curriculum materials for use in technology education programs.

(C) Multi-disciplinary teacher workshops for the interfacing of mathematics, science, and technology education.

(D) Statewide implementation plan for disseminating exemplary materials and practices.

(E) Optional employment of a curriculum specialist to provide technical assistance for the program.

(d) LIMITATION ON FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.Federal assistance to any program or project under this Act shall not exceed 75 percent of the cost of such program in any fiscal year. Non-Federal contributions may be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, including facilities, overhead, personnel, and equipment.

(e) NATIONAL DISSEMINATION OF INFORMA· TION.-The Secretary shall disseminate the results of the programs and projects assisted under this Act in a manner designed to improve the training of teachers, other instructional personnel, counselors, and ad· ministrators.

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS SEc. 5. There are authorized to be appro

priated $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1988 and

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16167 for each of the succeeding fiscal years ending prior to October 1, 1991, to carry out the provisions of this Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE SEc. 6. The provisions of this Act shall

take effect October 1, 1987.e

By Mr. BUMPERS: S. 1370. A bill to provide special

rules for health insurance costs of selfemployed individuals; to the Committee on Finance.

HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS

e Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow self-employed individuals, namely the sole proprietors of and partners in many of America's small businesses, to deduct 80 percent of the cost of health insurance for themselves and their dependents. This will be a step forward placing the selfemployed on the same tax footing as employees of large corporations who enjoy excellent health benefits without inc" 'rring taxation.

Under prior law <as existed before 1986), an employer's contribution to a plan providing health and accident benefits was excludable from an employee's income. No similar exclusion was provided for self-employed individuals.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act began to rectify this large inequity in the treatment of self-employed individuals compared to their corporate counterparts by allowing such self-employed individuals to deduct 25 percent of the expense for health insurance for themselves, their spouse and dependents, but only through 1989.

At the same time, however, Mr. President, the 1986 Act reduced the tax incentive for personal health expenditures by raising the floor which such expenses must exceed from 5 percent to 7% percent of a taxpayer's adjusted gross income before becoming allowable as a deduction when determining taxable income. Thus, for example, consider the case of a taxpayer who earns $40,000 a year; this taxpayer now needs to have had $1,000 more medical expenditures in a given year before any of such expenditures would be allowable as a medical deduction, as compared to the amount of medical expenditures necessary before tax reform.

This Nation is becoming increasingly cognizant of the need for adequate protection from the potential ravages of health care expenses for its uninsured and under-insured citizens and their families. According to recent SBA statistics, 48 percent of all uninsured workers (disregarding the 1.6 million business owners without coverage, usually sole proprietors) are with firms of from 1 to 24 workers. And, further, 40 percent of all firms not sponsoring health plans are retail

trade firms with fewer than 10 employees. On the other hand, over 90 percent of employers in firms with more than 24 employees offer health benefits to workers. These figures have led some in Congress to propose that businesses be federally required to provide health benefits as a condition of employment. Small businesses have grave concerns about such an approach.

According to statistics cited by the proponents of mandated employerprovided health insurance, there are currently more than 37 million Americans without health coverage, twothirds of whom are workers or dependents of such uninsured workers. My bill will encourage purchase of health insurance, or at least not continue the current tax penalty imposed on any self-employed individual or unincorporated business that provides health insurance for these owner-operators and their families.

I remind my colleagues of the importance of small business to the economy: America's smallest businesses, those employing fewer than 20 persons, generated all of the Nation's 1 million net, new jobs during our last recession, from 1981 to 1982 according to the 1984 Report of the President on the State of Small Business. Yet, only ju.-t over one-quarter of the smallest of firms, that is, sole proprietorships, feel they can afford to offer health coverage compared to more than three-quarters of all corporations which do offer such coverage, undoubtedly in no small part due to the tax deduction incorporated businesses enjoy for providing health coverage for employees. This is another vivid demonstration of the motivating power of a tax incentive to promote an important social end.

I am aware that my colleague and good friend, Senator KENNEDY, is about to introduce his version of legislation to allow self-employed individuals to deduct much of their premiums paid for health insurance. I understand, however, his bill would coordinate this deduction with his already-introduced proposal to mandate employer-provided health insurance. Thus, employees of such self-employed individuals would have to be insured as well and the employer's deduction for his own insurance would be tied to the percentage which the employer pays of his employees' coverage. Obviously, I strongly support the portion of his proposal that would increase the allowable deduction for the health insurance expense of sole proprietors. But, I am deeply concerned about his plan to mandate employerprovided health insurance for small businesses. As noted above, voluntary incentives have worked well to get corporate employers to provide health insurance for workers. But no matter how laudable any mandated benefit

might be, there remains the underlying necessity that the business that is to underwrite the costs of that benefit be profitable, at least enough to be able to afford the benefit.

To provide a closer approximation of equality at least in this respect for self-employed individuals, Mr. President, I am introducing this legislation to allow self-employed individuals, the owners and operators of almost all of our Nation's unincorporated businesses, to deduct 80 percent of their health and accident insurance costs.

The SO-percent deduction proposed by this legislation is consistent with the allowable deduction under the 1986 act for business meal and entertainment expenses. Moreover, in line with the limitations on unduly generous, or top-heavy employee benefit plans imposed by that act, the deduction allowed any sole proprietor with employees under this legislation will be subject to the newly enacted nondiscrimination rules for statutory employee benefit plans. According to Joint Committee on Taxation revenue forecasters, or perhaps I should say prognosticators, this legislation will cost around $1 billion, a small price to enable a significant portion of our Nation's uninsured to be encouraged to insure and better protect themselves and their families. If further cost containment is sought, either in conjunction with legislation to extend the current 1989 sunset for this provision or in response to our Nation's increased focus on budgetary containment, I would suggest that caps be considered to curtail lavish or extravagent benefits, or Cadillac plans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the legislation I am introducing today be printed in the RECORD.



Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULES FOR HEALTH INSUR

ANCE COSTS OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 <relating to special rules for health insurance costs of self-employed individuals) is amended by striking out "25 percent" in paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof "80 percent".

(b) NONDISCRIMINATION RULES.-Section 89(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 <relating to nondiscrimination rules for certain statutory employee benefit plans) is amended by adding at the end of paragraph (6) the following new subparagraph:

"(C) COORDINATION WITH HEALTH PLAN FOR SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUAL.-Any health plan for a self-employed individual and his dependents deductible under section 162(m) shall meet the requirements of this section as if such plan is a plan of the same type as qualified health plan provided for other employees of such self-employed individual."

16168 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 (C) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments

made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1987.e

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for . himself, Mr. SIMON, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. BENTSEN):

S. 1371. A bill to designate the Federal building located at 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, as the "Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building"; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

WILBUR J. COHEN FEDERAL BUILDING e Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have the privilege of introducing today a bill to designate the Federal building at 330 Independence A venue, SW., as the "Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building."

As my colleagues are aware, Wilbur J. Cohen was Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the Johnson administration. During a long and illustrious career in education and in Goverrrnent, he was an active participant in the creation of social legislation for this Nation over a 50-year period. He was a champion of social insurance, an architect of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; and an active participant in the formulation of mental health legislation, children's programs, and civil rights legislation.

Wilbur J. Cohen was the first employee of the Social Security Board. He spent many years fine tuning and improving Social Security benefits and expanding the coverage of that program, one of the most meaningful ever enacted by Congress.

Mr. Cohen left Federal service for a period in the 1950's to teach at the Universities of Michigan and UCLA. He returned to this city in 1960 to participate in the Presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy. After Kennedy's election, he was appointed Assistant Secretary and Under Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and was named Secretary of that Department by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Mr. Cohen was the only person in the history of the Department to hold all three positions.

In his tenure at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, he played a major role in the establishment of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. Throughout his lifetime, Mr. Cohen was a bold and articulate advocate of economic security for older Americans and health protection for poor Americans.

Wilbur Cohen never retired from active life. After leaving Federal office, he became the dean of the school of education at the University of Michigan. He also held a distinguished chair as professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, dividing his time between the two posts. He continued to participate

in the formulation of social legislation. House records indicate that he testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee dealing with Social Security, Medicare, and other health issues for 54 consecutive years. This is truly an amazing record.

When Mr. Cohen died last month, on May 17, he was in South Korea, trying to help the people of that country develop a system of social insurance.

Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today is a small but meaningful tribute to the memory of a man who spent his lifetime in the service of others. I think it only fitting that the building at 330 Independence Avenue, where Wilbur J. Cohen served as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, be named in his honor. I intend to seek speedy action on this legislation from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and I urge the support of the Senate at such time as it reaches this body for consideration.



Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION I. DESIGNATION OF BUILDING.

·- 'le Federal Building located at 330 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, District of Columbia, shall be known and designated as the "Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building." SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

Any reference to such building in any law, map, regulation, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be deemed to be a reference to the "Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building."e

By Mr. JOHNSTON: S. 1372. A bill to provide for the uti

lization of common hydrocarbon-bearing areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING AMENDMENTS

e Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation that amends section 5 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide a process to unitize oil and gas reservoirs that jointly underly Federal and State lands on the Outer Continental Shelf. This legislation will assure that the Nation's oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf are developed in a manner that prevents waste, conserves our natural resources, protects the correlative rights of both the Federal and State governments, and their lessees and permittees, and protects the environment.

Section 5 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper: ... to provide for the prevention of waste

and conservation of the natural resources of

the Outer Continental Shelf, and the protection of correlative rights therein. . .. In the enforcement of safety, environmental, and conservation laws and regulations, the Secretary shall cooperate with the relevant departments and agencies of the Federal Government and of the affected States.

The Department of the Interior long ago adopted modern rules and regulations for developing the Federal portion of the Outer Continental Shelf in a manner that conserves our natural resources, prevents waste, protects the correlative rights of Federal lessees and protects the environment. The coastal States and the other oil and gas producing States have also long ago adopted modern conservation laws for the development of the natural resources that lie within their State boundaries. Both the Federal rules and the State laws repeal the old "law of capture" that resulted in waste and environmental devastation in the early days of oil and gas production in this country.

Historically, the Federal Government and the States have cooperated in developing oil and gas reserves that underlie Federal and State waters on the Outer Continental Shelf. On the Louisiana OCS, there have been over 140 jointly produced oil and gas properties that lie partly in State tidelands and partly in the Federal OCS. This historical cooperation has benefited the Nation by assuring that our oil and gas resources are produced in a logical fashion, with a minimum of economic and physical waste of the resource with the fewest possible number of wells being drilled in the Outer Continental Shelf.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, there are ominous signs that this historical cooperation may be breaking down. A most unfortunate controversy is raging between the State of Louisiana and the Department of the Interior concerning the unitization of a gas field that underlies both State and Federal waters in the Louisiana OCS. In this controversy, the Department has narrowly interpreted its responsibility to prevent waste and promote conservation. The Department appears to be taking the position that it is only responsible for promoting conservation on the Federal OCS and has no responsibility or authority to cooperate with the State of Louisiana in unitizing this gas field.

The Department's stance is having a severe impact on my home State of Louisiana. Estimates are that the failure to unitize the field at issue has resulted in lost income to the State of almost $9 million. In addition, the Federal Government's refusal to unitize in such instances will serve as a disincentive for lessees to participate in our State leasing program.

Mr. President, the Department's initial decision, if made final, are wrcng and will not serve the best interests of

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16169 this Nation. Natural resources will be wasted, unnecessary drilling will be encouraged and the rights of State lessees will be impaired. It is far too late in the development of the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf resources, Mr. President, for us to abandon cooperation with the coastal States or for us to go back to the wasteful "law of capture" that was long ago discredited.

A Louisiana district court recently upheld the Department's view without reaching what I believe to be the crucial legal argument in this matter. Rather than finding unitization required under section 5 of the OCS Lands Act, the court, in my view, misread the 1985 amendments to section 8(g) of that act and found that unitization was not mandated. The fact that I am introducing this legislation today should not be construed as acceding to the reasoning of that case. To the contrary, I believe that existing law mandates the unitization of the reservoir at issue in the controversy between Louisiana and the Department .... v'ly bill clarifies this point and provides a mechanism to resolve disputes relating to unitization expeditiously and equitably.

I hope the Department of the Interior will rethink its recent policies. This legislation will create a procedure that will assure that State and Federal cooperation continues and that our Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources are produced in an environmentally sound and logical fashion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD following my remarks.



Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be referred to as the "Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Amendments Act".

SEc. 2. Section 5 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended <43 U.S.C. Sec. 1334), is amended by adding a new Subsection (j) as follows:

(j) Unitization of Common HydrocarbonBearing Area

( 1) FINDINGS AND POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.-(A) The Congress of the United States finds that the unrestrained competitive production of hydrocarbons from a common hydrocarbon-bearing geological area may result in a number of harmful national effects, including:

<D the drilling of unnecessary wells, the installation of unnecessary facilities and other imprudent operating practices that result in economic waste, environmental damage and damage to life and property;

(II) the physical waste of hydrocarbons and an unnecessary reduction in the amounts of hydrocarbons that can be produced from certain hydrocarbon-bearing areas; and

(Ill) the loss of correlative rights which can result in the reduced value of national

hydrocarbon resources and disorder in the leasing of Federal and State resources.

<B) It is the policy of the United States, as set forth in Section 5(a) of this Act, to prevent the harmful effects of unrestrained competitive production of hydrocarbons from a common hydrocarbon-bearing area by providing for the unitization of such areas.

(2) DEFINITION.-Whenever used in this subsection the term "common hydrocarbonbearing area" means an offshore hydrocarbon-bearing geologically identifiable area that: {i) underlies the Federal and State offshore boundary; (ii) is being, or may be, produced by the United States and the affected coastal State or their designees, lessees or permittees. The term hydrocarbon-bearing area includes any stratigraphic area or group of areas located between identifiable geologic markers even though there may be total or partial separation of some portions of the area.

(3) PROCESS FOR UNITIZATION.-(A) Whenever the Secretary or the Governor of a coastal State determines that there exists a common potentially hydrocarbon-bearing area, the party making such determination shall notify the other party in writing of such determination. After any such notification is received, the Secretary and the Governor shall, after reviewing any data and information made available to each by the other party, determine whether there exists a common hydrocarbon-bearing area. If the Secretary and the Governor determine that there is a common hydrocarbon-bearing arrll., the parties shall enter into an appropnate unitization agreement encompassing the Federal and State leases or lands insofar as they cover the common hydrocarbonbearing area. The unitization agreement shall be binding on the designees, lessees and permittees of the Federal and State governments.

<B) If the Secretary and the Governor of the affected coastal State are unable to agree on the existence of a common hydrocarbon-bearing area, or on any matter concerning the unitization of the leases in such area, the Secretary and the Governor shall execute a written agreement submitting the disputed matters to arbitration. The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the applicable provisions of the Act of July 30, 1947 <61 Sta. 669; 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1, et seq.), as amended. In the event that the Secretary and the Governor of the affected coastal State are unable to agree upon an arbitrator, the United States District Court for the district nearest to the affected area shall appoint an arbitrator upon the request therefor by either party. The authority of the arbitrator shall include determination of any matter on which the Secretary and the Governor are unable to agree, including, but not limited to, the matters set forth in paragraph <C> hereof. The Secretary and the Governor shall establish a unit for the common hydrocarbon-bearing area which is consistent with the determination of the arbitrator.

(C) In the establishment of a unit pursuant to this subsection, appropriate determinations shall be made for {i) the designation of the unit operator or operators; (ii) an appropriate form of unit agreement and unit operating agreement; (iii) the effective date for the unit; <iv) the fair allocation of the hydrocarbons produced from the unitized area; and (V) any other matters necessary in order to avoid the economic waste or physical waste of recoverable hydrocarbons, to

achieve conservation and to protect correlative rights.

(D) Unless the Secretary and the Governor of the affected coastal State agree otherwise, the effective date of any unit established pursuant to this subsection shall be the date of first production of hydrocarbons from the common hydrocarbon bearing area or the date that either party is reasonably on notice of the possible existence of a common hydrocarbon-bearing area, whichever is later.

(E) In addition to any other common hydrocarbon-bearing area to which this subsection may apply, this subsection shall also apply to any common hydrocarbon-hearing area for which a request for unitization has been made by the Secretary or the Governor of the affected coastal State, or the designee, lessee or permittee of the Federal or State government, on or before the date of enactment of this subsection.e

ByMr.PELL: S. 1373. A bill to authorize the Secre

tary of Education to provide financial assistance to States for use in expanding educational programs in juvenile and adult correctional institutions to assist in the rehabilitation of criminal offenders, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION ASSISTANCE

ACT • Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am once again submitting legislation entitled "The Federal Correctional Education Assistance Act." This bill is very similar to those bills which I introduced in 1979 and 1982. It would authorize the Secretary of Education to make grants to State education agencies for educational programs for criminal offenders in correctional institutions.

Unfortunately, the need for this legislation is as pressing now as it has been over the past 8 years. At present there are some 600,000 men, women, and children crowded into our Nation's correctional facilities. In addition, another 1,800,000 juveniles and adults are on probation and parole. As long as society does not define one of the major goals of incarceration in terms of rehabilitation, the existing conditions can only get worse.

The United States now spends $8 billion a year to house inmates in State correctional facilities, local jails, and Federal institutions and centers. This amounts to almost $14,000 a year for each inmate. This staggering amount exceeds the cost of education for 1 year at either Harvard or Yale. In fact, on the average this Nation spends 2% times as much money on keeping a person incarcerated than on sending a young man or woman to college. The sad fact is that very little of this money goes toward correctional education. An average State spends less than 5 percent on its correctional budget on inmate education. As a result, less than one-third of the inmate population is engaged in educa-

16170 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 tional programs and only 12.5 percent are involved in vocational programs.

Rather than meeting the mission of rehabilitation, our State correctional systems are fostering the development of antisocial attitudes and behaviors and providing the incarcerated individual few opportunities to develop a repertoire or acceptable behaviors. To make matters even worse, the lack of adequate education programs is further complicated by the nature of the prison population. As noted by the National Advisory Council on Vocational Education in its excellent report, "Vocational Education in Correctional Institutions:

The typical inmate is a 25-year-old male, with an educational background, limited marketable skills, and few positive work experiences. He completed no more than 10 high school grades and functions 2-3 grade levels below that. He is likely to be poor, having earned less than $10,000 in the year prior to arrest.

Although the U.S. prison population is 96 percent male, the plight of the incarcerated woman cannot be overlooked. She is typically undf 30, a single mother with two or more ch1idren, poor and on welfare. She is likely to have problems with physical and/ or mental health, drugs and/or alcohol.

Because of a lack of sufficient correctional education, we now have arevolving prison door through which a person leaves prison ill-equipped to become a responsible citizen, andmore often than not-is soon back in prison. Upward of 70 percent of the offenders released from prison each year will return to crime, and as many as 50 percent will return to prison within 1 year. The unemployment rate among ex offenders is three times the rate for the general public. Those that do find jobs often work in low-income, semiskilled positions. If they do not commit another crime, many ex felons end their lives in suicide or dereliction among the skid-row population. This, quite simply, is a national disgrace, but it is also one that we have the ability to change.

The legislative initiative which I undertook in 1979 and am renewing for a third time this year has received strong support. The results of studies conducted in California, Maryland, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington correlate a reduction in the recidivism rate with education and training received by the inmate while in prison.

The Federal Correctional Education Assistance Act would authorize $25 million a year in grants to State education agencies. The size of a grant would be determined by a ratio of a State's inmate population to the total inmate population in all States, but no State would receive less than $100,000. The States would have considerable latitude in the use of the Federal funds. They could be spent on a variety of education programs, including:

First, academic programs for basic education, special education, second-

ary school credit, postsecondary education, fine arts, recreation, and health;

Second, vocational training programs;

Third, library development and library services;

Fourth, teacher training in correctional education, particularly in social education, reading instruction, and abnormal psychology;

Fifth, educational release programs for offenders, with special attention on vocational work release training programs;

Sixth, guidance programs, including testing, counseling, psychological evaluation, and placement services;

Seventh, supportive services, with special emphasis upon job placement and coordination of education services with other agencies furnishing services to criminal offenders after their release; and

Eighth, cooperative programs with business to provide job training for offenders.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to give this legislation their serious consideration. I would most certainly welcome their cosponsorship of this important measure. I look forward to the bill being referred to the CommitteP on Labor and Human Resources, and am hopeful that it will eventually be the subject of careful consideration by the Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the RECORD.



Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Federal Correctional Education Assistance Act".

FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE

SEc. 2. (a) The Congress finds that-< 1) existing educational programs in juve

nile and adult correctional institutions are inadequate to meet the needs of accused individuals or convicted offenders;

(2) State and local educational agencies and other public and private nonprofit agencies do not have the financial resources needed to respond to the increasing need of the correctional system for appropriate institutional and noninstitutional educational services for accused individuals and convicted criminal offenders;

(3) education is important to, and makes a significant contribution to, the adjustment of individuals in society; and

(4) there is a growing need for immediate action by the Federal Government to assist State and local educational programs for criminal offenders in correctional institutions.

(b) It is, therefore, the purpose of this Act to provide financial assistance to the States to carry out educational programs for criminal offenders in correctional institutions.

DEFINITIONS

SEc. 3. As used in this Act-

(1) "criminal offender" means any individual who is charged with or convicted of any criminal offense, including a youth offender or a juvenile offender;

(2) "correctional institution" means any<A) prison, (B) jail, <C) reformatory, <D) work farm, (E) detention center, or <F) halfway house, community-based re

habilitation center, or any other similar institution designed for the confinement or rehabilitation of criminal offenders;

(3) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Education;

(4) "State" means any State of. the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and

(5) "State educational agency" means the State board of education or other agency or officer primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary and secondary schools, or, if there is no such officer or agency, an officer or agency designated by the Governor or by State law.

AUTHORIZATION

SEc. 4. (a)(l) There is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for the fiscal year 1988, and such sums as may be necessary for each succeeding fiscal year ending prior to October 1, 1993, to enable the Secretary to make grants to States in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

<2) Funds appropriated for any fiscal year may remain available until expended.

(b) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to State educational agencies and to make grants for programs of national significance in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

ALLOCATION

SEc. 5. (a)(l) In each fiscal year in which the funds appropriated pursuant to section 4(a) exceed $15,000,000 the Secretary shall reserve 3 per centum of the funds appropriated for carrying out section 8.

(2) From the sums appropriated pursuant to section 4<a) in each fiscal year in which paragraph ( 1) does not apply and from the remainder of the sums appropriated pursuant to section 4<a) for each fiscal year in which paragraph 0) does apply, the Secretary shall allocate to each State $100,000 plus an amount which bears the same ratio to such sums or to such remainder, as the case may be, as population of the State in correctional institutions for the year preceding the year for which the determination is made bears to the population of all States in correctional institutions for such year.

(b) The amount by which any allotment of a State for a fiscal year under subsection (a) exceeds the amount which the Secretary determines will be required for such fiscal year for applications approved under section 7 within such State shall be available for reallotment to other States in proportion to the original allotments to such States under subsection (a) for that year, but with such proportionate amount for any such State being reduced to the extent it exceeds the sum the Secretary estimates such State needs and will be able to use for such year. The total of such reduction shall be similarly reallotted among the States whose proportionate amounts were not so reduced. Any amount reallotted to a State under this subsection during a fiscal year shall be deemed part of its allotment under subsection (a) for such year.

(C) No sums appropriated pursuant to section 4<a) shall be used for purposes incon-

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16171 sistent with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.

USES OF FUNDS

SEc. 6. Grants made under this Act to States may be used, in accordance with applications approved under section 7, for the cost of educational programs for criminal offenders in correctional institutions, including-

< 1 > academic programs for-<A> basic education with special emphasis

on reading, writing, vocabulary, and arithmetic;

(B) special education programs as defined by State law;

<C> bilingual or English as a second lan-guage programs;

(D) secondary school credit programs; <E> postsecondary programs; <F> fine arts programs; and <G> curriculum development for the pro

grams described in this paragraph; <2> vocational training programs; <3> library development and library service

programs; (4) training for teacher personnel special

izing in correctional education, particularly training in social education, basic skills instruction, and abnormal psychology;

(5) educational release programs for criminal offt jers, with special attention given to vocational work release training programs;

( 6) guidance and counseling programs; <7> supportive services for criminal offend

ers, with special emphasis upon job placement services and coordination of educational services with other agencies furnishing services to criminal offenders after their release; and

(8) cooperative programs with business concerns designed to provide job training for criminal offenders.

APPLICATION

SEc. 7. <a> A State desiring to receive a grant under this Act shall submit an application to the Secretary containing or accompanied by such information as the Secretary deems reasonably necessary, with such annual revisions as are necessary. Each such application shall-

< 1 > provide that the programs and projects for which assistance under this Act is sought will be administered by, or under the supervision of, the State educational agency;

(2) set forth a program for carrying out the purposes set forth in section 6 and provide for such methods of administration as are necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the program;

(3) provide assurances that no person with responsibilities in the operation of such program will discriminate with respect to any program participant or any employee in such program because of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, political affiliation or beliefs;

<4> provide assurances that funds received under this Act will be used only to supplement, and to the extent practical increase, the level of funds that would, in absence of such Federal funds, be made available from regular non-Federal sources for the purposes described in section 6, and in no case may such funds be used to supplant funds from non-Federal sources; and

(5) provide for a three-year report to the Office of Education containing a description of the activities assisted under this Act together with a description of evaluation programs designed to test the effectiveness of education programs assisted under this Act.

(b) Each application made under this Act may be approved by the Secretary if the Secretary determines that the application meets the requirements set forth in this Act.

PROGRAMS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

SEc. 8. (a) From funds reserved pursuant to section 5<a><l>. the Secretary is authorized to make grants to State and local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, State correctional agencies, and other public and private nonprofit organizations and institutions to meet the costs of programs of national significance which the Secretary determines give promise of improving the education of criminal offenders.

(b) No grant may be made under this section unless an application is made to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary deems reasonably necessary.

PAYMENTS AND WITHHOLDING

SEc. 9. <a> The Secretary shall pay to each State which has an application approved under this Act an amount equal to the cost of an application approved under section 7 or section 8.

(b) Whenever the Secretary, after giving reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to a State under this Act, finds-

(1) that the program or project for which assistance under this Act was made has been so changed that it no longer complies with the provisions of this Act; or

(2) that in the operation of the program or project there is failure to comply substantially with any such provision; th" Secretary shall notify such State or grantee, as the case may be, of the findings, and no further payments may be made to such State or grantee, as the case may be, by the Secretary until the Secretary is satisfied that such noncompliance has been, or will promptly be, corrected. The Secretary may authorize the continuance of payments with respect to any projects pursuant to this Act which are being carried out by a State and which are not involved in the noncompliance.•

By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. WILSON, Mr. HATCH, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. COHEN, Mr. D'AMATO, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. QUAYLE, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. DOMENICI):

S. 1374. A bill to provide for a comprehensive program relating to acquired immune deficiency syndrome; to the Committee on Labor and Human Services. ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME ACT

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today along with a number of my colleagues, I am introducing the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Act of 1987. The legislation touches on a broad range of issues that have been brought to our attention by those involved in the battle against this dreadful disease.

Complex issues do not have simple solutions and AIDS is one of the most complex public health and moral issues to come before this body. However, we are pushing forward, addressing issues as we can when we are able to reach a consensus, and that consen-

sus is critical as this is one issue where partisanship has no place.

AIDS is rapidly becoming the leading cause of death for males between the ages of 20 and 40, in this country individuals in their most productive years. Given the gravity of the situation, the solutions to the terrible crisis facing us must be the product of our joint efforts.

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The need for additional legislation is clear, even as we wait for the formation of the Presidential Commission on AIDS. For while there are some issues we are not yet prepared to address, there are a great many things that we know can and must be done. Our bill is based on what we know to date about how our resources can best be spent. Notably left unresolved are those issues relating to testing, confidentiality and nondiscrimination.

TESTING, CONFIDENTIALITY, NONDISCRIMINATION

These three issues-testing, confidentiality, and nondiscrimination-are among the most difficult to resolve. As we . saw during the debate over the amendment calling for mandatory testing for those seeking marriage licenses and for prospective immigrants, opinions, even among the experts, are divided. With respect to confidentiality, there are again many views, although we would all agree that there is a great deal to be gained by creating an environment in which people, particularly those at high risk, seek out testing and counseling voluntarily. Finally, I think we would all agree that the victims of AIDS should not be discriminated against unfairly because of their disease. The debate really comes over how best to achieve this end.

Though we have been unable to resolve these questions to date, I am hopeful that we will be able to do so in the very near future.

NEED FOR EDUCATION

What we have been able to agree on is the need for an increase in our efforts to educate the public.

Perhaps the most significant part of our bill provides funds to the States for the development, establishment, and operation of public information activities relating to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of AIDS. It is our further hope that in designing such programs, States will place special emphasis on the need to reach minorities and high-risk groups.

In addition to our commitment to State activities, we have also increased funding for such Federal efforts as the telephone hotline for both the public and for health care professionals. We also propose the creation of an international data bank, to insure that the most up-to-date information or whatever advances are being made throughout the world in the areas of

16172 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 diagnosis, treatment, and prevention is known to our scientists.

NEED FOR INFORMED HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND HOME HEALTH SERVICES

In addition to our efforts to educate the public, we must also make sure that our health care professionals are kept abreast of current information. The bill, therefore, authorizes funds to be used to educate both those still in school, and perhaps more importantly those already in practice.

For those in practice, one particular area where education could do a great deal of good, would be in helping these providers understand the value of noninstitutional care. In the case of many afflicted with AIDS, the most appropriate and humane site of care is the home rather than the hospital. To further assist in this effort, the bill also authorizes funds to be used by the States to foster the availability and coordination of home based care.

CONCLUSION

Mr. President, as I noted at the outset; the issues facing us are complex r tuiring careful thought. Our bill attempts to address just a few of the problems. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in seeking out bipartisan solutions of the questions before us, and those yet to be asked.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcORD a summary of the proposal and that the bill be printed in the REcORD following the summary.


ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME AcT OF 1987

This bill is divided into three titles. Title I: AIDS as a national public health

emergency. Title II: Training and services. Title III: Public information.

DESCRIPTION

Title I: AIDS as a national health emergency Authorization: FY 88-$48.5 new, FY89-

$39.5 new. A. Declare AIDS a Public Health Emer

gency under the Public Health Service Act. ($30 M per year current auth, $30 M new auth.)

B. Report to Congress- The Secretary shall submit a detailed expenditure report to Congress annually, which describes how Federal funds designated for AIDS are spent. This report should include funding regarding inter-agency and intra-agency spending as well as funds distributed to nonfederal entities.

C. Establish an International data bank through the National Library of Medicine. <0.5 M per year new auth). The Secretary, through the Library of Medicine, shall establish, maintain, and operate an International Data Bank and shall establish a schedule of charges for user of the Bank from other countries.

D. Establish a virus and serum bank through the National Institutes of Health, in which all human immunodeficiency virus serotypes and serum are available to qualified investigators and organizations.

E. Authorize additional 40 FTEE's for FDA to expedite the drug approval process. C$18 M FY88, $9 M FY 89 new auth.)

F. The Secretary shall provide technical assistance to State and local governments and public and nonprofit private entities carrying out programs, projects, and activities relating to AID

Title II: Training and services Authorization: $35 M per year in FY88,

FY89 new. A. Coordination of Services and Health

Care in the Home. C$25 M new auth for FY88 and FY89.)

(a) Grants to States based on numbers of individuals with AIDS.

Cb) Funds may be used to coordinate services or reimburse health care providers for home health care services.

(c) Individual eligibility to be determined by financial need and potential benefit to the individual.

B. Drug procurement. (a) The Secretary may purchase drugs in

large quantitites for the treatment of AIDS and distribute such drugs to the States, if such bulk purchase would save funds, and the State requested the Secretary to do so.

C. Health Professions Training C$10 M new auth for FY88-Note: programs in title 7 and title 8 are up for reauthorization in FY89.)

(a) Grants for curriculum develop and faculty training ($4 M).

The Secretary may make grants to schools of medicine and osteopathy, and both must make available training for dentistry, public health, allied health and physician assistan ..

(b) Grants to schools of nursing C$2 M). The Secretary may make grants to schools of nursing.

NOTE: Both a and b would focus on the following:

1. Improvement in training of health professionals in the care and treatment of victims of AIDS.

2. Development of curricula relating to the care and treatment of victims of AIDS.

3. Expansion of instruction in methods of care for victims of AIDS.

4. Supporting the training and retraining of faculty to provide such instruction.

5. Supporting continuing education of health professionals who care for victims of AIDS.

6. Establishment of new affiliations with institutions and facilities in order to provide clinical training for students.

7. Minorities, both in training of minorities and treating minorities.

(c) Authorization for continuing education and technical assistance to health professionals <$4 M>. The Secretary may provide for education, training, and clinical skill improvement activities relating to AIDS.

Title III: Public information Authorization: $214 M FY88, $215 M FY89

new. A. Public service announcements <$10 M

per year new auth for FY88, FY89). (a) The Secretary will develop and dis

seminate public services announcements through print and broadcast media, using private organizat ions, PR firms, and business concerns as much as possible and place special emphasis on announcements which are directed toward minorit y individuals and those at high risk.

B. Technical assistance to State and Local governments (auth such sums).

(a) The Secretary, through th e CDC, shall provide technical assistance to State and Local Governments as needed.

C. Telephone Hotline C$4 M for FY88, $5M for FY89 new auth) Public C$2.5 M for FY88, $3.0 M for FY89 new auth>

The Secretary, through the CDC, shall maintain a toll free, 24 hour telephone line for public information.

(b) Health Care Professionals ($1.5 M for FY88, $2.0 M for FY89 new auth.)

The Secretary, through the CDC, shall establish and maintain a professional telephone service, during normal business hours.

D. State Information Programs C$200 M per year for FY88, FY89)

(a) Block grants to the states based on population through HHS for the purposes of:

<1) developing, establishing and operating public information activities for the general public relating to the prevention and diagnosis of AIDS.

(2) developing, establishing and operating public information activities for high risk populations relating to the prevention and diagnosis of AIDS.

(3) providing technical assistance to community-based organizations, public and nonprofit private entities, and employers in developing information programs related to AIDS.

(4) training personnel, especially those involved in testing and counseling to carry out public information activities.

(b) Specific attention to minorities and high risk populations.

(c) No funds can be used for bricks and mortar.

(d) These funds cannot supplant local and state funds.

(e) There would be a 10% limit on administrative costs.

SENSE OF THE SENATE RESOLUTION

<A> Congress should appropriate sufficient funds to establish and maintain the Public Health Emergency Fund authorized under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act.

(B) Congress should appropriate $47.5 million to the Veterans' Administration for furnishing of medical care to persons having AIDS who are entitled to receive medical care under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration.


Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Act of 1987" .

TITLE I- AIDS AS NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY

DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY

SEc. 101. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services is directed to determine that acquired immune deficiency syndrome presents a public health emergency for purposes of section 319 of the Public Health Service Act.

(b) Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act is amended by striking out "$30,000,000" the second place it appears in subsection (b)(l) and inserting in lieu thereof "$60,000,000".

REPORT BY THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

SEc. 102. Within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall prepare and transmit to the Congress a report on the expenditure by the Department of Healt h and Human Services of amounts appropriated for such fiscal year for programs, projects,

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16173 and activities relating to acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Each such report shall include-

( 1) a specification, for each office and agency of such Department, of the amount obligated for each such program, project, or activity for such fiscal year, and a description of each such program, project, and activity; and

(2) a description of each grant made, and each contract and cooperative agreement entered into, by such Department in carrying out each such program, project, or activity, including a description of the activities carried out under each such grant, contract, or cooperative agreement.

INTERNATIONAL DATA BANK

SEc. 103. Subpart 1 of part D of title IV of the Public Health Service Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"INTERNATIONAL DATA BANK ON ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

"SEc. 468. (a) The Secretary, through the Library, shall establish, maintain, and operate the International Data Bank on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome <hereafter in this section referred to as the 'Data Bank'). The Data Bank shall collect, catalog, storn and disseminate insofar as feasible through the use of information systems accessible to the public, general practitioners, and investigators, the results of research relating to acquired immune deficiency syndrome undertaken in any country. Such results shall be available for use of any person involved in research and treatment relating to acquired immune deficiency syndrome in any country.

"(b) The Secretary shall establish a schedule of charges for users of the Data Bank from other countries for information obtained from the Data Bank.

"(c) To carry out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1988 and 1989.".

VIRUS AND SERUM BANK

SEc. 104. Subpart 6 of part C of title IV of the .Public Health Service Act is amended by addmg at the end thereof the following new section:

"VIRUS AND SERUM BANK

"SEc. 447. <a> The Director of the Institute shall establish, or provide for the establishment of, a virus and serum bank in which all human immunodeficiency virus serotypes and serum are available to qualified investigators and organizations.

"(b) The Director of the Institute may require the return of any serotype or serum provided under subsection (a) and may require the provision to such Director of any data or information resulting from the use of any such serotype or serum.".

ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL FOR THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

SEc. 105. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, may, in accordance with th~ civil service and classification laws, appomt and fix the compensation of not more than 40 employees for the Food and Drug Administration. Employees appointed under this section shall be in addition to the number of employees otherwise assigned to such Administration.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

SEc. 106. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Public Health Service, shall provide technical assistance to

91-059 0 -89-25 (Pt. 12)

State and local governments and public and nonprofit private entities carrying out programs, projects, and activities relating to acquired immune deficiency syndrome. To carry out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1988 and 1989.

TITLE II-TRAINING AND SERVICES HEALTH CARE IN THE HOME

SEC. 201. (a) Part A of title XIX of the Public Health Service Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

" SUBPART 2-HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN THE HOME

"AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS

"SEc. 1910C. For the purpose of allotments to States to carry out the activities described in section 1910F, there are authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1988 and 1989.

"ALLOTMENTS

"SEc. 1910D. (a)(l) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary, through the Public Health Service, shall allot to each State for each fiscal year from the total amount appropriated under section 1910C for such fiscal year an amount which bears the same ratio to such total amount as the number of individuals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome in the State bears to the total number of individuals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome in all States.

"(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)-"(A) the total amount of the allotment for

ea '1 of the several States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico for each fiscal year shall not be less than one-half of 1 percent of the total amount appropriated under section 1910C for such fiscal year;

"(B) the total amount of the allotment for each of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands for each fiscal year shall not be less than onefourth of 1 percent of the total amount appropriated under section 1910C for such fiscal year; and

" (C) the total amount of the allotment for each of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for each fiscal year shall not be less than onesixteenth of 1 percent of the total amount appropriated under section 1910C for such fiscal year.

"(b) To the extent that all the funds appropriated under section 1910C for a fiscal year and available for allotment in such fiscal year are not otherwise allotted to States because-

"( 1) one or more States have not submitted an application or description of activities in accordance with section 1910G for such fiscal year;

"(2) one or more States have notified the Secretary that they do not intend the use the full amount of their allotment; or

"(3) some State allotments are offset or repaid under section 1906(b)(3) (as such section applies to this subpart pursuant to section 1910G(d)), such excess shall be allotted among each of the remaining States in proportion to the amount otherwise allotted to such States for such fiscal year without regard to this subsection.

"(c)(l) If the Secretary-"(A) receives a request from the governing

body of an Indian tribe or tribal organization within any State that funds under this subpart be provided directly by the Secretary to such tribe or organization, and

"(B) determines that the members of such tribe or tribal organization would be better served by means of grants made directly by the Secretary under this subpart, the Secretary shall reserve from amounts which would otherwise be allotted to such State under subsection <a> for a fiscal year the amount determined under paragraph (2).

"(2) The Secretary shall reserve for the purpose of paragraph (1) from amounts that would otherwise be allotted to such State under subsection <a> an amount equal to the amount which bears the same ratio to the State's allotment for the fiscal year involved under subsection (a) as the population of the Indian tribe or tribal organization bears to the population of the State.

"(3) The amount reserved by the Secretary on the basis of a determination under this subsection shall be granted to the Indian tribe or tribal organization serving the individuals for whom such a determination has been made.

"(4) In order for an Indian tribe or tribal organization to be eligible for a grant for a fiscal year under this subsection, it shall submit to the Secretary a plan for such fiscal year which meets such criteria as the Secretary may prescribe.

"PAYMENTS UNDER ALLOTMENTS TO STATES

"SEc. 1910E. (a) For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall make payments, as provided by section 6503(a) of title 31, United States Code, to each State from its allotment under section 1910D (other than any amount reserved under subsection (c) of such section) from amounts appropriated · for that fiscal year.

"(b) Any amount paid to a State for a fiscal year and remaining unobligated at the end of such year shall remain available for the next fiscal year to such State for the purposes for which it was made.

"USE OF ALLOTMENTS

"SEc. 1910F. (a)(l) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d), amounts paid to a State under section 1910E from its allotment under section 1910D for any fiscal year may be used to provide health care services in the home for eligible individuals and to coordinate services for eligible individuals. Such amounts may be used to-

"(A) pay compensation for the services of physicians, nurses, and social workers who plan, manage or provide health care services in the home for eligible individuals;

"<B) identify and locate eligible individuals needing the provision of health care services in the home;

"(C) coordinate health care services provided in the home for eligible individuals under this subpart with other supportive social services provided for such individuals·

"(D) coordinate other long-term care serv~ ices provided for eligible individuals by public and private institutions and voluntary organizations in order to ensure the provision of such services and to maximize the use of funds provided under this subpart and under other Federal laws; and

"(E) provide-"(i) training to health care professionals

in the care and treatment of eligible individuals (including health care professionals who are not faculty members at health professions schools> who would benefit from such training, especially those health professionals who may provide home health care services or work in hospices; and

16174 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 "<iD education to health care profession

als in the coordination of training in advanced discharge planning.

"(2) A State may use amounts paid to it under section 1910E to provide health care services in the home for eligible individuals through grants to health care organizations. In making such grants, a State shall give priority to home care programs, including home care programs based in hospitals. As a condition of receipt of a grant under this paragraph, a State shall require a health care organization to use amounts provided under such grant only for the provision of health care services in the home for eligible individuals.

"(b) Not more than 10 percent of the total amount paid to a State under section 1910E for a fiscal year may be used for administering the funds made available under section 1910E. The State shall pay from non-Federal sources the remaining costs of administering such funds.

"(c) Not more than $5,000 per year may be used by a State, with respect to any eligible individual, to pay compensation for the services of physicians, nurses, and social workers under subsection (a)(l)(A).

"(d) A State may not use amounts paid to it under section 1910E to-

"(1) ovide inpatient services, except services mvolving advanced discharge planning;

"(2) make cash payments to intended recipients of services;

"(3) purchase or improve land, purchase, construct, or permanently improve (other than minor remodeling) any building or other facility, or purchase major medical equipment;

"(4) satisfy and requirement for the expenditure of non-Federal funds as a condition for the receipt of Federal funds;

"(5) provide services under this subpart to an individual if the total cost to the Federal Government of providing such health services would exceed the total cost of institutionalization of such individual;

"(6) provide reimbursement for services performed by any individual other than a physician, nurse, or social worker; or

"(7) provide supportive social services for which planning and management is conducted under subsection (a)(l){D). The Secretary may waive the limitation contained in paragraph (3) upon the request of a State if the Secretary finds that there are extraordinary circumstances to justify the waiver and that granting the waiver will assist in carrying out this subpart.

"(e) The Secretary, if requested by a State, shall provide technical assistance to the State in planning and operating activities to be carried out under this subpart.

"APPLICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES; REQUIREMENTS

"SEc. 1910G. (a)(l) In order to receive an allotment for a fiscal year under section 1910D, each State shall submit an application to the Secretary. Each such application shall be in such form and submitted by such date as the Secretary shall require.

"(2) Each application required under paragraph ( 1) for an allotment under section 1910D for a fiscal year shall contain assurances that the State will meet the requirements of subsection (b).

"(b) As part of the annual application required by subsection (a) for an allotment for any fiscal year, the chief executive officer of each State shall-

"(!) certify that the State agrees to use the funds allotted to it under section 1910D

in accordance with the requirements of this subpart;

"(2) provide assurances that such chief executive officer will designate or establish a State agency to administer funds provided under this subpart;

"(3) provide assurances that the State will consider, in the provision of health care services in the home under this subpart, the ability of each eligible individual to pay for such services;

"(4) certify that the State will coordinate the provision of health care services in the home with funds provided under this subpart with activities conducted to provide such services by voluntary, religious, and community organizations and local governments;

"(5) provide services under this subpart to an individual if the total cost to the Federal Government of providing such health services would exceed the total cost of institutionalization of such individual;

"(6) provide assurances that the State will develop proper standards and quality assurance mechanisms for the provision of health care services in the home for eligible individuals;

"(7) provide assurances that the State will, to the maximum extent feasible, provide health care services in the home under this subpart to eligible individuals who are low-income individuals and who are not receiving equivalent home health care services under the State's medicaid plan approved under title XIX of the Social Security Act; and

"(8) provide assurances that the State will mr ke all reasonable efforts to ascertain the legal liability of third parties <including health insurers) to pay for services available under this subpart and to obtain such payments.

"(c) The chief executive officer of a State shall, as part of the application required by subsection (a) for any fiscal year, also prepare and furnish the Secretary . <in accordance with such form as the Secretary shall provide) with a description of the intended use of the payments the State will receive under section 1910E for the fiscal year for which the application is submitted, including information on the programs and activities to be supported and services to be provided. The description shall be made public within the State in such manner as to facilitate comment from any person (including any Federal or other public agency) during development of the description and after its transmittal. The description shall be revised <consistent with this section) throughout the year as may be necessary to reflect substantial changes in the programs and activities assisted by the State under this subpart, and any revision shall be subject to the requirements of the preceding sentence.

"(d) Except where inconsistent with the provisions of this subpart, the provisions of section 1903(b), section 1906<a>, paragraphs (1} through (5) of section 1906(b}, and sections 1907, 1908, and 1909 shall apply to this subpart in the same manner as such provisions apply to subpart 1 of this part.

"(e) Each report submitted by a State to the Secretary under section 1906(a)(l) <as such section applies to this subpart pursuant to subsection (d) of this section) shall include an analysis of the cost effectiveness of providing health care services in the home for eligible individuals under this subpart.

"EVALUATIONS

"SEc. 1910H. The Secretary shall conduct, or arrange for the conduct of, evaluations of

services provided and activities carried out with payments to States under this subpart.

"DEFINITIONS

"SEc. 19101. For purposes of this subpart"(!) The term 'eligible individual' means

an individual who is infected with the human immunodeficiency virus and who-

"(A) resides at home and is at risk of institutionalization because of medical limitations on the ability of such individual to function independently;

"(B) is a patient in a hospital who is at risk of prolonged hospitalization, and who could be cared for in a long-term care institution or who could return to the community if health care services in the home were available; or

"(C) is a patient in a skilled nursing facility or an intermediate care facility who could return to the community if health care services in the home were available.

"(2) The terms 'Indian tribe' and 'tribal organization' have the same meaning given such terms in section 4(b) and section 4(c) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.".

(b) Such part is further amended-< 1) by striking out the heading of such

part and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "PART A-PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES,

HEALTH SERVICES, AND HEALTH SERVICES IN THE HOME";

< 2) by inserting after the heading of such part the following: "Subpart !-Preventive Health and Health

Services"; and (3) by striking out "this part" and insert

ing in lieu thereof "this subpart" each place it appears in sections 1902(d)(l)(A), 1902(d)(l)(B), 1904(a)(l), 1904<a><3), 1904(b), 1905(c)(l), 1905(C)(3), 1905(C)(2), 1905(c)(4), 1905(c)(6), and 1905<d>.

(c) This section and the amendments made by this section shall take effect on October 1, 1987. PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY FUND; PURCHASE OF

DRUGS FOR THE TREATMENT OF ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

SEc. 202. Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (as amended by section 101(b) of this Act) is further amended-

(!) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);

(2) by striking out "subsection (a)" in paragraph < 1) of such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof "subsections <a> and (b)''; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection:

"(b)(l} The Secretary, through the Public Health Service, may purchase on behalf of a State, in large quantities at bulk rates, drugs for the treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The Secretary may only purchase a drug under the preceding sentence if-

"(A) the Secretary is requested by the State to purchase such drug;

"(B) prior to making any such purchase, the Secretary consults with the manufacturer of such drug with respect to whether such a purchase would be more economical than the purchase of such drug by the State; and

"(C) the Secretary determines that the purchase of such drug under the preceding sentence is more economical than the purchase of such drug by the State.

"(2) If the Secretary purchases drugs on behalf of a State under paragraph ( 1 ), the Secretary shall provide such drugs to the

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16175 State and shall only require the State to reimburse the Secretary for the amount paid by the Secretary for such drugs. The amount of any reimbursement received by the Secretary under this subsection shall be deposited by the Secretary in the Fund.". TRAINING OF HEALTH PROFESSIONALS WITH RE-

SPECT TO ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

SEc. 203. <a> Part F of title VII of the Public Health Service Act is amended by inserting after section 788 the following new section:

"TRAINING WITH RESPECT TO ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

"SEc. 788A. <a><l> The Secretary, through the Public Health Service, may make grants to and enter into contracts with schools of medicine and osteopathy to assist in meeting the costs of such schools in providing projects to-

"<A> train faculty of schools of medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, public health, and allied health, and faculty of programs for the training of physician assistants, to teach students in such schools and programs to provide care and treatment <including counseling and prevention> for individuals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome; and

"(B) ( ·elop and disseminate curricula relating to the care and treatment of individuals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

"(2) In making grants under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to projects which will-

"<A> train, or result in the training of, health professionals and allied health professionals who will provide treatment for minority individuals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome and other individuals who are at high risk of contracting such syndrome; and

" train, or result in the training of, minority health professionals and minority allied health professionals to provide treatment for individuals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

"(b) No grant or contract may be made under this section unless an application therefor is submitted to the Secretary in such form, at such time, and containing such information, as the Secretary may prescribe.

"(c)(l) Any application for a grant or contract under this subsection shall b.e subject to appropriate peer review by peer review groups composed principally of non-Federal experts.

"(2) The Secretary may not approve or disapprove an application for a grant or contract under this subsection unless the Secretary has received recommendations with respect to such application from the appropriate peer review group required under paragraph (1) and has consulted with the National Advisory Council on Health Professions Education with respect to such application.

"(d) For grants and contracts under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $4,000,000 for fiscal year 1988.".

(b) Part A of title VIII of such Act is amended by inserting after section 822 the following new section:

"TRAINING WITH RESPECT TO ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

"SEc. 823. <a><l> The Secretary, through the Public Health Service, may make grants to and enter into contracts with schools of nursing to assist in meeting the costs of such schools of providing projects to-

"<A> improve the training of nurses in the care and treatment <including counseling and prevention> of individuals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome;

" develop and disseminate curricula relating to the care and treatment of individuals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome;

"(C) expand and strengthen instruction in methods of such care and treatment;

"(D) support the training and retraining of faculty to provide such instruction;

"(E) support continuing education of nurses who provide such care and treatment; and

"<F> establish new affiliations with nursing homes, chronic and acute disease hospitals, ambulatory care centers, home health care agencies, and hospitals in order to provide students with clinical training with respect to the care and treatment of individuals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

"(2) In making grants under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to projects which will-

"(A) train nurses who will provide treatment for minority individuals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome and other individuals who are at high risk of contracting such syndrome; and

" train minority nurses to provide treatment for individuals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

" No grant or contract may be made under this section unless an application th refor is submitted to the Secretary in such form, at such time, and containing such information, as the Secretary may prescribe.

"(c)( 1> Any application for a grant or contract under this subsection shall be subject to appropriate peer review by peer review groups composed principally of non-Federal experts.

"(2) The Secretary may not approve or disapprove an application for a grant or contract under this subsection unless the Secretary has received recommendations with respect to such application from the appropriate peer review group required under paragraph (1) and has consulted with the National Advisory Council on Nurse Training with respect to such application.

"(d) For grants and contracts under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1988.".

(c) Part B of title III of such Act is amended by inserting after section 318 the following new section:

"CONTINUING EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

"SEc. 318A. <a> The Secretary, through the Public Health Service, may provide, either directly or by grant or contract, for education, training, and clinical skills improvement activities relating to acquired immune deficiency syndrome for health professionals and allied health professionals.

"(b) The Secretary, through the Public Health Service, may provide, either directly or by grant or contract, technical assistance to States, political subdivisions of States, and public and nonprofit entities for their research in, and the prevention and control of, acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

"<c> To carry out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $4,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1988 and 1989.".

TITLE III-PUBLIC INFORMATION INFORMATION PROGRAMS

SEc. 301. Part B of title III of the Public Health Service Act <as amended by section 203<c> of this Act) is further amended by inserting after section 314 the following new section:

"INFORMATION PROGRAMS WITH RESPECT TO ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

"SEc. 315. <a><l><A> The Secretary, through the Public Health Service, shall develop and disseminate, through the print and broadcast media, public service announcements which inform the public of current scientific information regarding acquired immune deficiency syndrome, which discourage the behaviors which place individuals at high risk of contracting acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and which encourage individuals who may be at risk of contracting such syndrome to be tested for infection with the human immunodeficiency virus and to receive counseling with respect to such infection. The Secretary shall place special emphasis on the development of announcements which are directed toward minority individuals and individuals at high risk of contracting acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

"(B) In developing and disseminating public service announcements under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the extent feasible, use appropriate private organizations and business concerns.

"(2) To carry out this subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1988 and 1989.

"(b)(1) The Secretary, through the Public Health Service, shall maintain a toll free twenty-four hour telephone service to provide information to the public concerning acquired immune deficiency syndrome. To carry out this paragraph, there are authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1988 and $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1989.

"<2> The Secretary, through the Public Health Service, shall establish and maintain a telephone service to provide medical and technical information to individuals and organizations who provide care and treatment services for individuals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Such telephone service shall be available during the normal business hours of such Centers. To carry out this paragraph, there are authorized to be appropriated $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1988 and $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1989.".

PUBLIC INFORMATION ACTIVITIES BY STATES

SEC. 302. (a) Title XIX of the Public Health Service Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new part: "PART C-ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY

SYNDROME PUBLIC INFORMATION BLOCK

GRANT

"AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

"SEc. 1931. For the purpose of allotments to States to carry out the activities described in section 1934, there are authorized to be appropriated $200,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1988 and 1989.

''ALLOTMENTS

"SEc. 1932. <a> For each fiscal year the Secretary, through the Public Health Service, shall allot to each State from the total amount appropriated under section 1931 for such fiscal year an amount which bears the same ratio to such total amount as the population of the State bears to the population of all States.

16176 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 "(b) To the extent that all the funds ap

propriated under section 1931 for a fiscal year and available for allotment in such fiscal year are not otherwise allotted to States because-

"<1) one or more States have not submitted an application or description of activities in accordance with section 1935 for such fiscal year;

"(2) one or more States have notified the Secretary that they do not intend to use the full amount of their allotment; or

"(3) some State allotments are offset or repaid under section 1917(b)(3) (as such section applies to this part pursuant to section 1935(d)); such excess shall be allotted among each of the remaining States in proportion to the amount otherwise allotted to such States for such fiscal year without regard to this subsection.

"(c)(l) If the Secretary-"(A) receives a request from the governing

body of an Indian tribe or tribal organization within any State that funds under this part be provided directly by the Secretary to such tribe or organization, and

"(B) determines that the members of such tribe or tribal organization would be better served by means of grants made directly by the Secr"tary under this part, the Sect etary shall reserve from amounts which would otherwise be allotted to such State under subsection (a) for a fiscal year the amount determined under paragraph (2).

"(2) The Secretary shall reserve for the purpose of paragraph ( 1) from amounts that would otherwise be allotted to such State under subsection (a) an amount equal to the amount which bears the same ratio to the State's allotment for the fiscal year involved under subsection (a) as the population of the Indian tribe or tribal organization bears to the population of the State.

"(3) The amount reserved by the Secretary on the basis of a determination under this subsection shall be granted to the Indian tribe or tribal organization serving the individuals for whom such a determination has been made.

"(4) In order for an Indian tribe or tribal organization to be eligible for a grant for a fiscal year under this subsection, it shall submit to the Secretary a plan for such fiscal year which meets such criteria as the Secretary may prescribe.

"PAYMENTS UNDER ALLOTMENTS TO STATES

"SEc. 1933. (a) For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall make payments, as provided by section 6503(a) of title 31, United States Code, to each State from its allotment under section 1932 (other than any amount reserved under subsection (c) of such section) from amounts appropriated for that fiscal year.

"(b) Any amount paid to a State for a fiscal year and remaining unobligated at the end of such year shall remain available for the next fiscal year to such State for the purposes for which it was made.

"USE OF ALLOTMENTS

"SEc. 1934. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), amounts paid to a State under section 1933 shall be used by a State for-

"(1) the development, establishment, and operation of public information activities for the general public <including minority individuals> relating to the prevention and diagnosis of acquired immune deficiency syndrome;

"(2) the development, establishment, and operation of public information activities re-

lating to the prevention and diagnosis of acquired immune deficiency syndrome for populations at high risk of contracting such syndrome, including minority individuals;

"(3) the provision of technical assistance to community-based organizations, public and nonprofit private entities, and employers in developing information programs relating to acquired immune deficiency syndrome; and

"(4) the provision of training for personnel to carry out the activities described in paragraphs <1> and (2).

"(b) A State may not use amounts paid to it under section 1933 to-

"(1) purchase or improve land, purchase, construct, or permanently improve <other than minor remodeling) any building or other facility, or purchase major medical equipment; or

"(2) satisfy any requirement for the expenditure of non-Federal funds as a condition for the receipt of Federal funds. The Secretary may waive the limitation contained in paragraph < 1) upon the request of a State if the Secretary finds that there are extraordinary circumstances to justify the waiver and that granting the waiver will 'assist in carrying out this part.

"(c) The Secretary, if requested by a State, shall provide technical assistance to the State in planning and operating activities to be carried out under this part.

"(d) Not more than 10 percent of the total amount paid to a State under section 1933 for a fiscal year may be used for administering the funds made available under section 1933. The State shall pay from non-Federal so· ··ces the remaining costs of administering such funds. "APPLICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES;

REQUIREMENTS

"SEC. 1935. Ca)(1) In order to receive anallotment for a fiscal year under section 1932 each State shall submit an application to the Secretary. Each such application shall be in such form and submitted by such date as the Secretary shall require.

"(2) Each application required under paragraph < 1) for an allotment under section 1932 for a fiscal year shall contain assurances that the State will meet the requirements of subsection Cb).

"Cb) As part of the annual application required by subsection Ca) for an allotment for any fiscal year, the chief executive officer of each State shall-

"(1) certify that the State agrees to use the funds allotted to it under section 1932 in accordance with the requirements of this part; and

'.'(2) certify that the State will use at least 25 percent of the total amount paid to the State under section 1933 for any fiscal year for grants to local public and nonprofit private agencies for . the conduct by such agencies of activities described in section 1934(a); and

"(3) certify that the State agrees that Federal funds made available under section 1933 for any period will be so used as to supplement and increase the level of State, local, and other non-Federal funds that would in the absence of such Federal funds be made available for the programs and activities for which funds are provided under that section and will in no event supplant such State, local, and other non-Federal funds.

"(c) The chief executive officer of a State shall, as part of the application required by subsection (a) for any fiscal year, also prepare and furnish the Secretary Cin accordance with such form as the Secretary shall

provide) with a description of the intended use of the payments the State will receive under section 1933 for the fiscal year for which the application is submitted, including information on the programs and activities to be supported. The description shall be made public within the State in such manner as to facilitate comment from any person (including any Federal or other public agency) during development of the description and after its transmittal. The description shall be revised <consistent with this section) throughout the year as may be necessary to reflect substantial changes in the programs and activities assisted by the State under this part, and any revision shall be subject to the requirements of the preceding sentence.

"Cd) Except where inconsistent with the provisions of this part, the provisions of section 1914Cb), section 1917Ca), paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 1917Cb), and sections 1918, 1919, and 1920 shall apply to this part in the same manner as such provisions apply to part B of this title.

"EVALUATIONS

"SEc. 1936. Ca><l> The Secretary shall conduct, or arrange for the conduct of, evaluations of the activities carried out under this part.

"(2) Each State shall include in each annual report required to be submitted to the Secretary under section 1917(a)(l) Cas such section applies to this part pursuant to section 1935(d)) such information as the Secretary may require to enable the Secretary to conduct the evaluations required under paragraph <1>.

"(b) Within 30 months after the date of enactment of this part, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report summarizing the evaluations conducted under subsection Ca).

"DEFINITION

"SEc. 1937. For purposes of this part, the terms 'Indian tribe' and 'tribal organization' have the same meaning given such terms in section 4(b) and section 4(c) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.".

(b) This section and the amendment made by this section shall take effect on October 1, 1987. e Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, President Reagan has recently declared that AIDS is the number one 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 it is projected that AIDS may soon become the tenth 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

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16177 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, I recently attended a hearing on AIDS conducted by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. Testifying at that hearing was Dr. Robert Redfield of the Department of Infectious Disease at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, DC.

I asked Dr. Redfield if he thought AIDS was the number one health problem facing this Nation. Dr. Redfield was of the opinion that AIDS was not only the number one health problem but was the number one national problem. Many would agree.

Accordingly, I am pleased to be joining my Republican colleagues in introducing the "Omnibus Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Act of 1987".

This legislation contains 3 major components designed to respond to this crisis, which are briefly summarized below.

The first part would declare AIDS a public health emergency under the Public Health Service Act. This would allow the Secretary of HHS greater flexibility in using discretionary funds to combat AIDS. An international data bank would be established through the National Library of Medicine to collect and disseminate the results of research and treatment relating to AIDS undertaken in any country. In addition, the National Institutes of Health would be provided funding to establish a virus and serum bank in which all human immunodificiency virus stereotypes and serum are available to qualified investigators and organizations. Finally, this part would authorize an additional 40 full-time employee's for the Food and Drug Administration to expedite the drug approval process.

The second component of this measure provides for better coordination of services and health care in the home for those suffering from this deadly disease. Many studies have confirmed that home care is less costly and better for the patient in most cases. We should encourage home health care where possible. Moreover, additional funding is provided for the improvement in training of health professionals in the care and treatment of victims of AIDS. It is critical that our health professionals are provided with the most current information available.

The third component of this measure provides $114 million for a public information campaign. The Secretary

of HHS will be provided funding to develop and disseminate public service announcements and to provide technical assistance to State and local governments in this area. Funding for the Secretary to establish a telephone hatline is also provided. Moreover, $100 million in block grants is provided to the States to set up information programs. The American people must get the facts on this fatal disease and act accordingly.

Mr. President, there is much agreement on what we can and should do to prevent the spread of AIDS. We must act now in those areas where a general consensus exists. That is the approach of this measure. Other action, perhaps more controversial, may have to be taken. However, we must not delay on that which we can agree.

Mr. President, the basic issue is public health: Helping those infected and preventing those not infected from falling victim to this deadly disease. I believe this measure is vital to control the spread of AIDS, and urge its early adoption.e

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in 1981, the Public Health Service recognized a new disease, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or AIDS. Since that time, more than 36,000 Americans have developed the disease- and more th,m 20,000 have already died. In my own State of Utah more than 60 cases of AIDS have been reported.

Unfortunately, this may only be the beginning. Conservative estimates are that at least 1.5 million Americans already have been infected with the AIDS virus. Unless a cure is found, 30 to 50 percent of those infected over the next 5 years will die from the disease.

AIDS is by no means new to the members of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Last year, we held oversight hearings on AIDS to identify areas where our Federal efforts could be improved, and I have worked with the administration in establishing a Presidential commission on AIDS. The committee also reported legislation, which although never enacted, was incorporated by the administration into existing programs.

More recently, I have been working with Senators DOLE and WILSON, and others on comprehensive legislation to address this problem. Their leadership has been instrumental in developing this bill and ensuring our fashioning of a responsible, effective policy, and I am proud to join them in introducing this bill today.

The key provisions are as follows: The first title declares AIDS a public

health emergency. Such a declaration will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services more flexibility in how resources can be used to address this problem, including a shorter approval time for biomedical AIDS research. In addition, it authorizes an

additional $30 million for the Secretary to use at his discretion in addressing this problem. This legislation also contains several other provisions which should strengthen our national and international research efforts.

The second title authorizes $35 million to train health care professionals and provides services for individuals infected with the AIDS virus.

And, the third title authorizes $115 million for public information campaigns. Most of this money will go directly to the States so that they can inform their citizens about what activities place them at risk of becoming infected with this disease.

Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today represents a balanced approach to this national emergency. It addresses the needs of individuals infected with the AIDS virus by making appropriate services available to them. At the same time it provides hope by speeding up our research efforts and increasing the national and international coordination. And, it provides for a major increase in our efforts to prevent the spread of this disease by increasing the availability of public information.

Clearly, this legislation does not address all of the issues related to AIDS. How best to resolve the difficult problems involved in testing and counseling are still under discussion, and we hope to address these issues in the near future. In addition, we will be introducing a sense of the Senate resolution expressing our desire that the Secretary of Health and Human Services Public Health Emergency Fund be appropriated and that the Veterans' Administration receive additional funding to support treatment for veterans with AIDS.

Before I conclude, I should mention that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are also addressing this issue. Tomorrow, the Labor and Human Resources Committee will be considering AIDS legislation introduced by Senator KENNEDY. Senator KENNEDY and I have been working on improving his legislation and I believe we will be able to report a bill that we both support. I am confident that if we continue to work on this issue in a bipartisan manner, we will be able to develop a national policy and program to combat AIDS that will, I hope, ultimately be successful and result in a cure. e Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join a number of my distinguished colleagues in cosponsoring this legislation to combat the AIDS crisis we are facing.

AIDS is a catastrophic disease and public health problem that poses significant challenges to American society and difficult health policy choices to legislators. While this bill is certainly not the final answer to these very

16178 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 difficult problems, I believe that it represents a sound and reasonable response to the public health need~ that this disease has generated.

The role of the Federal Government in dealing with the AIDS crisis should be the same as for any public health emergencies: To foster and support research for the treatment and cure of

. the disease; and to educate the American public about how to prevent the spread of the disease.

I believe this bill serves these purposes by declaring AIDS a public health emergency, thereby giving the Secretary of Health and Human Services needed flexibility on the research front and providing the Food and Drug Administration with much needed personnel to expedite the drug approval process. In addition, the bill authorizes very needed funds for informing the public-particularly those populations at the greatest risk-about this disease.

However, while I am in strong agreement with the majority of this bill's provisinns, I must note one area that troubles me and which I believe my colleagues should carefully examine: The provision that would authorize the payment of compensation for home health care services for AIDS patients. This provision also permits the payment of funds for case management and coordination of such services. It is not the latter use of funds which is of concern to me. Nor do I have any disagreement with the premise that home health care is a more humane and less costly method of providing care. What concerns me is making AIDS a preferred disease for the purpose of Federal reimbursement for treatment.

This provision has the potential of selecting one specific illness that is politically attractive for special treatment. In my view, this raises a serious question of equity. I cannot justify paying for the home health care services of AIDS patients when we do not provide the same benefit for all those with equally disastrous catastrophic illnesses.

My fear is that this provision will lay the groundwork for a policy that this country can ill afford from the standpoint of both dollars and equity. I am very concerned about setting of a precedent that the Federal Government will pay for treating a disease because it is expensive. I urge my colleagues to think carefully before establishing such a precedent in statute.e • Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleagues in introducing legislation that provides funding for research, training, and education measures in our battle against acquired immune deficiency syndrome [AIDS]. This is an important measure that we hope will set the tone for Federal response to this epi-

demic for years to come. It is by no means a cure-there are several issues that are not addressed. But this bill does show our commitment to facing this challenge with the fortitude and compassion it demands.

As of January 12, 1987, physicians and health departments in the United States had reported 29,435 patients meeting the AIDS case definition. Of these, 16,667 are known to have died. It is now estimated that 1.5 million Americans are infected with the AIDS virus. Among this latter group, the risk of developing AIDS rises with each year that passes after infection. Experts estimate that by the end of 1991, the total number of cases in this country will reach · 270,000-with a staggering 179,000 deaths, unless better treatments are found. In the year 1991 alone, it is estimated that 54,000 people will die of AIDS, a figure roughly equal to the American death toll of the entire Vietnam war.

The measure that we introduce today provides for approximately $597 million-new money-authorized for research, training of medical professionals, and national and State education programs over the next 2 years. This money represents an addition to the $415 million the Federal Government spent this year to fund research ar.cl demonstration projects on AIDS. First, this new legislation declares AIDS to be a public health emergency under the Public Health Services Act, therefore giving the Secretary of Health and Human Services broad discretion in tapping into the emergency health fund in order to fight this disease. Further, the measure authorizes $30 million of new money for the health emergency fund, for the purposes of addressing the AIDS crisis. Then, $18.5 million in 1988 and $19.5 million in 1989 is authorized for developing an international data bank, a virus and serum bank, and to authorize 40 new full time positions at the Food and Drug Administration so that the approval process for crucial vaccines and treatment drugs can be expedited.

Title II provides for a national effort at gearing our health system up to confront this growing epidemic. It authorizes $35 million per year in 1988 and 1989 to coordinate services and health care in the home for those who are dying of AIDS, to establish a national drug procurement system by which the Secretary of Health and Human Services can purchase supplies of needed drugs in bulk to reduce costs to the States, to train medical and scientific faculty with the latest AIDS findings, and to make grants to schools of nursing, medicine, and osteopathy to fund training and research on the subject of AIDS.

Title III provides for a nationwide education and public information cam~ paign designed to inform the public in

order to slow the spread of the disease. It authorizes $214 million in 1988 and $215 million in 1989 for public service announcements, telephone hotlines, and block grants to States for education and public information campaigns.

Mr. President, my constituents have written to me about AIDS, about their fear, about their confusion as to why our Government is not doing more about this disease; why we are debating what action to take. Why we aren't informed, and informing them? This measure that we are introducing today will provide many of the answers and will put us on the track to conquering this disease. · The challenge we face is immense. As we move forward with this and other proposals, our actions must be well-thought-out. As such, we are today introducing several components that belong in any comprehensive AIDS measure: Provisions for funding of research, training, and nationwide education. This measure does not include language dealing with counseling and testing, confidentiality and protection against discrimination. I am hopeful that as the Senate moves forward with comprehensive AIDS legislation these issues can be properly addressed.

In the weeks to come, I look forward to working with my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as we face this challenge with the wellbeing of our Nation's people as our only concern. We are fortunate to have such brilliant experts in the fields of science and medicine-working toward a cure, a vaccine, and in general, a better understanding of this dreaded disease. I applaud the efforts of our Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, and of his esteemed colleagues, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Dr. Gary R. Noble, Dr. Robert C. Gallo, and Dr. James W. Curran-as well as the many others who are lending their talents to this awesome challenge. By letting science lead the way, we will succeed.

We do, however, have a long way to go. We must commit ourselves to educating the Nation-something this bill does not go far enough in funding. We must have a sensible approach to testing and counseling, by funding voluntary confidential testing and making it accessible to those who need it mostthe high risk groups. Finally, we must assure that the civil rights of those who have or will develop the disease will not be violated.

The people of my State, as well as the entire Nation, are looking for leadership in the this crisis. In the weeks and months ahead I look forward to working with my colleagues in developing a national policy on AIDS that will provide the leadership and the initiative that this challenge demands.e

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16179 e Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Act of 1987-legislation to address one of the most serious health epidemics in our history.

Since the first AIDS case was identified in 1981, the magnitude of this deadly disease has grown to staggering proportions. According to the centers for disease control, more than 36,500 individuals have been diagnosed with AIDS; of these, nearly 21,000 have already died. In New York, where we have 30 percent of the Nation's AIDS cases, more than 6,000 individuals have lost their lives to this devastating disease.

Based on estimates that at least 1.5 million Americans have already been infected with the AIDS virus, the Public Health Service has projected a sobering picture of the course of the epidemic. By the end of 1991, more than 270,000 cases of AIDS will have been reported in the United States, and more than 179,000 individuals will have da.d as a result of AIDS. Heterosexual transmission is expected to account for 7,000 <or more than 9 percent) of the cases reported in 1991-up from the current percentage of 4 percent. The incidence of pediatric AIDS is expected to increase as well, with more than 3,000 cases expected by 1991.

While our ultimate hope of arresting this disease lies in the development of a vaccine or an effective drug therapy for AIDS, neither of these options is likely to be available in the near future. Until these remedies are available, we must act to prevent the further spread of the infection and to ensure that those who are infected receive adequate health care and the best available treatment.

The legislation we are today introducing is comprised of three sections which, taken together, represent an important first step in our effort to combat AIDS.

First, our bill would designate AIDS as a public health emergency under the Public Health Service Act. This designation will facilitate AIDS research by establishing a virus and serum bank through the NIH, as well as an international AIDS data bank. In addition, this section will facilitate the approval process for promising new AIDS drugs by authorizing the FDA to hire an additional 40 employees.

Second, this bill will help ensure that people with AIDS receive the most appropriate form of care by assisting States in the reimbursement of home health services and the coordination of other long-term care services. In addition, this bill would provide for additional training of health professionals in the care and treatment of people with AIDS.

The third portion of our bill calls for an AIDS public informatioun campaign. Currently, the most effective tool we have against AIDS is an informed public.

While this bill represents only a first step, it is one that we must take immediately. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation.•

By Mr. GLENN: S. 1375. A bill to suspend until De

cember 31, 1990, the duty on Ornithine; to the Committee on Finance.

S. 1376. A bill to suspend until December 31, 1990, the duty on Teicoplanin; to the Committee on Finance.

TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN DUTIES

• Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am introducing two bills today to temporarily suspend the duties on two antibiotics, ornithine and teicoplanin. These bills should prove noncontroversial since the two substances are not manufactured anywhere in the United States and must be imported for use by an American drug manufacturer. I urge early Senate passage of this legislation.

The current duty rate on both ornithine and teicoplanin is 3. 7 percent. The legislation I am sponsoring today would suspend the duties until DecembE · 31, 1990.

Ornithine is an active ingredient that will be used by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in the manufacture of the prescription antibiotic drug sold under the trademark Ornidyl. The chemical name for ornithine is Lornithine ethyl ester dihydrochloride. The product is used for the treatment of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, a type of pneumonia that is the immediate cause of death for many AIDS victims, and trypanosomiasis gambiosi, also known as West African Sleeping Sickness. In fact, American researchers are currently engaged in extensive research to find the link between the AIDS pneumonia and the sleeping sickness. FDA approval for the drug is pending and is expected next year. Ornithine is not manufactured anywhere in the United States.

Teicoplanin is an active ingredient used by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in the manufacture of the prescription antibiotic drug that will be sold under the trademark Targocid. FDA approval is pending and is expected in 1989.

Since these chemicals are not manufactured anywhere in the United States, the current duty adds an unjustified expense to the American company's cost of doing business. By suspending the duty rate, the U.S. manufacturer will be able to import these necessary ingredients and produce the final pharmaceutical product at a lower cost. This will in turn increase the international competitiveness of American producers. I

urge my colleagues to support this legislation.•

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. ADAMS, Mr. BOSCHWITZ, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CHILES, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. DOLE, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. GARN, Mr. GLENN, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HEINZ, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. NUNN, Mr. PRESSLER, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. REID, Mr. SANFORD, Mr. SIMON, .Mr. STAFFORD, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. WIRTH):

S.J. Res. 160. Joint resolution to designate July 25, 1987, as "Clean Water Day"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

CLEAN WATER DAY

e Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution which designates July 25, 1987, as "Clean Water Day." This resolution seeks to recognize water as a precious and invaluable natural resource, to celebrate its many forms and varied uses, and to promote a deeper understanding of its ecological significance.

The importance of this resource cannot be underestimated. Indeed, water is the source of life. From meager beginnings in the great oceans, man, along with millions of other species, has evolved. Today, America's coastal waters, abundant with fish and seafood, provide food and jobs for hundreds of citizens. Our outstanding agricultural system, unsurpassed in production, depends on the purity of inland waters. America's trade and commerce, first built upon inland waterways, continue to depend on those waterways and harbors for transportation.

Across the country, Americans seek out water-related recreation whether it be rafting down the Colorado River, listening to the cry of a wild loon, gliding across a lake in the northern boundary waters, fishing along the Outer Banks, or basking in the summer Sun on the shores of the Jersey coast.

Yet our water resources, upon which so much depends, have been taken for granted. Through neglect, ignorance, and selfish abu~e. we poured toxic chemicals into our rivers, lakes, and oceans, choked them with garbage, sediment, and excrement, disrupted their delicate ecosystems, and spoiled once pristine waters.

But times have changed. Americans are demanding a halt to the degradation of this resource. Citizens are clamoring for clean water. And Congress, recognizing the urgent need for action, has responded.

16180 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 In 1972, Congress enacted the Clean

Water Act, one of the Nation's most important environmental statutes. The ambitious goals set forth under the act were to make waterways fishable and swimmable by 1983 and to rid our waters of pollutants by 1985. Although the initial deadlines were extended, we have made great strides toward achieving our goals. We have amended and strengthened the law to meet changing needs, and enacted additional legislation, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, to address problems unforeseen when the law was enacted.

Today, many Americans drink cleaner water than they did a decade ago and enjoy the benefits of restored and now protected rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. The worst abuses of the 1970's have, for the most part, been eliminated. Lake Erie is no longer a "dead" river. The Cuyahoga River in Ohio no longer burns with oil and debris. But much remains to be done.

EarliPr this year, Congress reauthorized th\_ Clean Water Act, overriding a Presidential veto. In so doing, Congress expressed its determination to eliminate the pollution which continues to plague our Nation's waters. The new law provides $18 billion in funding for a construction grants program, providing much needed assistance to States for upgrading and building sewage treatment facilities. It also provides seed money for an innovative State revolving loan program which will enable States to maintain their sewage plants without additional Federal funding.

In addition, the new Clean Water Act strengthens programs to protect the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, reauthorizes the Clean Lakes Program, and establishes a new National Estuary Program to protect these rich ecological systems from pollution and impinging coastal development.

Clean Water Day will provide an opportunity for recognizing the significant progress made toward cleaning up our waters. It will also provide an important educational service by challenging us to confront problems which remain such as: ground water pollution, nonpoint source pollution, water resource distribution, loss of wetlands, contamination in national wildlife refuges, and others.

Most importantly, Clean Water Day will give us pause to reflect upon the beauty and wonder of this treasured resource in all its many forms. It will provide us with a chance to celebrate and enjoy America's waterways and to consider our responsibilities, both as a society and as individual citizens, for protecting and preserving our irreplaceable water resources. Our survival, and that of all living species, depends on the wisdom of our actions.

Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the RECORD.

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

S.J. RES. 160 Whereas fresh, pure water is inextricably

linked to our Nation's culture and heritage and is an invaluable resource to be cherished and protected;

Whereas every American should be able to draw upon the abundant resources of our rivers, lakes, streams, and underground water supplies to enjoy clean and safe drinking water;

Whereas our coastal waters produce a rich bounty of fish and seafood without equal, and our inland waters nourish an agricultural system that feeds the world;

Whereas millions of Americans and visitors to our Nation enjoy our rivers, lakes, streams, and oceans for fishing, swimming, boating, and other recreation each year;

Whereas the Nation's trade and commerce were built upon our waterways, and waterrelated jobs bring continued vitality to our economy; and

Whereas it is important to recognize and appreciate the natural beauty and wealth that our waterways have to offer us: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That July 25, 1987, is designated as "Clean Water Da v", and the President is authorized and re4uested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.e

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS s. 10

At the request of Mr. CRANSTON, the name of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. RIEGLE] was added as a cosponsor of S. 10, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve emergency medical services and trauma care, and for other purposes.

s. 42

At the request of Mr. RoTH, the name of the Senator from Idaho [Mr. SYMMS] was added as a cosponsor of S. 42, a bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to establish an optional early retirement program for Federal Government employees, and for other purposes.

s. 74

At the request of Mr. KARNES, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 74, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a charitable contribution deduction for certain amounts paid to or for the benefit of an institution of higher education.

s. 123

At the request of Mr. INOUYE, the name of the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. ExoN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 123, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide that psychologist services are covered under part B of Medicare.

s. 143

At the request of Mr. INOUYE, the name of the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. KASSEBAUM] was added as a cosponsor of S. 143, a bill to establish a temporary program under which parenteral diacetylmorphine will be made available through qualified pharmacies for the relief of intractable pain due to cancer.

At the request of Mr. INOUYE, the name of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. HEINZ] was withdrawn as a cosponsor of S. 143, supra_

s. 271

At the request of Mr. KARNES, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 271, a bill to amend section 1001 of the Public Health Service Act to permit family planning projects to offer adoption services.

s. 314

At the request of Mr. PRESSLER, the names of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SANFORD], and the Senator from Montana [Mr. MELCHER] were added as cosponsors of S. 314, a bill to to require certain telephones to be hearing aid compatible.

s. 322

At the request of Mr. SARBANES, the name of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. GLENN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 322, a bill to authorize the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to establish a memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr. in the District of Columbia.

s. 429

At the request of Mr. DURENBERGER, the name of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. GLENN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 429, a bill to amend the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to delay for 2 years the exception for certain technical personnel from certain rules for determining whether an individual is an employee of independent contractor for employment tax purposes.

s. 450

At the request of Mr. NICKLES, his name as a cosponsor of S. 450, a bill to recognize the organization known as the "National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum."

s. 500

At the request of Mr. PRYOR, the names of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. KASTEN], and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. BuRDICK] were added as cosponsors of S. 500, a bill to identify and reduce barriers to, and distortions of, international trade in rice; to promote expansion of U.S. rice exports; and for other purposes.

s. 508

At the request of Mr. KARNES, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 508, a bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to strengthen the protections available to Federal employees against prohibited personnel practices, and for other purposes.

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16181 s. 533

At the request of Mr. THURMOND, the names of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. PRYOR], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIXON] were added as cosponsors of S. 533, a bill to establish the Veterans' Administration as an executive department.

s. 567

At the request of Mr. DECONCINI, the name of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. PRYOR] was added as a cosponsor of S. 567, a bill to clarify the circumstances under this territorial provisions in licenses to distribute and sell trademarked malt beverage products are lawful under the antitrust laws.

At the request of Mr. KARNES, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 567, supra.

s. 604

At the request of Mr. PRYOR, the name of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. DASCHLE] was added as a cosponsor of S. 604, a bill to promote and protect taxpayers rights, and for other 1- . rposes.

s. 615

At the request of Mr. HELMS, the name of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. HECHT] was added as a cosponsor of S. 615, a bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit the use of compulsory union dues for political purposes.

At the request of Mr. KARNES, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 615, supra.

s. 744

At the request of Mr. MITCHELL, the name of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. GLENN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 744, a bill to assist States in responding to the threat to human health posed by exposure to radon.

s. 750

At the request of Mr. BRADLEY, the name of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. BoscHWITZ] was added as a cosponsor of S. 750, a bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to authorize appropriations for the child survival fund.

s. 784

At the request of Mrs. KASSEBAUM, the name of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. FoRD] was added as a cosponsor of S. 784, a bill to provide that receipts and disbursements of the highway trust fund and the airport and airway trust fund shall not be included in the totals of the budget of the U.S. Government as submitted by the President or the congressional budget.

s. 808

At the request of Mr. BREAux, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 808, a bill to clarify the application of the Clayton Act with respect to rates, charges, or premiums filed by a title insurance company with State insurance departments or agencies.

s. 824

At the request of Mr. SPECTER, the name of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. LEVIN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 824, a bill to establish clearly a Federal right of action by aliens and U.S. citizens against persons engaging in torture or extrajudicial killing, and for other purposes.

s. 840

At the request of Mr. THURMOND, the name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. MATSUNAGA] was added as a cosponsor of S. 840, a bill to recognize the organization known as the 82d Airborne Division Association, Inc.

s. 841

At the request of Mr. Donn, the name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE] was added as a cosponsor of S. 841, a bill to establish and expand foreign language and international education programs designed to strengthen the competitiveness of American industry, and for other purposes.

s. 858

At the request of Mr. BRADLEY, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY] was added as a cosponsor of S. 858, a bill to ·establish the title of States in certain abandoned shipwrecks, and for other purpo..,es.

s. 908

At the request of Mr. KARNES, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 908, a bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978.

s. 924

At the request of Mr. KARNES, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 924, a bill to revise the allotment formula for the alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health services block grant under part B of title XIX of the Public Health Service Act.

s. 929

At the request of Mr. NICKLES, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 929, a bill entitled the "Volunteer Protection Act of 1987."

s. 943

At the request of Mr. D'AMATO, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 943, a bill to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to ensure the fair treatment of airline employees in airline mergers and similar transactions.

s. 985

At the request of Mr. BoREN, the name of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. GLENN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 985, a bill to expand coverage of bilateral steel arrangements to include welded steel wire fence panels, wire fabric, and welded steel wire mesh.

s. 1016

At the request of Mr. KENNEDY, the name of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1016, a bill to provide financial

assistance for the establishment and operation of literacy corps programs.

s. 1075

At the request of Mr. LAUTENBERG, the name of the Senator from Florida [Mr. GRAHAM] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1075, a bill to require the processing of applications from Cuban nationals for refugee status and immigrant visas.

s. 1080

At the request of Mr. BOSCHWITZ, the name of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. DAscHLE], was added as a cosponsor of S. 1080, a bill to amend the Automobile Information Disclosure Act to provide information as to whether or not certain motor vehicles are capable of using gasohol.

s. 1085

At the request of Mr. GLENN, the name of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. WIRTH] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1085, a bill to create an independent oversight board to ensure the safety of U.S. Government nuclear facilities, to apply the provisions of OSHA to certain Department of Energy nuclear facilities, to clarify the jurisdiction and powers of Government agencies dealing with nuclear waste, to ensure independent research on the effects of radiation on human beings, and for other purposes.

s. 1107

At the request of Mr. NICKLES, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 1107, a bill to terminate employment of aliens in U.S. missions and consular posts in certain Communist countries.

s. 1108

At the request of Mr. MITCHELL, the names of the Senator from Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. CHAFEE], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. BuRDICK], and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. GLENN] were added as cosponsors of S. 1108, a bill to modify the conditions of participation for skilled nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act, and for other purposes.

s. 1127

At the request of Mr. BENTSEN, the name of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SPECTER], was added as a cosponsor of S. 1127, a bill to provide for Medicare catastrophic illness coverage, and for other purposes.

s. 1179

At the request of Mr. CoNRAD, the names of the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. ExoNJ, and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. FoRD] were added as cosponsors of S. 1179, a bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to improve the administration of Farmers Home Administration loans, and for other purposes.

16182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 s. 1203

At the request of Mr. NICKLES, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 1203, a bill to amend title 22, United States Code, to make unlawful the establishment or maintenance within the United States of an office of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and for other purposes.

s. 1224

At the request of Mr. KASTEN, the name of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. GLENN], was added as a cosponsor of S. 1224, a bill to provide for 3 years duty free treatment of certain power-driven weaving machines and parts thereof.

s. 1234

At the request of Mr. CHAFEE, the name of the Senator from Maine [Mr. COHEN], was added as a cosponsor of S. 1234, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to insure eligibility of certain individuals for beneficiary travel benefits when traveling to Veterans' Administration medical facilities.

s. 1250

At tr p request of Mr. BRADLEY, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 1250, a bill to strengthen the criminal justice partnership between the States and the Federal Government.

s. 1267

At the request of Mr. ROCKEFELLER, the name of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. HECHT], was added as a cosponsor of S. 1267, a bill to provide authorization of appropriations for the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, and for other purposes.

s. 1285

At the request of Mr. GRAHAM, the name of the Senator from Georgia [Mr. NUNN], was added as a cosponsor of S. 1285, a bill to reform procedures for collateral review of criminal judgments, and for other purposes.

s. 1306

At the request of Mr. CocHRAN, the name of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. HELMS] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1306, a bill to amend the Tariff Schedules of the United States to make the temporary modification of the tariff treatment on certain disposable surgical gowns and drapes permanent.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 23

At the request of Mr. CRANSTON, the name of the Senator from New York [Mr. MoYNIHAN] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 23, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to increases in the public debt of the United States.


At the request of Mr. PELL, the names of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SPECTER], the Senator from Maine [Mr. CoHEN], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. METZENBAUM], the Senator from Washington [Mr. ADAMs], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BIDEN],

the Senator from Washington [Mr. EvANS], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. FowLER], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. JOHNSTON], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. BoscHWITzl were added as cosponsors 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.


At the request of Mr. KASTEN, the names of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. WIRTH], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GoRE], the Senator from Florida [Mr. GRAHAM], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. LEAHY], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PRoxMIRE], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SANFORD], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. RoTH], the Senator from New York [Mr. MoYNIHAN], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. HOLLINGS], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. BURDICK], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. HEINZ], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. HELMS], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SPECTER], and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER] were aaded as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 40, a joint resolution to give special recognition to the birth and achievements of Aldo Leopold.


At the request Of Mr. DURENBERGER, the name of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRASSLEY] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 44, a joint resolution to designate November 1987, as "National Diabetes Month".


At the request of Mr. THURMOND, the names of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRASSLEY], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. RIEGLE], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. STAFFORD], and the Senator from Florida [Mr. CHILES] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 59, a joint resolution to designate the month of May 1987 as "National Foster Care Month".


At the request of Mr. GORE, the names of the Senator from Viginia [Mr. WARNER] and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. TRIBLE] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 72, a joint resolution to designate the week of October 11, 1987, through October 17, 1987, as "National Job Skills Week".


At the request of Mr. HATCH, the names of the Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. DURENBERGER], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. HEINZ],

the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. BoREN], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. MATSUNAGA], the Senator from Texas [Mr. BENTSEN], the Senator from Maine [Mr. MITCHELL], and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. LA UTENBERG l were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 98, a joint resolution to designate the week of November 29, 1987, through December 5, 1987, as "National Home Health Care Week".


At the request of Mr. CRANSTON, the names of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. KASTEN], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. BRADLEY], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN], and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. LUGAR] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 101, a joint resolution designating June 19, 1987 as "American Gospel Arts Day".


At the request of Mr. LAUTENBERG, the names of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RocKEFELLER], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. STAFFORD], and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. TRIBLE] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 103, a joint resolution to designate October, 1987, as "Computer Learning Month".

At the request of Mr. LAUTENBERG, the name of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. LUGAR] was withdrawn as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 103, supra.


At the request of Mr. DURENBERGER, the names of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. JOHNSTON], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SANFORD], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. SARBANES], the Senator from California [Mr. WILSON], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. KASTEN], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. BRADLEY], the Senator from Florida [Mr. CHILES], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. NICKLES], the Senator from California [Mr. CRANSTON], and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 109, a joint resolution to designate the week beginning October 4, 1987, as "National School Yearbook Week".


At the request of Mr. HEINZ, the name of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SANFORD] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 111, a joint resolution to designate each of the months of November 1987, and November 1988, as "National Hospice Month".


At the request of Mr. TRIBLE, the names of the Senator from North

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16183 Carolina [Mr. HELMS], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. RIEGLE], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SANFORD], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. HuMPHREY], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. SIMON], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. STEVENS], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. MURKOWSKI], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. NuNN], the Senator from Utah [Mr. GARN], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. KARNES], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. PRYOR] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 121, a joint resolution designating August 11, 1987, as "National Neighborhood Crime Watch Day".

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 122 -

At the request of Mr. METZENBAUM, the names of the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. LAUTENBERG], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. TRIBLE], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. BOND], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. KASTEr the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI], the Senator from Florida [Mr. CHILES], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. DECONCINI], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. PRYOR], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. BREAUX], and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GoRE] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 122, a joint resolution to designate the period commencing on October 18, 1987, and ending on October 24, 1987, as "Gaucher's Disease Awareness Week".


At the request of Mr. DoDD, the names of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. MATSUNAGA], and the ~enator from Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 128, a joint resolution prohibiting the sale to Honduras of certain defense articles and related defense services.


At the request of Mr. NICKLES, his name was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 129, a joint resolution to recognize the 125th anniversary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.


At the request of Mr. HUMPHREY, the name of the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. KARNES] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 136, a joint resolution to designate the week of December 13, 1987, through December 19, 1987, as "National Drunk and Drugged Driving Awareness Week".


At the request of Mr. HELMS, the names of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER], the

Senator from Delaware [Mr. ROTH], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. QuAYLE], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. PRESSLER], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. KASSEBAUM], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. TRIBLE], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. KARNES], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. STEVENS] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 138, a joint resolution to designate the period commencing on July 13, 1987, and ending on July 26, 1987, as "U.S. Olympic Festival-1987 Celebration," and to designate July 17, 1987, as "U.S. Olympic Festival-1987 Day".


At the request of Mr. WEICKER, the names of the Senator from Texas [Mr. BENTSEN], and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. TRIBLE] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 142, a joint resolution to designate the day of October 1, 1987, as "National Medical Research Day".


At the request of Mr. D'AMATO, the name of the Senator from New York [Mr. MoYNIHAN] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 148, a joint resolution designating the week of September 20, 1987, through September 26, 1987, as "Emergency MPdical Services Week".


At the request of Mr. PELL, the names of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. LuGAR], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. BoREN], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. LEVIN] were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 154, a joint resolution to designate the period commencing on November 15, 1987, and ending on November 22, 1987, as "National Arts Week".

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 29

At the request of Mr. DECONCINI, the names of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. GLENN], and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. ExoN] were added as cosponsors 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 CONCURRENT Rlj:SOLUTION 31

At the request Of Mr. PRESSLER, the name of the Senator from Arizona [Mr. DECONCINI] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 31, a concurrent resolution commending the Czechoslovak human rights organization Charter 77, on the occasion of the lOth anniversary of its establishment, for its courageous contributions to the achievement of the aims of the Helsinki Final Act.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 43

At the request of Mr. STEVENS, the names of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. LEVIN], the Senator from Tennes-

see [Mr. GoRE], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. HECHT], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. DASCHLE], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. ExoN], and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] were added as cosponsors of Senate Concurrent Resolution 43, a concurrent resolution to encourage State and local governments and local educational agencies to provide quality daily physical education programs for all children from kindergarten through grade 12.

SENATE RESOLUTION 194

At the request of Mr. CRANSTON, the name of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. BOSCHWITZ] was added as a CO

sponsor of Senate Resolution 194, a resolution to express the sense of the Senate regarding the air traffic controller work force.


At the request of Mr. GRAHAM, the name of the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 208, a resolution to express the sense of the Senate regarding the Caribbean Basin Initiative.


At the request of Mr. QUAYLE, the name of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 218, a resolution to express the sense of the Senate that each Senate committee that reports legislation; that requires employers to provide new employee benefits secure an objective analysis of the impact of the legislation on employment and international competitiveness and include an analysis of the impact in the report of the committee on the legislation.

SENATE RESOLUTION 233-RELATING TO TREATMENT FOR VETERANS WITH ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. WILSON,

Mr. HATCH, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. COHEN, Mr. D'AMATO, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. QuAYLE, Mr. CocHRAN, and Mr. DOMENICI) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations:

S. RES. 233 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 36,000 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;

16184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 Whereas AIDS is becoming one of the

leading causes 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 an available cure or vaccine within the foreseeable future;

Whereas AIDS poses a serious threat to the health, welfare, and productivity of our Nation;

Whereas the Secretary of Health and Human Services needs adequate amounts to fight AIDS in a flexible and timely manner; and

Whereas the Veterans' Administration is incurring increased costs to treat veterans with AIDS: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Congress should appropriate, for fiscal year 1988-

(1) sufficient funds to establish and maintain the Public Health Emergency Fund authorized under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act; and

<2> $47,500,000 to the Veterans' Administration f0r furnishing of medical care to persons 11aving AIDS who are entitled to receive medical care under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration.

SENATE RESOLUTION 234-AUTHORIZING REPRESENTATION BY THE SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL Mr. BYRD <for himself and Mr.

DOLE) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. RES. 234 Whereas, in the case of United States v.

Charles K. Carrothers, Criminal No. 87-0207-TPJ, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the defendant has obtained subpoenas for the production of documents by Senate Postmaster Jay A. Woodall;

Whereas, Jay A. Woodall or other current or former employees of the Senate Post Office may be asked to testify in that case;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government Act 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2) (1982): the Senate may direct its counsel to defend employees of the Senate with respect to subpoenas directed to them in their official capacity;

Whereas, by the privileges of the United States Senate and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate can, by the judicial process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;

Whereas, when it appears that production of documents by, or testimony of, employees of the Senate is needed in any court for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take s~ch acti.on as will promote the ends of justiCe consistent with the privileges and rights of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to represent Jay A. Woodall and any other current or former Senate employee who may be asked to testify or produce documents in the case of United States v. Carrothers.

SEc. 2. That Jay A. Woodall, as well as other current or former Senate employees who may be asked, are authorized to produce documents and to testify in the case of .United States v. Carrothers, except concermng matters which are privileged.

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED DURING ADJOURNMENT

Under the authority of the order of the. Senate of June 11, 1987, the followmg amendments were submitted on June 15, during the adjournment of the Senate:


HELMS AMENDMENT NO. 306 <Ordered to lie on the table.) Mr. HELMS submitted an amend

ment intended to be proposed by him to the bill <S. 2) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for a voluntary system of spending limits and partial public financing of Senate general election campaigns, to limit contributions by multicandidate political committees, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

f'JO:c. . (a) Section 316(b)(2)(C) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is amended by inserting before the period ": Provided, That all contributions, gifts, or payments for such activities are made freely and voluntarily, and are unrelated to dues fees, or other moneys required as a condi~ tion of employment".

(b) Section 316(b)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is amended by

(1) striking out "and" at the end of subparagraph (B);

(2) striking out the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting"; and"; and

(3) adding after subparagraph (C) the following:

"(D) to use any fees, dues, or assessments paid to any organization as a condition of employment, or money or anything of value secured by physical force, job discrimination, or financial reprisal for (i) registration or get-out-the-vote campaigns, (ii) campaign materials or partisan political activities used in ?onnection with any broadcasting, direct ma1l, newspaper, magazine, billboard, telephone banks, or any similar type of political communication or advertising, (iii) establishing, administering, or soliciting contributions to a separate segregated fund, or (iv) any other expenditure in connection with an election to any political office or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office.".

CHAFEE AMENDMENT NO. 307 <Ordered to lie on the table.) Mr. CHAFEE submitted an amend

ment to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2, supra; as follows:

On page 26, line 4, beginning with "10" strike out through "10" on line 5, and insert in lieu thereof "100 per centum of the eligible candidates of each major party and 100".

BENTSEN AMENDMENT NO. 308 <Ordered to lie on the table.) Mr. BENTSEN submitted an amend

ment to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2; as follows:

At the appropriate place in the Byrd amendment, insert the following:

Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e) is amended-

( 1) in subsection (a) by inserting after "foreign national" the first place it appears the following: "including any separate segregated fund or nonparty multicandidate political committee of a foreign national"; and

(2) in subsection (b) by adding before the semicolon at the end thereof the following: "!but shall include any partnership, associatiOn, corporation, or subsidiary corporation organized under or created by the laws of the United States, a State, or any other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if more than 50 per centum of such entity is owned or controlled by a foreign principal".

LEVIN AMENDMENT NO. 309 <Ordered to lie on the table.) Mr. LEVIN submitted an amend

ment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2, supra; as follows:

On page 10 of the amendment numbered 305 offered by Senators BYRD and BoREN strik.e line 23 through line 10 on page 11, and msert the following:

"(G) will not use any broadcast station, as such term is used in section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, for the television broadcasting of a political announcement or advertisement during which referee is made to such an opponent of such candidate unless such announcement or advertisement includes a statement clearly readable to the viewer that the candidate personally authorized the announcement or advertisement, if such opponent has agreed to the requirements of this title or had received funds pursuant to the provisions of this title; and"

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZATION ACT

DODD <AND WEICKER) AMENDMENT NO. 310

<Ordered to lie on the table.) Mr. DODD. (for himself and Mr.

WEICKER) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the bill <S. 1274) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act to authorize international development and security assistance programs and Peace Corps programs for fiscal year 1988, to authorize payments to certain multilateral development banks, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 122, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following new section:

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16185 PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE FOR THE NICARAGUAN DEMOCRATIC RESISTANCE

SEc. 615. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as provided in subsection (c), no funds appropriated for fiscal year 1988 pursuant to any provision of law and no proceeds from the sale or other transfer to United States property, including any defense article, may be obligated or expended during fiscal year 1988 for or on behalf of the Nicaraguan democratic resistance.

(b)(l) During fiscal year 1988, no defense article or other goods or technology subject to the jurisdiction of the United States may be exported to the Nicaraguan democratic resistance or to any agency thereof, and no such article, goods, or technology may be exported during fiscal year 1988 to the Nicaraguan democratic resistance or to any agency thereof by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(2) The President shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out paragraph 0 ).

(3) The authorities contained in section 38(e) of the Arms Export Control Act shall apply to violations of paragraph < 1 ).

<c> There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for fiscal year 1988, $10,000.000 which shall be available for the Nicarag ... c~.n democratic resistance only for relocation of the members of the Nicaraguan democratic resistance away from the areas of Honduras or Costa Rica bordering on Nicaragua. Such funds shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be provided to the relevant regional and international organizations with expertise in relocation of refugees.

(d) No foreign country which provides assistance or military equipment to the Nicaraguan democratic resistance during fiscal year 1988 may be eligible to receive assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or defense articles or defense services under the Arms Export Control Act.

<e><l> Section 2150> of the Act entitled ·~An Act making appropriations for military construction for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987, and for other purposes" (as contained in Public Law 99-591> is repealed.

(2) Subsections (p), (q), <r>, <s>. (t), and of section 722 of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 are repealed. • Mr DODD. Mr. President, the controversy over aid to the Contras is very much a part of the national political debate in this country. And as we know from the morning newspapers and the nightly TV news shows, there is no end in sight. Quite the contrary. In the days ahead it is fair to assume, I think, that the controversy will grow more intense and that the debate on this issue will reach something of a high-water mark in the weeks ahead.

The ongoing work of the Select Committee on the Iran/Contra Affair obviously will continue to focus attention on the controversy. We all await the resumption of the hearings, particularly the testimony of Colonel North and Admiral Poindexter. Similarly, the administration's determination to obtain additional funding for the Contras will have a comparable impact. As every Senator knows, administration officials will put on a full-

court press to obtain the $105 million being sought by the President in his fiscal1988 budget.

As one who has opposed the Contra effort and funding for it, I remain committed to bringing this program to an end.

With this commitment in mind, I am filing today an amendment to S. 1274, this year's proposed foreign aid and arms export control legislation. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my distinguished senior colleague from Connecticut, Senator WEICKER. I intend to file this amendment to other legislation as well. At the appropriate time and in consultation with the majority leader, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and others, I will call up the amendment and seek to bring it to a vote.

The amendment I am offering contains four straightforward propositions concerning the Contra aid issue.

First, it terminates on October 1, 1987, all funding and support for Contra military or military-related operations.

Second, it authorizes appropriations of $10 million in fiscal 1988 for the resettlement, relocation, or repatriation of the Contra forces.

Third, it bars in fiscal 1988 any foreign assistance, or the provision of defe. 1se articles or services to countries which provide assistance to the Contras.

Fourth, it repeals those provisions in existing law which relate to expedited procedures for Contra funding requests.

Mr. President, as each day passes, the folly of the Contra program becomes clearer and clearer. It should have been stopped long ago. It must be stopped this year.e


HOLLINGS AMENDMENT NO. 311 <Ordered to lie on the table.) Mr. HOLLINGS submitted an

amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill <S. 2) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for a voluntary system of spending limits and partial public financing of Senate general election campaigns, to limt contributions by multicandidate political committees, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following sections:

Since the Federal Election Commission reports that candidates for Congress spent $450 million during the 1986 election cyclea 20 percent increase over the previous election cycle,

Since under the current electoral system, it is necessary to raise enormous sums of money in order to finance a truly competitive Congressional campaign,

Since very wealthy candidates willing to finance campaign expenses out of their own

pocketbook have an unfair competitive advantage,

Since massive independent expenditures on behalf of a given candidate can upset the balance of competition in a campaign,

Since Members of Congress running for reelection are deflected from their legislative and constituent-service responsibilities because of the time-consuming task of raising campaign funds,

Since the Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo decision forbids limits on campaign spending in the absence of public campaign financing, which would further exacerbate the Federal deficit,

Therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that the Constitution should be amended to enable Congress to regulate contributions and expenditures intended to effect election to Federal office.

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE AND PEACE CORPS AFFAIRS

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere and Peace Corps Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 16, 1987, to receive a briefing on the Costa Rica peace initiative.


COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 16, 1987, to receive a briefing on the administration's report on the plan to protect 11 reflagged Kuwaiti tankers with U.S. military forces.


ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MORRIS UDALL

e Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to recognize the 65th birthday of MORRIS K. UDALL, one Of the foremost and senior Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Mo, who represents the citizens of Arizona's Second Congressional District, has consistently been recognized as one of the most effective and popular Members of Congress.

Now in his fourteenth term, Mo has long served both his constituency and his country. He chairs the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, having held this post for the past 10 years. Mo's leadership position on this committee has allowed him to help meet the needs of all Arizonans. On the national level, Mo also exemplifies the traits of a true leader. In 1976 he ran for the Presidency. Mo's vote total at

16186 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 the Democratic Nominating Convention that year was second only to that of one man's; the winner Jimmy Carter's, who received the Democratic nomination, as well as the Presidency of the United States.

In addition to being a great legislator, Mo UDALL is an outstanding human being. He is, without a doubt, the leading humorist in Congress. I know of no one who can tell a story with more style and wit.

I hope that someday my accomplishments will be looked upon as having a small fraction of the importance that Mo UDALL's have had. I have long admired Mo, and am proud when I think how closely my life in politics has mirrored his own. We both come from pioneer Arizona families, with long traditions of political involvement. Our fathers both served on the Arizona Supreme Court, and our elder brothers both followed suit by entering into politics. Before entering the U.S. Congress, Mo in the House and I in the Senate, we both held the position of Pima C •unty attorney.

Mr. President, Mo UDALL certainly merits the recognition of the Senate, in honor of his 65th birthday. It is a privilege to request that this great Congressman and even greater man be recognized for all his achievements.•

VA BRIDGES GLOBAL GAPS e Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as we all know, many cities and towns in our country, particularly those of rural America, are on the verge of stagnation. Their physical growth and economic health-their very existence in some instances-are threatened by inadequate tax bases that cannot support expensive expansions or replacements of existing wastewater treatment facilities. The result is increasingly frequent moratoriums on construction of the very homes, businesses, and industries that would serve to strengthen their tax base. It has become a vicious cycle.

An answer to this crisis of rural America is in the offing because of the Tennessee Valley Authority [TV AJ and its leadership in researching and demonstrating a low-cost natural technology, manmade wetlands, that holds genuine promise for treating wastewater from a variety of sources, including municipalities.

TVA is demonstrating that the complex of wetland vegetation, soil, and water is capable of removing nutrient overloads, organic compounds, and heavy metals while increasing oxygen and reducing acidity of water from domestic, municipal, mining, industrial, and agricultural sources. In short, constructed wetlands systems can be used to inexpensively treat polluted water in a variety of settings. ·

In my own Kentucky, TVA has helped Benton, a town of 5,000, design

and construct a wetland to meet an order by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPAJ to upgrade its wastewater treatment. That system is now in operation in conjunction with the existing treatment facility, and it has replaced frustration with hope.

But Gayle Frye, Benton grants coordinator, says it best:

This project has saved Benton's economic life. We would still be under an EPA ban against new hookups; but we now have received a new permit from EPA, which has lifted the ban all because of this wetlands project. It's unfortunate, but little towns like Benton don't get any help. We fall through the cracks because we're not large, we have no urban blight, no extreme poverty although we do have an unemployment rate of 16 percent-we don't have the big problems that seem to attract all the assistance. But TV A has given us a new lease on life. In 1970, the estimate we received for a mechanical treatment plant to meet EPA specifications was $2.5 million. The TV A project to achieve the same goal is costing us only $250,000 today. You just can't imagine what it means to us.

TV A is also helping place similar systems in Pembroke, KY, with a population of 1,000, and Hardin, a town of 560. These should be operational by the end of the year. Cooperative TVAEPA monitoring of these systems will develop design criteria for transfer of this technology to other communities, engineers, developers, and regulators.

Cost of construction of these systems is only a fraction of conventional mechanical treatment facilities. Maintenance is near nonexistent and operator training is minimal. In fact, TV A estimates that using wetlands at small public treatment facilities requiring upgrading or replacement could save more than $3 billion nationwide.

TVA believes an additional $1 million a day could be saved by Appalachian coal companies treating acid mine drainage. For the past 2 years, the agency has used constructed wetlands to successfully treat acid drainage from strip mines, a coal preparation facility, and coal-ash storage ponds.

Although not everything is understood about how and why these systems work so well, TV A is addressing that too. Various soils, plants, and microscopic organisms are being · tested and compared at the agency's acid drainage wetlands research facility built in north Alabama last year. A great deal more useful information is expected to result from this research. The agency also hopes to establish an international center to advance the technology of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment on a broad scale.

Finally, TV A's wetlands wastewater treatment work is beginning to attract the widespread attention ·it deserves. The agency was recently invited to provide an exhibit on its projects at the Smithsonian Institution as part of the U.N. World Environment Day. The EPA has agreed to cohost with TV A a

"how-to" conference on constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in June of next year. This upcoming conference and the natural technology it espouses were topics of converstation among ministers of the environment from several developing countries in a recent U.N. Environmental Programme meeting in Kenya.

It's a long way from Kentucky to Kenya; but once again, TVA has shown its ability to bridge global gaps by demonstrating in a practical way innovative solutions to common problems.e

ROBERT K. LIFTON-ADDRESS IN DEFENSE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

e Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the struggle to preserve religious liberty has never been more important than it is in this bicentennial year of the Constitution. For two centuries, the first amendment has been our constant defense against those who seek to breach the wall of church and state and toreplace religious tolerance with official indoctrination.

One of the most vigorous defenders of religious freedom in the United States today is the Fund for Religious Liberty of the American Jewish Congress. Since it was established in 1985, the fund has worked tirelessly for religious freedom, and especially to preserve the right of parents to determine the religious education of their children, free from State interference. The fund has also been in the vanguard of efforts to preserve and maintain a strong and independent Federal judiciary, which is the most important safeguard of religious freedom and our other constitutional liberties.

Recently, I had the privilege of attending a dinner in New York City at which the fund presented the James Madison Award to its chairman, Robert K. Lifton, one of the most distinguished leaders of the bussiness and legal community in the city, in recognition of his extraordinary efforts to preserve religious liberty. Mr. Lifton's address accepting the award is an eloquent account of the historical basis of the first enforcement and the compelling contemporary need for vigorous enforcement of our constititonal commitment to religious freedom.

Because of the dedication of leaders like Bob Lifton, the Fund for Religious Liberty has earned a well-deserved reputation as "the attorney general for the Jewish community." I believe than Mr. Lifton's address will be of interest to all of us in Congress concerned about this issue, and I ask that it may be printed in the REcoRD.

The address follows:

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16187 ADDRESS OF ROBERT K. LIFTON, FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY DINNER, MAY 20, 1987 In my early teens, as a result of peer pres-

sure, I undertook to raise money for the Jewish National Fund by going through the subways ear-by-car with a collection box in my hand. In a voice quavering from my insecurities and the embarrassment that I would dare speak to these people whom I did not know, again and again I forced myself to call for the attention of the listerners, made a short speech about the need to help fund reclamation of land in Israel to create a homeland for the Jews and then passed among them asking for coins.

Although, in truth, people were not unkind, for me it was a very difficult experience. I vowed then that I would never again put myself in a position of asking anyone for money. And for a very long time I held firmly to that view. But, obviously, in taking on the position of Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Fund for Religious Liberty I have had to abandon that comfortable attitude. For the sake of a cause I believe to be so vital, I have had to ask people for substantial amounts of money, which, if not as difficult as going from subway car to subway car, is at the heart of the matter, not much easier. I undertook this commitment, nnt in response to peer pressure this time, buL because I recognized the important role of the Fund for Religious Liberty in protecting the first amendment guarantees of religious freedom and defending against any encroachment on the Constitution's separation of church and State. I can think of no protection more important to me, as a citizen and as a Jew, than the religious safe-guards embodied in the First Amendment, nor can I think of any constitutional rights which are under greater attack today than those rights secured by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That clause represents an effort to maintain a delicate balance among the opposing pulls and tugs that have been present throughout our history as a nation.

On the one hand we are, as Justice Douglas said "a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being." In that environment there has always been pressure from some members of the majority religion to institutionalize their own beliefs as State supported and even State required. On the other hand, we have a tradition of religious freedom with a wall erected between church and State.

These contradictory pulls have existed from the first settlement in America, through the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to this very day. It is only the continued willingness of dedicated people to resist State establishment of religion, that has enabled us to preserve religious freedom in our nation.

Although the Puritans who first settled here sought refuge from religious persecution in England, in truth they were only tolerant of their own religious views. It took Roger Williams who fled the religious controls in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and founded Providence, Rhode Island, to first establish the principle in the new world that government should not have a place in religious concerns.

James Madison drafted the First Amendment after winning a nine year struggle, led by Jefferson and himself to defeat an attempt by Patrick Henry to pass a bill in Virginia which would assess a tax on everyone

to support the Anglican and other churches. And even after ratification of the Bill of Rights, official State churches existed in several colonies like Massachusetts and Connecticut well into the 19th century.

From the beginning God has been pervasive in American life. The Declaration of Independence makes four references to a creator. The constitutions of forty-nine of the fifty States recognize the existence of "Almighty God." And that continues to this day; from the opening benediction of dinners and sports events, to our athletes' expressions of gratitude for victory. The pledge of allegiance is to a nation conceived "under God." Even the United States Supreme Court begins with the traditional call to order by the clerk "Oyez, Oyez, Oyez, God save the United States and this honorable court."

The threat to religious liberty arises from those people who are not satisfied to worship their God privately but who attempt to enlist State and Federal governments to support, finance, foster and favor their particular religious beliefs.

Many of those people have not yet accepted the Supreme Court's decision in the school prayer cases. After that decision, in 1962, Senator Eastland threatened to introduce a bill to amend the Constitution to make it impossible for the Court to ban school prayer. Twenty years later, in campaigning for election and as recently as his 1987 State of the Union message, Ronald Reagan said that he would push for a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in the schools. Those who would hold a constitu ·onal convention, by the way, are short only two State votes required to accomplish that aim and there is no assurance that such a convention could be limited in the changes sought.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General of the United States and a group of conservative lawyers seek to overturn court decisions against school prayer, among other rulings, by calling for interpretation of the Constitution based only on what they claim are the "original intentions" of the framers. And the Attorney General has further suggested that a Supreme Court decision in a case is only binding on that case and no others.

Fundamentalist groups in this country are attempting to control the education of a generation of children by insisting that "creationism" be taught in the schools, by challenging existing courses and by trying to change or destroy books and teaching materials that do not reflect their views. An Alabama State court Judge has recently banned books that do not include the teaching of religious precepts on the ground that such books represent the establishment of an alternative religion which he mislabels "secular humanism." And a Federal Judge, in ruling that a creche could legally be placed in Chicago's City Hall, included in his opinion the alarming assertion that "Our founding fathers intended and achieved full religious freedom for all within the context of a Christian nation."

Because these are not particularly dramatic events, we read little about them in the newspapers and certainly do not see them on television news. But the pressure is unceasing: pressure to place religious symbols like creches in public places; to use public funds to foster religious beliefs; and to bring religion into the classroom. We are surrounded by people who are either too blind to see or, in fact, really seek to take advantage of what Justice Frankfurter

called the "law of imitations," that school children want to be with and like other school children and can be made to feel unacceptable if they do not conform.

All of these acts are part of a movement which by intent or effect tend to impose a majority religion on America. And we know from history that what follows from State control of religion is State control in other areas.

As Justice Black said in his decision in Engel v Vitale, the school prayer case, "[It is] the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand. . . . "The First Amendment was written to quiet well justified fears which nearly all of the framers of the Bill of Rights felt arising out of awareness that governments of the past had shackled men's tongues to make them speak only the religious thoughts governments wanted them to speak, and to pray only to the GOD that governments wanted them to pray to."

The end of religious freedom and religious expression in the pulpits and houses of worship of different religious groups creates a fertile field for totalitarianism.

Of course, threats to religious freedom affect people of all faiths, but for American Jews they go to the heart of our existence in this country. And only the most naive do not recognize that if the Jews of America are in danger, so then is the fate of Israel, dependent as it is for its existence in a world surrounded by enemies, on continued American support.

It is the role of the Fund for Religious Liberty to vigilantly protect the fundamental principles of the First Amendment, to assure that the line between private religious beliefs which are entitled to free exercise, and State support of those beliefs is not crossed.

Through the American Jewish Congress' commissions on law and social action, we battle in the courts vigorously; we continously seek to influence legislators and to educate and alert public opinion against any inroads on the principle of separation of church and State. The Fund helps finance significant studies such as the thoughtful Task Force Report on Public Funding of Jewish Social Welfare Institutions ably chaired by Ira Millstein, studies which help maintain the delicate balance embodied in the Pirst Amendment. Next year, to celebrate the 70th anniversary of AJCongress, a conference of the Fund sponsored by the Union Theological Seminary, the Jewish Theological Seminary and Fordham University.

Over 200 years ago James Madison warned: "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religion, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects. The same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence of his property only for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever."

Unfortunately, too many Americans still do not recognize what was so clear to Madison. I'm proud to receive this award bearing James Madison's name.

I pledge to you that I will do what is in my power to carry his message throughout the land and to defend the views he helped incorporate into the Bill of Rights. By being here tonight you are helping the Fund perserve the basic freedoms of this nation for

16188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 ourselves and our posterity. For that I thank you.e

WHY THE BROAD INTERPRETATION IS THE LEGALLY CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE ABM TREATY

e Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, unhappily, the Nunn-Levin amendment has proved a major obstacle to progress on the most significant defense issue within the Defense Authorization Act; the issue of strategic defenses. Clearly, the Nunn-Levin proposal must be laid to rest for good if we are ever to proceed with the discussion of the most compelling defense programs essential to ensure our security.

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. QUAYLE] has circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter which provides indisputable evidence from such quarters as the Soviet negotiator A.N. Shchukin, the United States negotiator, Paul Nitze, the U.S./U.S.S.R. mini-plenary meetin (· of 1971, and the ACDA Historical Division which prove that the broad interpretation of the ABM Treaty is the legally correct interpretation. The existence of this type of evidence provides solid ground for abandoning the Nunn-Levin amendment and for moving onto the substantive issues of providing for the defense of our Nation.

I commend this letter to my colleagues and ask that it be printed in the RECORD.

The letter follows: U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC, June 3, 1987. DEAR COLLEAGUE: This is the third in a

series of letters to explain why the LevinNunn provision <Section 233) should be dropped from the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1988 and 1989.

Although proponents of this provision claim that the negotiating record supports their view, their analysis has extreme difficulty dealing with the attached documents.

The first of these is a declassified memorandum covering an exchange between Soviet negotiator A.N. Shchukin and our own negotiator, Paul Nitze. What is sketched in this December 10, 1971, exchange are the basics of the compromise the Reagan Administration itself claims was struck: No regulation of the testing or development of mobile futuristic ABM systems in exchange for a pledge to submit the issue of limiting their possible deployment before the Standing Consultative Committee.

The second document is a US/USSR MiniPlenary Meeting memorandum dated December 30, 1971, in which Deputy Foreign Minister V.S. Semenov is cited at length arguing that the regulation of any futuristic ABM system was outside the scope of the negotiations. What Semenov urges here, again, sustains the Administration's position-that the Soviets only agreed to regulate futuristic ABM systems' deployment and this only through the treaty's review and amending processes.

The last item is an excerpt from a study of the ABM negotiating history by ACDA's Historical Division, dated October 1972,

which emphatically states that the American "future-systems provision" in Article V was not agreed to.

Each of these items is basically ignored by supporters of the Levin-Nunn provision. Each must be explained. Indeed, it's not enough for supporters of the narrow interpretation to claim their view is plausible, it must be compelling- cdmpelling enough to enforce on the Soviets should they ever be caught violating the narrow interpretation themselves.

This case, however, has not yet been made. If you have any questions or would like to help oppose the Levin-Nunn provision, please feel free to contact me or my assistant, Henry Sokolski, at 224-5623.

Sincerely, DAN QUAYLE,

U.S. Senator.

SALT VI-U.S./U.S.S.R. MINI-PLENARY MEETING No. 10

Persons Present: Ambassador Smith, Ambassador Parsons,

Mr. Nitze, Dr. Brown, General Allison, Dr. Garthoff, Colonel FitzGerald, Mr. Krimer <Interpreter).

Minister Semenov, Academician Shchukin, General Trusov, Mr. Grinevsky, Mr. Kishilov, Colonel Anyutin, Mr. Arterniev <Interpreter), Mr. Novikov <Military Interpreter).

Minister Semenov said, in regard to other ABM systems, suppose that the draft treaty on limiting ABM systems had a provision on limiting systems other than those now known which use interceptors and launcher: What would result from such a provivion? Undoubtedly, such a provision would create the grounds for endless arguments, uncertainties, and suspicions with all the undersirable implications for relations between the two countries. He asked if the sides could in working out a draft ABM Treaty advocate such a situation. He also asked if the goal of two Delegations isn't just the opposite, that is, to reach agreement on limiting known ABM systems referred to in Article III of the draft ABM Treaty. Certainly such limitations on known ABM systems constitute a factor for relaxing international tension and curbing the race in strategic arms and limiting them. Such a responsible international document as a treaty on limiting ABMs must be precise as to the subject of the agreement to the maximum extent possible. This would ensure the viability of a treaty which has an important bearing on the national security of the sides.

Minister Semenov said that the Soviet Delegation has repeatedly asked what the U.S. side has in mind specifically under other ABM systems. This question has never been answered. He asked how then could an ABM treaty include a provision about whose content the sides do not have the vaguest notion? References has been made to the Outer Space Treaty and the Seabed Treaty. In the Soviet view these references were not convincing. The Outer Space and Seabed Treaties had as their subject obligations of a much more general nature than ABM systems. They dealt with a ban on emplacement in outer space and on the seabeds of weapons of mass destruction, that is, nuclear, bacteriological, and chemical weapons. Could the sides include in an ABM Treaty the unknown without risk of making the treaty indefinite and amorphous? On December 10 the Soviet side had already noted the importance of avoiding the temptation to go beyond the scope of

our negotiations. We should ask ourselves the question: By including other systems in an ABM Treaty, would we not be placing ourselves in the position that the people refer to in the saying "Go I know not where, bring I know not what?" The sides cannot and must not engage in discussion of questions not known to anyone. The task faced by the two sides is to erect reliable barriers against deployment of known ABM components in excess of the levels defined by the ABM Treaty. At the same time, the sides undertake obligations not to create a territorial ABM system and to limit ABM deployments around capitals by the limitations contained in the draft treaty.

Minister Semenov then asked what would be done if something appears in the future that the sides should talk about. He believed that the draft ABM Treaty envisaged provisions on this score. Both sides recognize that the Treaty on limiting ABM's would be of unlimited duration. This does not preclude the possibility of supplementary and regular review when the need arises. Articles XIII and XIV, which are preliminarily agreed to, provide for such review. If it should appear necessary to supplement the ABM Treaty by a provision prohibiting or limiting other ABM components in addition to those now known, this can be done in accordance with the procedures provided for in the provision on review.

MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION: U.S. SALT DELEGATION, VIENNA, AUSTRIA

Date: 10 December 1971. Time: 1:00-1:40 p.m. Place: Soviet Embassy, Vienna. Subject: SALT. Participants: United States-Mr. Paul H.

Nitze, Dr. Harold Brown. U.S.S.R.-Academician A.N. Shchukin.

Shchukin said he disagreed with Brown's statement on future systems. He thought general definitions where one couldn't even mention the specific system to which they applied were unhelpful. Brown referred to the general definition in the Outer Space Treaty. Shchukin responded, but in that case, one could specify systems which were within the meaning of "other weapons of mass destruction." These included chemical and bacteriological weapons. Brown said that, in fact, the use of such weapons from outer space was far from clear; similarly, one could specify systems which would be included within the general definition "future ABM systems." These would include lasers and particle accelerators.

Shchukin said he wished to get at the problem in another way; both sides agree that there should not be territorial defenses. The Soviet side has proposed specific language covering this in Article I; thus, the agreement would ban the deployment of future systems in a manner providing a territorial defense. If, however, new technology should make possible components carrying out the same tasks as existing components, but perhaps in a more efficient and less costly manner, why should those be prohibited? We are not prohibiting ABM components.

Nitze said that the number and location of ABM components would be limited under Article III and other articles of the agreements. Specifically, in the case of an NCA defense, launchers and ABMs would be limited to 100. If a future system were to be deployed which performed the same function as existing launchers and ABMs, but without interceptor missiles, for example, the

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16189 limit of 100 could be rendered meaningless. Shchukin suggested that were such future systems to reach a stage where they could be deployed, the question would be referred to the Standing Commission, through which the necessary regulations could be worked out.

Nitze said he wished to see whether he correctly understood what it was that Shchukin had said. Was he saying that the sides would agree in principle that the provisions of the agreement should not be undermined by the deployment of components capable of performing functions similar to ABM components; that, if such components reached a stage of development such that their deployment could be contemplated, the issue of the appropriate manner of their regulation would be referred to the Standing Commission; and that no such deployment would take place until such regulations had been agreed to by Governments through the Standing Commission. Shchukin said that if it were necessary, they could agree to that, though it was not clear that he was holding out a commitment in the treaty to that effect.

A study of the ABM negotiating history by ACDA's Historical Division, dated October 1972, concluded that the Soviets had refused to agree to a ban on futures in Article V(1) du. 1g SALT V:

They [the two sides] also agreed in article V to ban sea-based, air-based, space-based, and mobile land-based ABM systems, as well as automatic launchers; the American future-systems provision remained unagreed.

<Fifth Session of SALT IX; see also id. at 115.)

BUDGET SCOREKEEPING REPORT

e Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for this week, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office in response to section 308(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report was prepared consistent with standard scorekeeping conventions. This report also serves as the scorekeeping report for the purposes of section 311 of the Budget Act.

This report shows that current level spending is under the budget resolution by $3.9 billion in budget authority, but over in outlays by $13.3 billion.

The report follows: U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC. June 15, 1987.

Hon. LAWTON CHILES, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S.

Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The attached report

shows the effects of Congressional action on the budget for fiscal year 1987. The estimated totals. of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are compared to the appropriate or recommended levels contained in the most recent budget resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 120. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 and is current through June 12, 1987. The report is submitted under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended. At your request this report incorporates the CBO

economic and technical estimating assumptions issued on January 2, 1987.

Since my last report Congress has completed action on S. 626, prohibiting entrance fees at the Statue of Liberty monument, changing budget authority and outlays.

With best wishes, Sincerely,

EDWARD M. GRAMLICH, Acting Director

CBO WEEKLY SCOREKEEPING REPORT FOR THE U.S. SENATE, lOOTH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION AS OF JUNE 12, 1987

[Fiscal year 1987- in billions of dollars]

Budget authority ... Outlays.... . ... .. ................... . Revenues ...................... . Debt subject to limit . . Direct loan obligations Guaranteed loan commitment ...

Current level•

1,089.5 1,088.3

833.9 2,279.1

42.5 140.5

Budget resolution S.Con.Res.

120

1,093.4 995.0 852.4

2 2,322.8 34.6

100.8

Current level + /

resolution

- 3.9 13.3

-18.5 - 43.7

8.0 398

' The current level represents the estimated revenue and direct spending effects (budget authority and outlays) of all legislation that Congress has enacted in th1s or previous sessions or sent to the President for his approval. In addition, estimates are included of the direct spending effects for all entitlement of other programs requiring annual appropriations under current law even though the appropriations have not been made. The current level of debt subject to limit reflects the latest U.S. Treasury information on public debt transactions.

2 The current statutory debt limit is $2.320 billion.

FISCAL YEAR 1987 SUPPORTING DETAIL FOR CBO WEEKLY SCOREKEEPING REPORT, U.S. SENATE, lOOth Congress, 1st SESSION AS OF JUNE 12, 1987

fin millions of dollars]

I. Enacted in previous sessions: Revenues ..... Permanent appropriations

and trust funds ........ . . Other appropriations .. .

Total enacted in previous sessions ....... . .

II. Enacted this session Water Quality Act of 1987

(Public Law 100-4) ......... . Emergency Supplemental for

the Homeless (Public Law 100-6) ......................... .

Surface Transportation and Relocation Act (Public Law 100- 17) .. .................. .

Technical Corrections to FERS Act (Public Law 100-20) .. ........ .

Total enacted this session ...

Ill. Continuing resolution authority .... IV. Conference agreements ratified

by both Houses: Prohibit entrance fees at the Statute of Liberty Monument (S. 626) ....... .

V. Entitlement authority and other mandatory items requiring fur-ther appropriation action:

Special milk .... .................. . Veterans compensation .. . Readjustment benefits ............ . Federal unemployment bene-

fits and allowances ............ . Advances to the unemploy-

ment turst funds" ............ . Payments to health care

trust funds "············ Family social services ............. . Medical facilities guarantee

and loan fund .................... . Payment to civil service re-

tirement and disability fund 2 ............................... ..

Coast Guard retired pay ...... . Civilian agency pay raises ...... . Replenishment of disaster

relief funds •

Total entitlements ...

Budget authority

720.451 542,890

1,078,269

- 4

- 7

10,466

10.456

6 173

9

33

(3)

(224) 110

(33) 3

358

57

754

Outlays Revenues

833,855

638,771 554,239

1,007,938 833,855

- 4

- 1

- 80

- 84

33

(3) ... .

(224) .

(33) . 3

373

50

467

FISCAL YEAR 1987 SUPPORTING DETAIL FOR CBO WEEKLY SCOREKEEPING REPORT, U.S. SENATE, lOOth Congress, 1st SESSION AS OF JUNE 12, 1987-Continued

[In millions of dollars]

Total current level as of June 12. 1987 ...... ........ .

19~~sb~~~jt .. . ~e.s~l.u.ti·o·n .. (.S.: .. ~~: .. Amount remaining:

Over budget resolution Under budget resolution ....... .

Budget authority

1,089.480

1,093,350

• Included at request of Senate Budget Committee.

Outlays

1,008,322

995,000

13,322

2 lnterfund transactions do not add to budget totals. Note.-Numbers may not add due to rounding.e

Revenues

833,857

852,400

NEW MEXICO LEGISLATIVE MEMORIALS

e Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send to the desk seven memorial resolutions that were adopted during this year's session of the New Mexico Legislature.

Each of these memorials has significance for the work we are doing here, giving us a sense of the priority these issues receive from the citizens of New Mexico. For example, two of the memorials discuss the superconducting super collider and the problems confronted by the homeless, two issues we have debated on this floor.

It passed a memorial commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Constitution, which, of course, falls during the years of New Mexico's 75th anniversary as a State.

The legislature also adopted a memorial urging that the Government improve the quality of services and standards of care in retirement centers, nursing homes, and other living centers. This concern complements the legislation on catastrophic illness insurance, now working its way through the Congress. The legislature acted to discourage Federal preemption of the effective statewide program regulating disposal of oil and gas exploration wastes.

Additionally, the legislature passed a resolution recognizing the historical aspects of farming and ranching in New Mexico, plus a memorial urging that Highway Trust Fund money be spent for certain Navajo Reservation roads, two issue of great importance to New Mexico.

Mr. President, I commend the leaders and members of the New Mexico Legislature for their recognition of the importance of each of these issues. I would like to comment briefly on each of these memorials.

THE CONSTITUTION Although 1987 holds a particular im

portance to the citizens of the Land of Enchantment. This year marks the 200th anniversary of the American Constitution, an anniversary that coincides with the 75th anniversary of New Mexico as a State.

16190 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 This is a year for remembering New

Mexico's heritage, which unites three great cultures, while reviewing the genius of the Government that was developed that summer in Philadelphia. New Mexicans share the pride every American has this year.

I commend Senator Eoff and the other sponsors of Senate Joint Memorial 19 for their foresight.

SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER

The potential benefits from the construction of the superconducting super collider are vast. Construction of the facility will ensure the continued preeminence of the United States in basic science research. If built, it will be the largest, most powerful particle accelerator in the world and will allow us to probe presently inaccessible domains of nature, providing a great under~ standing of the unversal forces of nature.

In addition, the SSC will provide between 7,500 and 10,000 new jobs, and inspire our children to enter careers in science and engineering.

Recot;nizing these benefits, the New Mexico State Senate has passed Senator Caudell's Memorial 73 endorsing the State's effort to develop and submit a competitive application to the Department of Energy for selection as the site for the facility.

I support strongly this action. I am pleased that New Mexico is showing great interest in this work for our Nation. I look forward to working closely with those dedicated scientists in New Mexico who are involved in this very important project. The action of the New Mexico State Senate is to be commended.

In conjunction with the supplemental appropriations bill, I won approval for an amendment requiring that the Department of Energy to consider geology and other scientific criteria in selecting the site for the superconducting super collider; this is too important to permit the project to be put up for bids to the State offering the richest cash lure. The memorial reiterates that view.

EPA AND STATE REGULATION OF OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION

The State of New Mexico is blessed with some of the most scenic land in our Nation. New Mexicans cherish our diverse State. Over the years, we have imposed stringent environmental controls to maintain these values for future generations.

The oil and gas industry is an important employer in New Mexico. The State runs a model program to ensure that exploration and production wastes from oil and gas operations are disposed of in a manner that is environmentally safe. Given the State's successful program, it is no wonder that there is concern that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency may start regulating these wastes through

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Therefore, the New Mexico State Senate has passed Senate Joint Memorial 17, written by Senator Morgan and others, to urge that EPA respect our State regulation of oil and gas exploration and production wastes, and not perempt it.

A copy of this resolution has been provided to the Environmental Protection Agency. I urge EPA to give this resolution its most careful review and consideration.

THE HOMELESS

The problem of homelessness was one of the first items on the agenda of the 100th Congress. Both the House and the Senate have passed legislation authorizating new programs to serve the homeless citizens of America.

Much of the problem involves those among the homeless who suffer mental illnesses; estimates of as high as 40 percent of those who are homeless suffer from serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, manic-depression, and other psychotic behaviors.

Therefore, I introduced S. 763, the "Services for Homeless Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1987." When the Senate passed a comprehensive homeless bill, it included the major aspects of my bill:

l<'irst, outreach, to seek this fragile population in bus stations, parks, doorways, or on grates; second, transitional housing, to provide a. roof and a warm bed; third, psychological treatment, to assure proper medication by professionals; fourth, case management, to see that the daily needs of the homeless mentally ill are met; and fifth, training of shelter workers to recognize and cope with mentally ill homeless individuals.

Much is going forward in New Mexico, too. Senators Altamirano and Fidel wrote Senate Joint Memorial 9 to request a task force to develop recommendations for improvements in our State. I commend each for his foresight.

BETTER CARE FOR THE ELDERLY

At the suggestion of Senator Carraro and others, the legislature adopted Senate Joint Memorial 7, to encourage the Secretary of Health and Human Services to "improve the quality of services and standards of care in retirements centers, nursing homes, hospices, and other living center facilities."

The memorial also to encourage the work of the American Accredition Association of Retirement Centers, located in Albuquerque, NM. The association seeks to strengthen the work of retirement centers, developing criteria and guidelines for assessing service quality, providing continuous service evaluation, and providing counsel and assistance to both developing and established centers.

Americans have long supported efforts to assure that our older population receive the highest possible quality of care at these facilities. In 1982 I cosponsored the amendment to include hospice care under Medicare. After approval of the hospice benefit, I supported the successful effort to raise the benefit cap in the original legislation.

Recently, Congress has been concerned about the quality of care provided in facilities that house and care for the elderly. Efforts to reduce Federal health care costs have produced worries that hospitals would discharge patients prior to the time when they had recovered fully.

Just last year, in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act, Congress acted to ensure that the quality of care provided Medicare patients would not be lessened by early discharges. That law required that hospitals give patients discharge notifications, and required peer review of complaints filed by Medicare beneficiaries.

NAVAJO ROADS

In the Surface Transportation Act of 1982, I supported the creation of a special Highway Trust Fund allocation for Indian reservation roads. General revenue spending for reservation roads had declined sharply; it was time to find a new, assured source of funds.

Since 1984, the Indian road system has been funded entirely from the Highway Trust Fund, with management by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Congress recently reauthorized the program for Indian roads for another 5 years, at a level of $80 million yearly.

In Senate Memorial 112, sponsored by Senators Donisthorpe and Pinto, the New Mexico State Senate urges that $30 million of these funds be spent to construct Navajo roads N-5 and N-36, plus a 600-foot bridge across the San Juan River at Hogback near Shiprock, NM. These are important roads. N-5 connects U.S. Highway 666 near Newcomb to State Highway 44 north of Huerfano. N-36 will run parallel to U.S. Highway 550 between Shiprock and Farmington, NM, on the south side of the San Juan River.

Each of these projects is on the Federal priority lists. I shall continue to support their funding within the existing system for selecting construction priorities.

The need for such a priority system is clear. The vast distances and relative isolation of many Navajo communities make a fair system of selection imperative. I am pleased to have been a part of making national Highway Trust Funds a consistent and reliable source of funds for needed roads and bridges on the Navajo Nation Reservation.

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16191 NEW MEXICO'S FARM AND RANCH HERITAGE

PROGRAM

New Mexico, like many other States, owes much of its cultural heritage to past generations of farmers and ranchers. These rugged individuals, who chose to make their living from the land, showing great courage against tremendous challenges, and have helped to make New Mexico the great State it is.

It is important that we recognize and celebrate this rich heritage. That is why I am particularly pleased that New Mexico State University, in conjunction with the New Mexico Department of Agriculture, has established a Farm and Ranch Heritage Program to preserve, recognize, and acknowledge the historical aspects of farming and ranching in New Mexico.

This program will assemble farm and ranch memorabilia to show the progress in farming and ranching technology, from the wooden plow to today's highly efficient and productive modern machinery.

This , .rogram will develop into a historical classroom, teaching our youth and reminding all of us of the achievements of our ancestors. It will meld our multicultural history with a valuable account of farm and ranch lore.

The vote of the New Mexico Legislature to approve Senate Joint Memorial 18, sponsored by Senator Morrow and others, is to be commended. This is a most promising program, one fully deserving of this recognition.

Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to place these memorials in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, and I commend the New Mexico Legislature for its leadership on each of these issues. I also ask that the texts of the resolutions appear in the RECORD.

The resolutions follow: SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL 19

Whereas, on May 25, 1787 the delegates to the United States Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania commenced their consideration of the proposed Constitution for the newly formed nation, the United States of America; and

Whereas, the Preamble to that great document States: We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America; and

Whereas, the Constitution electrified the world for it was the first such document of its kind and established the most successful system of government free people have ever known; and

Whereas, the names of George Washington of Virginia, President of the Convention, Alexander Hamilton of New York, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, James Madison of Virginia and thirty-five other statesmen appear as the delegates who signed the document on September 17, 1787; and

Whereas, September 17, 1987 will be the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States of America; ·

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of New Mexico that it hereby honors and expresses its esteem for the Constitution of the United States of America and declares 1987 to be the Bicentennial Anniversary of that great document in the State of New Mexico; and

Be it further resolved that copies of this memorial be sent to the Governor of New Mexico, to each Member of the New Mexico Congressional Delegation and to the New Mexico Diamond Jubilee and Bicentennial Commission.

SENATE MEMORIAL 73 Whereas, the New Mexico Research and

Development Institute contracted for the first phase of the Superconducting Super Collider Geotechnical Site Verification Study, which has been completed; and

Whereas, the first phase study has concluded that the Estancia basin site is the most appropriate and geotechnically qualified site in New Mexico for the proposed superconducting super collider; and

Whereas, a second phase study is needed to carry out the work necessary for New Mexico to be ready to respond competitively with other states to requests for proposal from the United States department of energy; and

Whereas, if the superconducting super collider were to be federally funded and to be ·ocated in New Mexico, it would mean more than fou:- thousand jobs for New Mexicans and a major economic boost to the State; and

Whereas, it is important for New Mexico to be ready to respond to a request for proposal from the United States department of energy on short notice and to have completed the necessary technical study; and

Whereas, the Science and Technology Commission is knowledgeable about the needs and timing for the contracts necessary to complete the Superconducting Super Collider Geotechnical Site Verification Study and any additional contracting for development of a proposal; and

Whereas, the legislature finds it appropriate for the New Mexico Research and Development Institute pursuant to the direction of the Science and Technology Commission to contract for the necessary additional Superconducting Super Collider Geotechnical Site Verification Study and additional work on proposal development as necessary;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate of the State of New Mexico that it expresses support for the New Mexico Research and Development Institute under the direction of the Science and Technology Commission to consider contracting for the future phases of the Superconducting Super Collider Geotechnical Site Verification Study and contracting as necessary for development of a winning proposal to the United States Department of Energy proposing the Estancia basin site for the location of the superconducting super collider; and

Be it further resolved that a copy of this memorial be sent to the Governor, each member of the New Mexico congressional delegation, the Chairman of the Science and Technology Commission and the Chairman of the Superconducting Super Collider Site Evaluation Committee.

SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL 17 Whereas, the domestic production of oil

and gas has fallen to historic lows and this decline will be increased unless oil and gas exploration is encouraged and assisted; and

Whereas, under existing law, oil and gas exploration and production wastes are currently exempt from classification as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and their disposal is conducted safely and successfully in accordance with state regulations; and

Whereas, millions of dollars would be wasted if the State was required to dispose of oil and gas exploration and production wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act with no appreciable benefit to the environment;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of New Mexico that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency is respectfully requested and urged to recommend to the Congress of the United States that state regulation of oil and gas exploration and production wastes be exempt from federal preemption and that the individual states be allowed to continue to regulate the disposal of such wastes; and

Be it further resolved that copies of this memorial be transmitted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and each Member of the New Mexico Congressional Delegation.

SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL 9 Whereas, the tragic plight of New Mexi

co's increasing number of homeless people is becoming a terrible problem for the state and its political subdivisions; and

Whereas, so many among the homeless are also families with young children who are completely unable to find low-cost housing; and

Whereas, New Mexico is not alone in this situation since it is a problem in practically all, if not all, states of the union; and

Whereas, the terrible plight of the homeless is indescribable, particularly when it concerns families with young children, mentally ill people who have been required to leave institutions and the many others who are completely unable to find any kind of relatively permanent shelter; and

Whereas, the complexity of the numerous causes which have brought about the deplorable increase in the number of and types of homeless people urgently requires an indepth study so that possible solutions can be known;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of New Mexico that it requests the Honorable Garrey Carruthers, Governor of New Mexico, to establish a task force to conduct a study of New Mexico's homeless people; and

Be it further resolved that the task force report its findings and recommendations for legislation, if any. to the First Session of the Thirty-Ninth Legislature on or before December 31, 1988; and

Be it further resolved that copies of this memorial be sent to the Governor and to the Members of the New Mexico Congressional Delegation.

SENATE JOINT MEMORI AL 7 Whereas, it is desirable to have knowledge

and information available about the quality of services and standards of care in retirement centers, nursing homes, hospices and

16192 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 19.87 other living center facilities because it assists the aging and their families who seek this type of housing to know what services and basic standards have been met and will continue to be met; and

Whereas, the American Accrediting Association of Retirement Centers, hereafter referred to as AAARC is currently located in Albuquerque, New Mexico and seeks to foster excellence in retirement center services by developing criteria and guidelines for assessing the quality of the services, by providing the opportunity for continuous evaluation, and by providing counsel and assistance to both developing and established centers; and

Whereas, the AAARC is also concerned with improving the quality of services and standards of care available to the aging in nursing homes, hospices and other living center facilities;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of New Mexico that it recognizes the contribution which the American Accrediting Association of Retirement Centers makes to the well-being of the aging; and

Be it further resolved that the legislature respectfully requests the President of the United States to instruct the Secretary of Health ., 11.d Human Services to do whatever is possib1e to secure funding to improve the quality of services and standards of care in retirement centers, nursing homes, hospices and other living center facilities, and encourage the AAARC in its accreditation efforts; and

Be it further resolved that copies of this memorial be sent to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and to each member of the New Mexico Congressional Delegation.

SENATE MEMORIAL 112 Whereas, the Navajo nation is greatly

handicapped and its people undergo great hardship because of the inadequate roads and the consequent lack of transportation during the harsh winter months and during spring floods; and

Whereas, the Navajo people have always answered the call of the country in coming to the mutual defense of our land; and

Whereas, the the Navajo people deserve the support of the government which has been freely furnished to other areas;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate of the State of New Mexico that the Congress of the United States is requested to appropriate thirty million dollars <$30,000,000) to be expended for the completion of Navajo roads N-5 and N-36 on the Navajo Reservation, including a bridge over the San Juan River at Hogback; and

Be it further resolved that a copy of this Memorial be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and to each member of the New Mexico delegation to the Congress of the United States.

SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL 18 Whereas, the New Mexico State Universi

ty Board of Regents passed a resolution October 31, 1986, asking the New Mexico Department of Agriculture to assist in establishing a New Mexico Farm and Ranch Heritage Program in the State; and

Whereas, the Department has called the first meeting of the Farmer, Rancher and Agribusiness Board to determine the process and the definitions for this program; and

Whereas, the participants have met and declared their enthusiasm for this concept and wholeheartedly endorsed and pledged their interest and time toward this activity.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the legislature of the State of New Mexico that the establishment of a New Mexico Farm and Ranch Heritage Program will be a significant step in recognition of the contributions of Agriculture to the State and in preservation of our cultural heritage and congratulates the New Mexico State University Regents on its emphasis in this direction; and

Be it further resolved that copies of this memorial be transmitted to the Members of New Mexico's Congressional Delegation.e

MARSHALL PROCLAMATION e Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, I am proud to have cosponsored the resolution which this year commemorated the 40th anniversary of the Marshall plan, the European Recovery Program [ERPJ created and implemented by George Catlett Marshall, a native son of Uniontown, PA. He was a unique American who served selflessly as a public servant in numerous positions, including Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense. An able leader and soldier in time of war, Marshall was equally effective in his peace time efforts as was acknowledged by his selection for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1953. His years of pt.t)lic service were characterized by integrity, commitment, and compassion. These ideals were most clearly evident in his work as the architect of the ERP after the Second World War, which was the pinnacle of his life-long effort to create a world climate in which freedom and democracy could flourish.

The Marshall plan was America's first large foreign aid program. It succeeded in rejuvenating and integrating the economies of Western Europe through a massive lending policy. Due to Marshall's administrative genius, the program accomplished much more than just economic restoration. He set up the European Cooperation Administration to oversee the program from outside the State Department, thereby placing it above any short-sighted bureaucratic battles. Also, he required the United States to practice a handsoff policy in dealing with the details of the European recovery by basing American aid on cooperation between the nations of Europe. These measures resulted in a self-confident Europe which had jointly planned its own recovery. The Marshall plan enabled a war-torn Europe to reestablish itself as a viable world force and a valuable ally of the United States.

General Marshall realized the importance of the plan for American and world security, but he emphatically stated that "America's commitment was not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos." Clearly, this was a man who was both a great global

strategist and possessed of an abiding passion for his fellow man. I am proud to join with my distinguished colleagues in celebrating June as "George C. Marshall Month" in memory of this great American.e

ADDRESS BY SENATOR LUGAR AT PAN-AMERICAN ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE

e Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. President, I submit for the RECORD an address to the Pan-American Economic Leadership Conference by my Indiana colleague, Senator LUGAR.

The distinguished senior Senator from Indiana and Indiana Lt. Gov. John Mutz were cochairmen of the conference which began in Indianapolis on Sunday and concludes today. Leaderships from all of the Americas have gathered in Indianapolis to discuss new ideas for solving the international debt crisis. In his speech to the conference, DICK LUGAR suggests that a summit should be convened by President Reagan which would continue to meet until a comprehensive solution to the debt crisis is agreed upon. Because of U.S. leadership and investment in this hemisphere, President Reagan would be a logical choice to convene such a conference.

The Pan-American Economic Leadership Conference is the first major event this summer in Indianapolis for the Celebration of the Americas. Events will climax in August with the lOth Pan American Games.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite all my Senate colleagues to visit the Hoosier capital this summer, watch the games and participate in the Indiana celebration of friendship throughout North and South America.

The address follows: THE INDIANAPOLIS CONFERENCE: AN OPTIMUM

TIME To GROW TOGETHER-A SPEECH TO THE PAN-AMERICAN ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE

<By Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana) During the Indianapolis conference, we ·

will speak of "people power," of "an end to dictatorships of the right and the left," of the need for the United States and each nation in our hemisphere to be on the "right side of history," in support of democratic-institution building. But such expressions of political idealism by themselves are insufficient. They must be matched by creative international financial management and sustained, priority support from our national treasuries. New infusions of thought and resources are required. It is my hope that this conference can serve as a catalyst for thoughtful planning and as a necessary foundation for promotion of the necessary resources.

The new and the restored Latin American democracies, as well as most other developing countries, have been dependent on two important American economic policies: relatively free trade in our relatively open market, and a downward push on shortterm and long-term interest rates.

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16193 In addressing Latin America's democratic

prospects, former President Barletta of Panama has pointed to the last three years in our Hemisphere and estimated that the GNP in Latin American states has fallen 12%, imports have fallen 40%, and the net annual transfer of funds has moved from a positive $5 billion to a negative $30 billion. Real wages in the large economy of Mexico have fallen some 35% in the last three years. Barletta estimates that real growth in Latin America must increase to 5% annually for many years to come, in order to provide jobs for the increasing numbers entering job markets. He estimates that the United States and the rest of the industrialized would must maintain real growth of 3% annually in order to sustain Latin America's necessary 5% growth.

What challenges must the United States meet in order to maintain a credible level of economic and political support for the Latin American democracies?

First of all, the achievement and maintenance of 3% real growth in the United States is possible, but will require skillful domestic budget and taxation policies. Most Americans are aware that we have been running internal budget deficits of over $200 billion annually, and external trade deficits in exce:o-·· of $150 billion. They believe that both dtHcits are unsustainable and that failure to reduce both will lead to severe economic recession in this country.

The most obvious point about the future of Latin American democracy, to the extent that it depends on steady economic progress, is that the U.S. economy must remain strong and avoid severe recessions and external trade panics. Ironically, much of the large U.S. trade deficit results from the desire of most Americans to keep our markets open to the exports of other nations. American consumers have expressed a strong demand for these imports. By the same token, a large portion of the U.S. trade deficit results from the decline of exports to Latin American debtor nations that can no longer finance them. Over the last four years, the U.S. trade balance with Latin America has decreased by $15 billion.

Japan and Europe have not exemplified our openness to imports. The United States has shouldered most of the "open market/ debt repayment" burden. The ability of the "debtor democracies" to export and repay debt in the future will hinge mightily upon their persuasiveness and ours in prying open the Japanese and European markets.

Secondly, the economic futures of many Latin American democracies will depend upon their success in luring back the capital that took flight during previous regimes. We are all aware of the well publicized Philippines capital flight, but Argentina, Brazil and Mexico are still missing billions of dollars of capital which sought safer and more productive havens.

During the negotiations surrounding the new debt arrangements for Mexico in 1986, American bankers alleged that Mexicans were exporting capital more rapidly out of that country than fresh loan money could be injected. Mexican businessmen have reported to me this month that capital flight has been reversed and I rejoice with them in this news. But Mexican and other Latin American officials claim that policies which encourage local business investment and capital repatriation will take time to work. The United States strongly encourages a substantial compression of the time frame of recovery through prompt privatization of large sectors of these economies, the ending

of governmental corruption and "crony monopolies" which inhibit fair competition, and active invitations to foreign investors by host governments to take large equity positions and to participate vigorously in the economy.

Historically, such steps have been difficult for governments to take. Memories and fears of external dominance still loom large. But the United States must emphasize that new private loans and/or governmental loans may be increasingly hard to obtain without such reforms.

Thirdly, the reluctance of the private banking community to move forward with new loans is matched by a political reluctance in Congress to support requests for foreign economic assistance. Foreign aid has never been a popular budget item. Given huge domestic deficits, the pressures to curtail foreign assistance will grow even more intense.

What should be the policy of this country in promoting and maintaining the spark of democracy in other countries that have emerged from the ravages of authoritarian repression, treasury plundering and wholesale corruption? Are we willing to match our oft-proclaimed commitments to democracy with the resources necessary to undergird the fragile foundations of democratic-institution building?

And lastly, the future of economic progress and political development in Latin America will depend greatly on creative management of the international debt crisis.

The essential facts of the international de · crisis are well known. A climactic chapter in the crisis broke in 1982 in Latin America, beginning with Mexico. It was caused by imprudent economic policies, including excessive foreign borrowing, and triggered by the rise in oil prices, the collapse in other commodity prices, the slowdown in the OECD economies, and skyrocketing interest rates-the last two developments obviously triggered, in part, by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board's attack on inflation.

The consequences have been devastating. Voluntary lending to the major debtors in Latin America has nearly stopped. Yet creditors have continued to insist on full debt servicing. Many Latin nations have been set back by as much as ten years-jobs have dried up; living standards have been lowered; confidence has been shaken; and some of the new democratic experiments in the Hemisphere are at risk.

The crisis has been with us for five years. In spite of astonishingly courageous structural reform efforts, involving the removal of subsidies, stricter public employment, a narrowing of public sector deficits, and more realistic exchange rates, there has been no major resumption of capital flows to Latin America. Private equity investment is small; U.S. banks are not enthusiastic about lending; and the principal new, fresh capital sources are the World Bank and the International Development Bank. Overall, Latin America has become a net capital exporter. This state of affairs may be termed "upside-down" economics. Indeed, we have reached a point where, in terms of actual settlements, the annual interest payments of Latin American countries amount to nearly half of their exports and over 5% of their gross national product. Consequently, interest payments are generated, not by economic growth, but rather by loans from creditors which increase interest burdens.

Does the immediate future look much better than the immediate past? The situa-

tion today could hardly be more tense. Mexico has been able to squeeze some new loans from foreign banks in its most recent restructuring effort, but many banks are resisting the extension of such concessions to other countries. For a time, the banks suspended negotiations with the Philippines and announced their intentions to stand firm against Brazil's effort to reduce its interest spread. The Philippines has raised the prospect of a common front with Brazil and Argentina.

Is there a better technique than the ad hoc restructurings? There is no lack of proposed solutions to the problems of Latin American debtors. The nub of the problem is-how shall losses be shared? Time is not on our side. Those who would seek to buy time, if only for the purposes of negotiations, do so at the expense of making the debt problem all the more intractable. Not only has the Latin debt soared to close to $400 billion, as opposed to $280 billion in 1982, but this increase has been accompanied by a deterioration in the political framework for grappling with the debt issue. Democratic regimes in Latin America find it increasingly difficult, politically, to formulate domestic policies on the basis of guidelines provided by banks or international financial institutions. Any political framework that places debt service as a priority over domestic growth has been eroded by conditions of long austerity. What is required is some consensus on an international political framework in which to implement the reforms necessary to encourage domestic savings and foreign investment in Latin American countries.

How should the United States generate a responsible public policy debate on the issue of the debt crisis? There are a number of things that the United States can and should do, in addition to the setting up of substantial private bank reserves in recognition of diminishing loan portfolio values.

First, involve Federal Reserve Board nominee Alan Greenspan in the picture. It is difficult to overestimate the significance of Paul Volker's role in the debt crisis, and, with his departure, we must work to minimize the shock waves throughout the system.

Secondly, halt the erosion of political and public support for the World bank and the IDB, and stabilize their resource bases so as to support their contributions to the financing of Latin American capital importers' requirements. U.S. contributions to multilateral development banks must not serve as the preferred targets for Members of Congress frustrated by trade issues or in search of funding for domestic programs.

Third, accelerate efforts to put the U.S. economic house in order. The United States had done half the job imposed on it by its world economic leadership. Inflation and interest rates have been cut. However, we have not closed the budget deficit, and this is a most destabilizing influence on the world economy today. Failure to bridge the budget gap could rekindle worldwide inflation, an explosion of interest rates, and the collapse of any prospects that the Latin American countries can "grow" their way out of their present debt difficulties. At the same time, we cannot allow the trade environment to deteriorate further.

Fourth, more sustained pressure must be placed on the Europeans and the Japanese. Their economies must be primed, and they must be less intransigent about allowing Latin America access to their markets. Europe's record of protectionism against Latin

16194 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 American exports is not to be emulated, nor is its miserable record with respect to agricultural trade policy vis-a-vis third countries.

Fifth, more light needs to be shed on the debt question. The American national interest is just as vitally affected by it, if not more so, than those of the Latin American nations. It deserves enhanced Congressional attention. In particular, the Congress needs to signal its interest in the following:

The tactics of private banks in their debt negotiations with Latin American debtors;

The extent to which the banks are acting in concert to resist "spread" and other concessions;

The merits of Senator Bradley's plan and other proposals for mandated debt relief;

The extent to which current regulatory rules and policies affect the process-that is, what are the consequences to the banks of putting up Baker Plan funds, and can these banks reflect the realistic value of assets on their books without undue penalties?

The precise views of the Adminsitration and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board on the question.

In my view, the Congress of the United States would support enthusiastically a President of the United States who would call for ., summit conference of the major credit a11..t debtor nations.

Unlike the recent industrialized nations summit in Venice, Italy, the summit I have in mind would continue with appropriate international delegates until a multinational sharing of losses and opportunities was formulated.

The building of a strong international secondary market for debt paper could be established. The potential for debt equity swaps could be enhanced substantially. And the necessary arrangements of principle and interest-which recognize equitable burdens of debtor and creditor, of public and private sectors could be negotiated in detail to provide a road map for multi-national settlement.

Someone must call the necessary meeting. President Reagan is a logical convenor and I hope he will act soon to initiate the comprehensive political and economic dialogue the world prays for.

Most importantly, we need some comprehensive testimony from the Latin American debtor countries. Such insights could serve to demonstrate the extent of Latin America's own efforts to date in grappling with the international debt crisis.

I have stood by the voting tables as the Indians in Guatemala came from the hills to elect a new President.

I have witnessed the two legislative houses in Uruguay regain the excitement of democratic debate.

I have listened to the moving inaugural address of President Oscar Arias in San Jose, Costa Rica and sat during crisis with the strong but gentle President Alfonsin in his Buenos Aries residence.

The heart beat of democracy will not be dimmed in our hemisphere, but we could do so much to nurture it and to celebrate it if we are wise enough to put our economic affairs in order promptly.

Twenty years ago, as a young man only recently involved in public life, I sought to become Mayor of this city of Indianapolis, confident that the political and economic life of a million people could be a standard of excellence for cities throughout country.

We had to dispel racial prejudice, cynicism about the use of authority, and mediocrity in public and private planning.

We had to celebrate excellence in education, in architecture, in entreprenurial vision, in government integrity, in recognition of human dignity for each citizen.

Now, through deep friendships and enlightening travel, I know that the idealism and common sense of Indiana people are found in abundance throughout our Pan American union.

And now I am certain that this is the time and the place to act in behalf of hundreds of millions of people. We must act upon our best instincts during these years when the heartbeat of democracy can be felt and heard clearly by all of us and we know that we enjoy an optimum time to grow together.e

AMERICAN GOSPEL ARTS DAY Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution will be considered as having been read the first and second times by title.

Is there objection to the present consideration of the joint resolution?

There being no objection, the joint resolution <H.J. Res. 17> was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

unanimous consent that the Commit- BILL PLACED ON CALENDAR-tee on the Judiciary be discharged H.R. 2100 from further consideration of House Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask Joint Resolution 106, designating June unanimous consent that H.R. 2100, a 19, 1987, as American Gospel Arts Day, bill to designate the border station at and that the Senate proceed to its im- 9931 Guide Meridian Road, Lynden, mediate consideration. . W A, as the Kenneth G. Ward Border

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is Station, just received from the House there objection? of Representatives, be placed on the

Without objection, the resolution calendar. will be stated by title. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-

The assistant legislative clerk read out objection, it is so ordered. as follows:

A House joint resolution <House Joint Resolution 106) to designate June 19, 1987 as American Gospel Arts Day."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution will be considered as having been read the first and second times by title.

Is there objection to the present consideration of the joint resolution?

There being no objection, the joint resolution <H.J. Res. 106) was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

The preamble was agreed to. Mr. BYRD. I move to reconsider the

vote by which the joint resolution was passed.



NATIONAL DAIRY GOAT AWARENESS WEEK

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of House Joint Resolution 17, designating the third week in June 1987 as "National Dairy Goat Awareness Week," and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the clerk will state the resolution by title.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A House joint resolution <H.J. Res. 17) to designate the third week in June 1987 as "National Dairy Goat Awareness Week."

AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS BY SENATE EMPLOYEES Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to

the desk a Senate resolution and I ask for its immediate consideration.


Mr. BYRD. I send it on behalf of myself and Mr. DoLE.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will read the resolution by title.

The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

A Senate resolution <S. Res. 234) to direct the Senate Legal Counsel to represent, and to authorize the testimony of and production of documents by, Senate employees in the case of United States v. Carrothers.

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

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a former Senate mailroom employee was indicted on May 12, 1987, following a Capitol Police undercover operation, for distributing narcotics. The defendant left Senate employment in January of this year after the events in question. The charges against him are pending in the United States Court for the District of Columbia.

The Senate Postmaster, Jay Woodall, has been subpoenaed by the defendant to produce certain personnel records. It is possible that he and other current or former Post Office

June 16, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16195 employees also may be asked to testify about events on Senate premises.

This resolution would direct the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Mr. Woodall in responding to the subpoenas. It will also authorize the Senate Postmaster and other Senate employees to testify, if asked, and to produce relevant documents which are not privileged. Mr. President, I move adoption of the resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution.

The resolution <S. Res. 234) was agreed to.

The preamble was agreed to. The resolution, with its preamble, is

as follows: S. RES. 234

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Charles K. Carrothers, Criminal No. 87-0207-TPJ, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the defendant has obtained subpoenas for the production of documents by Senate Postmaster Jay A. Woodall;

Wherf'!lS, Jay A. Woodall or other current or forn1d· employees of the Senate Post Office may be asked to testify in that case:

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government Act, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) and 288c<a)(2) (1982), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend employees of the Senate with respect to subpoenas directed to them in their official capacity;

Whereas, by the privileges of the United States Senate and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate can, by the judicial process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;

Whereas, when it appears that production of documents by, or testimony of, employees of the Senate is needed in any court for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges and rights of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to represent Jay A. Woodall and any othercurrent or former Senate employee who may be asked to testify or produce documents in the case of United States v. Carrothers.

SEc. 2. That Jay A. Woodall, as well as other current or former Senate employees who may be asked, are authorized to produce documents and to testify in the case of United States v. Carrothers, except concerning matters which are privileged.

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



ORDERS FOR TOMORROW ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 12:30 P.M.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 12:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is Mr. HELMS. I thank the majority there objection? Without objection, it leader but I do not. is so ordered. Mr. BYRD. I thank Mr. HELMS. WAIVER OF CALL OF CALENDAR; NO MOTIONS OR

RESOLUTIONS, OVER UNDER THE RULE

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the call of the calendar be waived on tomorrow, and that no motions, over under the rule, come over tomorrow.


Without objection, it is so ordered. PERIOD FOR MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that, after the two leaders are recognized under the standing order tomorrow, there be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 1 o'clock and that Senators be permitted to speak therein not to exceed 5 minutes each.


RESUMPTION OF UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of morning business on tomorrow the Senate resume consideration of the unfinished business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

PROGRAM Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, debate

will continue on tomorrow afternoon on S. 2 and the amendments that are pending thereto. The pending question is on the substitute which I have offered to the committee substitute to the bill S. 2. A vote on cloture will occur at 5 o'clock tomorrow, or circa 5 p.m. There may be votes during the afternoon. There may be other matters that would be called up or could be agreed to.

I am thinking in particular of conference reports that from time to time may be brought up. There is a conference report on the homeless relief legislation. I am not sure it is ready to be called up yet, but at some point in the near future I should think we could have the conference report on the homeless legislation.

Also at some point there will be the conference report on the budget resolution. That will not be ready tomorrow.

I say these things for the benefit of my colleagues who will be listening or who will read the RECORD, so that they will not be laboring under the illusion that there will be no rollcall votes prior to the vote on cloture. This could very well be.

Mr. President, I ask my friend, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, who is the acting leader on the other side of the aisle today, whether or not he has any further statements to make or other business to transact.

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 12:30 P.M. TOMORROW

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move, in accordance with the order previously entered, the Senate stand in adjournment until12:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, at 6:44 p.m., adjourned until Wednesday, June 17, 1987, at 12:30 p.m.

NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by

the Senate June 16, 1987: U.S. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

COOPERATION AGENCY

Mr. Alan Woods, of the District of Columbia, to be Administrator of the Agency for International Development, vice M. Peter McPherson, resigned.

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD

Mr. Danny Wall, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board for the term of four years expiring June 30, 1991, vice Edwin J. Gray, term expiring.

IN THE COAST GUARD

The following permanent chief warrant officers, W1 of the U.S. Coast Guard to be permanent chief warrant officer, W2: Charles R. Collins William L. Shamel III David G. Hawthorne Theodore S. Fischer Robert T. Minugh Charles L. Schue III James E. Page, Jr. David L. Heisey Paul D. Dangreau Ray R. Erne Charles R. Spencer Terrence J. Prokes David L. Wiser William A. Nelson David M. Brockes Thodore A. Jilek James W. Preston Renaldo C. Marfil Steven C. Loyd Phillip D. Scott Christopher P. Leonhardt Thomas A. Irvine Zebulon V. Moseley Roger A. Shell Stephen D. Huston James F. Kelleher Roylester Hay Kurt H. Lunning Dale F. Beard William H. Clay Marc A. Hawkins Kenneth B. Hickerson, Jr. Frank W. Sullivan Jeffrey B. Hurst Beuferd E. Fletcher Larry A. Pointer David A. Walker Gilberta M. Saenz, Jr. Lester C. Cornwell, Jr. Donald R. Pack, Jr. James L. Fuertes James R. Catlin Gary B. Langstaff Keith A. Rennie

16196 Robert J. Quick, Jr. Wayne T. Doodson Michael J. Trude Ceabert J. Griffith George S. Mahlum Charlie L. Chauncey Gerald M. Davis Stanley G. Binns Bruce Lucas William Mitchell Tito C. Albano Gary W. Stroehl Robert W. Harley Blake L. Lancaster David A. Johnson David F. Fajerski Joseph R. Declet Gregory B. Straub Robert E. Garman Thomas L. Beckham Craig L. Mitchell Ronald E. Alder William E. Rowland John R. Burlingham Arturo Lopez Steven L. Steinbrink Gilman C. Page Larry L. N ens tiel Dennis C. Spain Robert E. Lafond Albert /> Bueler J.B. OWulS Michael P. Lee Franklin J. Derr Myron A. Allgor, Jr. Loring C. Colburn, Jr. William P. Lawrence Thomas B. Taylor, Jr. Richard E. Morris Thomas C. Small David F. Daniel Glenn J. Brazil, Jr. Scott G. Swope Robert J. Monaghan Michael J. Betlej Richard F. Mariani, Jr. Felix T. Arusiewicz, Jr. Joe C. Robinson Hobart H. Stearns, Jr. George M. Coates, Jr. James M. Thanasiu Angelo Antignano III Theodore H. McGlinch Larry D. McBee Louis Franzino James M. Malone Daniel F. Carraway James F. McKinnon Michael W. Price Ronald E. Williams Doyle J. Harris Leonard Luckey John D. Fredella William B. Randall William C. Craig Gary W. Couch William M. Worden Kenneth W. Caywood Mark S. Carter Patrick J. McKenzie Harold K. Thrush, Jr. Anthony M. Desorbo, Jr. John P. Amrhein, Jr. Carl F. Mursch Christopher D. Carlson Stephen L. Bratten Richard D. Dunmire John 0 . Leatherwood III Crispin N. Naanos Bryant L. Nye Patrick Flynn Ed Prestella Fred R. Dickinson Craig A. Gellatly

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 16, 1987 Michael J. Dicarlo

The following permanent chief warrant officers, W2 of the U.S. Coast Guard to be permanent chief warrant officer, W3: James A. Bourgue Robert L. Scarpino Peter D. Colvin Robert B. McDole Charles R. Barber James A. Shouse William L. Kasparek Robert W. Brandenstein William C. Marshall Milton A. Leyko Myron A. Verville Robert E. Nichols Kenneth L. Porter Charles F. Mercer John M. Patrick John E. Kahler Richard L. Matters Ronald S. Jacobs Richard U. Munsie Jon D. MacArthur Robert L. Burch Richard R. Zientek Ray Carlberg Charles L. Garnett, Jr. John J. Cherny George H. Hornbeck Michael D. Chetto David G. Bell Ronald D. Gray Lester H. Brown William C. Sansone James E. Sisler Lynn T. Crisler Robert M. Gill Pa ··ick F. Trimble Edward E. Coward Richard A. Findley James L. Mangold Francis G. Hanson Whittier C. Patrick Pedro A. Gonzalez William C. Rydblom III Clarino J . Salvatore, Jr. Cecil D. Geiger Robert H. Bero Terry G. Lybarger Jerold A. Arnquist Arthur M. Alborano Julius W. Hays James E. Lee Howard L. McMichael Claude R. Bradley, Jr. Gerais Toms Robert C. Biszantz, Jr. Terry D. Krutzler Dallas P. Block John D. Girard Dean A. Long Robert G . Kirkpatrick David G. Passman Bennie L. Munroe Robert F. Vanderslice, Jr. Eduardo R. Equia James R. Cason William E. Nicholl Dennis L. Ballard Dale L. Puckett Alvin C. Harvey Bruce J. Spano Michael S. Rhodes James C. Smith Gary E. Walker John W. Kwietniak, Jr. Barry W. Bernstein James R. Maxson Everett B. Hehn Claude D. Harmon Dana P. Lewis John M. Sitton William R. Jones

Donald L. Vinson Robert F. Melia Richard C. Cooke Roberto R. O 'Brien Roland Perkins James W. Kurz Charles V. Clune Earl F. Drumheller Leland B. Poland Gregory J. Swaney, Sr. James W. Allen Ernest L. Anderson James R. Fulton James E. Nuss William 0. Guht, Jr. Stephen B. Wehrenberg Gregory A. Taylor James E. Allen Alvin J. Faith Michael B. Lahair Keith D. Larson James M. Judd Lawrence J. Carmona James S. Wadsworth Alan R. Cassel David H. Fetrow Richard J. Gill Ronald W. Hanks Robert W. Dieterle Paul F . Gabriel Michael L. Robinson Roy E. Staben Raymond A. Bergeron Donald L. Viehmann Clifford P. Goodnough Donald J. Darcy Jan E. Snodgrass Michael L. Meyers Clifton E. Thompson George E. Osterberg Mark J. Hiemenz Garry L. Weber Charles C. Van Meter Lonnie C. Jones, Jr. William D . Hanna Robert L. Peterson Tom B. Manning, Jr. David C. Holmes Jeffrey H. Keebler Justin W. Baker Thomas A. Lewis Roger D. Tomlinson Stanley R. Gerhauser Dennis R. Bryan James J. Driscoll Douglas M. Carroll Peter R. Kolasa Michael L. Dean Russell C. Jarvis Bobby J. Fielder Galen R. Kurth Robert L. Armer Richard E. Martin Bruce L. Moyster Alexander J. Jasinski Edwards F. Bachand George W. Borlase, Jr. Paul D. O'Leary Roland 0. Steibel Dale F. Hosman George E. Hollard Richard W. Pultz Otis D. Chapman Gordon W. Wills John D. Durham Anthony C. Martin James D . Bandhauer Michael E. West Stephen W. Price

The following permanent chief warrant officers, W3 of the U.S. Coast Guard to be permanent chief warrant officer, W4: Noel E. Crowley

June 16, 1987

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

16197

Donald E. Bush

John W. Judge

Miles K. McIntyre

Sheridan L. Oswald

Carl B. Cheney

Paul E. Turmelle

Robert A. Richards

Ronald S. Condron

Thomas J. Reed

Lawrence E. Laflam

Melvin L. Bouboulis

Danny K. Daniel

William P. Feddema

Richard J. Highstreet

Donald F. Thurston

Larry E. Gray

Steve Jackson

Robert C. Klomas

Robert L. Gatlin

Ralph Looman

William F. Britt III

Theodore F. Ramsey

Samuel B. Bromley, Jr.

Leon M. Mason, Jr.

Edmund Lee

Jimmie R. Hall

James M. Flournoy

George F. Hillegas

IN THE AIR FORCE

The following-named officer for appoint-

ment tc he grade of lieutenant general on

the retired list pursuant to the provisions of

title 10, United States Code, section 1370:

To be lieutenant general

Lt. Gen. Forrest S. McCartney,

FR, U.S. Air Force.

The following-named officer, under the

provisions of title 10, United States Code,

section 601, to be assigned to a position of

importance and responsibility designated by

the President under title 10, United States

Code, section 601:


Maj. Gen. Robert D . Beckel,

FR, U.S. Air Force.

IN THE ARMY

The following-named officer to be placed

on the retired list in grade indicated under

the provisions of title 10, United States

Code, section 1370:

To be general

Gen. Jack N. Merritt, , U.S.

Army.

The following-named officers for appoint-

ment in the Regular Army of the United

States to the grade indicated under the pro-

visions of title 10, United States Code, sec-

tions 611(a) and 624:

To be permanent major general

Brig. Gen. Charles E. Edgar III,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. John S. Peppers, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Bobby F. Brashears,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. John 0. Sewall, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Thomas G. Lightner,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Charles F. Scanlon,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Paul R. Schwartz, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Joseph D. Schott, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Wayne C. Knudson,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Peter J. Offringa, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Larry D. Budge, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. John H. Stanford, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Peter J. Boylan, Jr.,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Eugene B. Leedy, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Charles E. Williams,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Philip H. Mallory, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. James W. Ray, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. George H. Akin, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Arnold Schlossberg, Jr.,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Stanley H. Hyman,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Harold T. Fields, Jr.,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Thomas C. Foley, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Thomas H. Harvey, Jr.,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Marvin D. Brailsford,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Robert D. Chelberg,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. John P. Dreska, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Harry G. Karegeannes,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. William F. Streeter,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Charles E. Dominy,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Charles A. Hines, ,

U.S. Army.

1 -ig. Gen. John A. Renner, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Merle Freitag, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Wayne A. Downing,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Craig H. Boice, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Thomas P. Carney,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Thomas G. Rhame,

, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Leon E. Salomon, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Horace G. Taylor, ,

U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. Daniel R. Schroeder,

, U.S. Army.

The following-named Army Nurse Corps

competitive category officer for appoint-

ment in the U.S. Army to the grade indicat-

ed under the provisions of title 10, United

States Code, sections 611(a) and 624:

To be permanent brigadier general

Col. Clara L. Adams-Ender, ,

Army Nurse Corps competitive category,

U.S. Army.

IN THE NAVY






Code, section 601:

To be vice admiral

Vice Adm. Jonathan T. Howe,

/1110, U.S. Navy.

IN THE AIR FORCE

The following officers for appointment in

the Regular Air Force under the provisions

of section 531, title 10, United States Code,

with a view to designation under the provi-

sions of section 8067, title 10, United States

Code, to perform the duties indicated, pro-

vided that in no case shall he be appointed

in a grade higher than major.

CHAPLAIN CORPS

David L. Franks, 3

The following officer for appointment in

the Regular Air Force under the provisions

of section 531, title 10, United States Code,

w ith grade and date of rank to be deter-

mined by the Secretary of the Air Force

provided that in no case shall he be appoint-

ed in a grade higher than that indicated.

LINE OF THE AIR FORCE

To be major

Richard R. Digney,

Chesley G. Williams,

The following-named officers for perma-

nent promotion in the U.S. Air Force, under

the provisions of section 628, title 10, United

States Code, as amended, with dates of rank

to be determined by the Secretary of the

Air Force.


To be colonel

Drue L. Deberry,

Harold V. Schillreff,

David B. Smith,

James W. Tilley II,

To be lieutenant colonel

Jay L. Baird,

Robert F. Cutter,

John R. Dobbs,

Terrence M. Egan,

David G. Erickson,

David L. Henson,

David L. Holmes,

Donald J. Horton,

Fred E. Kishler, Jr.,

Joe C. McLeroy,

Carl G. Newman,

Joseph T. Norris, Jr.,

Orr Y. Potebnya, Jr.,

James E. Price, Jr.,

Don H. Ray,

Harold E. Saxton,

Edmund M. Scheiber, Jr.,

Dennis M. Selvig,

Dale A. Walker,

Robert E. Whelan, Jr.,

To be major

Garry C. Brzuska,

Robert F. Cutter,

Richard R. Digney,

Carl W. Nuzzo,

Chesley G. Williams, Jr.,

CHAPLAIN

To be colonel

John J. Martin,

To be major

David L. Franks,

The following midshipmen, U.S. Naval

Academy, for appointment as second lieu-

tenants in the Regular Air Force, under the

provisions of sections 541 and 531, title 10,

United States Code, with dates of rank to be

determ ined by the Secretary of the Air

Force.

David T. Anderson,

Thomas A. Henwood,

Kristopher C. Klein,

Stephen M. Pitrof,

Joe M. Sanchez,

Robert H. Shepherd,

Anthony M. Tolle,

CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

Charles M. Lichenstein, of the District of

Columbia, to be a member of the Board of

D irectors of the Corporation for Public

Broadcasting for a term expiring March 26,

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxxxxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx


xxx-xx-xxxx


xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx


xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx


xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx


xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xx...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xx...

xxx-xx-xx...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

16198

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

June 16, 1987

1992, vice Sharon P. Rockefeller, term ex-

pired.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

L ee A nn E lliott, of I llinois, to be a

member of the F ederal Election Commis-

sion for a term expiring April 30,1993 (reap-

pointment).

Danny Lee M cDonald, of Oklahoma, to be

a member of the F ederal Election Commis-

sion for a term expiring April 30,1993 (reap-

pointment).

IN THE MARINE CORPS


ment as Commandant of the M arine Corps

under title 10, United States Code, section

5043:

To be commandant of the Marine Corps

Lt. Gen. Alfred M . Gray, Jr., ,

U.S. M arine Corps.

IN THE AIR FORCE

The following-named officers for promo-

tion to the grade indicated in the Reserve of

the Air F orce, under the provisions of sec-

tion 307, title 32, United States Code, and

sections 8363 and 593, title 10, United States

Code.


To be colonel

Baier, Charles M ., Jr.,

Bauman, Douglas J.,

Brimmer, Kirk R.,

Brown, Larry M .,

Bryant, Shelby G.,

Campen, William L.,

Cole, Leon R.,

Cornelius, Arthur B.,

Costello, Thomas J.,

Delavara, Ruben A.,

Dixon, Howard L.,

Garell, Thomas C.,

Glubrecht, Thomas A.,

Graf, Nancy A.,

Harrell, Percy W.,

Harris, Elmer B.,

Harris, H arold B., Jr.,

H art, Richard J.,

Hobbs, Johnny J.,

Houston, Leonard W.,

Khare, F rank C., Jr.,

Kirkconnell, Robert B., Jr.,

Kurth, Ronald L.,

Latham, Phillip L.,

Leppert, Arnold R.,

Lickman, George L.,

M artin, Larry W.,

M auden, Brian D.,

M cLane, Richard E., II.,

Niemela, Charles A.,

Padgett, Douglas M .,

Reid, Alan T.,

Renschen, James H .,

Rutkowski, Robert E.,

Santoro, Richard H .,

Schnell, John J.,

Sherer, William R.,

Soignet, Donald M .,

Stockwell, William J.,

Stump, Error G.,

Thibodeaux, James L.,

Vanderhoof, Giles E.,

Wynne, George E.,

CHAPLAIN CORPS

To be colonel

Hebl, John H .,

Penkaul, Joseph H .,

DENTAL CORPS

To be colonel

Gilbertson, Duane R.,

JUDGE ADVOCATE

To be colonel

Johnston, David W.,

MEDICAL CORPS

To be colonel

Bullington, Walter G.,

Casiano, Emmanuel J.,

Cole, Boyd N.,

Jones, Courtney P.,

Krueger, Ronald P.,

Lluberas, Arturo F .,

Pandeya, Nirmalendu K.,

NURSE CORPS

To be colonel

M ills, Roberta V.,

IN THE ARMY

The following-named officers, on the

active duty list, for promotion to the grade

indicated in the U.S. Army in accordance

with section 624 , title 10, United S tates

Code. The officers indicated by asterisk are

also nominated for appointment in the Reg-

ular Army in accordance with section 531,

title 10, United States Code:

CHAPLAIN

To be major

'Ballew, David C.,

*Boschen, Timothy,

*Brown, Don B.,

*Campbell, David,

*Carlson, Harold,

*Carver, Douglas,

'Crippen, Donald,

*Cross, James L.,

*Doan, Steven B.,

*C. ee, John L.,

*Grant, Jonathan,

*Griffith, James,

*Hardeman, Leslie,

*H arriott, Keith,

*Haynes, Henry A.,

*Hess, M alcolm E.,

*H ilburn, Ronald,

*H immelsbach, James,

*Johnson, Irven W.,

*Jones, Thomas G.,

*Larson, Raymond,

*Loya, John Taran,

'M ackirdy, Wayne,

*M aney, Edward K.,

*M arks, Lilton J.,

*M auldin, Sidney,

*M inch, Richard,

*M oates, Gerald R.,

*M usgrave, Daniel,

*Noll, Thomas C.,

*Parreno, Jonathan,

*Penland, David R.,

*Pomann, James,

*Prendergast, John,

*Reynolds, Jimmie,

*Richardson, William,

*Ritchie, William,

*Robinson, F rederick,

*Rogers, Richard,

'Rux, Bruce M .,

*Santos, Elenito,

*Spencer, George,

*Stricker, David,

*Sykes, Gregory P.,

*Taylor, Daniel W.,

*Vetter, M arlin R.,

*Virginia, Stephen,

*Wesselhoft, Paul,

*Young, Carl Henry,

*Young, Jeffrey M .,

The following-named officers, on the

active duty list, for promotion to the grade

indicated in the U.S. Army in accordance

with section 624 , title 10, United S tates

Code. The officers indicated by asterisk are

also nominated for appointment in the Reg-

ular Army in accordance with section 531,

title 10, United States Code:

DENTAL CORPS

To be major

*Ahmann, John S.,

*Armstrong, Thomas F .,

*Ball, Randall N.,

*Beene, Ronald 0.,

*Berky, Zoltan T.,

*Block, Robert W.,

*Boozer, Therese L.,

*Bowen, Gregory R.,

*Brehm, Bruce B.,

*Brown, M ichael D.,

*Bryson, John W., III,

*Budlong, Rhonda,

*Bumgardner, George K.,

*Burkhardt, David E.,

*Carney, Elizabeth A.,

'Cathright, Edward, Jr.,

*Chang, David Y .,

*Clark, M ichael V.,

*Coen, Timothy J.,

*Compton, Anne M .,

*

Connor, William J., Jr.,

*Cross, Steven E.,

*Davis, Randy N.,

'Deliz, Reinaldo A.,

*Dodge, Charles H ., III,

*Early, Calvin L.,

*Ellis, Roger T.,

'

Elton, William C.,

*F itzpatrick, Brian D.,

*F loyd, Andrew E., Jr.,

*Foster, Donald W.,

*Galvan, Betty G.,

*Galvan, David A.,

*Gerety, Timonthy J.,

*Gilman, David G.,

*Glenn, Roger D.,

'Gonzeles, Theresa S.,

*Greene, Glenn A.,

*Greene, Patrice E.,

*Griffiths, Garth R.,

*Guzman, Cynthia M .,

*Hager, Tam S.,

Hamilton, Priscilla H .,

*Haroian, Alan,

*Hassell, Kurt J.,

'H ellstein, John W.,

Hendrix, M ark A.,

*Herman, Barry L.,

*Hughes, Timonthy J.,

*Johnson, Wanda L.,

*Juve, Peter I.,

*Keate, Kenneth C.,

*Kenny, Kraig K.,

*Kollar, Norbert G.,

*Kosiorek, David E.,

*Kuhre, Alan N.,

*Lefler, Thomas B.,

*Lepianka, Ronald A.,

*Lincoln, Joseph G.,

*Long, Clyde W.,

*Luther, Dan M .,

*Lutka, Robert W.,

*Luzader, Jeffery 0.,

*M ahaffey, Jonathan A.,

*M atthews, Robert S.,

*M ayhew, William K.,

*M cCarthy, M icheal F .,

M cCurdy, Ronald J.,

*M cDonald, M arcus F .,

M cDonald, M ark N.,

*M cDuffle, Dock C., III,

*M cGuire, M aureen P.,

*M cPherson, James R.,

Orr F rank E.,

*Page, M ichael G.,

*Parsons, David C.,

*Pate, Peter A.,

*Polk, Adolfina M .,

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx xxx-xx-xxxx







xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx


xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx



















































xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

June 16, 1987

*Rosier, Rebecca L.,

*Ruiz, Francisco,

*Schell, Robert E.,

*Schmitz, Stephen G.,

*Severin, Myren R.,

*Slysh, Andrey G.,

Smith, Brion C.,

*Stank°, Ronald S.,

*Stryker, Ross W.,

*Taloumis, Louis J.,

*Thompson, Stevan H.,

*Thorns, Dorothy L.,

*Tolson, George E., IV,

*Toupal, Richard L.,

*Turner, Mark G.,

*Vanbenthuysen, Keith R.,

*Vonarb, John J.,

*Vongonten, Ann S.,

*Weaver, Robert M.,

*Wendt, Stephen R.,

*White, Keith D.,

*Wilhelm, Robert J.,

*Willard, Craig C.,

*Williams, Craig J.,

*Williams, Daniel S.,

Wilson, Robert L.,

*Winegarden, Thomas L.,

Worthington, Roger C.,

MEDICAL CORPS

To be major

*Abrah: is, Lisa A.,

Abreu, Sue H.,

*Adams, Lanier H.,

*Allison, David J.,

*Altemus, Deborah A.,

Alvarado, Mario H.,

*Amadee, Charles M.,

*Amen, Daniel, G.,

*Anderka, Stephen G.,

*Anders, Gregg T.,

Andersen, Christian T.,

*Andolsek, William C.,

*Arnaud, Guillermo W.,

*Asbury, Dale W.,

*Ashby, Finlay M.,

*Atchley, Steven H.,

*Atkison, James A.,

*Avery, Delwin B.,

*Avila, Fernando T.,

*Ayalacolon, Griselle,

*Banner, Karen K.,

*Barnard, Brian K.,

Bartoszek, David M.,

*Battafarano, Daniel F.,

*Baunchalk, James M.,

*Beachy, Joanna C.,

*Benavides, Richard A.,

*Bendowski, Thomas F.,

Benjamin, Sabrina A.,

*Bennett, Randall P.,

*Berg, Eric W., III,

*Berg, John C.,

*Bezier, Jeffrey L.,

*Bodeau, Donald T.,

*Bolar, Randall J.,

*Boling, Ralph 0., Jr.,

*Bombaugh, Maryanne C.,

*Bonnecarrere, Emmanuel R.,

*Borchert, Christopher A.,

*Bowersox, Jon C.,

*Brattlof, Brian D.,

*Brown, Debra M.,

*Brown, Larry D.,

*Brown, Todd A.,

*Brumfiel, Mary N.,

*Bucholtz, John R.,

*Buechler, Robert B.,

*Burke, Thomas J.,

*Burrell, Thomas, III,

Burris, David G.,

*Burt, Glenn B., III,

*Bushrod, Deborah T.,

*Bute, Bradley G.,

*Byrne, Deirdre M.,

*Cain, Rufus H., III,

*Carlo, Anibal G.,

*Carpenter, Priscilla D.,

*Carter, Jan M.,

*Carter, Patrick M.,

*Cartershields, Vera E.,

*Cederstrom, Eric A.,

*Chambers, Henry G.,

*Cheema, Kausar S.,

*Chen, Mary W.,

*Cheung, Kakeung C.,

*Cieslak, Theodore J.,

*Cleaveland, Lynwood P.,

*Cohan, Jeffrey A.,

*Cohn, Eric A.,

*Collette, Robert P.,

Collier, William W.,

*Collins, Paula C.,

*Collins, Roger B.,

*Colonna, David M.,

*Conarro, Patrick A.,

Conetsco, Cheryl A.,

*Connelly, Mark,

*Cook, Jay F.,

*Cook, Jonathan F.,

*Cooley, David M.,

*Corcoran, Kevin J.,

Cornum, Rhonda L.,

*Corrie, Gary D.,

*Cote, Marc G.,

*Cowan, Christopher L.,

*Craig, Stephen C.,

*Crawford, Gayla J.,

*Crews, Steven A.,

*Crow, Samuel A., II,

*Crowley, John S.,

Crum, Jerry D.,

*Culling, Robert D.,

*C nningham, Kevin P.,

*Czekaj, Philip S.,

*Dalton, Arthur B.,

*Damon, Christopher R.,

Daniels, Don J.,

*David, David R.,

*Davidson, Daniel R.,

*Davis, Deborah D.,

*Davis, Rodney,

*Davis, William H.,

Day, Avis M.,

Dean, Rodney J.,

*Dehaven, James P.,

*Dekoning, Bernard L.,

*Desrochers, Randal P.,

*Deutsch, Larry S.,

*Digerolamo, Albert,

Dooge, Benjamin W.,

*Douglas, Danny M.,

*Drakeford, Michael K.,

*Dubitsky, Gregory M.,

*Duncan, Max B., Jr.,

*Earle, Regina M.,

*Edwards, Erwood G., Jr.,

*Elston, Dirk M.,

*Emery, Richard E.,

*Entwistle, Celia B.,

*Enzenauer, Raymond J.,

*Eusterman, Vincent D.,

*Evans, Judith B.,

*Farmer, Gerald,

*Fazio, John R.,

*Feist, Alice C.,

*Ferguson, Douglas B.,

*Fields, Ronald H.,

*Fink, Kenneth I.,

*Fitzpatrick, Daniel T.,

*Fletcher, Gardner L.,

*Flood, Katherine M.,

*Fontanez, Felipe,

*Ford, Charles W., Jr.,

*Foster, Mark S.,

*Foster, Michael E.,

*Foucauld, Jean,

*Frye, Jeffery L.,

*Garland, Daniel W.,

*Garner, Frederick T.,

Geiling, James A.,

*Gerow, Royal K.,

*Gettys, Paula B.,

*Gheen, Kenneth M.,

Giandoni, Martin B.,

Gianforcaro, Robert L.,

*Gililland, John L., Jr.,

*Gleaton, Charles H.,

*Goglin, William K., Jr.,

*Goldberger, Neal M.,

*Goldstein, Estelle T.,

*Goodman, Robin Q.,

Gordon, Wayne H.,

Gormley, Thomas S.,

*Goya, David S.,

*Gray, James K.,

*Greenwood William R.,

*Gregg, Kevin J.,

*Grote, Stewart R.,

*Grover, Bruce S.,

*Gschwend, John A.,

*Gum, Robert M.,

Gunzenhauser, Jeffery D.,

*Raid, Joan M.,

*Hall, Vaughan D.,

*Hansberry, Kurt L.,

Hansen, Elizabeth A.,

*Harrington, George D.,

*Harris, Stephen D.,

*Harrison, Charles M.,

*Harrison, James T.,

*Hays, Mark D.,

*Heath, Michael A.,

*Hemphill, Edward S.,

*Hendrix, Tina M.,

*Heric, Blaine R.,

*Herndon, Patrick H.,

*Hetzler, Norman A., Jr.,

*Hinchman, Carol A.,

*Hodges, Timothy L.,

*Hodgson, Joseph L.,

*Hoffman, Richard H.,

*Hoidal, Charles R.,

*Holthus, Thomas E.,

*Holtzmuller, Kent, C.,

*Honeycutt, Wayne T.,

Howard, Thomas M.,

Hrutkay, Jeffrey M.,

*Hubickey, Walter J.,

*Hussain, Shabbar,

*Hynes, Richard A.,

*Irwin, Charles F.,

*Irwin, Louis J.,

Iwanyk, Eugene J.,

*Jackson, Douglas L.,

*Jannuzzi, Peter J.,

*Johnson, Brian P.,

*Johnson, Neal D.,

*Johnson, Ray C.,

*Johnson, Steven D.,

*Johnson, William L.,

*Johnstone, Frederic L.,

*Jones, Howard D.,

*Jones, Ronald G.,

*Jones, Thomas A.,

*Jordon, Glenn, D., Jr.,

*Joyce, David L.,

*Kahn, Eric L.,

*Kane, Bruce I.,

Kaufmann, Christoph R.,

*Kaushal, Jatinder N.,

*Kayanan, Daniel N.,

*Kean, Larry A.,

*Keary, Patricia 0.,

*Kellawan, Karl K.,

*Kestner, Mark S.,

*Killyon, Gary W.,

*Kin, Victor Y.,

*Kishbaugh, David,

*Kizzart, Jerome D.,

*Kono, Alan T.,

*Kopp, Stanley A.,

*Krouse, Donald E.,


16199

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

16200


June 16, 1987

'Kucera, Richard F.,

*Kwong, Eugene L.,

*Lagunas, Yolanda,

*Laskin, Jerrold A.,

'Lavins, Bernard J., Jr.,

*Lee, Christopher M.,

*Lee, Elizabeth P.,

Leech, James J.,

*Legate, Arthur H.,

Lepage, Angelina J.,

'Lepage, Paul A.,

*Lessard, Koseph G.,

*Lesueur, Christopher J.,

*Lewis, George M.,

*Light, Dawn E.,

*Link, Joel R.,

Liss, Ronald A.,

*Lively, Judson C.,

*Llewellyn, Earline V.,

*Lockett, Evans A.,

*Lopiano, Mark C.,

*Lovello, Katherine T.,

*Lovett, James C., Jr.,

'Luban, Henry A.,

Lyons, Michael F. II,

Lyons, Robert C.,

*Maccini, David M.,

*Mahan, Vicki L.,

*Maher, George M.,

'Maliga, Terese M.,

*Marsh Tohn 0.,

*Martin, Thomas R., Jr.,

*Matthews, Edward A.,

McBride, John T., Jr.,

*McCormack, Emma L.,

*McEvoy, Peter L.,

*McGerty, Thomas A.,

*McGinn, Joseph R.,

McLeod, John F., III,

*McNamara, Kevin P.,

*Mercedbruno, Dalia R.,

'Messier, Mark N.,

*Miller, Edward J., Jr.,

*Miller, Madeline A.,

*Miller, Marvin B.,

*Milligan, Douglas A.,

Milliken, Charles S.,

*Miser, William F.,

'Moloff, Alan L.,

Moore, Reginald H.,

*Morales, Richard, Jr.,

*Morgan, James A.,

*Morgan, Julia A.,

*Morris, Michael R.,

*Morton, Debra A.,

'Moul, Judd W.,

*Moyer, Joseph G.,

*Mucci°la, Robert N.,

*Mull, Richard T.,

*Murphy, Joseph R.,

*Murphy, Thomas F.,

Nam, Theodore S.,

*Ng, Gordon W.,

*Nickell, Kent A.,

'Nipps, Kenneth W.,

*Norwood, Cynthia D.,

*Norwood, Stephen M.,

*Novak, Adam J.,

*Nowell, Wayne A.,

*Oboyle, Timothy E.,

*Okazaki, Joel R.,

*Oliveira, Milagros A.,

*Oliver, Diana B.,

Olsen, James M.,

Olsen, John D.,

Orman, David T.,

Orr, Alecia A.,

Ortenzo, Carole A.,

'Oscos, Ana B.,

*Owen, Grace M.,

Parkinson, Dan W.,

Parmley, Vernon C.,

'Pasquarella, Michael A.,

*Patterson, Gregory,

*Patterson, Steven C.,

*Paustain, Paul W., Jr.,

*Pearce, William A.,

Pearson, Alan D.,

*Peloquin, Laval A.,

'Pendergraft, James S., IV,

'Perloff, Kerry G.,

*Petersen, Horace R.,

*Peterson, Andrew C.,

'Peterson, Thomas T.,

*Petros, David P.,

*Pettine, Kenneth A.,

*Pinkerton, Stephen F.,

*Pitcher, John D., Jr.,

'Pitz, Kenneth R.,

*Pritham, Robin M.,

*Pruitt, Alexander,

Quinones, Deogracia,

*Quintanilla, Jose H.,

*Radentz, William H.,

*Rajala, Bruce W.,

*Ramirezmaisonet, Luis A.,

*Rector, Ruth K.,

*Reed, James P.,

Reed, William W.,

*Register, Marc T.,

Reid, Thomas J., III,

Reynolds, Paul C.,

*Rice, Mary M.,

*Richard, Davis G.,

*Richards, Franklin D.,

*Robbins, Sanford H.,

*Rosario, Angel M.,

*Roy, Clyde R., II,

*Roy, Timothy R.,

*Rubin, Alexander S.,

*Rudd, Rebecca A.,

*Ryan, John J.,

*S. ,nlaska, Curt P.,

'Sarai, Didar S.,

*Saxon, James R.,

*Severson, Marlene J.,

*Shaffer, Don W.,

*Shaver, Timothy R.,

*Sherard, Reginald K.,

*Sherman, Kenneth E.,

*Shmueli, Maurice,

*Showalter, James G., Jr.,

*Shull, Michael W.,

*Siegrist, Stephen K.,

*Simcic, Kenneth J.,

*Simmang, Clifford L.,

Simon, Paul J.,

*Simpson, Roger J.,

*Singletary, Eunice M.,

*Sisk, Leonard D.,

Skillman, Donald R.,

*Slater, Dick D.,

*Smith, Gregory L.,

*Smith, Mary,

*Smith, Michael B.,

*Snyder, Gary E.,

Soldano, Sharon L.,

*Southmayd, Leroy, III,

*Speicher, Peter J.,

*Stallings, Lynwood R.,

*Steely, William M.,

*Stein, Thomas M.,

*Stevens, Victor L.,

*Stock, Jonathan G.,

*Stolpe, Michael R.,

*Stone, Julie A.,

*Stuart, Paula L.,

*Stuart, Wayne C.,

*Stubblefield, James I.,

*Sturrock, William A.,

*Stuy, John W.,

*Styron, Stephen L.,

*Sumfest, Joel M.,

*Sumko, Michael H.,

'Swansonapollon, Jocelyn E.,

Tenglin, Richard C.,

Thach, Allen B.,

*Thomas, Robert S., Jr.,

Tippets, Duane D.,

*Tolosa, Drago,

*Tompkins, Kenneth J.,

*Tretter, Margaret S.,

*Trivette, George A.,

*Tromara, Christopher,

*Truwit, Charles L.,

*Tuazon, Paulito D.,

Turner, Mark D.,

*Turner, Paul A.,

*Tuttle, Nicholas H.,

*Twyman, Pamela L.,

*Uhl, James R.,

*Uhorchak, John M.,

*Unser, Stanley H.,

*Vanmanen, John W.,

*Vazquez, Ashmed,

*Vazquez, Ramos R.,

*Vechell, Daniel S.,

*Veenendaal, Jay M.,

*Verzella, Jeffrey N.,

*Verzella, Laura E.,

*Via, Mark W..

*Walker, Lise C.,

*Wall, James G.,

*Wall, Mary J.,

*Wall, Simon G.,

*Ward, Jacob T.,

Warren, Harry L.,

Wasserman, Glenn M.,

*Watkins, Edwin B., Jr.,

*Wells, James D.,

*West, Gregory G.,

*White, George P.,

Whitlock, Warren L.,

*Wik, Grethe E.,

Williams, Leonora 0.,

*Williams, Russell S.,

*Winkler, Richard E.,

*Winthrop, James D.,

*Wittier, Robert R.,

*Woolard, Deborah J.,

Wright, Jack L.,

*Wukich, Dane K.,

*Yago, Margaret M.,

*Yeash, James M.,

*Yee, Jerry,

*Yoder, Carl C.,

*Yoke, Phyllis G.,

*York, Ronald C.,

Yoshida, Glen Y.,

Young, Marianne M.,

*Zeno, Michael R. Jr.,

MEDICAL SERVICE CORPS

To be major

*Adams, Bonnie C.,

*Allen, Rex,

*Allmond, Terry T.,

*Apel, Laurence W.,

Ashley, Vincent E.,

Baldwin, Mary C.,

*Bales, Joel D.,

Barrett, William, Jr.,

*Baxter, Sheila R.,

*Beaudoin, Dennis R.,

*Beers, Everette, T.,

*Bern, Curt N.,

Biggerstaff, Dougals A.,

*Bodlien, John M.,

*Braga, Alfredo J.,

*Brannen, Stephen J.,

*Brown, Dale R.,

Brune, David R.,

*Burgin, Martin J.,

Cambre, Joseph D.,

*Chambers, John R.,

*Clark, Elizabeth M.,

Cline, William R.,

*Condra, Gary A.,

*Crawford, George A. Jr.,

Crook, Kenneth R.,

*Crouch, Gray L.,

*Curtis, John T.,

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

June 16, 1987

*Cuttie, Vallarie S.,

*Czachowski, John B.,

Davis, Cynthya J.,

Deets, Michael R.,

*Dembeck, Thomas J.,

*Dickson, David L.,

*Duffey, Dennis J.,

*Dustin, Richard E.,

*Dydek, George J.,

'Edlefsen, David A.,

*Eichenberg, James R.,

*Evans, John K.,

Felton, Theodore J.,

*Ferrel, Paul A.,

*Ferrer, Angel R.,

Fipps, Donald R.,

Flannery, Diane M.,

*Francis, Ray W., III,

*Franco, Samuel D.,

Franklin, Tony R.,

Freeman, William C.,

Frisina, Michael E.,

Fuzy, James A.,

'Garretson, Susan E.,

Gaule, David A.,

*Glick, Jayson I.,

*Gordon, Starling A.,

Gordon, Timothy D.,

*Halvorson, James A.,

'H assett, Robert J.,

*H aynie John A.,

H enchai, Erik A.,

*H icks, Larry G..

*Hightower, Joseph C.,

*H odges, Kirk B.,

*H ogan, Richard A.,

H olcomb, Arthur A.,

*H olliday, James A.,

*H uddleston, David A.,

*Jacobs, Aaron J.,

*Jansen, John C., Jr.,

*Johnson, Alden P.,

Johnson, James D.,

*Jones, Robert E.,

'Kaehler, Daniel C.,

Kendall, H oward M.,

*Kennedy, Michael H .,

*Kimball, Michael L.,

*

Knapp, Brian E.,

*Kneisel, Forrest W.,

*Knight, Terry J.,

*Kraft, Allen J.,

Krikorian, Debra J.,

*Kunk, Roger B.,

*Landry, Robert J.,

'Laumer, Dennis L.,

Ledesma, Ronald H .,

'Leinbach, Sharon M.,

*Lerman, Louis M.,

Lewis, Charles R.,

*

Lewis, Glenn E.,

*Macalpine, Steven N.,

*Mandeville, Milton D.,

Martinez, Ted A.,

'Matyniak, Norbert P.,

McGaha, James F.,

'McMaughan, James K.,

'Mehr, Zia A.,

*Melcher, Jerry W.,

*Miller, Katharine D.,

'Mokri, Michael J.,

Monahan, Kevin P.,

*Moore, Mark D.,

Morrill, Maria I.,

*Morris, Martin D.,

Mulligan, Gregory P.,

Nabarrete, Kent S.,

*Nixon, Brent P.,

Odom, Darwin R.,

*Parker, William G., III,

*Pfeiffer, Eugene H .,

'Plakus, Robert D..

Postma, Amy M.,

*Postma, Joel T.,

*Rabin, Jeffrey C.,

*Rabren, Douglas H .,

Ramsey, James L.,

Randolph, Gaston M., Jr.,

Ribera, John E.,

Rice, Joyce M.,

Richards, Steven C.,

*Rickman, William J.,

Rubenstein, David A.,

*Sadlon, Gary L.,

*Sawyer, Jeffrey E.,

*Schilhab, John C.,

*Schroeder, Dudley J.,

*Shrum, Gary L.,

*Sill, David S.,

*Smith, Carl E.,

Smith, Michael J.,

Stanley, David L.,

*Stark, Richard I., Jr.,

*Strickman, Daniel A.,

Sullivan, Michael H .,

*Tenney, Debra J.,

*Travis, Richard W.,

*Turner, Stephen J.,

Vandaele, Walter E.,

*Vausestapleton, Nancy L.,

*Waechter, Donna M.,

Walker, Brett D.,

*Walters, Wren H ., Jr.

*Watts, John T.,

Weber, Kenneth J.,

Williams, Calvin E.,

*Williams, Kenneth M.,

*Williams, Thomas V.,

*Wilson, Parks M.,

ARMY MEDICAL SPECIALIST CORPS

To be major

*C' fang, Suzanne S.,

*Cohen, Noreen M.,

*Cropper, James R.,

*H alle, John S.,

*Henderson, Nancy E.,

H oedebecke, Sally S.,

*Jansen, Richard D.,

*Jenik, Carol A.,

*Joseph, Ricky,

*Kurtz, Thomas W.,

*Osborn, Roy W.,

*Randolph, Billie J.,

*Ronat, Raymond C.,

*Scoville, Charles R.,

Sinnott, Melissa W.,

*Tef ft, Robin J.,

*Underwood, Frank B.,

*Winmillconrad, Catheri,

VETERINARY CORPS

To be major

*Bigbie, Kim B.,

Blagg, James A.,

*Cates, Michael B.,

*Davis, Judith A.,

*Davis, Kelly J., III,

*Eighmy, Johnnie J.,

*Estep, James E.,

*Freshwater, Monty C.,

*George, Thomas F., II,

Grabau, John H .,

Lawrence, Wade B.,

*Layton, Randal C.,

*Lipscomb, Thomas P.,

Ohair, Kevin C.,

*Parrish, John H .,

*Pixley, Charles E.,

*

Powell, Nathaniel, Jr.,

Record, Jeffrey W.,

*Templeton, Charles B.,

*Thurman, Jimmy

D .,

*Weir, Robert D.,

*Woodard, Claude L., Jr.,

ARMY NURSE CORPS

Abbott, Cynthia A.,

*

Abrams, Edward B.,

Alderson, Susan C.,

*

Alexander, Fred T.,

*Allmon, Nancy F.,

Andersen, Linda J.,

*Anderson, Alice Y.,

*Anderson, Laura C.,

*Anderson, Margaret A.,

*Arndt, Robert A.,

*Babb, Katherine A.,

*Babcock, Kent K.,

*Bacon, Karen K.,

*Barum, Carolann,

*Bergmann, Karen M.,

Bess, James V.,

*Bens, John M.,

'Bodenner, Diana J.,

*Bohannan, Steven W.,

*Bonnefil, Catherine W.,

*Bounds, Carolyn F.,

*Boyette, H award L., Jr.,

*Brousseau, Leslie D.,

*Brown, David G.,

*Buda, Kathleen A.,

*Burman, Mary C.,

*Cahill, Lori M.,

*Caldwell, Carl G.,

'Caltrider, Randall, R.,

Campbell, Lance C.,

*Chapman, Donna M.,

*Ching, Carmen K.,

*Ching, Douglas E.,

*Cuthbertson, Louise M.,

Dixon, Laurits G.,

*Dueltgen, David E.,

*Dunemn, Kathleen N.,

*Essen, Keith E.,

*Feltz, Jaye P.,

*Fernander, Deborah A.,

*Fitzpatrick, Judith A.,

*Fletcher, Dale A.,

*Floyd, William C.,

*Franken, Mary,

*Freeman, Kathryn L.,

*Gaubatz, Caryl L.,

*Geniton, Daniel J.,

*Goeres, Rachel B.,

*Goins, Sandra L.,

*Gonzales, Jerry P.,

Gonzalez, Robert J.,

*Goodwin, Barbara A.,

*Griffin, Janice B.,

H ampton, Fred R.,

*H ardin, Judith J.,

H arris, Barbara,

*H arwood, Richard D.,

*H efner, Lloyd L.,

*Hein, Linda D.,

*H erbert, William E.,

*Herman, Debbie W.,

*H ernandez, Jim R.,

H iggins, Guy L.,

*H iggins, William C.,

*Hodge, Nancy S.,

H oggard, Ronnie J.,

*H ollisbird, Rosa,

Jackson, William N.,

*James, Jane C.,

*Jones, Jeffrey,

*Keegan, Ann S.,

*Kelly, Joseph H .,

*Kelsch, Steven P.,

*Kessler, Deborah D.,

*Keyes, Tom N.,

*Kirk, William S.,

*Knobel, Bari C.,

*Kohrmann, Sarah N.,

*Lafavers, Joseph D.,

*Lamiell, Charlotte E.,

*Lankford, Billy L., Jr.,

*Lazarus, Russell L.,

*Leppert, Louis A.,

*Lewis, Kim W.,

*Ludwig, John H .,

*Malloy, Vivian T.,


16201

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

16202


June 16, 1987

*McCarthy, Joanne M.,

'McConeghy, Marilyn E.,

*McDonald, Warren D.,

*Messenger, Theresa C.,

'Minerwilliams, Denise A.,

*Mitchell, Evelenia J.,

'Mittelstaedt, Elizabeth, A.,

*Mulhall, Debra L.,

*Mulhern, Richard E.,

'Nabarrete, Synthia R.,

'Narchet, Marie B.,

*Neely, Maryellen H.,

*Neff, Carol L.,

Nelson, Rosemary,

'Norgan, Patricia A.,

'Nowosacki, Patricia D.,

'Nufer, Elizabeth M.,

*Obits, Catherine A.,

*O'Sullivan, Anne M.,

'Page, Nina W.,

*Perez, Debrah L.,

*Peter, Katharine B.,

*

Phillip, Roy A.,

'Phyall, Gertdell,

'Porisch, Lee A.,

*Pulliam, Virginia L.,

*Rider, Gary W.,

'Risoli, Laura J.,

*Rockwell, Lynele,

*Root, Paul L.,

*Roth. Virginia A.,

Schu€ , Andre C.,

'Secula, Monica A.,

*Shackle, Kathleen Y.,

'Silvani, Conrad L.,

*Skidmore, Mark V.,

*Smith, Patricia A.,

'Spittler, Debra L.,

'Spivey, James A.,

'

Stroud, Denise K.,

*Sullivan, Kenneth E.,

'Suverkrop, Dana,

'Tateishi, Richard H.,

*Taylor, Timothy J.,

*Trompler, Marie F.,

*Turner, Jimmie C.,

'Vares, Valerie C.,

*Voss, Constance G.,

*Wade, Jinna A.,

*Walker, Pamela S.,

*Washechek, Susan L.,

*Weidenbach, Bradley J.,

*White, Wilma N.,

*Whitfield, John A.,

*Whittemore, John B.,

'Wiggall, Jennifer J.,

*

Wild, John A.,

'Wisneski, Diana,

*Woodling, Cynthia A.,

'Yanda, Sherry L.,

*Young, Harry M.,

*Zelenka, Barbara J.,

*Zilla, Joseph G.,

'Zygmond, Mark K.,

IN THE MARINE CORPS

T he fo llow ing-nam ed officers o f the

Marine Corps R eserve, for permanent ap-

pointment to the grade of lieutenant colo-

nel, under title 10, United States Code, sec-

tion 5912:

Ahearn, Francis P., Jr.,

Argo, James, R., Jr.,

Augustio, Anthony W.,

Beane, Terry E.,

Bienvenu, David M.,

Boeckman, Richard A.,

Britt, Stephen J.,

Brown, Stephen R.,

Carnevale, Michael J.,

Cavallaro, Michael D.,

Cavenaugh, William J.,

Collins, Tommy L.,

Copeland, Larry B.,

Cuccaro, Eugene P.,

Dalton, Thomas R.,

Davis, Russell H., III,

Dawson, Ray C.,

Day, Ronald H.,

Delisle, Dennis J.,

Derry, Kenneth J.,

Dillard, Robert P.,

Elliott, Thurman D., Jr.,

Fenton, Ronald J.,

Frank, Frederic W.,

Freeland, Frederick A.,

Fuhrmann, Ronald J.,

Gaede, Charles S.,

Gillespie, Francis E., III,

Gleason, Terry V.,

Gubala, Timothy W.,

Hairfield, Steven C.,

Havenstein, Walter P.,

Hedger, Raymond C., Jr.,

Herrmann, Theodore M., Jr.,

Hield, Roger A., Jr.,

Howe, William F., Jr.,

Husty, Richard M., Jr.,

Isenhour, Thomas P.,

James, Dennis E.,

Jelinski, Joseph R., Jr.,

Jelovchan, Vencil S., Jr.,

Jennings, Stephen C.,

Jurjevich, Kenneth M.,

Kellogg, John E.,

King, William, L.,

Kolber, Thomas J.,

Kossey, Michael E.,

Kotte, John E.,

Kermian, Frank T.,

Littlefield, Dale B.,

Lunsford, Dan S.,

LS n, David J.,

MacDonald, Bradley T., Jr.,

Marano, Alfred,

McCall, Russell L., Jr.,

McGuire, Bernard J.,

McLain, Bernard G., II,

McMahon, John J.,

McMahon, Michael A.,

Meeks, Elisha A., III,

Mehalick, Michael P.,

Miller, Thomas J.,

Mount, David E.,

Mueller, Joseph N.,

Nadolski, Keith E.

Nelson, Gustav W.,

Newhouse, Elvin E.,

North, John R.,

Oboyle, Michael W.,

Odean, Gregory A.,

Odell, Douglas V., Jr.,

Peake, David B.,

Pekala, Eleanor F.,

Pennix, Shelby J., Jr.,

Picone, James E.,

Pullin, Gary E.,

Reitmaier, Roger M.,

Rhude, Howard L.,

Rice, Larry R.,

Rock, Leonard M.,

Rumble, Robert 0.,

Rusnak, Michael J.,

Sander, George T.,

Sanvidge, William J.,

Schleier, William D.

Schwelm, Karl T.,

Scienski, Gerald M.,

Sebion, Richard C.,

Sherman, Charles N.,

Steinwedel, Cortlandt W.,

Stocks, Thomas J.

Stof en, Kenneth A.,

Stover, Dorothy L.,

Sudick, Todd D.,

Summa, Mario J.,

Swaim, John S.,

Talley, James B., Jr.,

Taylor, Jeffrey W.,

Thomas, Fred C.,

Travis, Richard F.,

Tripp, Dennis E.,

Vanlandingham, Alan W.,

Vintar, James S.,

Wagner, Philip G.,

Wakefield, John D.,

Walker, Russell A.,

Watts, Kenneth D.,

Welch, Robert C.,

Whetzel, Eugene P.,

Whitehead, Donald S.,

Whiting, John W., Jr.,

Williams, Janice K.,

Williams, Patricia A.,

Wilson, Timothy 0.,

Womack, Robert J.,

Young, John M., Jr.,

T he fo llow ing-nam ed officers o f the

Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve for

perm anent appointm ent to the grade of

major, under title 10, United S tates C ode,

section 624:

Aday, David R.,

Alexander, William T.,

Allen, John R.,

Alles, Randolph D.,

Alves, Anthony M.,

Anderson, Michael C.,

Applegate, Michael F.,

Archer, Thomas E., II,

Arnold, Philip G.,

Arnold, Roy A.,

Ashton, Douglas F.,

Astyk, Lawrence W.,

Austermuehle, Edward W., III,

Barilich, Steven F.,

Barnhart, Mark S.,

Barr, Dennis J.,

Bashor, Timothy M.,

Beal, Dennis W.,

Bean, Ronald D.,

Beaty, Roberta L.,

Berna, Paul A.,

Bickham, Eddie,

Bircher, Mark W.,

Blaine, Michael J.,

Blasiol, Leonard A.,

Bliss, Alan L.,

Bode, Kenneth D.,

Boggs, John T., Jr.,

Bole, Patrick S.,

Bolin, Kent R.,

Bonnell, James R.,

Booth, Steven K.,

Bourgeois, Gordon C.,

Bowen, Richard A.,

Bowling, Robert B., Jr.,

Bradley, Gary W.,

Branch, Thomas I.,

Brewer, Kevin B.,

Brickhouse, Gregory K.,

Briggs, Wayne E.,

Brock, George S.,

Broin, Mark L.,

Brooks, Russell A.,

Brooks, Timothy E.,

Broschart, Ronald B.,

Brown, Larry K., Jr.,

Bryant, Roy D.,

Buland, David L.,

Burgess, Roland N.,

Busch, Steven,

Bush, William S., Jr.,

Byrd, Roy R.,

Caldwell, Geary W.,

Camp, Carlton C.,

Carlson, Steven C.,

Carlton, Randy B.,

Carr, Donald P.,

Casebolt, Walter D.,

Champion, Aron K.,

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...xxx-...

xxx-...xxx-...

xxx-...xxx-...

xxx-...xxx-...

xxx-...xxx-...

xxx-...xxx-...

xxx-...xxx-...

xxx-...xxx-...

xxx-...xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...xxx-...

xxx-...xxx-...

xxx-... xxx-...

xxx-... xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATEJune 16, 1987

Chapman, Gerald R.,

Chapman, Stephen H.,

Chenevert, Craig D.,

Cheater, Robert S.,

Christopher, Samuel H., IV,

Clark, Michael E.,

Coates, Robert A.,

Conlan, Christopher J.,

Conner, Mark A.,

Connolly, Timothy J., Jr.,

Cook, Donald L.,

Cooney, James J.,

Corcoran, William J.,

Coulter, Ronaldo A.,

Cox, Joe D.,

Craig, Ralph D.,

Creighton, Donald E.,

Croom, Donald G.,

Daly, Michael F.,

Dantonio, Ernest C.,

Darling, Rodell C.,

Daugherty, Lester A.,

David, Robert G., Jr.,

Davis, James M.,

Davis, Robert G.,

Davis, Thomas M.,

Dawson, Ralph D.,

Dayton, Gordon R.,

Dean, David R.,

DeMars, Thomas V., Jr.,

Dempst'r. Dymond R.,

Dickersuii, Charles R.,

Dilucente, Dennis J.,

Dishart, Daniel W.,

Dolejs, Charles E.,

Donovan, Martin A.,

Dossett, Michael S.,

Doughty, Michael J.,

Doyle, Scott A.,

Dubois, Vincent M., Jr.,

Duncan, Glen W.,

Duva, Michael,

Edwards, Michael T.,

Egigian, Donald D.,

Eisloffel, Richard J.,

Ellis, Ronald L.,

Emerson, Oregon, III,

England, Kenneth R.,

Erickson, Rick C.,

Espinoza, Alfred J.,

Evans, Bethel Q., III,

Evans, David L.,

Exner, Philip J.,

Fann, Sonny H.,

Fearing, Zenas E., Jr.,

Fenlon, Brian T.,

Ferrara, Raymond C.,

Ferris, Timothy B.,

Finney, Donald M.,

Fisher, Ralph E.,

Fitzgibbons, Leonard J.,

Flanagan, John S., II,

Flynn, Colleen M.,

Foley, John W.,

Fonteno, Michael R.,

Forney, Steven W.,

Foster, Frank E.,

Fox, Harold H., II,

Franz, Joseph H.,

Fraser, Eugene J.,

Freitas, Mark,

Freund, Lee W.,

Gallagher, Joseph T.,

Garrison, Robert G.,

Gaskins, Timothy M.,

Gearren, Michael B.,

Gibson, Mark J.,

Godby, Charles D.,

Gray, Tommy S.,

Grelson, Jeff D.,

Griffin, Robert W.,

Grimes, John M.,

Guenzler, Leon D.,

Guerrero, Ramon L.,

Gurganus, Charles M.,

Hamman, Paul P.,

Hand, Gregory L.,

Hanks, Donald B.,

Hannum, Patrick H.,

Hansen, Andrew L.,

Harbin, Kenneth S.,

Harders, Kim E.,

Hardwick, Jon T.,

Harris, Timothy B.,

Harris, Willie J.,

Haury, Carson E.,

Healey, Michael J.,

Heath, Michael L.,

Helms, Timothy W.,

Hemleben, John F.,

Hendricks, Mark L.,

Henry, James A.,

Herndon, Charles M., Jr.,

Hestir, William R.,

Hickson, Ernest E.,

Higgins, Peter E.,

Hill, Terry L.,

Hilliker, Terry L.,

Hingle, Alden E., Jr.,

Hingston, William A.,

Hoffman, William M.,

House, Donald C., Jr.,

Howard, Harvey E., Jr.,

Howard, Joseph D.,

Hughes, Jack M.,

Hughes, Michael J.,

Hughes, Richard D.,

Hughes, Timothy P.,

Husar, John P.,

Hutcherson, Phillip R.,

Hutchinson, Maurice B.,

Ingles, Ralph W.,

Ip. ec, Robert A.,

Isaacson, Bruce C.,

Jackson, Dennis J., Jr.,

Jagielski, John M.,

Jannell, Richard E.,

Janowsky, Kevin P.,

Jensen, Richard M.,

Johnson, David C.,

Johnson, Edward I.,

Johnson, Floyd J., III,

Johnson, Terrie B.,

Jolevare, Irwin J.,

Jones, Douglas A.,

Jorgensen, David A.,

Judge, Dennis,

Julian, Arlow A.,

Keithly, Donald M.,

Kellner, William R., Jr.,

Keltz, Barbara M.,

Kendrick, Robert M.,

Kerrick, David T.,

Ketterer, Albert T.,

Kimlick, Michael F.,

Kirk, John J., Jr.,

Kittleson, William C.,

Kitto, Thomas H.,

Klemme, David P.,

Knapp, Robert J.,

Knight, Julius F., Jr.,

Knight, Rosa K.,

Knoll, Stuart L.,

Knowles, Robert W.,

Knutzen, Robert M.,

Kozlusky, Gary R.,

Kraus, John E.,

Krauss, Henry J., Jr.,

Kruse, John E.,

Ladd, John C.,

Ladd, Paul L.,

Lahaszow, Andrew J.,

Landolfi, David J.,

Lane, Robert R.,

Lane, Stephen E.,

Larsen, Randall W.,

Lavigne, Michael W.,

Laws, Rufus B.,

Leblanc, Paul W.,

Leeman, Kevin H.,

Leitmeyer, Walter J., Jr.,

Leone, Vincent R., Jr.,

Leonhardt, Kent A.,

Lindsey, James E.,

Logan, Duane B.,

Logan, Robert R.,

Loschiavo, Paul S.,

Lowe, James M.,

Lund, Robert E.,

Lynch, Maureen M.,

Lynes, Gregg L.,

MacDonald John F., Jr.,

Magnuson, Gary J.,

Maier, David F.,

Mann, John D.,

Mariney, Clarence,

Marriott, Michael A.,

Matthews, Paul J.,

Matthews, Peter F.,

Maxey, Anita B.,

Mayorga, Patricio, Jr.,

McAteer, John Jr., III,

McCleskey, Howell G.,

McCloskey, Michael P.,

McConnell, Gary M.,

McFarland, Chester H.,

McMains, James W.,

McMeans, Stuart R.,

Meade, William M.,

Medina, Joseph V.,

Mehaffey, Richard A.,

Mehalic, Charles J.,

Meyers, Craig F.,

Mickelson, David C.,

Miles, John R.,

Miller, Blaise P.,

Miller, Richard L.,

Mills, Sidney E., Jr.,

Misiewicz, John M.,

Moeder, Joseph E.,

Montgomery, Douglas J.,

Moore, Darrell L.,

Moore, Richard S.,

Moriarty, Patrick R.,

Morin, Gregory S.,

Mueller, George E., Jr.,

Mugno, Charles V.,

Murgo, Joseph B.,

Murray, William R.,

Musca, Joseph I.,

Myers, John D.,

Nalls, Arthus L., Jr.,

Nans, Clayton F.,

Nans, Crystal M.,

Navarre, Roderic S.,

Neff, Alan J.,

Neher, Ronald 0.,

Neimeyer, Charles P.,

Nelson, John D., Jr.,

Newman, Phillip L.,

Nielsen Kelley J.,

Nielsen, Thomas J.,

Nolan, Martin R.,

Nordin, Margaret M.,

Norvell, William R.,

Nuzum, Robert A.,

Nyberg, Eric N.,

O'Connor, Michael M.,

Oliver, Allen E.,

O'Neal, Randy R.,

O'Neil, William R.,

Opel, Craig E.,

Papay, Joseph A., Jr.,

Parker, Robert R., Jr.,

Paulger, John B.,

Payne, Leslie M., Jr.,

Peak, Steven A.,

Pearl, Jonathan D.,

Peele, Reynolds B.,

Pelfrey, Darus G.,

Pellegrini, Michael L.,

Petit, Bruce K.,

16203

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

Pierce, Merrill L., Jr.,

Piester, Richard T.,

Pino, Eugenio G.,

Pinzon, Dimas, Jr.,

Pisano, Paul J.,

Platt, Christopher D.,

Plumer, James M.,

Plummer, Toby B.,

Poggi, William L.,

Porter, Olen D.,

Post, Martin,

Preda, Steven D.,

Priest, Raymond W.,

Quilty, Gregory J.,

Rader, John C.,

Rankin, John J.,

Rapert, Ray M.,

Reagan, Franklin V.,

Rector, George E., Jr.,

Rees, John T.,

Regner, Michael R.,

Reif, Charles W.,

Reinhold, Gary M.,

Renner, Renee L.,

Rhoads, Gary D.,

Rhoten, Harley J.,

Richardson, Rodney C.,

Richardson, Thomas C.,

Richter, Jeffrey C.,

Riley, Chester A., III,

Roberti Terry A.,

Roberts, Mark A.,

Robertson, Gerald B., II,

Robison, Bonnie J.,

Robling, Terry G.,

Roche, Patrick F.,

Rogers, Mark W.,

Rohlfs, Pamela F.,

Rohlfs, William G., Jr.,

Ruettinger, John N.,

Rush, James M.,

Ruth, John P.,

Ryan, Brendan P.,

Ryberg, Jonathan T.,

Sandbakken, Rolf W.,

Sanderson, William A.,

Sanford, Megan G.,

Sansone, Francis J..

Sass, Arthur H.,

Saylor, Bennett W.,

Schattle, Duane R.,

Schilling, Joanne L.,

Schon, Mark A.,

Schroeder, Douglas A.,

Schwenke, Kenneth W.,

Scull, William E.,

Serrin, Thomas R.,

Shaw, Judith C.,

Shaw, Michael T.,

Shihata, Karim,

Short, John S., Jr.,

Shupe, Daniel W., Jr.,

Shy, Patrick K.,

Simmons, Clifford M.,

Simmons, Walter W.,

Simons, Dan,

Smart, Bruce S.,

Smith, Bryant W., II,

Smith, Eric H.,

Smith, Guy B.,

Smith, Thomas M.,

Smith-Bolduc, Alyce M.,

Smock, Dennis L.,

Smythe, Ana R.,

Snyder, Robert E.,

Sobyra, Michael R.,

Solis, Shirley A.,

Soroka, Thomas S.,

Sowl, Marcus E., Jr.,

Sparks, Jack K., Jr.,

Sparks, John E., Jr.,

Spencer, Richard W.,

Spiese, Melvin G.,

Sposato, Louis P., Jr.,

Stalnaker, Kim,

Steele, James R.,

Stegner, Randall L.,

Stickley, Harry P., III,

Stiles, William T., Jr.,

Stobiecki, Anthony Z.,

Strong, Charles W., Jr.,

Summers, James A., Jr.,

Talbot, Stephen J.,

Taylor, Carolyn L.,

Thaler, Thomas F.,

Thomas, Robert M.,

Thombs, Victor J.,

Thompson, Dennis C.,

Todsen, Peter B., II,

Tom, Randolph E., Sr.,

Toolan, John A., Jr.,

Trout, Danny K.,

Turk, Alan A.,

Tyrrell, Tommy L., Jr.,

Vallandingham, Charles E., Jr.,

Vancamp, Janice M.,

Vandyke, Randal B.,

Vandyke, Robert L.,

Vietti, Kevin A.,

Vile, James B.,

Vogel, Douglas A.,

Wagoner, William 0.,

Wales, Michael C.,

Walizer, Frank A.,

Walker, James C.,

Ward, Charles E.,

Washabaugh, Bradford G.,

Weitekamp, Daniel P.,

Weltsch, Michael D.,

Wenk, James M.,

Wheeler, George M.,

White, Jonathan C.,

W' itenack, Peter A.,

Wilcutt, Terrence W.,

Wilkinson, Jeffrey L.,

Williams, Denice T.,

Williams, Dennis J.,

Williams, Jan J.,

Williams, Kenneth D.,

Winn, David M.,

Winters, Kevin H.,

Wotherspoon, Keith H.,

Wrenn, Lawrence R., III,

Wyatt, Benjamin G.,

Wysocki, Francis J.,

Yackley, Thomas M.,

Yelito, Stanley J., Jr.,

Yof fee, Wade,

Zeller, Bertrand L.,

CONFIRMATIONS

Executive nominations confirmed by

the Senate June 16, 1987:

IN THE ARMY

The following-named officer under the





Code, section 3033:

To be chief of staff

Gen. Carl E. Vuono, , U.S.

Army.

IN THE AIR FORCE


ment to the grade of lieutenant general on




Lt. Gen. Charles J. Cunningham, Jr.,

FR, U.S. Air Force.


ment to the grade of lieutenant general on



June 16, 1987


Lt. Gen. Leo Marquez, FR,

U.S. Air Force.






Code, section 601:


Maj. Gen. M ichael J. Dugan,

FR, U.S. Air Force.






Code, section 601:


Maj. Gen. Charles C. McDonald,

FR, U.S. Air Force.






Code, section 601:


Lt. G en . M errill A . M cPeak,

FR, U.S. Air Force.

IN THE ARMY




Code, section 1370:


Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Healy, ,

U.S. Army.

IN THE NAVY






Code, section 601:

To be admiral

Vice Adm. Powell F. Carter, Jr.,

/1120, U.S. Navy.




Code, section 1370.

To be vice admiral

Vice Adm. Ceil J. Kempf, /

1310, U.S. Navy.






Code, section 601:

To be vice admiral

Rear Adm. John H. Fetterman, Jr.,

/1310, U.S. Navy.

The following-named officer under the


section 5137, to be appointed in the grade of

vice admiral as chief of the Bureau of Medi-

cine and Surgery and Surgeon General:

To be chief of the Bureau of Medicine and

Surgery and Surgeon General

Rear Adm . James A . Zimble, Medical

Corps, /2100, U.S. Navy.

The following-named captain in the Staff

Corps of the U.S. Navy for promotion to the

permanent grade of rear adm iral (lower

half ), pursuant to title 10, United States

16204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-...

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-xx-x...

xxx-...

xxx-xx-xx...

xxx-...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-...

xxx-xx-xx...

xxx-x...

xxx-...

xxx-xx-xxxx

June 16, 1987


16205

Code, section 624, subject to qualifications

therefor as provided by law:

HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL

To be rear admiral (lower half)

Joseph P. Smyth.






Code, section 601:

To be vice admiral

Rear Adm. John T. Parker, Jr.,

/1210, U.S. Navy.

IN THE AIR FORCE

Air Force nomination of Becky L. Gering,

which was received by the Senate and ap-

peared in the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Of

June 2, 1987.

Air Force nominations beginning Roger D.

Billica, and ending Joseph D. Camacho,

which nominations were received by the

Senate and appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD of June 2, 1987.

Air Force nominations beginning Robert J

Achterberg, and ending Theodore P. Yur-

kosky, which nominations were received by

the Senate and appeared in the CONGRES-

SIONAL RECORD of June 2, 1987.

Air F re nominations beginning John R

Abel, and ending John F. Zimmer, which

nominations were received by the Senate

and appeared in the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

of June 2, 1987.

Air Force nominations beginning John L

Alonge, and ending Paul R Ziaya, which


and appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

of June 2, 1987.

IN THE ARMY

Army nominations beginning Kenneth N.

Hall, and ending Carl A. Kulo, which nomi-

nations were received by the Senate on May

18, 1987, and appeared in the CONGRESSION-

AL RECORD of May 19, 1987.

Army nominations beginning Isaac A Al-

varado, Jr, and ending Gunther M ark,


Senate on May 18, 1987, and appeared in

the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Of

May 19, 1987.

Army nomination of Edward R. Hoffman,

which was received by the Senate and ap-

peared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Of

May 29, 1987.

Army nominations beginning Charles V.

Adams, and ending Jimmy L. Young, which


and appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

of June 2, 1987.

Army nominations beginning John A.

Bauer, and ending Leonard Vanscoy, which


and appeared in the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

of June 2, 1987.

Army nominations beginning * Jeffrey Ad-

dicott, and ending * Eddy Williamson, which


and appeared in theCONGRESSIONAL RECORD

of June 2, 1987.

IN THE MARINE CORPS

Marine Corps nominations beginning

John C Astle, and ending Robert B Wright,


Senate and appeared in the

CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD

of May 29, 1987.

Marine Corps nominations beginning Paul

'C Aanonsen, and ending Gregory K Tesch,


Senate and appeared in the

CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD of June 2, 1987.

IN THE NAVY

Navy nominations beginning Gregory

Hugh Adkisson, and ending Samuel Sidney

Williams, which nominations were received

by the Senate and appeared in the

CONGRES-

SIONAL RECORD

of June 2, 1987.

Navy nominations beginning R ichard Lewis

Aarnes, and ending Charles Anthony Wei-

gand,

which nominations were received by

the Senate and appeared in the

CONGRES-

SIONAL RECORD

of June 2, 1987.

91-059 0-89-26 (Pt. 12)

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-...

SENATE-Tuesday, June 16, 1987 - US Government ...

Documents

Transcript of SENATE-Tuesday, June 16, 1987 - US Government ...