29266 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979

tional six hearings scheduled before the end of the year.

I have maintained throughout all these hearings, that in order to prevent an­other serious undercount as occurred in 1970, there must be some reaffirmation for not only the undocumented people,

but for all those individuals who fear Government abuse of census informa­tion by providing them with a sense of security that can only be achieved by a guarantee from the highest source of ad­ministrative and judicial authority in this country.

This bill will go a long way toward alleviating the fear and distrust many people may have about the census. I urge quick action on this measure so that we can put this message out before the cen­sus begins next year.•

SENATE-Wednesday, October 24, 1979 (Legislative day of Monday, October 15, 1979)

The Senate met at 12 noon, on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by Hon. BILL BRADLEY, a Sena­tor from the State of New Jersey.

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend Edward L. R. Elson, D.D., o1Iered the following prayer:

Let us pray. O God, by whom we are brought into

this world, who knows us better than we know ourselves, let Thy spirit enter every heart bringing forgiveness, free­dom and faith. We come to Thee weighted by solemn duties and heavy responsibilities praying for strength and wisdom sufficient to serve the present age. We lay before Thee our frequent disalppointments, our frustrated hopes, our vexed spirits, our petty irritations, asking for Thy healing and renewing grace. Help us as we labor with Thee for the coming commonwealth of God where man's worth is reckoned higher than the things he fashions, where science serves not destruction but pres­ervation and political action promotes peace. Remove all that obstructs the reign of Thy spirit. Enthrone Thyself King of Kings and Lord of Lords over all men and all nations.

In the Redeemer'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. MAGNUSON).

The legislative clerk read the follow­ing letter:

U.S. SENATE,

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,

Washington, D.C., October 24, 1979. To the Senate:

Under the provisions of rule I, section 3, of the Standing Rules of the Sena.te, I hereby appoint the Honorable BILL BRADLEY,

a. Sena.tor from the State of New Jersey, to perform the duties of the Chair.

WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

President pro tempore.

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

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West Virginia.

THE JOURNAL Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

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

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

FAMINE RELIEF IN CAMBODIA Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

we are all aware of the frightful situa­tion that is emerging in Cambodia-­tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people are on the brink of death due to famine. The situation is critical and the need for action is im­perative.

A number of proposals for the relief of the Cambodian people are being con­sidered in Congress. President Carter has pledged the administration's support for food relief.

I thought it was important that the Senate have a first-hand report on this situation. I appointed Senator SASSER and Senator BAucus who, along with Sen­ator DANFORTH, compose a bipartisan group that has gone to Thailand. This group will go to Phnom Penh, Cambodia today from Thailand. They will be the first American omcials to visit Cambodia since 1975. Their aim is to help open a "land bridge" for convoys of food sup­plies between Thailand and Cambodia. I hope that their mission is a success, and I look forward to their report on their return.

The Cambodian situation is a disaster, all the more tragic because it is a man­made disaster, not a natural disaster. But whatever the source of the problem, the su1Iering of the people is the same-­and our humanitarian support should be no less generous than if we were respond­ing to the victims of a hurricane or flood.

A strong, positive, and rapid response to this situation is not a political act. Aid for famine relief in Cambodia is the helping hand that we Americans have

traditionally extended to those who need help. In the wake of World War I and World War II, American food relief went to ravaged Europe, to nations that were both former allies and former adver­saries. In the spirit of this tradition, I hope that Cambodian famine relief will continue to enjoy the support of the Senate.

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

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes, I yield. Mr. RIEGLE. I wish to commend the

majority leader for taking this initiative in sending this group of Senators on this assignment. I think this is a vitally im­portant initiative, and I think it is an act of leadership which deserves support.

I hope our colleagues have a safe and productive trip, and I applaud them for undertaking this assignment at the Senator's request.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank my distinguished friend from Michigan. I am sure that Senators SASSER, BAUCUS, and DANFORTH will welcome the expres­sions of sentiment that have been so ably presented by the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I appreciate his support for the mission.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

how much time do I have remaining? The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­

pore. The majority leader has 6 minutes left.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

I will yield my time to any Senator who wishes it.

Mr. RIEGLE. Perhaps we both would wish time.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield the remainder of my time to Mr. RIEGLE, who has an order, I believe, and if he then wishes to yield part of it to the Senator from Virginia, my namesake and "cuzzen," HARRY F. BYRD, JR., he may do so.

Mr. RIEGLE. I appreciate the major­ity leader's yielding his time.

Would the Senator from Virginia want to take some of the time now and, if so, how much would he want?

• This "bullet" syll).bol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by the Member on the B.oor.

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29267

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-. dent, will the Senator from Michigan be· willing to yield 3 minutes now?

Mr. RIEGLE. Yes, indeed. Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I thank

the Senator. Mr. RIEGLE. I yield 3 minutes to the

Senator from Virginia.

HUBER MATOS

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi­dent, at 2 a.m. on Monday, October 22, Huber Matos gained freedom in Costa Rica after 20 years in prison in Cuba. Huber Matos, a former major in the Castro revolutionary army, is now 60 years old. Twenty years ago, at the age of 40, he resigned as military governor of Camaguey Province in Cuba to protest the betrayal of the Cuban revolution to communism and Russian domination. He was immediately tried for treason and imprisoned under the most inhumane conditions.

Yet, Huber Matos has triumphed over his captors. His great courage and in­domitable spirit have prevailed over the worst that the Cuban Communists could bring against him in physical and psy­chological violence.

This man's will, his mental integrity, and intrepid fidelity to principle are, I believe, outstanding representations of the best potential of man for spiritual greatness under adversity.

There are still others who are political prisoners of the Cuban dictator, Castro. There are still hundreds suffering the most inhumane conditions of imprison­ment because of their belief in freedom and in God. There is still an entire population immediately off our shores from whom freedom has been stolen and for whom the future appears to hold nothing but repression and foreign dom­ination.

But there is hope for Cuba and for the Cuban people so long as brave men like Huber Matos seek freedom and refuse the blandishments and the threats of dictators.

Huber Matos is the true hero of the Cuban revolution. By his example, free­dom will someday be brought to his homeland.

That little island of Cuba, Mr. Presi­dent, is a fine place with warmhearted, friendly, wonderful people. I spent much time there 20 years ago, right after Fidel Castro came to power.

I was there as a newspaper correspond­ent, and watched how the revolution changed from the idealism exemplified by Huber Matos in its early days to one which came under Soviet domination, brought to that plight by Castro who pro­claimed himself a dedicated Marxist within 2 years after assuming power and promising freedom from the corruption of former President Baitista.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent to have printed in the RECORD an article from today's New York Times en­titled "Freed Cuban Tells of Years Spent in 'Concrete Boxes' Underground."

There being no o1?jecti<W·• .tbe. . .@-~~cle was ordered to be prmted m the R~cORD, as follows: FREED CUBAN TELLS OF YEARS SPENT IN "CON­

CRETE BOXES" UNDERGROUND

(By Jo Thomas) SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA, Oct. 23.---0utside,

the afternoon rain was falling on the orchids and the rose gardens, but the man who once spent a. year undergrofil¥1 in a. concrete closet did not pa.use to remark on them. Huber Matos, perhaps the best known of Cuba's political prisoners, needed first to speak of the world he knew for 20 years, a world of isolation, punishment and endurance.

"I a.m certain," he said in a.n illlterview here today, "they had a plan to 8J¥11hilate me slowly, so that my death could be achieved without the necessity of giving me the death sentence."

He was kept in isolation for 16 years, he said, "incarcerated in the worst places of each jail."

ACCUSED OF TREASON BY CASTRO Mr. M.atos had been arrested Oct. 21, 1959,

charged by his former commde, Fidel Castro, with treason for resigning his post as mili­tary governor of Camagtiey Province over the growilllg infiuence of Communists in the Govern,rnent.

He said that before his trial he wa.s kept in a. cell that had been constructed by block­ing off what had once been a slit in the thick wall of the Spanish fortress El Morro. It was slightly more than three feet wide, dark and airless.

He was there when, two months before his trial, Mr. Castro asked the people of Havana. to show support for his dee.th by a show of hands. It was there, too, that he learned of the disappearance of his fellow military commander, Cam.ilo Cienfuegos, within a week of Mr. Ma.tos's arrest.

"Camilo was a.n adlnira.ble commanper and a. good friend of mine from the first time we met," Mr. Matos said. "I think there was a current of reciprocal sympathy. At the end of the war, we remained excellent friends and we talked on several occasions of the problem of Communist infiltration.

"In spite ar his public criticism of my conduct, I was certain Camilo didn't consid­er me a traitor. With his death went _my hope that my upcoming trial would not be a. fa.rce."

After his conviction, Mr. M.atos said, he was taken to a. prison on the Isle of Pines, where he remained for six and a. ha.If yea.rs, two of which he spent living in two holes.

"In the last year," he said, "I was 1n a. concrete box some two and a. ha.I! meters wide and three feet long. No one 1ni the prison knew of my location. It was in the bottom of a passageway constructed 1DI such a. way that I could never see the light of day in all the time they had me there."

Mr. Matos, w:ho paused often to choke back his emotions, said that in May, 1966, he was taken from the Isle of Pines to La. Cabana Prison in Havana, placed in a dark punishment cell and stripped. "It was so dirty," he said, "I cleaned the wall with the moisture from my breath. I gave myself a. bronchial infection."

IN AN UNDERGROUND CELL On July 1, 1966, Mr. Matos sa.id, he was

taken to the prison's Gallery 03, which was also underground, where he and 12 fellow prisoners lived next to the kitchen. "The air was !Ull of smoke," he said. "It was very, very humid." There he stayed for five yea.rs.

When, his mother died and was buried near the fa.m.lly home in Yara., in Orlente

Province, he said he had hoped he would be allowed to visit her grave. But even this, he said, was not permitted.

"When I had four days to complete my sentence," he said, "on the afternoon of Oct. 17, a colonel came to my cell and asked me to accompany him to the prison office."

In the office, he said, were a number of officers who said they wanted to take him to the Department of State Security to ask him several questions connected with his release.

"I told them that 1f there were any ques­tiollS> that they could talk to me in the prison office," Mr. Matos said, adding that he was familiar with the arrangements usually made for people who were beilllg released from prison.

He said he was taken from the prison office by force. "They taped my mouth and threw me on the floor of the ca.rand put their feet on my face and on my chest." The~ they sent word on their shortwave radio that the pris­oner was rebelling.

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MINORITY LEADER

Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, a parlia­mentary inquiry.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. The Senator will state it.

Mr. RIEGLE. How much of the ma­jority leader's time is available to me now, in addition to my 15-minute spe­cial order?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. The Senator has 2 % additional minutes.

Mr. RIEGLE. I thank the Chair. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­

pore. Will the Senator suspend? Under the standing order, the Chair recognizes the minority leadership.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will be pleased to take the minority leader's time after the Senator from Michigan has completed his statement. There is no problem about that, if it is agreeable with the majority leader. I ask unani­mous consent that the minority leader's time be available after the Senator from Michigan has completed his statement.

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

Mr. RIEGLE. Let me say that I appre­ciate the courtesy of the Senator from Alaska, but one thing I should indicate is that there are two other Senators, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. LEvm> and the Senator from Missouri <Mr. EAGLE­TON), who have 15-minute special orders on the same subject, the Chrysler issue, that will follow mine.

Mr. STEVENS. I realize that, and also, following that is Senator TowER, though I think he will not take his time. So I will be happy to use my time after the three Senators have concluded their colloquy.

Mr. RIEGLE. I appreciate the Sena­tor's courtesy.

S. 1937-CHRYSLER EMERGENCY LOAN GUARANTEE ACT

Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Chrysler Emergency

29268 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE October 24, 1979 Loan Guarantee Act with a number of cosponsors.

This bill would provide carefully con­trolled financial assistance to the Chrys­ler Corp. I am gratified that several dis­tinguished Senators are joining me as cosponsors today. They include Senators LEVIN, NELSON, BAYH, DANFORTH, EAGLE­TON, MATHIAS, and McGOVERN.

I intend to introduce the bill late this afternoon, and that list may grow, be­cause there are other Senators who have indicated a great interest in this issue, and I here and now invite all other Sen­ators to consider becoming original co­sponsors, and welcome their support and participation.

The bill would further the national interest, first, by modernizing major U.S. factories and converting them to the production of fuel emcient automo­biles; second, by preventing a loss of jobs by hundreds of thousands of Amer­ican workers and a substantial loss of business by thousands of firms: third, by averting a damaging shock to the U.S. economy in a period of growing uncer­tainty and instability; fourth, by avoid­ing long-term economic devastation in several large regions and numerous small communities across the country; fifth, by protecting Federal, State, and local governments from huge losses in revenues and increases in expenditures: and sixth by improving our balance of payments and strengthening the value of the dollar.

Mr. President, for several months now I have been studying the situation of the Chrysler Corp. in great detail. I have consulted financial analysts, legal ex­perts, public offi.cials, automotive ex­ecutives, car dealers, and autoworkers from many parts of the country. Ever since Chrysler's financial plight came to light in the public, there has been a continuing debate in the press over whether aid to Chrysler was indeed ap­propriate. We have seen numerous pros and cons stated on the issue by some of our most lea.med economic and business leaders. What is so troubling about this debate, however, is the fact that we as a country have never been faced with a problem like the present Chrysler situa­tion. In terms of size and potential ad­verse economic impact--there has never been a problem like Chrysler. We really do not know what might happen if Chrysler went bankrupt. We know the effects would be bad, but we cannot be totally sure when or where the eco­nomic trouble would stop.

Through my study of this problem, it has become increasingly clear to me that Federal financial assistance is not only justified, it is needed; it is needed ur­gently; and it is in the national interest.

PROVISIONS OF THE Bll.L

Mr. President, the bill I am introduc­ing today would provide loan guarantees to meet the financial needs of the Chrys­ler Corp. through a tightly controlled program that would target benefits on national objectives and protect the in­terests of t~xpayers.

My bill would create a tripartite board composed of the Secretary of the Treas­ury as chairman, and the Secretaries of

the Departments of Labor and Com­merce. The board would have the au­thority to guarantee loans to the corpo­ration within the guidelines established by the legislation.

Before providing assistance to Chrys­ler, the board would have to find that the company has an actual need ;for loans, that f allure to meet this need would adversely affect the economy or employment in the United States or any major region of the United States, that credit is not otherwise available, and that the lender would not make the loans without a Government guarantee.

Guaranteed loans could extend for up to 10 years and bear interest at rates controlled by the board. The board could impose guarantee fees and design other arrangements to compensate the tax­payers for any administrative expenses or risks incurred by the guarantee.

The bill would protect the Govern­ment's interest by requiring the full col­lateralization of any guaranteed loan, the suspension of payments to stock­holders and certain lenders, the audit of Chrysler records by GAO and the im­position of other stringent protections. The board could require appropriate managerial and financial reforms of Chrysler before guaranteeing any loan. Moreover, the board would be authorized to take actions necessary to insure that unguaranteed lenders and other parties maintain their current levels of support to the corporation.

The board's authority to extend guar­antees would terminate on December 31, 1983. A ceiling on outstanding loan guar­antees would be established after the issue of suitable assistance levels is stud­ied in banking committee hearings.

The bill would provide $250 million or 25 percent of the guarantee a.id through an employee stock ownership plan CESOP). ESOP's have been championed by several distinguished Senators includ­ing the majority leader, Senator BYRD, by the chairman of the Finance Com­mittee, Senator LONG, and by my col­league on the Banking Committee, Sena­tor STEWART who, recently, announced his intention to introduce employee stock ownership as an amendment to any bill that would involve financial assistance to Chrysler.

A recent study sponsored by Senator LoNG of 72 ESOP companies showed that in the 3 years after adoption of the ESOP, sales increased by an average of 72 percent, jobs increased 38 percent, sales per employee increased 25 percent, pretax profits increased 157 percent, and Federal taxes paid increased 150 percent.

These are compelling statistics which I believe demonstrate that employee stock ownership plans may offer a route by which we can move imaginatively to assist Chrysler.

AN HISTORIC CHALLENGE TO AMERICAN INDUSTRY

Mr. President, I believe that this bill provides a prudent response to the finan­cial problems of the Chrysler Corp. The Senate's decision on this bill is part of our Nation's response to a much larger and unprecedented economic challenge.

An industrial evolution is underway, Mr. President. Between 1978 and 1984,

American automobile manufacturers are scheduled to spend the vast sum of $80 billion for new plant and equipment. That amounts annually to a 25-percent real increase in spending over the aver­age of the preceding 7 years. This figure does not include additional, massive in­creases in spending for research and de­velopment. That high level of spending will continue in good years and in bad because federally mandated standards must be met.

We are witnessing nothing less than the sudden obsolescence and replace­ment of a major segment of the Na­tion's industrial base. This unprece­dented level of spending must be made if American workers are to produce the fuel effi.cient cars for which there is a growing demand.

The United States must rapidly make an extraordinary transition from an era of cheap and abundant gasoline and oil supply into an era of scarce and ex­pensive gasoline and oil.

By contrast, the national policies of our major trading partners have long encouraged the development of energy effi.cient products and production tech­niques. Moreover, their governments have lent significant support to their own auto companies and other industries by assisting with technological develop­ment, providing generous tax credits, imposing protective measures against import competition and maintaining a general climate of cooperation between Government and industry. Until re­cently, they had to provide this support in order to catch up with American auto makers. These foreign governments con­centrated on the small car market and as gasoline became more costly have been able to carve out a 25-percent share of the U.S. auto market. It is now ap­parent that standard size autos are going to be obsolete and more jobs will be lost to foreign auto makers if we do not im­prove the level of cooperation between Government and industry.

Now, Mr. President, of course this bur­den of industrial conversion falls-and must fall-largely on the Nation's private industry and capital markets. I ani confi­dent that the private sector has suffi.cient resources, vigor, and imagination to meet the bulk of the challenge.

However, those of us in Government must understand the stress that is being imposed on industry, and be prepared to respond when the strains threaten to bring down a major component of our ca­pacity and shatter the lives and liveli­hoods of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. That is what is at stake In Chrysler.

The past failings of Chrysler's former management may have been serious and many. But the Government also bears re­sponsibility for the corporation's present crisis, not only because of our current energy situation but the lack of a. co­herent national energy strategy and Policy. Even those Senators who most strongly favor regulation of the auto in­dustry must admit that hundreds of mil­lions of dollars were drained unneces­sarily from the auto firms by Federal de­cisions such as those to mandate ignition interlock systems and to prohibit joint

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29269

development ventures to meet Federal standards. These are decisions we cannot undo. The capital which was required by those Federal policy decisions is capital which is spent and gone. In fact, as long as a year and a half ago, regulators de­cided to ignore clear warnings of an im­pending financial crisis at Chrysler and chose to do nothing to help avoid it.

Mr. BA YH. Will the Senator yield for 30 seconds? I know he is under a time constraint.

Mr. RIEGLE. I yield. Mr. BAYH. I compliment the Senator

from Michigan for the important role he is playing on the Banking and Cur­rency Committee and the leadership he is providing in this area. I feel fortunate with him and the junior Senator from Michigan in a problem that confronts the whole country and not just the State of Michigan and the State of Indiana, though we happen to be No. 1 and No. 2.

This is something that will have an effect on the whole country. I think the way the Senator from Michigan is ap­proaching this will help solve the prob­lem and get us out of this in a way to have a minimum amount of risk to the country. I associate myself with his re­marks.

Mr. President, the blll offered today by Senators RIEGLE and LEVIN, of which I am a cosponsor, represents an attempt to draw from the best thinking which has been put forward to find a solution to Chrysler's dilemma.

I think it imperative that steps be taken promptly. The impact of a bank­ruptcy proceeding on Chrysler was described in hearings before the Senate Banking Committee as at best uncer­tain, but quite possibly disastrous.

The impact on the State of Indiana of a Chrysler shutdown is hardly in doubt. Nearly 15,000 Chrysler employees would be out of work and Indiana would lose $1 billion annually in direct wages and purchases from Chrysler alone and per­haps another $2 billion in indirect losses from jobs which are dependent on Chrysler wages and purchases.

Two cities in Indiana would be hit with an even more devastating impact than the closing would have in Detroit. Fourteen percent of the work force in Kokomo is directly employed by Chrys­ler and nearly 12 percent of the work force in New Castle, Ind. The Booz, Al­len & Hamilton, Inc. report submitted to the Treasury indicates that one-third to 40 percent of all jobs in these two cities are related to Chrysler's business. The entire economy surrounding these cities already feels the impact of the uncer­tainty caused just by the possibility of a shutdown. Indianapolis and Michigan City would also be substantially affected.

The cost to the Federal Government of a Chrysler failure would not just be in the millions of dollars, it would be in billions of dollars of lost revenues and increased expenditures. This bill is an effort to prevent that loss by guarantee­ing loans that financial institutions act­ing separately would not otherwise make.

Mr. President, l hope that the Con­gress will act promptly. The Booz, Allen & Hamilton report also warns that Chrysler's funding needs could increase

if there are any major delays in obtain­ing adequate funds. I think this bill rep­resents an attempt to develop a reason­able solution to this problem. I feel cer­tain that as the Banking Committee takes this bill under consideration, it will further develop and refine this legisla­tion. I look forward to working with all the parties involved including Chrysler Corp., the United Auto Workers, and mv distinguished colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee.

Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments and the great help he has given to the efforts to solve this problem.

Mr. President, there are a number of precedents to which we -can look.

PRECEDENTS

Fortunately, the Federal Government has considerable experience in providing assistance to important forms of eco­nomic activity. And we can build on that experience.

Congress has already recognized a na­tional interest in helping major domestic industries compete in changing interna­tional markets. The fiscal 1978 State­Justice Appropriation Act, for example, authorized EDA to provide up to $550 million in loan guarantees for steel com­panies. Three objectives were identified. Steel companies would be helped to mod­ernize so that they "could better face foreign competition," to "meet Govern­ment mandated environmental stand­ards." and to retain jobs in the U.S. steel industry. All three items relate directly as well, to the auto industry.

Since early 1978. five firms have re­ceived a total of $364.6 million in loan guarantees under the program. EDA is considering requests for an additional $160 million to other firms. The admin­istration estimates that the approved guarantees would retain a total of some 54,000 American jobs. It should be noted that Chrysler buys steel from U.S. pro­ducers.

The steel industry program is extend­ing about $6,800 in loan guarantees per job retained. Since a Chrysler collapse would cause a loss of 200,000 to 600,000 jobs, $6,800 in loan guarantees per job would justify $1.4 billion to $4.1 billion in guaranteed loans for Chrysler.

The Federal Government has extend­ed financial assistance to thousands of private borrowers for a multitude of pur­poses. Over $7 billion in loan guarantees is currently outstanding for interna­tional security and development assist­ance. The Agriculture Department now has $54 billion in loan guarantees to help finance investment in farms, rural hous­ing, and rural electric facilities. The Commerce Department has over $7 bil­lion in outstanding guarantees to finance shipbuilding and numerous other Amer­ican industries. HEW has over $1 million of guarantees outstanding to finance medical facilities. Railroads have about $300 million. New York City has about $700 million. The Small Busine~s Admin­istration has guarantees of over $11 bil­lion. All in all, the Federal Government now has a total of some $240 billion in outstanding loan guarantees. In view of this loan, a loan guarantee to the Chrys­ler Corp. breaks little, if any, new ground.

In 1971 Congress established the Emergency Loan Guarantee Board to as­sist major firms when a temporary fi­nancial crisis could result in a business failure which would adversely affect the economy of the Nation. Under that leg­islation the Lockheed Corp. received $250 million in loan guarantees which helped the firm avoid financial collapse and dis­ruption of critical production.

Even though there are many differ­ences between Lockheed and Chrysler, the Lockheed experience has helped us to develop the capacity to provide pru­dent assistance to major industrial cor­porations in temporary difficulty.

In the auto industry itself, the Fed­eral Government has helped out Ameri­can Motors with a wide variety of meas­ures, including tax breaks, exemptions from mandated standards, and Govern­ment purchases of AMC vehicles.

Despite all this activity, governmental assistance to American industry has been undertaken in a sporadic, piecemeal, and uncoordinated way. The relation­ship between Government and industry in this country has too often been mark­ed by a lack of understanding, by mu­tual suspicion and by hostility.

Many countries have stolen the march on us by developing what they call co­operative programs of "industrial policy" that have facilitated capital formation and contributed to the growth of pro­ductivity.

The problems of the Chrysler Corp. should be viewed within this larger con­text. And I am hopeful that the debate surrounding this issue will be conducted in that way.

TIGHT LIMITS AND CONTROLS

Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that this bill would not authorize a "bailout" in which the Federal Government steps in to prop up a failing company and per­mit it to continue inefficient operations.

I am convinced that there are very positive signs that Chrysler can be an efficient, vigorous manufacturer. But dif­ficult adjustments must be made by ev­eryone involved. This bill does not relieve the pressure for reforms. On the con­trary, it gives those reforms a chance.

Any assiStance must be tightly con­trolled and targeted on the national ob­jectives of providing modern factories, maintaining the productive employment of American workers, and avoiding mas­sive regional economic dislocations. Windfall gains to stockholders and lend­ers should be minimized. This bill would authorize the Board to be innovative in achieving those objectives.

The Federal Government should not provide aid alone, but should lead others-including suppliers, dealers, management, workers, banks, and State and local governments-to take risks and play a large role in making Chrysler suc­cessful again. That leadership is urgent­ly needed, and this b111 provides a frame­work for it.

BANKRUPTCY IS NO SOLUTION

Some have denied there is a need for Federal response to the problems of Chrysler.

Mr. President, the suggestion that a difficult national problem will solve it­self always has a seductive appeal. Never-

29270 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 24, 1979 theless, I am convinced that as Senators consider this complex industry, they will come to agree that the counsel of inac­tion is simplistic, unworkable, and dangerous to the Nation.

Some have put forth the notion that bankruptcy would buy time to speedily reorganize, consolidate, and operate Chrysler on a smaller scale as a viable company. Such thinking is not logical in the case of the auto industry.

Chrysler requires the :flow of $40 mil­lion in cash per day to maintain opera­tions. It depends daily on a fragile net­work of commitments by suppliers, deal­ers, banks, customers, and others. Ron­ald Trost, one of the country's leading experts on bankruptcy, testified before the Banking Committee that a declara­tion of bankruptcy would send an im­mediate and devastating shock through­out the entire Chrysler system. And it would trigger hundreds of bitter law­suits that could last for up to 5 years.

In the meantime, Chrysler's dealership network would fall apart within 5 weeks because few would want to buy a car that lacks a guaranteed warranty, that car­ries no assurance that spare parts or service will be available, and that has almost no resale value. Banks would stop credit for dealer :floor plans and dealer bankruptcies would spread like wildfire.

The supplier network could crumble just as quickly. There could be a sup­plier panic. They will have to insist on pavment on delivery or even in advance, adding some $1.8 billion to Chrysler'I' cash needs. Many will stop shipping and attempt to turn elsewhere for business. Many suppliers wm be forced out of business. It would only take the failure of -a few critical suppllers to bring nearly all Chrysler production to a halt.

Reorganization through bankruptcy wm mean only one thing and that is liquidation. Those who think otherwise do not recognize the organic nature of this company. One plant cannot function unless the others do. Consequently, try­ing to solve the problems of Chrvsler through bankruptcy would be precisely the wrong course of action. It cannot re­main alive on a piecemeal basis.

For the Congress to rely on bankruptcy would be a failure to respond. And we would have to live with and pay for the consequences of that failure for years to come. FAILURE WOULD WEAKEN U .S. ABILITY TO COM-

PETE IN INTERNATIONAL MARKETS

Mr. President, let me enumerate some of the consequences of a Chrysler failure.

First, the failure would deprive the United States of productive capacity we will need to compete effectively in the world automobile markets. Chrysler is a major part of our industrial base. It was the 10th largest industrial company in America in 1978, with annual sales of about $12 billion.

The corporation is · investing some $1.1 billion to convert its plants to the pro­duction of new fuel efficient cars. Over $187 million is being spent to install a state of the art production line for four cylinder engines at its facilities in Tren­ton, Mich. That line will begin operations in January and will be able to :Produce

400,000 engines of which there is a severe world shortage. Another $85 million is being spent to convert the Jefferson Ave­nue assembly plant in Detroit for the production of a new front wheel drive car that will become available in August 1980. Similar capital improvements cost­ing $85 million are underway at the Newark, Del., plant.

By next summer Chrysler's Kokomo, Ind., plant will have the capacity to produce annually an additional 425,000 automatic transaxles for front wheel drive cars after an investment of $190 million. This is one of the very few such U.S. plants that can manufacture these needed components.

The company's new process gear plant will have the capacity-which, by the way, is unique in the United States-to produce 250,000 5-speed front wheel drive transaxles.

Another $190 million in new tooling is being installed at all Chrysler stamping plants to provide better, higher utiliza­tion f acillties.

The financial collapse of Chrysler would bring this capital investment pro­gram to a screeching halt. The Nation would lose much of the benefits of the years of planning and the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment that have already gone into these facilities.

Some have glibly asserted that other auto firms will quickly step in to continue these facilities in operation. That totally overlooks the highly specialized nature of these production lines and the difficulty of converting them. Even if other com­panies eventually do decide to purchase some of the facilities, a minimum of 2, and probably 3 years would be required to retool the plants to different specifica­tions.

Moreover, if foreign companies take advantage of some bargain plants, only the lower skilled jobs would tend to re­main in the United Sta·tes. Critical work related to the design of products and manufacturing processes would move overseas.

Because of the current domestic short­age of capacity to produce small cars, a significant part of Chrysler's market share would be taken over by imports so that our balance of payments would worsen, the dollar would weaken once again, and American jobs would be trans­ferred abroad.

These losses would have far-reaching consequences for U.S. jobs and the U.S. balance of payments. This year we will spend some $7 billion more on imports of motor vehicles and parts than we earn from their export. Chrysler's potential contribution to the subcompact market should make substantial inroads in the 25 percent of the domestic market now held by imports. This will help domestic employment, it will improve our balance of payments, and it will raise the inter­national value of the dollar. In so doing, it will help to combat the substantial part of our in:fla tion that has been caused by higher import costs due to the depreciat­ing dollar. If we let Chrysler go under, exactly the opposite will happen.

ECONOMJ:C l:MPACT OF A CHRYSLER FAJ:LURE

Second, Mr. President, a failure would cause tremendous job and production

losses in nearly all segment..s of the econ­omy.

Let us work through a scenario of what might happen in the event of a Chrysler collapse:

Chrysler directly. employs 140,000 workers: its suppliers employ an addi­tional 180,000 in Chrysler related work. Chrysler dealers and others employ 100,-000. All of these jobs would be threat­ened.

Once these income losses are felt, there will be sharply reduced consumer spend­ing by the unemployed workers. Also Chrysler will have to cancel its capital spending program. Both of these factors will send additional shockwaves through­out the economy adding, by modest esti­mates, another 200,000 to the unemploy­ment rolls. Therefore, if Chrysler were t.o go under in the next few months, total employment could fall by as much as 600,000 in 1980 and this could mean an increase in the national unemployment rate of 0.6 percentage points.

A Chrysler shutdown would cause tre­mendous economic losses for the minor­ity population since Chrysler is a major employer of black and Hispanic workers. In testimony before the Banking Com­mittee, S. Martin Taylor, director of the Michigan Employment Security Com­mission, estimated that the black unem­ployment rate, which now stands at 13.8 percent in Detroit, would increase to about 25 percent. Nationally, it is esti­mated that 1 percent of total black in­come is derived from Chrysler. That income is in jeopardy, and it is income the black economy cannot afford to lose.

In the recession of 1974-75, unemploy­ment in Detroit rose by 188,000 and the city's unemployment rate increased by 9 percentage points. A Chrysler shutdown would exceed those disastrous conditions except this time the disaster would be permanent.

Unemployment would also rise signif­icantly in many other States, including Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio to name but a few.

Claims that these workers would be absorbed smoothly by other employers :fly in the face of past experience with much smaller corporate failures. In light of the current recession and the regional dislocations that would result from a Chrysler collapse, these claims are cruel and irresponsible. A Chrysler collapse would certainly deepen and lengthen the period of recession and economic uncer­tainty that has already begun. What scares me most is that we really do not know where and how the trouble would stop. It would be reckless to assume there would be a modest impact.

SEVERE REGIONAL DISLOCATIONS

Third, a Chrysler collapse would bring depression conditions in many regions across this country. The effects on De­troit, St. Louis, and several other areas have been extensively described in the press.

The regional effects on unemployment would be substantial. In his Banking Committee testimony, S. Martin Taylor noted that a Chrysler shutdown would eliminate 3.5 percent of all manufactur­ing jobs in St. Louis, 13.6 percent in Kokomo, Ind., 11.7 percent in New Castle,

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 29271

Tnd., and 9.5 percent in the Detroit met­ropolitan area. Mr. Taylor went on to say that:

Ohrysler . . . represents a significant por­tion of the total employment in those areas, and if there was a total shutdown of the corporation ... the prospects for .re-em­ployment would be tough.

The reasons cited by Mr. Taylor are the generally slow growth of the manu­facturing sector in the country, and the location of Chrysler facilities in the older industrial cities that have experienced the slowest job growth, particularly in the manufacturing sector, and in smaller communities such as Kokomo where Chrysler provides a high percentage of total employment.

What are we going to do with these displaced workers? Even if they were re­located, it is doubtful whether they could find jobs without massive retrain­ing efforts because Ford and GM do not appear to need this work force and be­cause further inroads will be made by foreign automakers.

My distinguished colleague, Senator TsoNGAS, has movingly described to the Banking Committee the long-term eco­nomic, social, and psychological conse­quences that resulted from the loss of a large number of firms in Lawrence, Mass., 30 years ago. The effects are still being felt. Other Senators also know firsthand that we are playing with dyna­mite if we underestimate the conse­quences of a do-nothing policy.

I have studied the impact of a Chrysler failure on automotive suppliers. Some 20,000 firms sell goods and services to Chrysler. I think many Senators will be surprised to discover the importance of Chrysler to numerous small communities within their States. In many instances these suppliers are the major employer for a whole town.

Chrysler is less vertically integrated than Ford and GM and therefore relies heavily on its many suppliers. Conse­quently, a reduction in employment at Chrysler carries with it a loss of business and employment for a vast number of other firms. Because the other major auto companies are vertically integrated, many of Chrysler's suppliers would have nowhere else to turn for business.

Mr. President, much of the discussion of the past and present ineffi.ciencies of Chrysler overlook a vital"fact. It is that a Chrysler failure will bring down in its wake many small firms that are effi.cient, technologically advanced, innovative, aggressive, and vital elements of our economy. ·

A Chrysler failure would do further damage to regional economies because of its serious impact on the solvency of the Federal/ State unemployment com­pensation system.

The unemployment compensation sys­tem still has not recovered from the im­pact of the 1974-75 recession, the deepest and longest since the Great Depression of the 1930's. During that recession, State unemployment insurance programs proved unable to maintain benefit pay­ments without massive Federal loans and/ or cost-raising increases in employer payroll taxes. As a result, the outstand-

ing indebtedness of the States to the Federal Government still stands at more than $5 billion, with Illinois; Massachu­setts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania alone having a col­lective trust fund debt of $4.1 billion.

The inability of States to repay these outstanding debts caused both Federal and State unemployment insurance taxes to be raised substantially. Under present law, employer payroll tax increases are mandated if a State is unable to repay its loans. These increased employer­based payroll taxes, together with esca­lating social security taxes, add signifi­cantly to labor costs. They will raise the prices of goods and services. They will further undermine the competitive abil­ity of businesses within the affected States, even if they are unrelated to Chrysler.

HUGE BUDGETARY COSTS OF DOING NOTHING

Fourth, Mr. President, if Congress stands idly by and lets Chrysler collapse, the costs to the Federal, State, and local taxpayers would be so high that they would dwarf any costs related to a pru­dent program of financial assistance.

The 1980 job loss would translate into a reduction in GNP of some $18 to $20 billion. As a consequence Federal tax rev­enues would be reduced at least $4.5 bil­lion, not to mention the tax losses at the State and local levels. In addition, trans­fer outlays for unemployment compen­sation, welfare, and food stamps all will have to rise, at an additional budget cost of at least $1 billion.

The Banking Committee has heard testimony from the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. that existing Federal loan pension guarantees cover a short­fall of about $1 billion. If we do not act to prevent Chrysler's collapse, well over 100,000 vested and unvested workers will find themselves dependent on an insuf­ficient pension fund, and the Federal Government will be obligated by law, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, to contribute almost a billion dollars to cover the existing pension guarantees.

Thousands of federally insured home mortgages would be threatened with de­fault and HUD would incur costs reach­ing hundreds of millions of dollars. Costs totaling $90 to $120 million are pro­jected for the Detroit area alone.

Many promising economic and com­munity development projects for which Federal funds and guarantees have been committed would also be endangered.

At a bare minimum, the total Federal budget loss would be $6 billion, with a more likely total of some $10 billion. Additional billions of dollars in losses would be suffered by State and local governments. Viewed from this perspec­tive, possible Federal loan guarantees in the amounts that have been suggested as necessary would be cheap at the price.

CONCLUSION

Mr. President, I look forward to a thorough debate on this bill and the is­sues it addresses.

I am confident that a careful examina­tion of the evidence will indicate that Chrysler can become profitable again if

it receives assistance sufficient to finance the investments needed to modernize its facilities, increase its ability to supply the small car market, and ride out the recession. I have outlined the costs of a failure above, and they are enormous. When weighed against the benefits and probability of success, it seems clear that such assistance is justified. Assistance to Chrysler would maintain the com­pany's capital spending program and thereby greatly enhance the value of its facilities to the Nation and provide im­portant industrial capacity to meet for­eign small car competition. Even if those modernized facilities would ultimately be taken over by foreign companies, the jobs provided would be American jobs.

Just 14 years ago Chrysler was a growing, vibrant company with an al­most 20 percent market share. I can foresee this happening again given the new leadership in the company, Govern­ment assistance through this crucial period, and starting with a 10-percent market share base.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Let me now emphasize certain facts that are important for anyone within the sound of my voice to consider. In the United States today we have a tremen­dous problem in our balance of payments deficit. The leading item in our deficit is, of course, oil. But what most people do not realize is that the second worst item in our balance of payments deficit today is the area of motor vehicles.

Last year, the United States ran a deficit of $7 billion in the trade account for motor vehicles, most of it in the form of foreign imports from Japan, West Germany, and other trading partners. There is absolutely no reason why this country should find itself in such an ad­verse trade position. But we are going to stay that way and it is going to get worse unless we understand the need to mod­ernize our own national motor vehicle industry and to do it within the tough and costly constraints that our own Government has imposed with respect to mandated standards in the three areas I mentioned earlier.

There is a profound balance of pay­ments effect.

In terms of jobs, if Chrysler were to go into bankruptcy today we are talking about the loss of up to 600,000 jobs across the United States, a reduction in GNP for the first year that can total $20 billion.

We are talking about increases to the Federal deficit that could run, in the first year alone, as high as $10 billion. It is ~asy to identify at a minimum a loss in tax revenues if Chrysler were to go into default of $4.5 b1llion to the Fed­eral Government which would directly increase the Federal deficit. ·

In addition to that, in recent Senate hearings we have already identified an additional pension guarantee loss to the Federal Government in excess of $1 bil­lion; an increase in Federal and State unemployment compensation cost of at least $1 billion, not to mention all the tax losses to State and local units of govern-ment.

29272 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979

When we take those dollar costs and we look beyond that to the wreckage that will occur in the lives of tens of thou­sands of people across the United States, many of them in my State of Michigan and in other States in the Midwest but ultimately all across the Nation, it makes no sense whatsoever for the United States to turn its back and inflict a wound on itself that is going to have these kinds of tremendously adverse effects on our whole country.

It is estimated that the increase in the unemployment rate nationally would be six-tenths of 1 percent. Coming at a time when we are in the midst of a recession, this development makes no sense what­soever.

Some have suggested that bankruptcy may be an answer to this problem. That is errant nonsense. We had in our hear­ings expert testimony from probably the No. 1 bankruptcy expert in the United States who has been handling these kinds of problems for the last two decades.

He testified without any equivocation that Chrysler could conceivably be tied up in the courts for as long as 5 years trying to sort out the equities if we were to allow a bankruptcy to take place. So that is not something that we ought to recognize as not a viable strategy from a going concern point of view.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. Under the previous order the Sena­tor from Missouri is recognized. AID TO CHRYSLER-AN ECONOMIC NECESSITY

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Michi­gan in submitting legislation to assist the financially troubled Chrysler Corp. Sena­tor RIEGLE has been outstanding in his leadership on this important problem.

The issue of aid to Chrysler already has provoked much heated discussion and frenetic news coverage. Un­doubtedly, the coming debate will stimu­late new clouds of rhetorical smoke. But I hope that, as the debate unfolds, my colleagues will keep a few salient facts in mind.

We must remember that Chrysler Corp. is not Just its president. It is not just 12 people sitting on a board of direc­tors. Chrysler is a network of manuf ac­turing and dealer facilities employing more than 300,000 people across our country. Chrysler represents nearly $8 billion in purchases and additional hun­dreds of thousands of jobs for Chrysler suppliers. Chrysler means nearly $4 bil­lion in payrolls invested in our Nation's banks and spent in our Nation's retail stores each year by Chrysler employees.

As these figures indicate, a Chrysler shutdown would have a devastating im­pact on all Americans. A study for the Congressional Budget Office predicts that a Chrysler failure would put as many as 600,000 people out of work and cause the loss of $19.3 billion in personal income through 1981. Many of those lost jobs would be permanently exported overseas.

A further consequence of a Chrysler collapse would be the continued concen­tration of American automobile produc­tion and .sales in the hands of the two giant manufacturers, General Motors

and Ford. These two companies now con­trol 67 percent of all U.S. auto sales; in the event of a Chrysler failure, that fig­ure would be likely to increase to 75 percent.

As any student of elementary eco­nomics knows, concentration in an in­dustry is fundamentally incompatible with vigorous competition. American consumers would pay a heaVY price for that lack of competition in the future.

Many have said that the Government should not help Chrysler because there is no place in our economic system for Government assistance to private enter­prise. But even the briefest survey of recent hist.ory shows a wide variety of instances in which the Federal Govern­ment has provided loan guarantees, and even direct Federal loans, to businesses when the benefits of such assistance were judged to outweigh the cost to the Gov­ernment. The Lockheed Corp. was brought back to financial health through a program of loan guarantees which cost the American taxpayers absolutely noth­ing. More recently, the steel industry re­ceived a total of $365 million in loan guarantees to safeguard jobs and help meet the costs of environmental regula­tion. The American people have assisted the shipbuilding and maritime indus­tries with a total of more than $5 billion in loan guarantees.

So the issue is not whether the Gov­ernment ever should intervene to assist private industry, or whether we would set a dangerous precedent by doing so in the Chrysler case. Clearly, such inter­vention already is more commonplace than most of us realize. And, clearly, the precedents in this area already have been set. The issue, then, is whether the benefits in this particular case outweigh the potential costs. On this basis, a Chrysler loan guarantee is solidly justi­fied. Assistance to Chrysler would save far more jobs with less risk to the Gov­ernment than either the steel or ship­building assistance programs.

The bill we are introducing today does not amount to unwarranted public in­terference in the private sector. It does not amount t.o a public takeover of Chrysler. It does provide for short-term relief, in the form of loan guarantees to be issued through 1983. It does pro­vide for tight public control over those loan guarantees. It does safeguard the taxpayers' interests, by giving the public prioritized collateral rights to Chrysler's assets.

Far from being a pernicious infiuence in the free market, our Chrysler pro­posal represents a form of occasional Government help which may be an es­sential tonic to keep the free market functioning smoothly.

Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, let me just say of the Senator from Missouri, who has given tremendous leadership to this issue, as has Senator LEVIN, of my State, as far a.s Senator EAGLETON is concerned he has really worked with great effort and over a long period of time to try to bring this problem into focus and to try to help bring about a prudent, a measured, and a sound re­sponse to what is clearly a strategic na­tional issue.

I wish to praise him for that effort and to acknowledge it at this time.

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague very much. He has in fact been the leader on this issue from its earliest inception. But for the atten­tion that he has focused upon it, the matter would be in vecy deplorable shape.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that any time I have remaining I be permitted to yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan.

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

Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Missouri for his kind comments, and for generously yield­ing his remaining time to me. I will not consume all of that time. I note my col­league from Michigan is ready to present his remarks. I will conclude my state­ment so that Senator LEVIN may proceed.

Let me say again to those who are here and might be listening that I hope that people who have a concern about this problem will take the time to study the evidence that we have assembled so far. The statement I am making today in its full detail, I think, lays out the key aspects of this problem. I hope that my colleagues will seriously consider becom­ing cosponsors today. If that is not a course of action which they wish to fol­low, then I ask them to keep an open mind on this issue until we have had the chance to commence full hearing in the Senate Banking Committee and to es­tablish clearly the dollar figure that seems appropriate in the Chrysler case.

I emphasize again that what we are proposing here is not a bailout of Chrys­ler. It is, in fact, something very differ­ent from that. What we are talking about here is a program of loan guarantees, very tightly written, very tightly con­trolled. It will enable this company to get through a most dim.cult financial period and to get back on its feet so that it can function in a profitable po­sition and so that it can modernize the tremendous number of facilities that Chrysler has which are vital to our own ability to produce the kind of cars that are needed in the f1:1ture; and to put us on a stronger footing in dealing with foreign competition.

We have to bear in mind that the Chrysler Corp. is the 10th largest corpo­ration in the country. Its sales last year were close to $13 billion. So the sheer size of the auto industry as a whole, some­thing close to 20 percent of our national economy, and therefore, the size of the third largest auto company is essential for us to understand so that we can see why the economic shock waves would be so devastating to the country as a whole.

The other day, someone said that Chrysler was the first automobile com­pany to experience this problem. I want to make sure for the record that every­one understands that that is not the case. The first company to get into serious fi­nancial difficulty, partly due to the pres­sure of Government regulations and standards, was the American Motors Co. The Federal Government responded and, I think, properly so, by providing relief in a number of forms: Tax credits, spe-

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29273 cial purchasing arrangements through GSA, relief from certain emission stand­ards, relief from antitrust requirements that allowed them to buy technology from other companies rather than have to spend to create the technology on their own. These were useful steps be­cause American Motors has since gotten on a strong financial footing. It is today a profitable company that has resumed paying dividends and has kept those jobs in place in our society. As I say, I sup­ported those initiatives and I would do so agiain.

Chrysler now comes along in an equiv­lent situation, not first, but second. That is why I think it is important that those who might want to target Chrysler for criticism ought to think very care­fully about that because, as I say, we have today numerous other examples. We have the Lockheed case in a differ­ent industry; we have the American Mo­tors example in the automobile industry. We have the recent EDA loan guarantees in the steel industry, which is immedi­ately adjacent to automobiles and which provides a lot of its product to the auto­mobile industry.

We presently have outstanding at the Federal level $240 billion worth of loan guarantees for every conceivable item under the Sun, ranking from shipbuild­ing to FHA mortgages, to a host of pro­grams in the field of agriculture, the steel loans that I have just mentioned, and so forth. So any suggestion that, somehow, the Chrysler situation breaks new ground is just not true. It breaks no new ground at all.

Having said that, I want to make it also very clear that I want the U.S. Gov­ernment to participate only on a basis that lays down tough, hard, fair condi­tions that fully protect the interests of the taxpayers. That is exactly what our bill would do.

Finally, let me say this: For some time now, the Treasury Department, in behalf of the administration and the Chrysler Corp. have been talking and working together to try to arrive at a formula of help for Chrysler that the administration could sponsor and send to the Congress. Unfortunately, those discussions have not yet reached a con­clusion and of course, here we are, mov­ing into new financial circumstances with new monetary policies and the high interest rates; the uncertainty in the capital goods industries with a reces­sion setting in. So every day that passes is a costly day. As a matter of fact, the Booz-Allen study on Chrysler, just revealed, indicates that if action had been taken 6 months ago to assist Chrysler, less money would have been needed than is needed today. It went on to say that if we wait another 6 months, more money will be needed in the future than would be needed if action were taken now.

In addition to that, we are coming down to the end of this legislative ses­sion, so time is of the essence for us to respond. With this bill today, we put the issue on the table legislatively. I am pre­pared to wait a matter of a few more days for the Treasury Department and Chrysler, hopefully, to have a meeting

of minds with respect to a specific pro­posal. I have reason to believe that will happen, and it ought to happen.

But if, for any reason, it should fail to take place within the constraints of the time pressure that we are under now, in the waning days of this session of Congress, I am going to seek formal hearings in the Senate Banking Com­mittee. Then we shall have to act on an independent basis to try to develop our own judgment about a dollar figure to seek, a loan guarantee figure. I have every reason to believe the Senator from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Com­mittee on Banking, my friend, will take a reasonable view toward conducting hearings on a problem as urgent as this one.

I know he has made it clear that he does not favor loan guarantees in the Chrysler situation; at least, that is his current position. But I know that, in the past, with respect to the New York City loan guarantees, where he also was opposed to loan guarantees, he was eminently fair as a chairman and moved on a timely basis, allowed the committee to act on the issue with hearings, with markup, and with action. The will of the committee was freely expressed despite his position to the contrary. I respect that past history on the New York issue and others. I trust we shall see the same in the Chrysler case. I have no reason to think we shall not.

In any event, we are at the place where action must take place now in the executive branch. I would be delighted to see the Treasury Depart­ment come forward in a short time with a specific proposal. I shall be delighted to work with them as we have done all along up to this point.

We have a companion blll moving for­ward in the House, with some slight dif­ferences, introduced by Congressman BLANCHARD and a number of other co­sponsors, which we hope to see in con­ference before this session ends, along with a blll that can come through the Senate based on the legislation that we have introduced today.

As I say, my full statement goes into much greater detail. I should like to ask those who have a sincere and deep in­terest in this issue to take the time to look at the detail, because I think it will answer many of your questions.

I also say that if anyone else has fur­ther questions that they would like to go into, I am available at any time and my stat! is available to sit down and dis­cuss this matter and provide inf orma­tion. If additional facts are needed, we are prepared to seek those facts and make them available to whoever might need them.

Mr. President, I know my colleague from Michigan <Mr. LEVIN) who has given great leadership anc! effort to this cause, is here and has a special order. I should like, at this point, to reserve the remainder of my time and ask that he be recognized if he would like to speak.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. The Senator from Michigan is rec­ognized for not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am delighted to Join

with Senator RIEGLE and the other co­sponsors of this bill in introducing legis­lation to assist Chrysler Corp., and t.o save the Treasury, the taxpayers, and the economy from the severe impact of a Chrysler failure. In doing so, I want to pay a special tribute to my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Michi­gan, for the extensive et!ort he has put into this project. I know he has spent lit­erally hundreds of hours discussing the issues with leading authorities, studying materials associated with previous gov­ernmental action of this type, and think­ing through the larger philosophic and economic issues associated with this problem. The blll he has drafted for in­troduction today reflects that work and it is one that I am delighted to support.

There are some obvious facts which I think need to me acknowledged from the outset. I, of course, have a particular bias as I approach this situation: My home State of Michigan would be the State most heavily affected by a Chrysler collapse. The city of Detroit would be devastated by a Chrysler collapse. And to that extent, I am probably not the most objective judge of this situation. But I do not think that geographic con­siderations have warped my judgment or influenced my thinking to the extent of making me abandon some basic prin­ciples and perspectives which I believe are widely shared in the Congress and which I believe compel us to assist Chrysler.

First, I believe in the fundamental free market structure of the American econ­omy. And I also believe that Federal as­sistance to Chrysler does not damage or modify the basic framework of a free market as we know it and practice it today.

Long ago, we made the decision that Government should intervene in the marketplace in order to assure the safety of the people and the well-being of the Nation. That decision led to the creation

. of the Small Business Administration, the passage of the Economic Develop­ment Act and a host of other similar pro­grams and agencies devoted to helping business enterprise.

Chrysler's request might, at first, ap­pear to set a precedent if one looks only at the size of the request-but, if one examines the basic nature of the request, there is no precedent established, there is no violation of the free market as we know it, and there is no violence done to the notion that. the private and public sectors ought to work together to achieve mutually supportive goals.

Second, I believe that we, as a Nation, are wiser and stronger if we act to pre­vent disaster than if we simply react. to it. If we refuse to assist Chrysler, or if we sit back and fail to make any deci­sion, we will be paying for it for years to come. The dimensions of a Chrysler failure are hard to fathom because they are so massive. A whole series of studi~ suggests that the cost to the GNP would approach 1 percent within the first year; unemployment would increase by 0.5 per­cent with areas like Detroit and St. Louis being particularly hard hit; direct costs to the Federal Government pension in­surance program would exceed $1 billion;

29274 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979

and the costs to Federal and State treas­uries in the form of unemployment com­pensation and welfare would cost billions more.

And these, Mr. President, are not only short-term effects. These are effects which will continue for years to come. The Chrysler work force will not be easily integrated into the economy because of the existing slack demand in the auto in­dustry and because of the geographic location of Chrysler facilities.

If we allow Chrysler to fail, we allow the economy and the employees to fail for a prolonged period of time. And during that time, we will all bear the economic and psychic scars created by a self-inflicted wound. And the wound will not be restricted to Chrysler. The impact of a failure of this magnitude will not be felt only in the auto industry. With Sec­retary of the Treasury Miller telling us recently that we have yet to feel the full impact of the current recession, one would be foolish to believe that there will not be a massive spillover from Chrysler to the general economy. So, Mr. Presi­dent, a failure to aid Chrysler will cost us. It will cost us now and in the future. It will cost us in terms of economic and human growth.

Third, I believe that, when the Govern­ment moves into the private sector, it should minimize the risk. I think this bill accomplishes that goal by securing our guarantees and giving the Government guaranteed loan priority standing among creditors.

We should also see to it that Govern­ment assistance is complemented by other interested parties. I believe that we are all aware that negotiations are un­derway with the UAW and with banks and with State governments and with local governments. Those negotiations are designed to bring all of them into the plan. The problem has been that they all want to see the Federal Government make it§ commitment first since they know that no action on their part-with­out Federal assistance-will be adequate.

By the same token, the Federal Gov­ernment has held back, in part because they have not seen action from the other affected parties. This game of "who will bell the cat" must end. We have before us legislation which makes clear there will be a Federal Government commit­ment while leaving plenty of room for the commitments of other interested parties. Once the broad framework of the commitment has been established, we can move to assure the widest possible participation from other parties. But that participation is less likely and less strong until there is a signal from Wash­ington, even if that signal is conditioned on others doing their share.

Any investment by the Government should also have a high probability of success. In this case, we need to be as­sured, to the extent that we can be, that a guarantee of the nature being proposed will in fact be sufficient. The amount of the guarantee seems to me to be the issue which is most open to debate, and that issue will need to be resolved in committee and on the :floor. Based on what I have read and based on the dis-

cussions I have had with knowledgeable industry observers, I believe that Chrys­ler can succeed, that their goals can be achieved, that they can return to a prof­itable and competitive posture in the in­dustry.

That cannot occur if they are forced into reorganization in bankruptcy; that cannot occur if they are forced to restrict their product lines; that cannot occur if they are denied Government assistance. But it can occur if we seek to help as well as regulate. It can occur if we act instead of delay. And it can occur if we are but willing to recognize our obligations. When we have done so in the past-as we have with Lockheed and with Amer­ican Motors and with the steel industry and with literally thousands of other businesses-the results have been satis­factory.

Any investment must recognize that the motive is to help workers. Several members will address the issue of em­ployee stock ownership as an element of any Federal plan. I am inclined to sup­port such an effort and this bill recog­nizes the desirability of it. Once we have had an opportunity to hear from the Treasury, from the company, and from the UAW and other unions, I am hopeful that we will have a firmer sense of pre­cisely how such a proposal would operate and precisely how it would contribute to the success of this venture. ·

Mr. President, I hope that all Mem­bers will keep an open mind on this sub­ject. I am confident that, as this legis­lation moves through the committee process, a hearing record will be devel­oped which will answer questions and re­move doubts.

And I urge my colleagues, no matter what their position on the merits of the issue, to cooperate in expediting the con­sideration of this legislation and other bills associated with it. I know full well that there are pressing issues before the Senate. But I also know that many of those issues will be around for years t o come-Chrysler may not be unless we act and act soon.

Obviously, I care about getting this leg­islation passed. But I also care about getting this legislation considered. I am more than willing to abide by the will of the Senate-I just want to be sure that the Senate gets an opportunity to ex­press that will in a timely fashion.

In this regard, I hope the Treasury Department will expedite its decision and get moving. They say they want to help. I am frankly less than satisfied with the strength or speed of the signals emanat­ing from the Treasury. I am less than en­thralled with their leadership, with their apparent decision to wait and see what others would do before they made a firm commitment to act and with their setting an arbitrary ceiling on the level of Fed­eral involvement even before they saw Chrysler's detailed statement of their needs and intentions.

I hope Treasury will reconsider that arbitrary ceiling in light of the Booz­Allen report which shows that the needs are greater than was estdmated a few months ago.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I again

want to commend my colleague from Michigan for his extraordinary leader­ship in this matter.

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

Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, if the Sen­ator will withhold that, I am about to yield back the remainder of my time.

I commend Senator LEVIN for an ex­cellent statement. I again acknowledge the tremendous leadership he has given in this issue. I thank him for his kind words and echo his appeal to all our col­leagues to keep an open mind on this issue and to give us a chance, in the weeks ahead, to get a full factual record out on the table, so that we can make careful and prudent decisions as to what the problem requires. I think it is some­thing we are in a position to lay out in a way that will satisfy all Members of the Senate, and we look forward to that opportunity.

I yield back the remainder of my time. e Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Chrysler Emer­gency Loan Guarantee Act. I consider temporary aid to Chrysler to be vital to the national interest. At present, we have two choices. We can either do nothing and let Chrysler slide into certain bank­ruptcy or we can provide the loan guar­antees which will allow Chrysler to sur­vive and prosper in the future.

Given our economy's precarious con­dition, I do not see that we really have a choice. Mr. President, let us consider the following facts. Chrysler employs ap­proximately 300,000 people directly in the United States and employs hundreds of thousands more indirectly through it.1 suppliers and dealers. A CBO stud~' has estimated that a Chrysler bank­ruptcy would put 600,000 people out of work and cause a loss of $19.3 billion in aggregate personal income by the end of 1981.

Wisconsin's stake in Chrysler's survival is less apparent than that of Michigan, Misso 1ri, or Indiana, but it is, nonethe­less, substantial. Chrysler has six facili­ties in Wisconsin, employing 950 people; 4,581 people in Wisconsin work on Chrys­ler parts for supplying firms. And Wis­consin's 167 Chrysler dealers employ 2,441 persons.

Mr. President, this legislation has been carefully and sensibly drafted. It would create a Board composed of the Secre­taries of the Treasury, Labor, and Com­merce with the authority to guarantee loans to Chrysler upon its certification of the necessity of such loans. The Board's loan guarantees could extend for up to 10 years at rates of interest to be controlled by the Board.

The bill would require thait all Govern­ment loan guarantees be fully collateral­'ized and provide for a variety of admin­istrative safeguards to protect the tax­payers' interests. The board's authority extend guarantees would expire in 1983. The bill provides no ceiling on loan guar­antees but it is my assumption that the hearing process will disclose what con­stitutes a proper ceiling level. The bill provides that $250 million or 25 percent of the loan guarantee will be provided through an employee stock ownership

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 29275

plan. The ESOP concept is one that I support and one that I believe has much to contribute to a Ohrysler revival.

Mr. President, most of the opposition to loan guarantees for Chrysler has been premised on the belief t'hat failing cor­porations ought not to receive public support. The survival of free enterprise, it is alleged, depends upon letting mis­managed companies go broke. With all respect to those who hold this view, it is too simplistic. We do not live in a pristine capitalist economy. We live in a complex, interrelated mixed economy where a business failure of this magnitude could and would have catastrophic "ripple" ef­fects. It also matters to me tlhat Chrysler employs tens of thousands of black workers in its Detroit plants and that if those people were to lose their jobs no amount of poverty programs could re­turn them to their present economic level.

Further, it ought to be noted that loan guarantees are given all the time by the Government with minimal public'ity and no measurable damage to the free enter­prise system. The shipbuilding industry has been so assisted and tihe steel indus­try recently got a $365-million loan guar­antee to help with antipollution costs. The Lockheed loan guarantee saved a company and the Government never lost a nickel. Proposals for loan guarantees ought to be weighed on an individual basis, not ritualistically condemned.

I have confidence in Chrysler's new management team, headed by chair­man Lee Iacocca. Chrysler's most recent sales figures are promising. Guar­anteeing loans for Chrysler is an invest­ment in the future. It is an investment in continuing competition in the automo­bile industry. And it is an investment in self-sufficiency for hundreds of thou­sands of American workers. It is, I have concluded, a worthwhile step to take.• • Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, today I join my distinguished colleague from Michigan <Mr. REIGLE) as a cosponsor of his bill to provide a program of assist­ance to Chrysler Corp. The provision of the bill that I find most appealing is the mandatory employee stock ownership plan, which I think will help solve Chrysler's long-run productivity prob­lems.

Today, the New York Times published a letter on this subject from Senators LONG, BYRD of West Virginia, NELSON, GRAVEL, STEWART, and myself, and Con­gressmen KOSTMAYER and MCHUGH. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows: ' [From the New York Times, Oct. 24, 1979]

IF CHRYSLER WORKERS WERE CHRYSLER STOCKHOLDERS

To the Editor: The Chrysler Corporation has recently been

in the news with its request for financial as­sistance from the Federal Government. such a. request raises an array of issues, one of which we would like to address.

A chief difficulty currently facing Ameri­can industry is the steady decline in produc­tivity. In the second quarter of this year U .S . nonfarmtng businesses suffered th~

sharpest drop in productivity since the Fed­eral Government started keeping &uch fig:.. ures, in 1947.: Although this problem ls. not as severe in the automobile industry as in other sectors of the economy, it has become so great a national problem that we feel it is an issue which must be kept in mind whenever t he American taxpayer is asked to assist a financially troubled company.

ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SENATOR TOWER VACATED

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the recognition of Senator TowER be vacated.

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

LINKAGE BETWEEN NATO REQUIRE­MENTS AND SALT II

If American business is to be competitive, we must find a way to reverse productivity's downward spiral. During the decade of 1967 to 1977, the United States was tied with Great Britain for the lowest productivity gains of Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I invite any major industrial nation in the Western the attention of the Senate to an edi­world. torial in the Washington Star today en-

If a beleaguered American corporation is to titled "Mr. Brezhnev and NATO." I be­be offered Federal assistance in any form, the form that assistance takes should be one tha.t lieve this editorial wisely urges that any directly addresses this productivity issue. linkage between the NATO decision on over the past several years, we have begun to stationing our new nuclear missiles on accumulate evidence indicating that em- European soil and the ratification of the ployee stock ownership may offer a solution SALT agreement be discouraged. A link­to this troublesome problem. age would be very dangerous, and I think

Employee stock ownership may offer a it is the kind of question that should be route by which we can move imaginatively d · 1 to reverse productivity's decline. For exam- pursue serious y and cogently, as I be-ple, a recent survey by the Senate Finance lieve this editorial does. Committee of almost 100 companies with I am going to join a group of Senators employee stock ownership plans indicates who will be traveling to Ottawa this that in the average three-year period since weekend to meet with parliamentarians the adoption of such a plan, as opposed to from various European nations. Un­an average corporate e.ge o! 24 yea.rs, the doubtedly, they will express their opin-responding companies: ions, as they did at the NATO parlia-

ReaUzed a 72 percent increase in sales. mentary meeting in Portugal last year, Realized a. 37 percent increase in number of employees. concerning the necessity for action on Realized a 157 percent increase in profits. SALT. The merit of employee stock ownership I hope we do not run into a situation in

can be easily summarized: Ownership which the consent that is necessary for counts. It seems to summon up a common us to modernize the NATO forces, as this determination to succeed. It creates a ell- editorial points out, in order to offset mate wherein a unity of interest and incen- existing Soviet bloc military strength, tive can emerge. If a company succeeds, its ·n b d success is widely shared. And its eventual w1 e con itioned upon our approval of success or failure is placed in the hands of a SALT II treaty that some of us think is those upon whom it's success or failure will defective in its current status. largely depend. Certainly the U.S. economy I note in this morning's New York can only be made stronger by providing the Times that Senator NUNN has expressed American worker with an opportunity to own a similar concern over the question of the tools and equipment with which he linkage as that to that expressed by the works. editorial in the Star.

In 1970, the United States guaranteed a Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-$250 million loan by a group of banks to Lockheed Aircraft corporation. This step was sent that the editorial from the Star and taken to assure the continued viabmty of the article from the New York Times, Lockheed. At that time, Lockheed directly setting forth Senator NUNN's concern and indirectly employed almost 400,000 in- over the linkage of the SALT II treaty dividuals; had we not guaranteed these with the decision on the part of the loans, these jobs could have potentially been NATO countries as to whether to allow lost. us to deploy nuclear missiles in Western

Today, Lockheed is a thriving corporation, Europe be printed in the RECORD at the these loans have been repaid and the Fed-eral Government actually realized a. profit conclusion of my remarks. because we received a. fee for guaranteeing The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­the loans. Had we required that Lockheed pore. Without objection, it is so ordered. establish an employee stock ownership plan • (See exhibit 1.) as part of its Federal assistance and contrib- Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, some of ute an amount of stock to the plan equal to r . $10 million, today that stock would be worth us ive m areas where we are able to ob-about $100 million. serve constantly the actions of the So-

This is not meant to indicate a.t this time viets. That is true, obviously, for the that each of the signatories to this letter Floridians. It is even more true for those either supports or opposes the granting of of us from my area of the country, Federal assistance to the Chrysler corpora- Alaska, and from the point of view of our tion. We do feel , however, that, should a.id Canadian neighbors. be offered, it should only be offered in such a way as to create an opportunity for a solu- I find it very interesting, as I pointed tion to this difficult productivity issue. Em- out to the press before the Senate con­ployee stock ownership seems to offer such an vened today, that the 5,500-mile limit, or opportunity.e minimum, for a missile to be classified

RECOGNITION OF ASSISTANT MINORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. The assistant minority leader is recognized.

as an ICBM came from a determination of the distance between Murmansk and Maine. It is very interesting that what is an ICBM for SALT I and SALT II is viewed only from the point of view o! what can strike the Atlantic Coast of the United States from Russia. It has no ap­plication whatsoever to the situation of

29276 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 24, 1979

the deployment of SS-20's in Siberia, so far as their ability to reach Alaska and Canada is concerned, or the ability of missiles such as SS-20's, which are not included in SALT II, to reach all the North American air defense facilities that are located in Alaska and Canada. Nor does it take into account the fact, as was pointed out to me this morning, that Hawaii is closer to Peking than it is to Washington, D.C.

I think it is high time that those peo­ple who are involved in negotiating trea­ties with the United States, in terms of the balance of our forces vis-a-vis the Russian bloc, take into account the fact that we have two coasts, that we have a total United States land mass that must be protected by our defense capability, and that this is not a strategic arms lim­itation treaty solely for the North Ameri­can Atlantic Alliance. This is true for the concept of defense of not only of the NATO countries but also of the United States as a whole.

I, for one, hope that our friends and allies in the NATO countries do not tell us that their consent to locate cruise missiles in Europe is going to be condi­tioned upon the approval of SALT. If that occurs, I predict the deterioration of the NATO alliance rather quickly; be­cause I do not believe that we can con­dition our ability to def end our European neighbors upon agreeing to a treaty in a form we do not find acceptable.

I hope they can bear with us as we go through the process of debate and change of this SALT II agreement.

EXHIBIT 1

NUNN WARNS AGAINST TYING ARMS PACT TO MissILES

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23.--Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat of Georgia, said today that at­tempts by the Carter Ad.ministration and leaders of allled governments to link Senate approval of the strateg;ic arms treaty with a decision to deploy medium-range missiles in Western Europe could "shake the very foun-dations of the alliance." ,

In an Interview, Senator Nunn, an infi.u­ential member of the Armed Services Com­mittee, strongly criticized statements by President Carter and other senior omcia.ls warning that a failure to amrm the new arms accord would lead to a politicaJ crisis within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The Senator challenged assertions on both sides of the Atlantic that a !allure by the Senate to approve the a.rms treaty might lead all1ed governments to reject an Ameri­can plan !or stationing a new generation o! nuclear missiles in Europe.

"I! the Europeans are concerned a.bout their own security," he said, "the moderniza­tion o! theater nuclear forces wm go on re­gardless of what happens to the SALT treaty."

Senator Nunn said that the alllance's !all­ure to approve the Administration's plan for stationing new missiles in Europe could lead to a review o! the American role in NATO.

Several Administration otncials said that the Senator's position could interfere with the delicate diplomatic campaign now being waged to get NATO governments to approve a plan !or stationing misstles on their territory.

In hearings today before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary o! Defense Harold Brown said that four different NATO governments recently told the Administra­tion that failure to approve the arms treaty would da.inage chances for gaining approval of the Aclm1.n1stratton's proposal on station­ing mtsslles.

Ma. BREZHNEV AND NATO Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev is In the

midst of an uncommonly overt effort to crack the unity of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on the need for modernization. The Russian leader has written to European heads of government to press his otrer o! a.n insignificant Soviet pullback from East Germany if NATO drops a plan for medium­range nuclear missiles. The allies are sup­posed to decide on the question next month.

The latest Brezhnev pitch ls the same as it was in his lnltlaJ announcement. He seeks, in part, to convince the Western Europee.n.s that they would be safer from attack with­out the new missiles deployed, and particu­larly without having them on their soil. His argument cannot be reconciled with the premise of NATO--that the Soviet bloc's mili­tary strength requires a credible defensive posture by the West. The 572 new warheads, mostly on cruise missUes, would not put NATO ahead but would merely otrset Soviet missiles already aimed westward. I! relative weakness were the way to inspire benign treatment by Moscow, then NATO need never have been formed in the first place.

AB clear as the choice !or the Western allies appears to be, the Brezhnev bid is troublesome. Several o! the NATO countries already have quaJms about having nuclear missile bases within their borders. (The West Germans don't want to be the only hosts !or the new missiles.) Some leftist po­litical parties in the West can be expected to seize on any anti-nuclear issue, as they did with the scrapped plan !or the neutron warhead. The Brezhnev gesture may seem to provide a sequel, at least in the thinking of edgy government omctals.

A complication In the U.S.-European dis­cussion of the question is the insistence of a number of NATO a.mes on linking their backing o! the new missiles with the ratifi­cation of the SALT II treaty by the Senate. The mmtary logic of this linkage is elusive. I! SALT II !alls, that wm make it all the more urgent to keep up NATO's defenses. The opposite result, rationalized as despair over a breakdown o! American leadership, would be a dangerous exercise in defeatism. Its significance would not be lost on Moscow.

Again, the chink in the West's armor is political, with the rhetoric of detente over­shadowing ha.rd security considerations In the democratic give and take. The Carter administration is trying to make the best of a tricky situation by using the NATO allies' threat of no-missiles-without-SALT as an argument !or ratification. We hope the dubious connection between the two issues can be broken if events require.

The NATO a.mes would be wise to ignore both the U.S. Senate debate and the calcu­lated offer of Mr. Brezhnev in considering the need !or modernization. The pertinent considerations are contained in the array o! NATO and Warsaw Pact forces, in which thoughtful observers see growing perU !or the West. I! there are to be mutual reduc­t.tons o! forces in Europe, these will come a..q a result of tough-minded negotiations from strength-not from a. Brezhnev cam­paign to split NATO.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest tihe absence of a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. Will the Senator withhold that request?

Mr. STEVENS. I do withhold it. Mr. President, a parliamentacy in­

quiry: Upon the completion of my time, will that trigger the order for routine morning business?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pcre. The Senat.or is correct.

Mr. STEVENS. Then, I withhold the request, and I yield back my time.

ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­

pore. Under the previous order, there will now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, for not t;o ex­ceed 15 minutes, with statements therein limited to 5 minutes each.

Is there morning business? Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I sug­

gest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­

pore. The clerk will call the roll. The second assistant legislative clerk

proceeded to call the roll. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask

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

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

VERMONT SENATOR'S SPEECH HER­ALDED McCARTHY'S END

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know that many of my colleagues are admirers off ormer U.S. Senator Ralph Flanders of Vermont, and many knew Sena.t.or Flan­ders when he was alive.

Recently an excellent article was writ­ten about Senator Flanders by one of Vermont's best newspaper writers, Bar­nev Crosier.

I wish to share it with my friends and colleagues, as Senator Flanders is one of the greatest Sena.t.ors Vermont has ever sent to this body. Certainly, he will rank with Senator Justin Morrill among the flnest Vermonters to have the privi­lege t.o serve in the Senate.

At a time when most were afraid to speak up against excessive Mcoarthyism, Senator Flanders spoke out loud and clear. The courage of his act was demon­strated by tlhe fact that he was initially joined by only one other New Englander. Senator Margaret Chase Smith from Maine.

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 Rutland Herald, Aug. 26, 1979) VERMONT SENATOR'S SPEECH HERALDED

McCARTHY'S END (By Barney Crosier}

SPRINGFIELD.-A forum in the First Con­gregational Church in Springfield 25 years ago has been tagged as a turning point in the nation's post-World War II torment over "McCarthyism."

For it was that forum tha.t spurred the late U.S. Sen. Ralph E. Flanders o! Spring­field into action ... the one that ended with the censure of the senator responsible !or the sickness dividing the nation.

It was a meeting o! the "First Friday Forum"-gathering on the first Friday ot every month-and at lea.st 100 people were out to hear Flanders, home !rom Washing­ton for the weekend, speak about the na­tion's problems.

"I don't recall that he mentioned Mc­Carthy (the late U.S. Sen. Joseph R. Mc­Carthy, R-Wis.) during his speech," said Springfield podiatrist Dr. Walter G. Wether­head recently.

But people at the meeting hit Flanders wlth a barrage o! criticism about McCarthy's

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29277 actlvltles as chairman of the senate Perma­nent Investigations Subcommittee.

It was a national and international issue­McCarthy's bulldozing tactics in his drive to ferret Communists out of every nook and cranny of American governmental and civil­ian institutions.

He had, as Flanders remarked later, divided the nation ln a time when unity was of paramount importance.

Se.id Flanders in June, "Race ls set against race, party against party, religion against religion, neighbor against neighbor, and child against parent."

That statement was made three months after the forum ln the Congregational Church and almost as long after Flanders dell vered his first speech against McCarthy March 9, 1954. It was a Tuesday.

That first speech shook the nation back to reallty and gave moderate people a chance to refiect on just what the Wisconsin sena­tor was doing. It brought accolades from people across the breadth of the continent, including the comment by then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower that Flanders had performed "a real service" in the speech that was heard by no more than a dozen senators.

Flanders appeared at the church forum March 5, and Elizabeth French of Spring­field, his secretary at the time, believes it was the crowd's criticism of McCarthy that led to the Vermont senator's decision that the hour was at hand for a publlc statement on the matter.

She said Flanders handed her his hand­written draft of the speech Monday morn­ing, March 8, in Washington. She had it typewritten for his delivery the next day.

French said she didn't know the exact de­tails of his decision-making as far as the speech was concerned, but feels there ts no doubt about the impact of the church forum.

"They tackled him, and he went home and wrote the speech on yellow foolscap. He handed it to me for typing Monday morning."

Ruefully, she added, "I typed it and de­stroyed the original. I've always regretted lt."

Neither French nor Wetherhead believes that the First Friday Forum changed Flan­ders• thinking on the subject of McCarthy and his tactics in the search for communists ln and out of government.

"I just have a feeling," said French. "that this group stimulated his action."

Wetherhead noted, "The whole McCarthy attitude was completely foreign to senator Flanders' thinking."

The Springfield podiatrist, who had at­tended the Friday forums since returning home from World War II, added, "I don't think our comments did any more than galvanize h1s thinking into action."

The Vermont senator might also have been "galvanized to action" by other signs of the times-letters to editors, the avalanche of critical questions by Australians when he and Mrs. Flanders visited that nation in 1953. and comments by students at Antioch Col­lege where the senator and his wife spent a week in residence in October of 1953.

(Helen H. Brown, a Salisbury woman. wrote a letter to the editor of the Rutland Herald on March 3, 1954, calling on Flanders and his colleague, U.S. Sen. George D. Alken, R-Vt .. to challenge McCarthy. The letter said the country's atmosphere reminded her of the mood in Germany that allowed Hitler to gain control of the government.)

In his autobiography. senator From Ver­mont. published by Little, Brown & co. tn 1961, Flanders wrote of the image McCarthy was creating for the nation. He told of his "valued contM:ts with individual students" at Antioch when he was working on his book Letter to a Generation.

Whlle there is no doubt the "contacts" gave him insight into the younger genera­tion's worry about McCarthy, he mentioned the division of the nation more speciftcally tn his comments about the visit to Australia.

CXXV--1841-Part 22

Flanders said he was subjected tO~ :-;,per­sistent" questioning by the press in Mel­bourne where "the same question appeared and reappeared at luncheons, dinners and informal meetings."

The senator continued in his memoirs, "At last it became clear that the impression was gaining ground that an American brand of Naziism was in the process of formation.

"Of course this was absurd, as I tried to explain, but there were some things I couldn't explain-even to myself ...

THE M'CARTHY IMAGE

He went on to mention a vltriollc attack by McCarthy on another senator some years previous, the "fascination or fear in which the Wisconsin senator was held" and the tactics used ln probing for subversive ele­ments in the American society.

Flanders reported in his book that the Australian trip ma.de him realize that "in the outside world, McCarthy was the United States and the United States was McCarthy."

His next statement shows that Flanders had decided, while visiting Australia, that something had to be done.

"The conviction grew," he stated, "that something had to be done about this, even 1f I had to do it myself."

Thus, his mind was made up, but it ap­parently took the First Friday Forum ln Springfield to tell him that action couldn't be delayed.

Interesting to note are the feelings of the late senator's family about his leading role in what proved to be a historic turning point for the nation.

In the Flanders' autobiography, there ts a reference to a hurried call ma.de by his son, James F. Flanders, to the senator following a speech at Middlebury College where, lt seemed to some anti-McCarthy people, the senator was too tolerant of the Wisconsin lawmaker.

The younger Flanders recalled that episode and the call to his father, who assured him that he wasn't getting "soft" on McCarthy, but had only acknowledged a possible chang- · ing of McCarthy's attitude.

James Flanders said his father drafted his speeches in his own handwriting on yellow legal papers: "The speech about McCarthy donning his warpaint-I know he wrote that by hand in the book room at Smiley Manse."

Smiley Manse was the Flanders• big brick house on Cherry IDll in Springfield.

"He would set himself up in the book cor­ner with his dictionary and book of quota­tions," said the son, who at the time was at the MassM:husetts Institute of Technology doing advanced work on guidance control of military aircraft and missiles.

HAWKISH IN RETROSPECT

While most people-especially when look­ing back 25 years-think of Flanders as a "progressive" or even "liberal" senator, his son pointed out that he would have been considered a "hawk"' by current standards. He was exceptionally worried about commu­nist encroachment on undeveloped nations around the world.

But he was. historically, a man necessary to the time in which he lived-a time de­scribed in Congress and the Nation, 1945-1964, published by Congressional Quarterly Inc., as torn by a single question: "Is com­munism in the United States a political movement, or ls lt a treasonable conspiracy?"

It continued, "To advocates of the conspir­acy viewpoint. restrictions on communistic activities and inquiries into communistic beliefs and associations were a necessary ad~ junct to stiffer sabotage and espionage laws.

"To those who looked on communism as a polltlcaJ. movement, such restrictions and in­quiries were seen as unconstitutional. Pas­sions ran high on both sides of the issue."

Th06e passionate !eellngs were best exem­pllfted ln the publlc statemenJt.a of McCarthy

himself, and that ls probably why he was a hero to so mainy, even though frightening. or sickening, to others. '

"Joe McCarthy really censured himself," reoalled former U.S. Sen. George D. Alken at h1s home in Putney recently.

Alken noted that the Wisconsin senator had one of the best lawyers avallable, Everett Bennett wm1ams; to help him prepare "a good speech" that was dell.vered by McCarthy from the ftoor during the debate on his cen­sure.

"He finished lt and then went into a dia­tribe.'' Alken added.

"No, I didn't taJk with Ralph (Flanders) a.bout lt. He went ahead fully on his own, and there was nothing left for the rest of us to do but censure him."

Alken saJ.d McCarthy was "a nice guy to meet, but I think he had troubles he couldn't help.

"Joe ma.de lt impossible for the rest of ua to support him," Alken concluded.

The Putney octogenarian noted during the discussion that he read and signed the "Dec­laration of Conscience" by then-Sen. Mar­garet Chase Smith, R-Maine. It was a fa.t.r­play document originated by Smith at the height of the MCC&l'thy uproar.

The fact that Flanders played the leading role ln censuring McCarthy is a source of pride for his daughter, Elizabeth Ballard of Norwich, and she belleves her husband, Wll­llam BaJ.lard, might have had some lnfiuence on the senator two days after the First Fri­day Forum in Springfield.

Flanders went to visit his daughter and her husband ln Norwich Saturday night and stayed through Sunday. There was some talk Sunday about the McCarthy matter.

"My husband was needling him about why he didn't do something about lt," saJ.d Mrs. Bailard.

Two days later the Vermont sena.tor was in the limelight after dellver1ng h1s initial speech in his challenge to the W1.scons1n lawmaker.

THE HEARING ROOM

But Mrs. Ballard remembers more clearly the day of her father's censure speech. It was prior to that speech that Flanders went into McCarthy's hearing room and handed the Wisconsin sen.a.tor a written notice of what he (Flanders) intended to do.

McCarthy was angered by Flanders' a.ppear­ance at the hearing and had omcers escort the Vermonter-with a smtle--from the room. Flanders then went to rthe Senate floor to deliver the speech that proved to be the turning point for McCarthy and McCarthy­ism.

The senator's daughter had friends 1n for coffee that day. They were Australians who she had invited. to meet her slater, Nancy Ballvet, who was just back from a year 1n Australia.

Whlle the guests were there, Dlllys Laing of Norwich telephoned Ballard to tell her of the big television news concerning Flan­ders appearance at McCarthy's hearing and then offering the censure motion.

"My Australian friend said, 'You must be awfully proud of your father,'" Mrs. Ballard recalled.

The Norwich woman is still proud of the role he played in what tumed out to be · only the fourth censure of a senator since the nation was founded.

What did the senator say March 9, 19M, that gave so many Americans new hope?

To keep the moment ln perspective, lt should be remembered that McCarthy'• tactics ln the hearings before his 1nvest1-gatlve committee were of a nature that amazed his Senate colleagues, alarmed moderate people and frightened. anybody called before the committee.

It was a time when he was digging "com­munists" out of the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Army, Harvard University,

29278 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 24, 1979 labor unions, the press and, during the hot summer of 1954, out of the White House itself.

BETTER SILENT THAN PINK

There were few who dared challenge him because t,o do so would gain the challenger a "pink" label. He could immediately be branded a "fellow traveler"--sympa.thetic with the Communist Party if not a mem­ber.

Though some Dem-0erats had jabbed away at McCarthy, few Republlcans had said a word in opposition. An exception is a speech March 2, 1954, in which Republican National Chairman Leonard W. Hall criticized. the McCarthy tactics.

By that date, 2,427 "security risks" had been removed from the federal govern­ment's payroll and McCarthy said 90 percent of them were "subversive."

The day following Hall's statement, Eisen­hower objected during a press conference to "a disregard for the standards of fair play" in congressional probes.

It was March 5 when McCarthy called ofr the $2-milllon slander suit he had brought against then-Sen. William Benton, D-Conn. The Connecticut senator, in 1951, accused McCarthy of perjury, fraud and deceit in his campaign against people he called "sub­versive."

On March 7, two days after the church rorum, Flanders told the Rutland Herald ln an interview that McCarthy "has gone past his usefulness" and that something should be done to curb the Wisconsin sena­tor's activities.

That same day, Democratic National Chairman Steohen Mitchell was charging Eisenhower with responslblltty for McCar­thy's actions, and Adlai Stevenson, who had lost to Eisenhower in the presidential elec­tion of 1952, branded the Reoubllcan Party "half-McCarthy and half-Ike."

FLANDERS SPEAKS

Into the breach, unheralded, stepped Ver­mont's junior senator.

Speaking to a. handful of senators Tues­day morning, Flanders deplored the fa.ct that McCarthy was in New York and couldn't hear the speech.

He then offered the thought that the Wisconsin man "puzzles some of us," and wondered with which party McCarthy was amliated.

Flanders charged the Red-hunting senator with splitting the Republican Party and the nation, taking attention away from the im­portant business of the day--containing communism around the world.

The Springfield man-a. high school grad­uate who had become president of two machine tool firms, a. member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and of former Presi­dent Franklin D. Roosevelt's War Production Board--compared McCarthy to a woman who takes over someone else's home and starts looking for dirt.

Flanders admitted there ls usually a lot of noise on such occasions, but said he has "never seen nor heard anything to match the dust and racket of this particular job of housecleaning."

He added, "Is the necessary housecleaning the great task before the United States, or do we face far more dangerous problems ... ?"

Flanders said McCarthy's headline-grab­bing ventures were diverting the nation's at­tention from Korea, Indochina, Italy, France and England-lands that were in need of this country's attention and help as ~hey fought to maintain their governments in the face of communist challenges.

He said the attack was coming from out­side the country, not from within, and he warned his colleagues, "Look out, Senators, and see what is creeping upon us."

It was a time when containment of the communist ideology was this country's pop­ular cry, and Flanders chastised McCarthy

for not paying heed to what the Vermonter felt was the real danger.

"He dons his war paint. He goes into his war dance. He emits his war whoops.

"He goes forth to battle and proudly re­turns with the scalp of a pink Army dentist (Maj. Irving Peress, a. Camp Kilmer, N.J., Army dentist investigated by McCarthy's committee) ...

"If we cannot view the larger scene and the real danger, let him return to his house­cleaning ... but let him not so work as to conceal mortal danger in which our country finds itself from the external enemies of mankind."

TBJ: REACfION

The speech was a sensation, and the next day Vonda Bergman reported to the Herald that Flanders was unable to appear on the Senate floor because of the flood of telephone ca.118 and telegrams, said to run 6-1 in his support.

One message called his speech "a fine ex­ample of Vermont courage, humor and de­cency," while another told hdm, "Your re­marks brought a breath of clean, fresh air from the Green Mountains."

Two Senate colleagues, John Sherman cooper, R-Ky, and Herbert Lehman, D-N.Y., were among those who heaped praise on the Vermont senator.

The editor of a. national publication said: "It was one of the few recent indications that the Republican Party on Capitol Hill is not wholly devoid of courageous moral lead­ership."

And the Rutland Herald allowed edll.torially that "the effect of the speech was to hearten that vast majority of Americans who hate communism but who also revere the Con­stitution."

But Flanders hadn't finished the task. It was June 1, 1954, when he addressed

the senate on "the colossal innocence of the junior Senator from Wisconsin."

Comparing McCarthy to "Dennis the Men­ace" of cartoon fame, the Vermonter deliv­ered a scathing address in which he lam­basted the Wisconsin man for dll.vlding the nation.

"In every country in which communism has taken over," he reminded the senate, "the beginning has been a successful cam­paign of division and confusion."

He marveled at the way the Soviet Union was winning mdlitary successes in Asia with­out risking its own resources or men, and said this nation was witnessing "another ex­ample of economy of effort ... In the con­quest of this country for communism."

He added, "One of the characteristic ele­ments of communist and fascist tyranny ls at hand as cdtizens are set to spy upon each other.

"Were the junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the communists, he could not have done a better Job for them.

"This is colossal innocence, indeed." During his spee.ch, Flanders noted McCar­

thy's attacks upon some American Jews, and the Wisconsin man called the speech "a vicious and dishonest thing."

MOVE TO CENSURE

It was 10 days later that Flanders launched hds move through which the senate even­tually--on Dec. 2, 1954--condemned McCar­thy. The Vermonter's grounds for the pro­posed censure were based primarily on Mc­Carthy's refusal to cooperate with the elec­tions subcommittee investigating sen. Ben­ton's charges of fraud and deceit.

Flanders maintained "it is surely clear" that McCarthy treated the members of the subcommittee "with contempt."

The Vermonter said "it ls no defense to call the charges a. smear"-whdch McCarthy had done-because a smear is easily handled.

"There is this about a smear," he intoned. "It ca.n be removed by a. dry-cleaning process which involves a vigorous application of the

truth. That process the senator was unwill­ing to apply."

Getting at the truth apparently meant a lot to Flanders. His monument bears the in­scription, "Ye Shall Know the Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free."

The dictum dominates the spot where he was buried the spring after his death on Feb. 19, 1970, at the age of 89. His widow, Helen Hartness Flanders, died May 23, 1972, and is buried beside him. ·

In that censure speech of June 11, 1954, Flanders asked specifically that McCarthy be stripped of his chairmanship of the Commit­tee on Government Operations and of any of its subcommittees.

Showing that he would give McCarthy one last chance, Flanders told the Senate he wanted his motion to "lie on the table until sumcient time has been given for the senator from Wisconsin to purge himself of con­tempt."

Speaking at the commencement ceremony at the Georgia Institute of Technology in At­lanta. three days later, Flanders explained his actions succinctly with the charge that the Wisconsin senator was following "a course that leads to facisim."

A BITTER SUMMER

It was a long, bitter summer that followed, with campaigns for the mid-term Congres­sional elections in full swing and McCarthy charging the Democrats with "20 years of treason."

The so-called "Communist Control Act of 1954" wa.s passed that year as the Demo­cratic Party's answer to McCarthy's charges.

The Wisconsin anti-communist crusader had attacked Dr. Na.than Pusey, president of Harvard University, for refusing to fire a pro­fessor who had used the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to back his refusal to tes­tify at one of McCarthy's hearings.

He had also had a. run-in with Brig. Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker over the general's refusal to reveal the names of omcers who had or­dered the honorable discharge of Peress, for whom McCarthy wanted a. court martial.

The subcommittee chairman told Zwicker he was "not flt to wear the uniform."

The Army-McCarthy hearings earlier had consumed 35 days during which as many as 20 million viewers, a huge audience for that day, watched the draxna.

McCarthy referred to his own censure hearing in 1954 as "a lynch party." He called the select committee the "unwitting hand­maiden" and "involuntary agent" of the Communist Party.

The hearings-not as spectacular as Mc­Carthy's productions on communist infiltra­tion of the Army or Department of State-­ended with a committee recommendation for censure. The report was made public Sept. 27, the day before Flanders' 74th birthday.

The senate was called into special session after the Nov. 2 elections (Republican Jo­seph B. Johnson was elected governor of Vermont, but Democrats took control of both Houses in Washington) and spent two weeks debating the McCarthy consure motion.

M'CARTHY CONDEMNED

When it was finally approved on a 67-22 vote, it used the word "condemn" rather than "censure," so many felt it was not ac­tually a "censure."

However, old hands in the Senate pointed out that the historical word for a censure was "condemn," and the Rutland Herald re­ported it as both a censure and condemna­tion.

The body condemned Mccarthy for ob­structing the constitutional processes of the Senate by refusing to cooperate with the committee investigating Sen. Benton's alle­gations of fraud and deceit.

It also condemned him for referring to the select committee as & "handmaiden of com­munism."

Republicans in the Senate were split 22-22

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29279

on the issue, but Democrats stood solldly in favor of taking e Wisconsin lawmaker otr his lofty perch.

The day of the big decision, McCarthy told news reporters he would go back to his task of "digging out communists," but he never a.ga.ln held the power that ha.d ca.taipulted him to fa.me, or infamy, in the yea.rs after World Wa.r II.

Generally, the period of McCairthylsm, de­soribed by the Hera.Id edltoria.lly a.s "a. reign of terror," ended when the Senate approved Flanders' censure move.

In the yea.rs that followed, many of the hastily drawn a.nd approved anti-commu­nism laws were repealed or allowed to die quiet deaths without enforcement.

McCarthy himself died in 1957, a victim a!! the effects of a.l~oholism.

The Vermont senator concluded, "Joe Mc­Ca.rthy wa.s indeed a. man to be pitied.

"The burden he bore wa.s that of a deep inferiority complex. For this, he found rel1ef in bullying witnesses, slurring associates a.nd garnering hea.dl1nes

"In the pursuit of hea.dl1nes he ha.d a. masterly success, a.nd the bullying and slurring provided a.ccepta.ble jouirnalistic materia.1.

"The press of our country must &ha.re in the blame for this unfortunate period in our history."

Whatever blame the press might bear !o:r highlighting the McCarthy antics, it also gave a. big play to Flanders' move to cut the Wisconsin man down to size

And however dull some forums may be, the First Friday Forum ca.n take at lea.st some of the credlt for inspiring the Ver­monter to do what he had long known he ha.d to do under the mora.1 law he so often extolled.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro­ceeded to call the roll.

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

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

LEGISLATIVE SCHEDULE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SESSION

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I wish to take this quiet moment in the Sen­ate's day to comment on our proceedings and schedule for the remainder of this session. Our beloved majority leader ad­dressed himself to this matter, and it has been reported in the press that, in keep­ing with his concern that we do our bus­iness with dispatch, there is the possi­bility that we will take up the SALT tr~aty on a double-track basis; under this a~rangement we would, perhaps, d~al with the remaining appropriation bills and the windfall profits tax as it is called, in the morning, and deal ~ith the treaty in the afternoon.

I would like to urge on the majority leader the thought that this would not be~t serve the interests of either legis­lation. The Committee on Finance of the Sen~te has all but completed its work on a wmdfall profits tax. It can be sent to the ftoor very sht· .. tly, where it will be a matt~r of i~tense debate and, very like­!Y. will reqmre invocation of cloture. But it can be disposed of before we turn to SALT.

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, time for morning business has expired.

EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the morn­ing business period be extended for 10 minutes, and that a Senator may speak up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The majority leader is most gracious.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Ohair recognize me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from West Virginia is recognized.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

may I say to the distinguished Senator that rumors are rife, they fly as the clouds fly in the month of March.

We hear all kinds of things, and we dream all kinds of dreams, and we see all kinds of visions. But up to now I have had no clear modus operandi in mind. Oh, yes, I think of double tracks and multiple tracks, and I think I will run this ahead of that and that ahead of this, but I really have not c01ne down to any definite approach.

I have said from the beginning that we would do the energy legislation before we do the treaty, and that is the way I would like to do it. It is still the way I would like to see us approach this whole matter.

I have said just recently that I might run the treaty in ahead of the energy matter, but, if I might, I would term it as thinking out loud, speculation on my part, and I am entirely flexible.

What I want to do is to do the right thing at the right time by the Senate, and sometimes I do not know what the right thing is at the right time until I reach the situation and see what the cir­cumstances and conditions have become.

Certainly the Senator may be assured that I will take his counsel into consid­eration, his viewpoint, but I simply want to say that there is nothing etched in stone up to this point.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The majority leader has never been anything but gracious in that respect. He rarely thinks of any­thing save what is good for the Senate, and his judgment, in my mind, has been impeccable in these matters.

I would otter him this one simple thought: There is a not unfamiliar im­balance between the amount of public attention that will be paid to an issue and the issue's importance. The energy legislation will be intensely controversial and there will be pressures on us from everywhere to make up our minds this way or that way. The SALT treaty, while of incomparably greater importance, does not have in the Nation an economic and consumer constituency that will press us. We will have to make up our minds on this floor based on our experiences and judgments.

It would be such a great shame if SALT came up before this other legislation, and caused us to be surrounded by people saying, "Hurry and make up your minds"

about the most important issue mankind faces so we can get to the question of stripper oil.

That would distort our priorities, and I know the Senator would never want to do that.

I simply wanted to ask~nd the Sen­ator will have my total cooperation in this-if we could consider first our other legislation and then move to this ma­jestically and preeminently important issue and take our time to consider and resolve it.

That is all I wish to say and I am happy the Senator has given me the opportunity to speak.

Mr. ROBERT c. BYRD. Mr. President. will the Senator yield?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield. Mr. ROBERT c. BYRD. Mr. President,

I have found the Senator's comments to be beneficial and helpful to me. The Finance Committee 1s moving toward re­porting the excess profits tax measure, the obituary of which has been written over and over again. The choir has been assembled from time to time, the grave plot has been marked out, and the mon­ument has already been prepared on numerous occasions.

But I, as is somewhat characteristic, I guess, of some of us West Virginia hllls people, have said, "Well, I don't believe it is time yet for the obituary to be writ­ten." The Finance Committee is moving, and Senator JACKSON'S Energy Commit­tee is rapidly developing the peroration to its energy bill.

Right today, if either of those bills were on the calendar and we could get agreement to proceed to them, we would have them up right now. Right next week, if they were on the calendar, we would have either of them called up. But it takes time, and I believe the time the committee spends on that legislation will prove to have been time well spent, be­cause it will probably, in the long run, be time saved.

Those committees are attempting to resolve the problems in the committees rather than here on the Senate floor, and I compliment the committees.

I close by saying that once the meas­ures come to the calendar and we can get clearance to proceed with them, I want to do just that. I agree with the distin­guished Senator from New York that en­ergy legislation is uppermost--after all, that constitutes at least 4 percent of the inflation rate, as I understand it--

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. And as long as

the American people do not r~ally be­lieve there is an energy problem they can do something about, and continue to spend $65 billion a year for energy, which is $65 for every minute since John the Baptist came walking out of the wilder­ness, we are going to continue to have a serious inflationary problem and a seri­ous energy problem.

But I thank the Senator. He has made a serious and timely observation, one with which I agree and which I want to follow, but one on which I want to re­tain some flexibility, depending on how the situation develops, so that I may then be able to make the Judgment based on the circumstances at the time.

29280 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979

At the moment we cannot take any one of the three measures up, because they are not on the calendar; but at the time we get something on the calendar the Senator's observation, I daresay, will probably be the right approach to follow.

Mr. MOYNIBAN. I thank the majority leader.

KARL EARL MUNDT

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, Sena­tor Karl E. Mundt passed away in Au­gust of 1974. Inasmuch as the Senate was in recess at the time of the anniversary of his death, I want to take this oppor­tunity to call to the attention of my col­leagues some contributions of this illus­trious American, the late Republican Senator who was born in Humboldt, S. Dak., my hometown, and the man who held the Senate seat which I now occupy. In the swift passage of time in this age of accelerated living, it is easy to over­look the significant impact others have had upon us and upon our country.

For me, a remembrance of Karl E. Mundt comes with ease. For most of my life, I had the good fortune to virtually live in the shadow of this great man. Like dozens of other youngsters, we lived in the town where he was born. We grew up only 27 miles from where Karl and his wife, Mary, later lived in their south Dakota home of Madison.

That Karl Mundt's life and service were inspirational to individuals such as myself begs the point. I think many young men and women who had the op­portunity to grow up in South Dakota and be exposed to leaders such as Karl Mundt found the calling to public serv­ice careers to be particularly attractive because of the enthusiasm, leadership, and genuine affection for people that he brought to his life work in politics and Government.

In recalling the life and times of Karl Mundt briefly, as I do today, it is im­possible to overlook the visionary capac­ity of this man and what his concepts have meant or could have meant to the three constituent areas of service to which he dedicated himself-his State, our Nation, and the world-each distinct but all interwoven into the common fa bric we call mankind.

The century in which we now live has found mankind physically, and some­times uncomfortably, closer together than perhaps anyone could possibly have foreseen when it began in 1900 when Karl Mundt was born. World War II represented the turning point for nearly everyone alive at that time. We came to recognize that no longer did oceans and space divide us but that they are links of togetherness in which the seas and skies served as our bridges of communi­cation, travel, and economic livelihood. ~arJ Mundt was in the vanguard of

thQse recognizing that we had come into a new era. He believed that if we as a fr~e Nation were to survive in a world of continuing great progress and achieve­ment-but one also posing increasing threats to our liberty-we would need to extend ourselves and our concepts worldwide.

Some of his ideas bore great fruit.

Others remain merely as reminders of respond to it. And, if we enjoy the good what we might or should have done. He called for the Voice of America to be part of a permanent informational institu­tion <USIA) to promote freedom. He recommended international student ex­changes to open to other peoples the richness of our ideas and the diversity of our lifestyles. He collaborated with our other Senator at the time, Francis Case, with Milt Young, and other Midwest colleagues in urging establishment of our :first food for peace program, then known as Public Law 480.

He pushed for expansion of our efforts to tell the story of America through a "Vision of America," which would have utilized our space satellite technology ta beam television to remote areas of the world.

He urged development of a Freedom Academy not only to promote through­out the world the ideals which have en­couraged the growth of liberty in our Nation but to develop an understanding of and a capability to respond to the en­croachments of communism in psycho­logical and economic warfare throughout the world.

His foresight was equally keen with respect to our Nation and south Dakota and the need to husband our precious resources. Long before ecology became the watchword for many in the struggle to preserve and enhance our environ­ment, Karl Mundt was promoting soil and water conservation, watersheds, wet­lands preservation and development, and explaining the importance of wildlife and nature as vital ingredients to a sound, productive, and happy social order.

The well-known living symbol of en­dangered wildllf e species, the whooping crane, is preserved because Karl Mundt was one of those individuals 15 years ago who said creatures such as the crane and the black-footed ferret belong to our world.

Much of the Federal energy research conducted on the utllization of agricul­ture products for conversion to grain alcohol found its inception in Mundt proposals more than two decades ago.

Nearly 10 years earlier than the :first "energy crisis" of this decade, Senator Mundt was moving Federal and coal in­dustry interests toward the establish­ment of an experimental plant in South Dakota to convert lignite coal to pipeline gas.

He likewise viewed off shoots of our space program as holding tremendous potential for natural resource activity and promoted the establishment of a data center to utilize information ob­tained from satellites through various imagery techniques in the Earth re­sources observational satellite <EROS> program.

The 34 years of congressional and nearly five decades of public service by Karl Mundt stands, of course, as its own monument. It would be impossible for me to fully catalog his accomplishments and I have touched on only a few.

Any remembrance by me, or by any­one else, cannot strengthen or diminish that record. And that is as it should be.

History does the reckoning. We note it,

fortune that was Karl ndt's, we may have some impact upon w that history unfolds in a world that Karl Mundt often described "as the one and only place in which we have to live and die, but a place which also provides the opportunity for us to make it just a bit better by the time we leave than when we came in.''

Karl Mundt's objective to make life "a bit better" than we found it is a worthy legacy for each of us. Our effort to emulate this concept is, perhaps, the :finest remembrance of all for Senator Mundt and his many contributions.

I want to thank Mr. Roger Haugo, of Sioux Falls, S. Dak., the son of a close friend of Karl Mundt, for his contribu­tion to these remarks. He and his father, Erling Haugo, knew :firsthand the many fine acts of Karl Mundt that left this world a :finer place than he found it.

The Mundt Library and Foundation in Madison, S. Dak., has done an excellent job of maintaining his records and even displaying a replica of his Senate office. Senator Mundt's widow, Mary Mundt, resides in Washington, D.C., where the Senator spent his last days.

Mr. President, I am honored to be able to submit the statements of several dis­tingmshed Americans who were closely associated with Senator Mundt. Other Senators who worked with Senator Mundt will submit separate comments.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the able Senator from south Dakota <Mr. PRESSLER) in a tribute to the memory of the late Senator Karl Mundt of South Dakota, on the fifth anniversary of his death.

It was my honor to serve with Karl both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Although we frequently were on opposite sides of the political fence, our mutual respect for convictions held and constituencies served formed a. close bond of friendship.

Karl Mundt began his career as a. teacher in a small college, as did I. He came to the Congress as a representative of a poor, rural State during the years of. the Great Depression, as did I. Karl's continuing interest in public speaking and in writing paralleled my own inter­est.

I recall that we appeared together on many forums, many podiums, many seminars. In fact, our mutual interests resulted in the production of an un­heralded tape recording entitled, "Your Voice Is Your Fortune," which I un­abashedly recommend to my colleagues. Karl and I taught leadership tra.ining together as instructors in the Dale Car­negie course.

These personal remembrances of mu­tual affection serve to enhance my recol­lection of his role as a leader of his party, a servant of his people, and as a major force in domestic and political affairs. He made constructive and lasting con­tributions, through his performance and example, to the betterment of mankind. His legislative efforts on behalf of the citizens of South Dakota and of the Nation will be long remembered. Our Republic suffered a grievous loss on his passing, for he chose to devote his con­siderable abllities to the services of America.

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29281 It is my personal privilege to join in

marking the enduring presence in these legislative Halls of the departed Senator from South Dakota, Karl Earl Mundt.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join with my good friend, the junior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. PRESSLER, to express a few thoughts about the late Senator Karl Mundt.

Karl Mundt was one of the best U.S. Senators of my time and a very good friend. He served much of his life in the House and then in the Senate. In both bodies, he became a highly respected, effective legislator. Karl was a very gifted speaker and one who never was reluctant to become involved in a debate.

One of the central issues following World War II was Communist infiltra­tion in the Government. Much of it was understandable, as we were partners of Communist Russia during World War II and many of our people carried that partnership too far. During his early years in this Senate, Karl Mundt was deeply involved in the investigation of Communists in Government.

Karl Mundt was a conservative and deeply interested in the solvency of our Government and our national security. He left a deep imprint on much of the legislation which was enacted by Con­gress during his time.

I became closely associated with him on agriculture legislation when both of us served on the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. His views on agriculture matters were always much the same as my own. He was very close to the farmers of South Dakota and that is one of the major reasons he was elected in South Dakota for so many years.

I was very pleased to be clos~ly asso­ciated with Senator Mundt on the Ap­propriations Committee. In fact, I had only one notch more in seniority than he did. ·

Karl Mundt was a strong supporter of the Pick-Sloan plan for the Missouri River Basin. This plan made possible all our great reservoirs and huge hydro­electric power generating systems from these dams. These dams provided :flood control, not only for our area, but even more importantly, in the lower areas of the Missouri River and on into the Mis­sissippi River. Navigation was another beneficiary of this program. No one was a more ardent supporter or did more to make this possible than the late Sena­tor Karl Mundt.

There is so much that could be said about Karl Mundt with whom I was so closely associated and especially in poli­tics. Like him, I was a Republican and we campaigned together many t!mes.

Mr. President, in paying tribute to Karl Mundt, one also has to include his wife, Mary, who was constantly at his side. Mary was his great inspiration and helpmate. She is a farm girl and not only was knowledgeable on farm matters but on a wide range of subjects. She always exhibited the same conservative trend of thinking as Karl. Mrs. Young and I wish only the best for Mary.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President on the fifth year of the death of Sen~tor

Karl Mundt, I want to take this oppor­tunity to remind my colleagues of what a fine man he was.

I knew Karl Mundt for many years. He was a close friend and a trusted col­league.

He was an individualist, an independ­ent thinker, and one who put his coun­try above his party.

His firm commitment to America earned him the respect of Senators from both parties, and his overriding sense of responsibility for its welfare a.re re­flected in the sound positions he took.

He was a friend of the farmer and one who was concerned about his fellow man.

He advocated constitutional reform of the electoral system and favored the district plan.

Karl Mundt favored a balanced budget, less Government spending, and a strong defense. In other words, he stood for things that are essential to America's well-being.

Karl Mundt was jovial and had a de­lightful personality. He was an inspira­tion to be around and was fortunate to have had a devoted and loving wife.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the fine comments of our former Representative from the Second District of South Dakota, Mr. E. Y. Berry, who served in the House from 1951 to 1971, and worked closely with the late Senator Karl E. Mundt.

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

STATEMENT BY E. Y. BERRY

Senator Karl E. Mundt was, in my judg­ment, the greatest statesman that South Da­kota has ever produced.

I say this not only as an old friend but as a fellow worker. Karl was not only an out~ standing American but also an out­standing polttician. He loved polttics and he loved to win, but, whtle winning, he played the game fairly and hard. Because his poltti­cal knowledge and polttical savvy were well recognized, he was frequently called upon to work in national campaigns.

It was my great priv1lege to have known Karl Mundt well. For more than 20 years, we worked together and campaigned together and !or more than 10 of those years, we Uved in adjoining apartments in Washington. I therefore saw at close range his tireless energy.

Karl was unique. Although he walked and worked among the great and the near great, he never, !or one moment, forgot South Da­kota. His efforts were geared primarily toward the state he loved and, in his quiet, unassum­ing way, he did more !or his state than any other man has ever been able to do. South Dakotans wm never forget Karl E. Mundt.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to share the remembrances of Mr. Robert L. Mccaughey, executive di­rector, the Karl E. Mundt Historical and Educational Foundation, Dakota State College, Madison, S. Dak. Mr. Mccaughey served as administrative assistant to the late Senator Mundt from 1957 to 1972.

During these years, Mr. Mccaughey provided excellent service not only to Senator Mundt. but to the State of South Dakota and to the Nation as well. We are grateful to him for this and the fine remarks he has prepared concerning Senator Mundt.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that a copy of these remarks be printed in the RECORD.

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

REMARKS OF MR. ROBERT L. MCCAUGHEY

I appreciate the opportunity offered to me by senator Pressler to set forth some of my memories of Senator Karl E. Mundt. Serving on his sta11" !or over a quarter of a. century was an educational, challenging and ful­fill1ng experience !or me and the others who were selected by him to participate with him in his senatorial Career.

Senator Mundt was a very amiable, even tempered individual. He tried to be a friend to all people. He never displayed any animos­ity towards a person-in !act, he went out of his way to try and convince people that he wanted to be their friend.

Senator Mundt loved South Dakota. The history of South Dakota intrigued and chal­lenged his probing mind. He respected the people of South Dakota and all they stood !or. In bis eyes, they epitomized. that charac­ter of determina.tion a.nd greatness which bunt this great na.tion he so loved.

For those reasons---as an advocate of com­munication, be it oral or written-he main­ta.ined constant contact with South Dako­tans either through a. newsletter which reached over 80,000 homes or via. the airwave, as he did a weekly fifteen minute television and radio show which was used by most of the stations in South Dakota. He also set a goal of visiting every county at least once each year. He belleved that through these visitations With his constituents he learned more about their needs and their problema and could best represent their views in the Un!ted States senate. He also demanded that the top echelon of his sta.tf return home an­nually a.nd renew their acquaintances With old and new friends so they too, could bring to the Washington oftlce the South Dakota vlewpotnt.

The Washington oftlce to Senator Mundt was a South Dakota Island in our Nation's Capitol. Hts sta1f was all from South Dakota. They were from all areas of the state so that a visitor from home could be met by and vlsit With a "friend from home". All omce orienta­tion was t.owards the personal touch for his South Dakota constituents.

Sena.tor Mundt was a very compassionate man, with a sincere interest in each indi­vidual as a person. He was interested in fam1-11es, the chtldren or the grandparents. It was the same wtth his staff. He enjoyed being wtth them a.nd pa.rticipating in social activi­ties with them. I know that on occasions he and Ma.ry returned t.o Washingt.on to spend Christmas or New Years at our home and wtth our friends, since we usually had sev­eral staff people present with their fa.mtlies on those occasions. I have seen him par­ticipate with the youngsters of the fam111es in various games for hours on end on such occasions. Perhaps it was because the Mundt's had no children of their own that injected int.o his Ufe style this seeking of companion­ship wtth our chtldren. He followed their schooltng, their tllnesses and their accom­pltshments.

As a United States Sena.t.or, he was very thorough and very demanding. senator Mundt operated. the omce through his staff in a continuing search for information on legislation, problems t.o be solved in South Dakota, and in preparation for new ideas which he hoped t.o inject into the leg1sla.tive process or int.o the South Dakota picture which would enhance the quality of llfe In South Dakota.

As his Administrative Assistant, he advised and counseled that with sta.ff resources and their occupation wtth constituent problems a.nd certain types of legislative actlvlttes, that a network of expertise be developed that we

29282 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979 could call on to develop needed proposals. As a result of this process we developed a working relationship with Stanford Univer­sity, Penn State University, Georgetown Uni­versity, American Enterprise Institute, and several other "think tanks". Because of this build-up of such a source of expertise, the Senator was able to participate in many ac­tivities and to be knowledgeable on many subjects. He always demanded that our in­formation or research be summarized on one or two typed pages with the in-depth mate­rial attached for his reading. Because of his continuing thirst for information we kept very long hours in the office. Most evenings were spent reading or discussing various subjects for his information. He did not at­tend many social functions as he believed he could better utmze his time preparing himself for the work of the Senate.

On Sunday afternoon he read all the news­papers from South Dakota. We received every weekly paper and every daily pa.per in the office and he scanned them all. He also used Sunday afternoon and evening to type memos to staff members on projects he want­ed them to implement. He would e.lso use Sunday to talk on the phone with friends in various areas of South Dakota., maintaining a constant feel of the pulse of South Dakota thinking.

The Senator worked with the staff in pre­paring responses to all communications re­ceived in the office. Each morning he and I would discuss the mall received and would indicate through memos to the appropriate staff member the information to be searched out for preparation of a response to the letter writer. The staff member would have a. draft response approved before it was typed for final approval and the Senator's signature which he personally affixed to ea.ch letter. He liked to append handwritten notes to various letters. Another one of his ways of maintaining personal contact with the "folks back home".

Senator Mundt wa.s a continuing student of government He continuously studied the constitution a.nd referred to it tn his speeches and his probing during committee sessions. In his op1n1on it was a sacred document for good government with the flex1b111ty bu1lt in to meet the needs of changing times. He did not belleve in amending it frivolously. Hts perception for his work in the United States Senate was bunt around constitutional inter­pretations.

In add! tion to his belle! in bu1lding on the foundation of our constitution, he also was a student of the rules under which Congress operates. He was fully informed on parlla­mentary procedure which he used to the fullest advantage. In fact, a copy of the Senate Rules was on his desk on the Senate floor and also his desk in the office for ready reference.

Every morning he perused the Congres­sional Record fully informing himself of pre­vious day debate and acttvtttes he might have missed. He called committee staff personnel to the office to brief him on a.ctivltles within those commtttee's meetings he did not at­tend. With service on three major committees it wa.s just impossible to be in attendance of all at the same time. Even so, through briefings he maintained a complete knowl­edge of all commtttee functions and del1bera­t1ons.

I recite these personal probes for informa­tion to try to explain his wide use of his personal staff to keep him informed and also the committee staff personnel. Hts communi­cation with people and his ab111ty to retain knowledge imparted to him made it possible for him to be an influencing factor tn de­bates and in the shaping of legislation or committee reports.

The Senator was not a great intrOducer of bllls. It was hts belief that most goals could be accompllshed through amendments to

those btlls which must be considered each year to meet government housekeeping needs. He also was a staunch opponent of govern­ment growth-which new legislation con­tinually foisted on people. He certainly has been proven right in his philosophy as is now being supported by the American pub .. lic's antipathy to our bulging bureaucracy.

While most people viewed the Senator as a. conservative there were many of us on his staff who viewed him as a man attuned to changing times with his basic philosophy as flexible as the constitution. A man who went to Congress as an isolationist and yet later helped formulate the legislation to imple­ment the Truman Doctrine and our foreign aid programs. A man dedicated to the growth of the Free Enterprise System and an un­fettered business climate in which to operate, but also recognizing a.s our society became more complex and intertwined, that we all must live and abide by certain guidelines. He was a man dedicated to balanced budgets and reduced appropriations for government, but once the decision made wanted his share for his constituents. His urgings to the staff were that "Congress wlll bake the pie, then we must get a big piece of that pie for South Dakota".

Senator Mundt was a "horse trader". He al­ways cautioned us as staff to work closely with other Senate staff people as he did with other Senators. We were to help them with their problems, knowing that in return we could depend on their assistance in our needs for projects or legislative proposals. Cooperation, trust, and faith in people were his watchwords. Dividends to his state flowed from that understanding of his friends and his co-workers.

Senator Karl Mundt loved his service in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate. I have heard him say on many occasions that he would work without pay in his job because he liked it and the challenges it posed. He liked people. I have potnted out his constant communications with his constituents, seeking their advice but also conveying to them what he was doing so they would be informed. Because of this personal contact and communication he felt he was better prepared to do his job and his constituents were more enlight­ened supporters when it came time for them to do their job on election day.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that my colleague, Sen­ator PRESSLER, and other Senators have commented today on the significance of the career of the late Senator Karl Mundt. Karl Mundt and I were once pol­itical rivals. We were members of oppos­ing political parties. But we were also friends and colleagues in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, we cooperated on many matters of concern to the people of South Dakota. We maintained a warm and friendly relationship during all the years that we served together in the Senate.

I still miss the eloquent voice, the sharp wit and the obvious love for pub­lic service which Karl Mundt repre­sented in the Senate. I am pleased to salute him now as a colleague whom I remember with affection and apprecia­tion. I also send my warm greetings and good wishes to his lifetime partner and my friend-Mary Mundt.

RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 10 minutes.

There being no objection, at 1: 25 p.m. the Senate took a. recess for 10 minutes; whereupon, at 1 : 35 p.m., the Senate re­assembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer <Mr. STEWART).

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for morning business has expired. Morn­ing business is closed.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AS­SISTANCE ACT AMENDMENTS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4249, which the clerk will state by title.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 4249) to amend title XXIII of the United States Code, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, and for other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported from the Committee on Enrvironment and Public Works with amendments as follows:

On page 6, beginning with Une 13, in­sert the following:

(b) Notwithstanding any other provtslon of law discretionary bridge funds author­ized under section 144(g) of title 23, United States Code, for fiscal year 1980 ma.y be transferred to a State's apportionment un­der section 104(b) (6) of title 23, United States Code, to repay funds obligated under section 104(b) (6) of title 23, United States Code, between June 1 and July 31, 1979, for bridge projects which are ellgtble for fund­ing by virtue of the amendment in subsec­tion (a) of this section.

On page 10, beginning with llne 5, insert the following:

SEC. 18. Section 119(b) of title 23, United States Code, ls amended by deleting the date "October 1st" In the second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the elate "Jan­uary 1st", and by deleting "funds appor­tioned to such State for that fiscal year" in the third sentence and inserting in lleu thereof "next apportionment of funds to such State".

SEC. 19. Section 125(b) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end of the first sentence the following new sentence: "Notwithstanding any pro­vision of this chapter actual a.ncl necessary costs of maintenance and operation of ferry­boats providing temporary substitute high­way traffic service, less the amount of fares charged, may be expended from the emer· gency fund herein authorized on the Federal­s.id highway systems, including the Inter­state System."

SEc. 20. (a) Section 170(b) of the Surface Transportation Act of 1978 ls amended by striking "one year" and inserting ln Ueu thereof "eighteen months";

(b) Section 170(1) ls amended to read aa follows:

" ( 1) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, to remain available untll ex­pended, to the Commission not to exceed $3,000,000 to carry out the purposes of this section.".

SEc. 21. Section 161 (f) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, Publlc Law 93-87, la amended by inserting after "managed" the following: "and maintained".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate on this bill is limited to 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the Senator from Texas <Mr. BENTSEN) and the Senator from South Dakota <Mr. PRESSLER) , with 30 minutes on any amendment except on an amendment by the Senator from Connecticut <Mr. WEICKER) on the highway trust fund on which there shall be 1 hour, and with

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29283

20 minutes on any debatable motion, ap­peal, or point of order.

Who yields time? Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I sug­

gest the absence of a quorum until the Senator from Texas <Mr. BENTSEN) ar­rives in the Chamber, and I ask that the time be equally charged to both sides.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro­ceeded to call the roll.

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

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

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

such time as I may need to myself. Mr. President, today the Senate has

before it H.R. 4249, a bill to amend the Surface Transportation Systems Act of 1978.

On November 6, 1978, the Surface Transportation Systems Act of 1978 was enacted. This measure was of broad scope in meeting the transportation problems facing this Nation. For the first time, one bill authorized funds for the Federal-aid highway program, urban mass transit programs, and highway safety. This was a large undertaking be­cause amendments to the various stat­utes were complicated. The Committee on Environment and Public Works rec­ognized that the implementation of the act should be monitored to determine if problems arose.

During the committee's hearings with the Department of Transportation on its fiscal year 1980 budget request, the prob­lem areas in the implementation were explored. These matters were carefully pursued over the next several months and led to the House passage of H.R. 4249. Subsequently, the Committee on Environment and Public Works carefully reviewed all of the 17 provisions con­tained in H.R. 4249 and now recommends them to the Senate.

In addition to those provisions con­tained in H.R. 4249, as referred to the Senate, the reported bill contains five new provisions.

First, the bill amends the discretionary bridge program addressing a problem of small State apportionments and eligi­bility for discretionary bridge-funding.

Second, the bill is amended with re­gard to the interstate resurfacing pro­vision involving State certification of an adequate maintenance program. cur­rently, the law requires certification of October l; however, this is the day for apportioning funds for the interstate system. Consequently, in the event of difficulties regarding certification the entire system can be distorted. The 'com­mittee amendment would change the October 1 date to January 1 and would provide that the penalty associated with the certification process shall apply to th~ next apportionment to the State. ThIS was a technical change which will allow the program to function as intended in providing a meaningful and timely penalty for failure to have

an adequate interstate maintenance program.

The third amendment addresses a problem with the Emergency Relief Fund. Under current law, a ferryboat may be purchased with funds available under the emergency relief program when it is to be used as a substitute for highway service. However, the program will not provide funds to operate the ferry if revenues from tolls do not cover all operating expenses. This amendment would allow funds to be utilized in that manner.

Mr. President, clearly what we are talking about are generally technical amendments. After we have passed a major piece of legislation that had a substantial eft'ect on highway transpor­tation in this country, now, in effect, we are taking care of some of the incon­sistencies and the technical problems that arose . •

The fourth amendment changes the time for reporting in the authorization for the National Alcohol Fuels Commis­sion. The extension of the reporting date of 1 year is necessary to provide a rea­sonable length of time for a complete and thorough study. With the extension of the Commission beyond 1 year. it was also necessary to make the appropria­tions available until extended. The com­mittee believes the Alcohol Fuels Com­mission to be of value in addressing our critical energy problem. It must have the ability to study the issues and de­liver a comprehensive report. It must have the time to do it.

The fifth amendment addresses a highway which is being constructed in West Virginia. The amendment clarifies the responsible agency charged with maintaining this route as the Depart­ment of Agriculture, through the For­est Service. With respect to this main­tenance requirement for the Highland Scenic Highway, it is the intent of the committee that the language of the amendment not preclude a cooperative agreement between the Forest Service and the State of West Virginia with re­spect to maintenance.

I urge my Senate colleagues to act favorably on the passage of H.R. 4249 to allow for the continued good operation of the Federal aid highway program and to provide the appropriate technical modifications to the Surface Transpor­tation Systems Act of 1978.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the full com­mittee <Mr. RANDOLPH), the ranking minority member of the full committee <Mr. STAFFORD), and the ranking minor­ity member of the Subcommittee on Transportation <Mr. PRESSLER), for their assistance and cooperation during con­sideration of H.R. 4249 by the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 4249, reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. This bill contains a number of technical amendments to the Surf ace Transportation Assistance Act of 1978. The 1978 Highway Act was comprehen­sive legislation undertaken to address a

large number of transportation issues. Understandably, during the time since passage of the act, situations have arisen which were not envisioned and portions have surfaced which need clarification and corrections. I believe H.R. 4249 ad­dresses the problems which have been raised since the 1978 act was passed.

The Senate Committee on Environ­ment and Public Works carefully ex­amined the provisions included in H.R. 4249 by the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation and con­curred with those provisions. In addi­tion, the committee added five other pro­visions.

I want to focus specifically on one of these provisions which I believe is partic­ularly important. The National Alcohol Fuels Commission was authorized by the Surf ace Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 to investigate the potential for alcohol fuels as an energy resource. I believe exploring alternative energy sources must be one of the highest priorities of our country at this time. The National Alcohol Fuels Commission has an important role to play in ex­ploring those alternatives and should have sufficient time and resources to ful­fill their mandate. H.R. 4249 will assure that the Commission has sufficient time and funding.

I want to add that gasohol, ethanol, and methanol and their development are of great importance. I think it is very important that adequate time for thorough study of this issue by the Al­cohol Fuels Commission should be pro­vided by this bill. _ Indeed, during consideration, I raised a question as to whether the Commis­sion was adequately funded and learned it had been included in the bill at the re­quest of Senator BAYH, who is to be com­mended for his efforts in this area. I am pleased that an extension of time is granted the Commission by H.R. 4249. I appreciate the opportunity to be floor manager of a bill that acknowledges the importance of the National Alcohol Fuels Commission and assures adequate time for the Commission to complete its vital work.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Subcommit­tee on Transportation <Mr. BENTSEN) and the chairman and ranking member of the full committee (Mr. RANDOLPH and Mr. STAFFORD) for their assistance and cooperation during consideration of H.R. 4249 by the Committee on Environ­ment and Public Works.

Mr. STAFFORD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­

ator from Vermont. Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, I ask

the minority manager of the bill <Mr. PRESSLER) if he will yield me such time as I may require oft' the bill?

Mr. PRESSLER. I yield. Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, I want

to add my support for H.R. 4249, tech­nical amendments to the Surf ace Trans­portation Assistance Act of 1978.

As ranking member of the Senate En­vironment and Public Works Committee, I have been involved in the development of highway legislation for some time. The Surface Transportation and Assist-

29284 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 24, 1979

ance Act of 1978 for the first time au­thorized funds for the Federal-aid high­way program, urban mass transit pro­gram and highway safety all in one bill. It was agreed at that time that this leg­islation should be closely monitored after enactment into law, and changes should be made as soon as possible which would contribute to the effectiveness of this legislation. H.R. 4249 makes these changes.

During consideration of the 1978 High­way Act, we recognized the tremendous need for bridge replacement and reha­bilitation throughout the country, and greatly expanded the Federal funds available for this purpose. In addition, a provision was included which sets aside $200 million each year to be used at the discretion of the Secretary of DOT for funding high priority bridge replacement and rehabilitation projech; provided certain criteria are met.

The committee has included a provi­sion in H.R. 4249 which would allow a bridge project costing less than $10 mil­lion, as is now required, to be eligible provided the cost of the project is at least twice the State's regular bridge fund apportionment.

While this provision does not benefit my own State, I can easily understand the concerns of a small State, because Vermont too is experiencing difficulties in keeping up with maintaining bridges in a safe condition. Recently members of my staff met with the Lake Champlain Bridge Commission regarding the Rouses Point Bridge which spans Lake Cham­plain from Rouses Point, N.Y., to Alburg, Vt. This bridge was completed in 1937 and now is badly in need of replacement. The two States are in the process of working out an agreement which would make the Rouses Point Bridge eligible for discretionary bridge funds. I believe the replacement of this bridge should have high priority and am pleased that New York and Vermont are working to­gether so this bridge will be eligible for discretionary funds.

My distinguished colleague from Ver­mont <Mr. LEAHY) and the distinguished Senators from New York <Mr. MOYNIHAN and Mr. JAVITS) also support the replace­ment of the Rouses Point Bridge.

Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee <Mr. RANDOLPH) , and the chairman and rank­ing member of the Subcommittee on Transportation <Mr. BENTSEN and Mr. PRESSLER) for their leadership during consideration and preparation of H.R. 4249.

I thank the distinguished minority manager of the bill for yielding.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to add a few words to those of my fellow Senator from Vermont, Mr. STAF­FORD, with regard to the Rouses Point Bridge.

As he mentioned, a joint Vermont/New York commission has already met to find a way to replace the bridge, which was built in 1937. Senator STAFFORD and I met recently with the Vermont members of the commission and will be working with them to find assistance from the Federal level. I agree with Senator STAFFORD that the Secretary's discretionary fund may

be an appropriate funding source for this important project. There is only one other bridge over Lake Champlain, and the Rouses Point Bridge provides a key link between the northern portion of the two States. We are hoping to start a re­placement as quickly as possible, since delay will only mean higher costs in the future. I am pleased to see my State of Vermont and the State of New York co­operating so well, and hope that we will be able to find a solution to replacing the bridge at Rouses Point.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes and forty-nine seconds remain.

Mr. BENTSEN. Under those circum­stances, I yield half that time to the dis­tinguished chairman of the committee and we will renegotiate if that is not enough.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, that is adequate.

Mr. President, I am very appreciative of the chairman of our Transportation Subcommittee, the distinguished and able Senator from Texas <Mr. BENTSEN). I am also very gratified to see a newer member of our committee, the Senator from South Dakota <Mr. PRESSLER). handling the highway legislation for the minority.

In the committee we have never really thought of Democrats or Republicans. We have worked together. Frankly, the ratio within the Environment and Pub­lic Works Committee of 8 to 6 is the closest ratio between the parties of any of the committees operating in the Senate.

I wish to express my thanks to the ranking minority member of the full committee <Mr. STAFFORD) for the con­tinued cooperation he gives, not to me alone, but that he gives to all members of the committee in the development of meaningful legislation.

Mr. President, Senate Members are considering a measure reported by the Environment and Public Works Commit­tee. This legislation provides technical and clarifying corrections .to certain sec­tions of the 1978 Surface Transportation Act. The bill also contains other provi­sions clarifying ambiguities in existing programs authorized by title 23 of the United States Code.

The primary amendment contained in this legislation covers the discretionary bridge program as authorized by section 124 of the 1978 Highway Act. That pro­gram was created to allow those States which had expensive bridges across ma­jor bodies of water to apply for funding when their State's regular apportion­ment was not suftlcient to cover the cost of the bridge. The program was designed to cover those bridges costing more than $10 million.

There has been very little funding for the States under the apportionments and we have not had sumcient moneys with which to cover the particular important bridges.

Small States with expensive bridges costing less than $10 million were se­verely impacted by this $10 mlllion limi-

tation. The amendment contained in this legislation directs that discretionary funds be available for bridges costing less than $10 million if the cost of the bridge is at least twice the State's regular an­nual apportionment. This amount cor­rects an oversight in the 1978 act which, frankly, discriminated against smaller States.

In this discretionary category ·several worthwhile projects have been brought to the attention of the committee which appear to be logically eligible for pro­graming during fiscal year 1980. These are the Sampit River Bridge on Route 17 in Georgetown County, S.C.; the F. J. Torras Causeway Bridge in Glynn Coun­ty, Ga.; the Barron Collier Bridge on Route 41 in Charlotte County, Fla.; and the South River Bridge on Route 2 in Anne Arundel County, Md.

Mr. President, I commend this bfil to my colleagues. I believe the committee report adequately explains the reason for this measure and I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I believe that the Com­mittee on Environment and Public Works through its Subcommittee on Transpor­tation is doing a service to the country, particularly to the smaller States in con­nection with these clarifying amend­menh>.

I thank the Senator very much. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise

to make a few brief remarks regarding a specific project in my State of South Carolina that I am hopeful can be fund­ed under the discretionary bridge re­placement program, which is addressed by section 8. of the pending bill, H.R. 4249. This project is the Sampit River Bridge on U.S. Route 17 in Georgetown County, s.c.

By way of background, Mr. President, I would point out that U.S. Highway 17 is a major north-south highway corridor along the east coast. Portions of this highway in Georgetown and Charleston Counties of South Carolina are now in the process of being expanded from two to four traffic lanes in order to accom­modate the heavier traffic. Improvements on both the north and south banks of the Sampit River have been virtually completed, but the two sections cannot be permanently joined until a new bridge across this river is constructed. Further­more, in order to provide access to the Georgetown Harbor by oceangoing tugs, it is necessary that this bridge be some 60 feet in height above the water, which I understand in effect disqualifies this project for funding under the regular Federal-aid highway construction pro­gram. Hence, it is necessary for Congress to designate this project as a candidate for funding under the special bridge replacement program provided for in section 124 of the 1978 Surface Transpor­tation Assistance Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the House Committee Report No. 96-288, ac­companying H.R. 4249, on page 6 of the report, has named the Sa.mpit River Bridge as a likely candidate for the dis­cretionary funding program. Earlier this year, I urged that the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works simi­larly designate the Sampit Bridge as a logical project for funding under this

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-S:ENA TE 29285

special program. I am pleased that the distinguished chairman of the commit­tee, Senator RANDOLPH-who I might note is the principal architect of this dis­cretionary bridge replacement pro­gram-has indicated in his opening statement that the Senate committee concurs in the selection of this project as one which should be funded under this program. I wish to take this opportunity to thank senator RANDOLPH and the other members of the committee for their kind consideration in this matter.

Mr. President, completion of this new bridge over the Sampit River is most im­portant to the economy of South Caro­lina and the Nation. It will remove a bottleneck in the :flow of traffic along this heavily traveled, north-south corri­dor, while also allowing oceangoing ves­sels access to the Port of Georgetown. which will in turn be a boon to industrial development in the area. With the selec­tion of this project as one that should be funded by the Federal Highway Admin­istration in the current fiscal year, I am hopeful that this critical surface trans­portation improvement will soon be a reality.

Mr. BA YH addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time? Mr. BENTSEN. Does the Senator have

an amendment? Mr. BA YH. Yes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Until the

committee amendments have been dis­posed of, :floor amendments are not in order.

Mr. BENTSEN. If there are no ob­jections from the minority at this time, I would move adoption of the committee amendments en bloc.

Is there any objection? If not, Mr. President, I move adoption

of the committee amendments en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered. UP AMENDMENT NO. 681

(Purpose: To authorize the repayment of certain Federal-aid highway funds by the State of Indiana, and for other purposes)

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH),

for himself and Mr. LUGAR, proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 661.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unan­imous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

The amendment is as follows: On page 11, line 5, insert the following:

TITLE II-AUTHORIZATION OF REPAYMENT

SEC. 201. (a) That the State of Indiana (hereinafter referred to as the "State") acting by and through the Indiana Stau; Highway Commission, and the Indiana Toll Road Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "commission") sha.ll be free of a.II re­strictions with respect to the issuance of bonds or other obligations constituting a lien a.gs.inst the Ea.st-West Toll Road in northern Indiana (Interstate Route 80/90) (hereinafter referred to as the "toll road")

or payable out of revenues derived from the toll road and with respect to the imposition, collection, and use of tolls and other charges on the toll road contained in title 23, United Sta.tes Code, or in any regulation or agree­ment under such title upon-

( 1) repayment to the Treasurer of the United States of the sum of $1,936,894, which is the a.mount of Federal-aid highway funds received for the construction of the inter­changes connecting the toll road with-

(A) Interstate Route 69 1n Steuben County, Indiana;

(B) Interstate Route 80 in Lake county, Indiana; and

(C) Interstate Route 65 in Lake County, India.na.; and

( 2) issue.nee of new bonds by the commls­sion at such time a.nd in such principal a.mount as will provide bond proceeds avail­able for pa.yment of costs of construction and acquisition of right of way not less than the amount required to undertake and complete the required construction and the required a.cquisition of right of wa.y, as defined in the subpara.graphs (D) and (E) of this para­graph, such issuance to be made subject to a. trust indenture which wm be binding on the commission and will provide--

(A) that the required construction and required acquisition of right of way will be performed and that the funds from the bond proceeds wlll be a.llocated sumcient to per­form the required construction a.nd the re­quired acquisition of right of wa.y befo.re any other commitment of the bond proceeds (other than the refunding of outstanding bonds a.nd payment of costs of issuance) 1s made;

(B) that any revenues from the toll road, and any proceeds of the bond issued 1n con­nection with the toll road shall, after pay­ment of the costs of issuance, be used only (i) for payment of the costs, direct a.nd in­dect, of the required construction and the required a.cquisition of right of wa.y; (11) for the payment of the costs, direct and indirect, of the operation, maintenance, repair, and improvement of the toll road, including the construction of la.ne additions a.nd the con­struction or mod.Ulcation of, a.nd acquisition of right of way for interchanges; (111) for the debt service, payment, and refunding of out­sta.nding bonds, the proceeds of which were used for the construction of the toll road or any improvement thereto or for the refund­ing of such bonds; and (iv) !or the pa.yment to be ma.de under para.graph 1 of this Act and !or the repayment to the State out of the proceeds of the sale of such new bonds of amounts required to be paid by the commis­sion to the State under the provisions of title 8, article 15, chapter 2, section 20 of the Jndia.na Code of 1971, as amended to the date of ena.ctment of this Act;

(C) that the commission wlll promptly commence acquisition of rights of way and preparation of final plans a.nd specifications !or the required construction and that it wlll commence the required construction on or before December 31, 1981, and that the com­mission will promptly begin acquiring all the required acquisition of right of wa.y and w1ll commence acquiring such rights of wa.y on or before December 31, 1981;

(D) that the term "required construction" shall mean a.nd include the following, all given equal priority:

(i) construction of a new interchange at Indiana State IDghway 912 South (Cline Avenue) in Lake County, Indiana, and

(11) construction of a new interchange at Mishawaka in St. Joseph County, Indiana, between mileposts 080 and 085 of the toll road after consulta.tion with the executive au­thority of the county of St. Joseph and the executive authority of the ctiy of Mishawa.ka, India.na, and

(111) construction of a new interchange 1n Elkhart County, Indiana, located between

mileposts 095 and 102 of the toll road after consultation with the executive authority of the County of Elkhart, and

(iv) construction of a new interchange at wmow Creek Road in Porter County, In­dia.na., and

(v) construction of a new interchange at Indiana State Highway 912 North (Cline Ave­nue) in La.ke County, Indiana, and

(vi) construction of a new interchange at Indiana Highway 53 (Broadway) ln La.ke County, Indiana, and

(vii) completion of construction of a new interchange a.t Un:tted States Highway 31 by pa.ss in St. Joseph county, Indiana, located at milepost 072 of the toll road.

(E) that the term "required acquisition of right-of-way" shall mean and include the following:

(i) acquisition of right-of-way at State Road 149 in Porter COunty, Ind!ia.na, sum­cient !or placement of a future interchange as construction funds (other than proceeds of the bonds issued in connect ion with the trust indenture provided herein) become avalla.ble and after consultation with the executive authority of the cotinty of Porter, and

(11) acquisition of right-of-way at United States Highway 20 in La.Porte County, In­diana., sumcient for placement of a future interchange a.s construction funds (other than proceeds of the bonds tssued in con­nection with the trust indenture provided for herein) become a.va.ila.ble a.nd after con­sultation with the executive authority of the county of La.Porte.

The a.mount reps.id to the United States under this Act sha.11 be deposited to the credit of the a.ppropria.tion !or "Fedeml-Aid Highway (Trust Fund)." Such repayment sha.11 be credited to the unprogra.med be.l­a.nee of the Federa.1-a.id highwa.y funds of the same class last apportioned to the State of Indiana. The amount so credited shall be tn addition to a.11 other funds then appor­tioned to the Sta.te of Indiana and shall be a.vs.liable !or expenditure in acoorda.nce with the provisions of title 23, United States Code.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, before proceeding on this amendment which I am pleased to introduce for myself and my distinguished junior colleague <Mr. LUGAR), I would like to express my deep appreciation to the distinguished Sena­tor from Texas who has done such a yeo­man's job on this particular legislation.

I had the good fortune several years ago to have the same responsibility and have a good understanding of the cross currents 'imposed on someone in that position. I know of no Member of this body who has fulfilled a similar respon­sibility in a more laudatory manner. Not only has he done a fantastic job from a legislative standpoint, but he '15 one of this body's most patient creatures. He is always willing to listen to the concerns expressed by other Members of this body. This, in the final analysis, might make his job more complicated. My colleague from Texas and I feel, however, that it fits, in a broader sense, into representing our own States.

I am indebted to him, as are the people of Indiana, for his patience and his will­ingness to help us resolve the specific problems that exist in Indiana.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, wlll the Senator yield?

Mr. BA YH. I yield. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I have

listened to the very kind remarks of the distinguished Senator from Indiana, who served so ably on this committee and

29286 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979

chaired this particular subcommittee. I want it fully understood that I had agreed to the equity of his amendment before he made those generous remarks. I appreciate them. But the merit of his amendment speaks for itself. It is a good amendment.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I appreci­ate the Senator's reminding us of the chronology. But any of us who know the Senator from Texas know that it takes more than flattery to persuade him of the merit of a given proposition.

I reiterate what I said: Sometimes, when s.n issue is a close call and it could go one way or the other, some of us are tempted to say, "Well, it would be quicker to dispose of it this way." The Senator from Texas is not one of those. He is willing to listen. If it makes sense for a State or a locality he is willing to listen, even though it might be a little incon­venient.

The Senator from Texas serves in the environs of the man who chairs the full committee and whose camaraderie per­meates that committee and extends to all of us who have had a chance to serve on the Public Works Committee. I think that kind of experience is one that serves us well in the Senate.

I also express my appreciation to the Senator from South Dakota for the role he has played in reporting this bill out of committee.

I particularly thank the Senator from Texas for the complimentary remarks he made with respect to the e1fort to try to get the National Alcohol Fuels Com­mission moving. I feel it is important to get the country moving toward ending its dependence on foreign oil imports. Development of alcohol fuels offers a method of accomplishing this goal.

Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today to H.R. 4249, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act will enable the Indiana toll road to co~tinue to collect tolls even after their bonds have been retired. This amendment has the overwhelming support of my con­stituents in northern Indiana as well as the bipartisan support of all Republi­can as well as Democratic members of the Indiana congressional delegation.

The Indiana east-west toll road was completed in 1956. The proceeds from the sale of $280 million worth of revenue bonds, issued by the Indiana Toll Road Commission, financed the 157-mile road across northern Indiana. The road is a key link in the highway system be­tween the Midwest and east coast.

The number of people traveling on the toll road annually has increased dramatically each year. In 1960, 10 mil­lion to!J transactions occurred, 1,233,000 of which were commercial users. In 1978, 16 million transactions occurred with approximately 3 million of these commercial users. This 60-percent in­crease also brought a boost in income. In 1960 toll receipts of $12,379,000 were generated which included $4 milUon from commercial vehicle users. By 1978, total receipts had more than doubled to $27,493,000 of which $15,502,000 was from commercial users.

The strategic location of the road has made it one of heavily traveled roads

in the Midwest for many out-of-State travelers as well as providing a ftrst­class highway for Hoosiers. In fact, its popularity means that the 40-year bonds issued for its construction will be paid o1f earlier than had been expected. It is very possible the current bonds will be retired in the mid-1980's.

It has become clear to the majority of Hoosiers that it is to our State's bene­fit to extend collection of the tolls. I took a poll of the residents of the 11 northern counties in Indiana, through which the toll road passes, and the re­sults reflect clear public preference. Those people who live near the road and use it most often want the tolls con­tinued. They fully realize that if the tolls are lifted, and the responsibility for operating the road is given to the Indiana Highway Commission, the qual­ity of the road will be downgraded severely. Of the 20,540 people who re­sponded to the poll, 16,990 want to con­tinue the tolls, and only 3,550 do not. This is a 5-to-1 margin in favor of the tolls.

The amendment I am offering today is necessary to allow the road to continue as a toll road. The Indiana Toll Road Com­mission entered into agreements in 1961, 1962, and 1963 to interchange certain portions of the new Interstate Highway System with the Indiana toll road and to designate the toll road as part of the system. These three agreements, or tri­partites, provided for a total of $2 mil­lion in Federal funds to be used toward construction of the Angola, Gary East, and Burns Harbor interchanges and are still in e1f ect. As required by United States Code, section 129, the agree­ment contains a covenant that the tolls would be stopped when the outstanding bonds were retired and that no additional bonds would be issued. Therefore, unless these tripar­tites are nullifled, the toll road must be­come a free road. Upon repayment of the $1,936,894 in Federal funds the tripar­tite agreements become null and tolls could continue to be collected.

My amendment enables bonds to again be sold, the proceeds of which would be used to perform construction, operation, maintenance, repair, and improvement of the toll road. Of particular impor­tance, the bill authorizes the construc­tion of nine additional interchanges with construction to commence before Decem­ber 31, 1981.

The overwhelming success of the toll roa~ can be attributed to many factors, but m large measure stems from the flne condition in which the road is kept. When one compares this road to others in In­diana it's superiority is clear. Northern Indiana also receives a large quantity of snow annually. The tolls are used to keep the road open almost constantly during bad weather conditions even though other roads in the State are frequently forced to close during storms due to a shortage of manpower and equipment.

Without a change on the Federal level, the responsibility for operating the In­diana east-west highway would fall to the Indiana Highway Commission. Un­fortunately, this commission does not have sumcient funds to maintain the

high quality of the toll road. It has cost the toll road commission approximately $8 to $10 million annually to keep the road in first-class condition. This figure represents 12 percent of the highway commission's annual maintenance budget and 6 percent of its total budget. There­fore, the quality of the east-west high­way would su1fer, as would that of other Hoosier roads which share the total budget of the commission, if the State became responsible for its upkeep. I have long been concerned with the quality of the roads in Indiana. Chuckholes of great proportion are found everywhere in the State and create hazardous driving con­ditions as well as being responsible for high repair costs. One would expect regu­lar users of the toll road to want it avail­able at no cost, but their experience with other Indiana roads has made it evident that in order to have good driving condi­tions it is necessary to pay the toll. And it is worth this extra money to them.

In addition, it is imperative that addi­tional access be provided along this 157-mile stretch. Currently only 11 inter­changes provide access within the State of Indiana, with two terminal connec­tions at the IDinois and Ohio State lines. This means that an average of 12 miles can be driven before a driver has an opportunity to leave the toll road. In many instances the exits are more un­evenly spaced than that. During a time when fuel costs are soaring, every bit of gasoline which is wasted hurts us all.

Construction of additional inter­changes, to allow much easier access and departure from the road, would put a stop to unnecessary driving. However, such construction cannot be undertaken without a substantial investment of funds which the State of Indiana cannot possibly provide. Additional interchanges are estimated to cost an average of $7 .5 million each and the State of Indiana does not anticipate having sufficient rev­enue for this purpose until approximately 1990. The importance to the communities in the tramc zone cannot be overempha­sized. The additional business these in­terchanges will provide can do · much to revitalize some cities, such as Gary, whose downtown areas are in need of a shot in the arm.

The nine interchanges authorized in the b111. will be located as follows: Three in Lake County, two in Porter County, one in La Porte County, two in St. Joseph ·county, and one in Elkhardt County.

I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment which will greatly benefit the citizens of northern Indiana as well as the many travelers who cross our beautiful Hoosier State.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I deeply appreciate the efforts of my colleague Senator BAYH, as well as the tremei::idous cooperation and support we have re­ceived from Senator BENTSEN; Senator PRESSLER; the chairman of the commit­tee, Senator RANDOLPH; and the ranking minority member, Senator STAFFORD.

This is a moment of concern for our constituents in Indiana, and I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator BAYH, in support of this amendment to the Sur­face Transportation Assistance Act to authorize repayment of approximately

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29287 $2 million by the State of Indiana to the Federal Government and to release the State from certain tripartite agree­ments concluded with the Federal Gov­ernment in the early 1960's. Release of Indiana from these agreements will al­low the State to continue the collection of tolls on the Indiana toll road in order to operate and maintain the toll road and to make necessary improvements to bring the road up to interstate highway stand­ards.

The Indiana East-West Toll Road, which was completed in 1956, was con­structed with the proceeds of a bond sale. In the early 1960's, the State of Indiana and the toll road commission entered into a tripartite agreement with the Federal Government to obtain Federal funds to ·construct access roads to toll road entrances. Under 23 U.S.C. 129, the agreements contained a requirement that the tolls be rescinded when the bonds are retired, and that no additional bonds be issued. Indiana statutes do not contain .,requirements for removal of tolls.

The bonds were to be amortized over a period not to exceed 40 years. However, if revenues and expenses continue at the present level, the bonds should be retired about 10 years ahead of schedule. If the amendment is passed, the repayment of the approximately $2 million granted under the agreements -will release the toll road commission from any obliga­tion to make the road toll free. The toll road commission will then be free to issue new bonds.

Permitting the continuation of tolls and issuance of new bonds is essential to the maintenance and improvement of the toll road. If the road is allowed to go toll free at this time, the State highway commission will be forced to assume re­sponsibility for the toll road. The high­way commission simply does not have the revenue to operate, maintain, and improve it sufficiently. Thus, Indiana will be farced, through lack of funds, to fore­go much-needed improvement and addi­tional planned interchanges for the toll road.

For instance, it is estimated that costs of maintaining the toll road run about $8,000,000 to $10,000,000 per year. These figures represent 12 percent of the State highway commission's annual mainte­nance budget and 6 percent of its total annual budget. Moreover, the toll road commission now spends about $25,000 each year to maintain a single mile of the highway, while the State highway commission is spending only $10, 700 a year to maintain 1 mile of interstate highway.

In addition, Indiana would have to forgo the construGtion of seven to nine new interchanges presently planned by the toll road commission, and de­scribed 1n our amendment. A congres­sionally mandated study of the toll road released by Wilbur Smith Associates 1n April 1979 estimates that these inter­changes, as well as improvements such as repairing bridges. widening roads, and renovating and adding toll facillties, wlll cost over $250,000,000. Revenues for the additional interchanges would not be available from the State highway com­mission until 1990. at the earliest. How­ever, in the event that I~diana is freed

from the Tripartite Agreement, the toll ment of this Act, have licensing authority commission plans a 30-year bond issue over such byproduct material produced 1n that will provide $151,819,000 for im- any activity covered by such agreement, un­provements and additions and immediate less the agreement is terminated. u, upon construction of these new interchanges expiration of the three-year interim, a state which will make the road accessible to has not entered into such an agreement with

respect to byproduct material as defined 1n more Indiana citizens and bring the road section lle.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of up to interstate standards. 1954, the Com.mission shall have authority

This legislation is designed to maintain over such byproduct me.terte.l." the toll road in the most practical and (b) Section 204(h) (1) of the Uranium efficient way, and to extend the use of Mill Te.111ngs Radiation Control Act of 1978 the road to greater numbers of Indiana is a.mended to read: citizens. Citizens in northern Indiana "SEC. 204(h) (1). on or before the date

three yea.rs after the date of enactment of appear to overwhelmingly favor continu- this Act, notwithstanding any provision of ation of these tolls for this purpose, and this title, any State me.y exercise any e.u­I am, therefore, happy to support this thority under State law (including .a.uthor­legislation. ity exercised pursuant to an agreement en-

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, the tered into pursuant to Section 274 of the minority manager and I have discussed Atomic Energy Act of 1954, a.s a.mended) re­this amendment with the Senators from specting (a.) byproduct me.terie.l, a.s defined Indiana, and as far as the majority is in section lle.(2) of the Atomic Energy concerned, we have no objection. Act of 1954, or (b) any activity which re-

It is a good amendment. It shows, once sults in the production of byproduct mate-rial as so defined, in the same manner and

again, that we can adapt to local con- to the same extent as permitted before the ditions and do what the people of an enactment of this Act; provided, however, area want. The Senators are ably repre- that nothing in this section shall be con­senting their constituents. strued to preclude the Commission or the

I thank Senator BAYH again for his Administrator of the Environmental Pro­generous comments to 'me. When he talks tection Agency from ta.king sucb. action

bo th under 275 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954

a ut e camaraderie of this committee, e.s may be necessary to implement title I of I agree with him; it is true. But I think this Act." much of the camaraderie comes from (c) The le.st sentence of section 83 a.. of the chairman of the full committee, Sen- the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, a.s a.mended, ator RANDOLPH, and his example, which is a.mended to read: leads to decisions being made in our "Any license in effect on the effective date committee with a minimum of partisan- of this section and subsequently terminated ship, and that is the way it should be. without renewal shall comply with pa.re.­I am delighted to serve under his very graphs (1) and (2) upon termination."

(d) Section 204(e) of the Urie.nium Mill able leadership in that committee. Te.111ngs Radiation Control Act of 1978 ls

I have no objection to the amend- a.mended by adding a.t the end thereof a. ment, and I urge its adoption. new pa.re.graph to read as follows:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time "(2) This subsection shall be effective on on the amendment yielded back? the date three yea.rs after the date of ena.ct-

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, we ment of this Act.". concur in accepting the amendment. (e) Section 83(b) (1) (A) of the Atomic

Mr. BA YH. I yield back the remainder Energy Act of 1954, as a.mended, is a.mended by-

of my time. ( 1) striking all that follows: transferred Mr. BENTSEN. I yield back the re- · to-" down through "Unless" and inserting

mainder of my time. in lieu thereof the following" The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques- " ( 1) the United States, or

tion is on agreeing to the amendment. (11) the State in which such land ts located, The amendment was agreed to. a.t the option of such State, unless'', and

(2) striking "section 84 b." and inserting UP AMENDMENT NO. 662 in lieu thereof "section 81 of this Act".

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President. I send Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, I ask to the desk an unprinted amendment. unanimous consent that it be 1n order to

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. CULVER). The amendment will be stated. consider the amendment.

The legislative clerk read as follows: The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

The Sena.tor from New Mexico (Mr. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, will the DoMENicI) proposes a.n unprinted a.mend- Senator restate the question? ment numbered 662.

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

The amendment is as follows: On page 11, after line 5, insert the fol­

lowing: SEC. . Section 204(h) of the Uranium

Mill Te.111ngs Radiation Control Act of 1978 is a.mended by adding at the end thereof a new pa.re.graph to read a.s follows:

"(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, where a. State assumes or has assumed, pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 274b. of the Atomic En­ergy Act of 1954, authority over any activity which results in the production of byprod­uct material as defined in section lle.(2) of that Act, the Commission shall not, until the date three years after the date of enact-

Mr. DOMENIC!. That it be in order to consider the amendment at this time.

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

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, this amendment to H.R. 4249 would make certain technical changes in Public Law 95-604, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radia­tion Control Act of 1978.

These changes are to title 2 of that act as title 2 addresses the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the agreement States to license and regulate uranium mills and milltailings. Spe­cifically, NRC was given immediate au­thorltv to regulate uranium milltailings in States which do not elect to regulate uranium mills and milltailings under the agreement States program. Signiflcant new substantive and procedural require-

29288 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE October 24, 1979

ments were also imposed on the agree­ment States by that act. In recognition of the fact, the agreement States were given a period of 3 years to impose their regulatory programs to meet the new re­ontrements. At the end of the period, an agreement State which failed to fully satisfy the new requirement would lose its regulatory authority and NRC would assume licensing responsibillty.

Mr. President, on Aprll 26 of this year, the principal authors of the regulatory portion of the Uranium M1l1 Tailings Radiation Control Act wrote the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on this subject. That letter expressed their concern that certain possible ambiguities in the word­ing of the statute might be interpreted to con1lict with the statutory intent which I have described. On May 30, the Commission advised the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation that in the view of a majority of the Commission, the M1l1 Tailings Act, as presently written, could not be interpreted to meet this intent. At the same time, the Commission proposed legislation to correct these ambiguities and to bring the language of the statute into accord with our intent. Those pro­posed changes, which are supported by the full Commission, are incorporated into my amendment.

Mr. President unless these changes are enacted swiftly the Commission will be required to exercise dual licensing juris­diction in the agreement States of the 3-year interim period. This would result in needless and costly duplication, and would be disruptive of the spirit of co­operation and support which has been carefully developed between NRC and the agreement States. This amendment would eliminate that problem and insure that the implementation of the act's im­portant improvements wW proeeed in an orderly and expeditious manner.

Mr. President these technical clarify­ing changes to the Uranium Mill Ta111ngs Act were already adopted by the Senate as amendments to the NRC authoriza­tion bill for fiscal year 1980, S. 562, on July 16 of this year. However, the House has so far failed to act on that legisla­tion, and there are indications that the House may not consider that legislation until some time next year. In view of the need to enact these cl.arifying changes promptly, I would urge that they be adopted as an amendment to H.R. 4249.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the April 26 letter from the principal authors of the legislation to NRC, the May 30 letter from NRC to the Environment and Public Works Commit­tee, a June 8, 1979, letter from the Gov­ernor of the state of New Mexico to me regarding this legislation, and ·a section­by-section analysis of the amendment be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

COMMITTEE ON lNTZBIOR AND INS11LAB A.TADS,

Waah~ngton., D .C ., April 26, 1979. Hon. JosEPB HBNDam, Chairman, Nuclear Beguiatory Commfufoti,

Wcuhington, D.C. DIWl CJIAmKAN Bsmmu: Durtng your

testimony last month on the NRC ftscal year 1980 budget request before the Senate En­vironment and Publlc Works Committee and the House Interior and Insular Affairs and Interstate and Foreign Commerce COmmit­tees, you referred to potential problems in implementing Public Law 91HJ04, the Ura­nhu:n M1ll Talllngs Radiation Control Act of 1978.

Speclftcally, you mentioned that there may exist some uncertainty based upon the lan­guage of the statute regarding the date by which the Agreement States must meet the new requirements in the statute and the need for the Commission to exercise within the Agreement States its new licensing au­thority for uranium mill talllngs. At that time, you indicated the Commission's con­tinued support for the three year grace period in making these requirements effective, but expressed the view that any intrepretation of the present statutory language on these points would llkely lead to litigation.

It Is our view that these questions should be resolved promptly, in accordance with the intent of the Congress, and in a manner which will not cause disruptions in the on­going regulatory programs and activitiM of NBC and the Agreement States. In that re­gard, we are concerned that the statute might be interpreted to require the Agree­ment States to immediately meet the new requirements of the Act in all cases or to require the dupltcate ltcensing by NRC of all Ull'anium mills and mill tallings tn the Agreement States. Such interpretations, in our view, would be contrary to the intent of Congress and would discourage rather than encourage the Agreement States from mak­ing every effort to meet the new require­ments of the Act as early as poeslble.

As the principal authors of the legtalation in the House and the Senate, we are conft­dent the Congress intended for NRC to ex­ercise authority over mill talllngs in the Non-Agreement States immediately, and in­tended to provtde for a period of up to three years for Agreement States which· license uranium mllling operations or m1ll tallings to meet the new requirements of the statute. During this three year period, an Agreement State could continue its llcensing activities under previously existing authority. New standards and requirements would be ap­pllcable to the maximum extent practicable, and NRC ts expected to make every effort to encourage and assist the States in upgrad­ing their licensing programs to meet the new requirements as early as possible.

The Congress did not intend for NRC to immediately exercise licensing authority within Agreement States which were exer­cising authority over uranium milling oper­ations or mill tallings on the date of enact­ment. At the expiration of the three year interim period, however, NRC would exercise its authority In any State which did not then have In effect a licensing program satisfying all of the applicable new standards and requirements.

If the Commiaslon would benetlt in future enforcement of this intent and interpreta­tion from clarifying legislation, we would be happy to provtde our aaatstance.

Truly, JJ:NNINGS RAMl>oLPB,

Senator. OUT HABT,

Senator. Pm V. Dol!l:NICI,

Senat9f'. JOHN D. DINma.t.,

Congreaaman. MOBBIS K. UDALL,

Congruaman. RomT E. BAt7KAN,

Congrunnan.

U.S. N'UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Wcuhtngton, D.C., Ma11 30, 11119.

Hon. GARY HABT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Nuclear &gu­

latton, Committee on Environment and Pubztc Worka, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR Ma. CHAIRMAN: The Nuclear Regula­tory Commission would Ulte to request your support for legislation to resolve questions arising from the effective date provtsiona of the Uranium M1ll Talllngs Radiation Control Act of 1978 enacted by the last Congress. The Comm1ss1on received a letter dated AprU 28, 1979 and signed by the principal authors of this legislation In both the Senate and Houae of Representatives which expressed the in­tent of the drafters regarding the date on which llcenslnK authority and procedural re­quirements under the Act would become ef­fective with respect to the Commission and affected State governments. The letter sup­ports the position that existing authority of Agreement States to license uranium mills and to control mill taWngs should not be disrupted during the three-year interim pe­riod following enactment and that during this period the NRC should not be required to exert concurrent ltcenslng a.uthortty over talllngs produced in milling activities regu­lated by the Agreement States.

The Commission 1s mindful of and aympa­thetlc with these views. Nonethelesa, after a careful analysis of the language of the 1978 Act. a majority of Commissioners have con­cluded that without amendments to the Act the NBC Is required to license tailings at Agreement State-regulated uranium mills during the three-year period before the Act permits renegotiated agreements to become effective. Pursuant to this decision aa to the meaning of the Act, implementing regula­tions and associated arrangement.a are now being prepared.

Enclosed with this letter 1s a draft of statutory language and a section-by-section analysis which would accomplish the intent of the principal authors of the legislation, as expressed in the AprU 26, 1979 letter. All Commissioners agree that such clarifying language Is desirable. Some additional clari­fication which the Commission believes nec­essary are also included and are described In the section-by-section analysis. The Com­mission believes that prompt enac~ent of this legislation ts necessary to assure that the Intent expressed by the authors of the Act may be carried out during the remainder of the three-year interim period.

Sincerely, J'OSJ:PH M. Hmmam.

JUNE 8. 19'19. Re Certain Requirements of the Uranium

M1ll Tallings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMT'RCA).

Hon. Pm: DoMEmcr, U.S. Senate, Bwaell Senate Offtce BuUcHng,

Wcuhtngton, D.C. DEAR SENATOR Pm: DoJib!Nrcr: The State

of New Mexico needs your assistance in e. matter of utmost importance concerning the status of New Mexico's uranium mill licens­ing program as an Agreement State under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 19M, aa amended, for the following reaaona:

(a) On May 17, 1979, the NRC Commia· sloners, by a 3 to 2 vote interpreted! the lan­guage of the UMTRCA of 1978 aa authority to assume immediately llcenstng of uranium mill tailings in all states and to Issue a gen­eral license for existing mill tailing& in all states. These general licensees would be sub­ject to remedial action orders of the Com­mission, if the Commission decides such or­ders are needed.

(b) The split Commission vote tndicatea confusion In Interpreting the UMTRCA of

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29289 November 8, 1978. The Commission's decision Ignores the language of section 204(h) (1) which states:

"On or before the date three years after the date of the enactment of this Act, not­withstanding any amendment made by this title, any State may exercise any authority under State law respecting byproduct ma­terial, as defined in section lle(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, in the same man­ner and to the same extent, as permitted be­fore the enactment of this Act." (Emphasis added.)

New Mexico, under the 1954 Atomic En­ergy Act and the State's Radiation Protec­tion Act, has exercised complete and sole authority in the issuing of licenses for uranium mills and their tamngs since May 1, 1974. The decision of the NRC to impose dual jurisdiction immediately over the li­censing of uranium mill tailings ls not ln accordance with the UMTROA provision quoted above, the UMTRCA as a whole, or the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.

(c) The May 17, 1979, Commission deci­sion also runs counter to the intent of UMTRCA's primary Congressional sponsors as indicated by the attached letter signed by Senators Randolph. Hart and Domenic! and Congressmen Dingell, Udall and Bau­man.

(d) The Commission has not adopted a formal order, rule, or regulation concerning this matter. In other words. the Commission has not taken any formal action pursuant to procedures which allow public comment and a clear route of appeal through the courts.

(e) Since May 17th, the NRC staff has been actively putting into operation the "interim" policy of "a." above, by contact­ing a New Mexico mill applicant and in­structing the applicant to forward its New Mexico application to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) so that ORNL can pre­pare an Environmental Impact Statement.

In view of the above activity on the part of NRC, we are now faced with an unwork­able situation ln attempting to operate an eftlclent and effective mill licensing pro­gram in New Mexico. New Mexico has always consldred the mill and tailings as insepa­rable and therefore issues one license for both activities as a prudent regulatory con­trol of radioactive material. The State's con­cern with regulatory overlap caused by concurrent licensing over uranium m1ll tan­lngs include the following:

(a) Dual llcenslng by both NRC and New Mexico of mm talllngs will be unworkable since no one will be in control and the al)pllcant wlll be caught ln an impossible situation. Only one regulatory bod(Y can be responsible for efficient and effective regu­lation.

(b) Dual llcensing by regulatory bodies ta contrary to Congressional and Adminis­tration pollcles for non-dupllcatlon of regulatory activities and ls an unnecessary cost to the taxpayers.

(c) Interference with and encroachment on the regulatory program of New Mexico by NRO may weaken the Agreement State Pro­gram which in the past has been exemplary example of Federal-State cooperation.

(d) Preparation of an Environmental Im­pact Statement by the NRC (actually done by a national lab) ls a long and expensive process and will delay even further the licensing process. This ts coun"ter to the Ad­ministration's policy of expediting regula­tory reviews; and in practice offers no sub­stantial improvement over the envlronmen­iat review conducted currently by New Mexico.

To prevent further encroachment on the regulatory program of the State of New Mexico, and mitigate the unto~ e1fect.s that stem from the recent Comm.tssion ac­tion. I urge your a&Bistance in swift passage

of remedial legislation designed to correct this intolerable situation.

I would also like to explore with you any other methods you may suggest to resolve this pressing issue.

Sincerely, BRUCE KING,

Governor.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

A product of the hectic final days of the 95th Congress, the Umnium Mill Tallings Radiation Control Act of 1978 contains cer­tain provisions regarding dates of effective­ness which, if left to stand, may be subject to dltrering legal lnterpreta.tlon. Speclflcally, two questions of immediate concern have arisen regarding the timing of State and NRO implementation of title Il of the Act:

(1) Do both the States and the Federal Government have authority to license ura­nium mill tailings (i.e., exercise concurrent licensing jurisdiction) for the three years following enactment of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act?

(2) Are the requirements of new section 2740 of the Atomic Energy Act pertaining to procedures to be followed by Agreement States in issuing source material licenses for unmlum mills immediately effective?

These questions have arisen because one section of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radia­tion Control Act (section 208) makes the provisions of the regulatory program in title II of the Act immediately effective unless otherwise speclfled, and another section of the Act (section 204(h) (1)) delays the ef­fectiveness of certain provlslons of the Act regarding State authorities for three years after the date of enactment. Accordingly, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has pro­posed amendments to clarify the effective dates of title n.

These amendments generally provide a three-year interim period before the require­ment.s in title n of the Uranium Mill Ta1lings Radiation Control Act (Mill Tailings Act) apply to milling operations and taillngs licensed by Agreement States.

In non-Agreement States, the NRC would have immediate authority to implement the regulatory program in title n. Although sec­tion 204(h) (1) preserves prior St.ate author­ity for three years, in case of confilct between Federal and State law, the Federal would prevail.

One of the provlslons in title Il (section 206) adds a new section 275 to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Section 275 authorizes certain Environmental Protection Agency standards which are, under section 108(a) (2) of the Mill Tailings Act, a prereqUlslte to the remedial actions authorized in title I. Thus it ls stressed that these clarifying amendments are not intended to prevent the Administrator of the Environmental Pro­tection Agency or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from taking such action under section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act as may be necessary to implement title I of the Mill Tailings Act.

SEC. 1. During the three years following enactment of the M1l1 Tailings Act, section 1 prohibits the NRC from exercising duplica­tive authority over tailings produced ln activities licensed by Agreement States unless the agreement ls terminated within that period. The EPA and NRC may, how­ever, take such action under 275 of the Atomic Energy Act as may be necessary to implement title I of the Mlll Tatlings Act.

SEC. 2. This section makes the provision ln section 204(h) (1) of the Mlll Ta.ilings Act preserving State authority over ta111ngs and wastes for the three-year interim con­form to the new requirements of the Mill Tailings Act which apply to both byproduct material and milling operations that resuit in the tailings and wastes now defined as byproduct material. As enacted, section

204(h) (1) mentions only byproduct material speclflcally, although the regulatory program generally covers both milling and ta1lings. As amended, this section explicitly covers both byproduct material and milling opera­tions and applies also to States that enter into agreements during the three-year interim.

Further provision ts made so that EPA and NRC may take such action under aec­tion 275 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as added by the Mill Tailings Act) as may be necessary to implement the remedial action program in title I of the MUI Talllngs Act immediately.

SEc. 3. As originally enacted, section 83 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 may be sub­ject to various interpretations regarding its tlming. Its provisions are not, under section 202(b) of the M1ll Ta111ngs Act, to become effective unttl three years from their date of enactment. Nonetheless, section 83a (u added by section 202 of the M1ll Tallings Act) states that licenses in effect on the date of enactment of this section must comply with 83a (1) and (2) upon their renewal or ter­mination, whichever first occurs. Conceivably this renewal or termination could take place during the three-year period in which sec­tion 83 ls not supposed to be effective. The sentence as amended applies section 83a only to licenses that are renewed or terminated after the effective date of section 83.

Moreover, it might be argued that a loop­hole was left for licenses issued after the date of enactment but before the effective date of section 83. It could be argued that such licenses would not be covered by sec­tion 83a. As amended, the section applies the requirements of section 83a to any license fu effect on the effective date of section 83.

SEc. 4. This section amends section 204(e) of the Mlll Ta111ngs Act to make lt clear that the new Agreement State responslb11ities re­garding tailings and milling operations in new section 2740 of the Atomic Energy Act are not effective untll three years after the enactment of the Mill Talllngs Act. The States are, however, encouraged to imple­ment the new standards and requirements of the Mill Tailings Act to the maximum extent practicable.

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, this bill is not going to get through the House of Representatives for some time, and we are concerned that undue delay will render the intent of that provision inop­erative because the Federal Government and the States will be for 3 additional years involved in a process that is ex­tremely duplicative and inoperative.

We, therefore, ask that this amend­ment be adopted and taken to conference.

If it o1fers any delay, I say to my good friend from Texas, certainly we would not expect him to cause any delays in his bill. It should go to the same committee that the bill we are considering today. Therefore, I ask that the Senate adopt it, that our good conferees take it and see if we can make it law before the year is out so that the goals of the amendment to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission bill with reference to this area will become law this year.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need.

I say to my distinguished friend from New Mexico that traditionally we do not want to get involved in the jurisdiction of another committee, but it is my un­derstanding that the leadership of the committee, the majority and minority, is not objecting to our considering this particular amendment and that the

29290 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979

amendment was part of the legislation that already passed the Senate. In trying to expedite the determination of what he seeks I will not object to it being attached to this particular piece of legislation with the understanding that we are subject to what the House of Representatives does on the question of germaneness once it gets over there.

But we are pleased from the stand­point of the majority to cooperate on this and if he has that kind of success with the minority he should be in good standing.

Mr. DOMENIC!. I thank my good friend from Texas. He states it exactly correct. This passed the Senate with no opposition. Those who supported it then, minority and majority, from the PUblic Works Committee indicate no objection to this process. If it offers any jurisdic­tional problems, I am saying now that I certainly would encourage him to ex­pedite his bill and, if that means drop­ping this amendment, that is satisfac­tory with us.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield back?

Mr. DOMENIC!. I yield back my time. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I urge

passage of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the amend­ment of the Senator from New Mexico.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, I move

to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was a.greed to.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

UP AMENDMENT NO. 663

(Purpose: To abolish the Highway Trust Fund)

Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator !rom Connecticut (Mr.

WEICKER) proposes an unprinted amend­ment numbered 663:

On page 1, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

TITLE I-SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENTS

On page 11, after Une 5, insert the !ollowing: TITLE II-TERMINATION OF filGHWAY

TRUST FUND TERMINATION SEC. 201. Effeotive after September 30,

1980-(1) the Highway Trust Fund ls terminated

and the amount in such Fund, Including any obligations held In such Fund, shall be cov­ered into the genera.I fund of the Treasury;

(2) any outstanding appropriations !rom, or obligations of, such Trust Fund shall be paid from such general fund;

(3) any authorizations !or appropriations t.o be made from su¢1 Trust Fund shall be considered to be authorizations !or appro­priations !rom such general !und; and

(4) section 209 o! the Highway Revenue Act o! 1956 ls repealed.

Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sum.cient second?

There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, the

amendment I am oflering today takes us right to the heart of this country's energy problem: We consume too much gasoline. Our total commitment to the automobile and to highways has left us with no choice for the future. Today mobility means the automobile. Tomorrow that luxury will not exist.

Today's amendment is designed to re­duce our consumption of gasoline by abolishing the highway trust fund ef­fective September 30, 1980. Federal gaso­line and other user taxes that support the fund would remain in place, but revenues derived would ftow into the general fund of the Treasury. Thus, funding levels for the revised transportation programs would be analyzed and set by Congress through the normal authorization and appropriations process. This legislation represents my continued commitment to remove the existing bias toward high­way construction in Federal transporta­tion programs and to create a balanced transportation system in the United States.

Mr. President, since the highway trust fund was created 23 years ago, the needs of our society have dramatically changed. In 1956, energy was plentiful and cheap. Today, energy availability is one of the crucial problems facing this Nation. Our heaVY reliance on insecure foreign­sourced oil threatens our national securi­ty, creates economic turmoil, and fuels infiation. The highway trust fund has helped to exacerbate this problem. By acting as an automatic pilot for highway construction, where expenditures were based on trust fund revenues regardless of demonstrated needs, we have created the best highways and the worst overall transportation system in the modem world. This unequal and fragmented ap­proach to transportation funding has led to a society dominated by the automobile. More than four out of every five Ameri­can families own cars today and 90 per­cent of all urban travel is by car or truck.

I recognize the importance of having a a good highway system both at the inter­state and intrastate levels; I know that our country basically runs on tires. But have we not already built the greatest highway syst.em in the world? Presently our Interstate Highway System com­prises over 39,000 miles of superhigh­ways; we have more than 900,000 miles of other Federal-aid roads, not to mention the State and local roadway system, and we have spent over $104 blllion from the fund alone. Enough is enough. It is well understood- that more roads generate more cars and more traftlc, and cars are one of the biggest categories of petro­leum consumers.

We all know the facts: Transportation is the largest single end use of energy conswnption in the country. CUrrently, 52.6 percent of our total energy use is for transportation with 39.5 percent of tha.t going into automobile gasoline tanks. The Federal Government, through the development and implementation of it.s transportation programs, has had an

enormous impact on the yearly waste of millions of gallons of gasoline. Today, mobility means the automobil&-no real choice exists for most of the American public.

Mr. President, it is time for the Con· gress of the United States, through the implementation of policy and programs, to lead this Nation out of the grasp of OPEC and toward measures of conserva­tion and eventual energy independence. If we really want to do something about the energy problems facing this country today, if we really want to reduce our level of gasoline consumption, and if we really want to improve our environment at the same time, we should abolish the highway trust fund and spend a good deal of the substantial funds raised by these excise taxes to finance more energy-emcient transportation.

With the long gasoline lines of just a few months ago it is obvious tha.t alter­natives to private automobile travel must be found. And yet the existence of the highway trust fund prohibits balanced transportation planning. Because of the fund, Federal transportation programs provide approximately 97 cents of each dollar for highways. Broken down into separate categories, the transpe>rtation dollar actually dictates transportation priorities to the States and cities. Local omcials see money in our specific cate­gury of the existing highway code and then build a road that fits the Federal guidelines, rather than building what they need.

We, as a responsive legislative body, need to weigh our many national needs and seek a better balance in the use of limited :financial resources. We must create a mechanism that allows States and local units to be more responsive to the changing transportation needs of our society.

Mr. President, I imagine this is about the seventh or eighth time in the la.st 7 to 8 years that I proposed the legisla­tion to eliminate the highway trust fund and to give balance to our transporta­tion system in this Nation.

The proposition has either been burled in committee, defeated on the fioor, or has lost in conference. It has never seen the light of day.

The year is 1979, and I hope we will look at this proposition in terms of the year 1979 and the vastly changing world around us and more particularly the changing circumstances of energy as it relates to our Nation.

I do not see, Mr. President, how we are going to rid ourselves of the reliance on OPEC both as to supply and as to price until certain basic reevaluations take place in this country and until cer­tain hard-nut decisions are made and acted upon.

When it came to the business of con­servation measures on this floor, the Senate said no. It said no by a vote of 93 to 7 to fuel stamps in 1977 and it said no by a vote of 79 to 10 Just a few • months ago.

I have noticed that there seems to be some great elation in the country about the fact that the President has been given some sort of a standby rationing authority. I think it should be made

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENA TE 29291

clear through my friends in the media, since the impression has been conveyed by them, that the President has such authority but that the authority he has is meaningless. Not until there is a 20-percent shortfall-you only had 4 to 5 percent during the Iranian oil cutoff and look what happened-only then can he invoke it. Even then Congress has two shots at him.

Senator METZENBAUM and I sat out here and argued for a minimal type of conservation measure the other day dealing with the emciency of small elec­tric motors. All it was were some sug­gested guidelines by the year 1983. It passed by four votes.

I am not going to get myself into a lather belaboring what should by now be the obvious. Until we get into place some effective conservation measures there is no way to solve our energy problems-­the price will continue to soar and supply will be unstable.

Apparently the price ls not high enough and the gasoline lines have not been long enough or frequent enough to bring us to this conclusion. But we will come to it. Instead of accomplishing con­servation in a small but meaningful way and in a way that does not discombobu­late everybody's life we are going to come to a point where we are llterally going to be tossed bodily out of our auto­mobile.

Why do I make these comments as I relate now to the highway trust fund. I think we all agree that any energy pro­gram has to encompass the following: Conservation in the terms of dim1nish­ing our use of gasoline; additional sup­plles of energy both in the traditional sense of the fossil fuels, which hopefully will be realized through deregulation and decontrol; and additional supplies whether they come from the develop­ment of the exotics, solar energy, geo­thermal, fuel cell, gasification, and so forth. None of the exotics are going to come on stream until the year 2000 and beyond in sumcient amount to give us that kind of a handle on our energy prob­lems. Conservation, as I have already pointed out to Senators, has not been ac­complished.

So now we come to the third part of any solution which is alternate forms of transportation.

For all intents and purposes, since the end of World Warn the Federal Gov­ernment has spent probably on an aver­age of 96 cents of every transportation dollar on the highways or more speclft­cally on the automobile, with roughly a penny or two going to rails and another penny to airplanes.

So if we have the greatest highway system in the world it ls because we paid for it, and we are paying for it. If we have no ran systems, we have no bus systems, it is because we have spent nothing on them.

We might be able to continue in this kind of dream world were it not for peo­ple 12,000 miles away who have made it clear there 1s going to have to be some alteration in our thinking, that no longer can it be the automobile society that has existed since the end of World Warn.

It seems to me that the responsible re­action by Congress then is to anticipate what will occur, to anticipate and to start providing the alternate methods of mov­ing about this Nation either by rail, in­tercity bus, or mass transit. We know it is going to come. The only thing to be decided ls as to whether we will plan for that eventuality or we will allow it to come over the top of us and behind us be­fore we start to make adequate provision for it.

Again I think I know what the answer is going to be. Two years ago I sat here or stood here on the floor of the Senate and I decried the gas rationing by price that was going on in this country, and I said we had better make provision for our poor, our elderly, and our fixed in­come people, and to get a better system of rationing plan. That was 2 years ago, to prepare for that day when prices were going to get so high that large elements of our society would not be able to afford their utility bills.

It was accepted in the compromise version but lost in conference. Here we are 2 years later scrambling around with a crisis intervention program, trying to make sure that the disadvantaged in our society are not going to freeze this win­ter when we could have :planned for it 2 years ago.

There is no way that Americans are going to ~ able to continue to drive the way they have during the past 20 years, and you ought to say so. You ought to tell your constituents that as much as 40 percent of every barrel of oil goes to gasoline. Do you think that ls going to be able to continue? I do not think so. How else are they going to move about? ·

This is the same U.S. Senate that just before the Fourth of July recess, when the President proposed his plan to cut back 40 percent on Amtrak, sat here with 1977 statistics and said, "These statistics justify a 40 percent cutback," when even on that very same day you could not get hold of Amtrak to make a reservation. _ Every train was 105 and 110 percent full. We were going to go ahead and act on 1977 statistics.

Do you think a few things have changed since 1977? Do you think a few things have changed since 1956 when the highway trust fund went into being? All this amendment does ls to take high­way trust fund moneys and put them into the general fund of the Treasury, and then-I hate to bring this to the attention of my colleagues-it forces :each one of us to start assigning trans­portation priorities and making choices, doing our homework here on the floor as to what is needed.

We cannot excuse the fact that we are ill prepared with all new forms of transportation by saying "It ls the high­way trust fund. We do not have mat­ters of judgment on this score."

My amendment does not eliminate the money for highways. It will still be there, but State by State, locality by locality, it will have us making judgments as to what is needed to move about this country of ours.

To give your constituents the impres­sion that 1979 in terms of transPortation mob111ty and need ls the same as 1956

ts a total abe.ndonment of the trust placed on each one of our heads.

Twenty-three years ago this trust fund began, and we a.re stuck with a transpor­tation policy of 23 years ago. It is like an automatic pilot. We have overflown the destination hundreds of times in many of our States. It does not make any dlfter­ence, we will Just keep on going and going and going, and not because of any na­tional need. not because of any change in priorities, but because of vested inter­ests, because of the highway lobby, which is one of the most pawerful in this Nation's Capital, and they would far rather deal with a trust fund than 100 freely elected Representatives of the people, who have to use their heads.

The need for highways sWl exists in almost all sections of the country. both in the prt.ma.ry and secondary roads. No­body is going to argue against it.

On the other hand, neither can anyone else argue against the enormous need for a decent passenger ran system, intercity, in the United States, for decent bus serv­ice in our va.rlous States and cities, and mass transit faclllties.

The argument is going t.o be presented, "Well, then, let us have a unified tra.ns­portatlon trust fund or a mass transit transportation trust fund. We already have the airport trust fund."

I say "No" to all trust funds. It is no dlfterent from any other national need, but it should be judged as to its circum­stances and as to its time by that par­ticular group of Representatives of the people.

How in heaven's name in the year 1979, with a cr1sis that confronts this count;y, can we come forth with the same old stu1f? How?

Am I correct when I read the report that they did not even have hearings on this bill this year? Is tha.t correct, no hea.rlngs were even held? No hea.rlngs held, no votes in the committee, nothing. It just goes on and on and on. The world changes, but the highway trust fund does not. The world changes but the U.S. Sen­ate does not. Then we wonder why our dependence on on continues to soar, why the price continues to soar, and why the supply is in jeopardy.

There ls no mystery, Mr. President. We are not doing our job.

We are not doing it on conservation. We are not dotilg it on alt.emate forms of transportation. All we like to do ls dream up new energy mobilization boards, syn­thetic fuels corporations-everything to get away from the fact that the lifestyle in this Nation ts going to have to change. The automobile no longer can dominate our llves, UI).less your constituents would pref er having an automobile to havtng a Job, unless they would prefer having an automobile to a sound dollar, unless they would prefer having an automobile to the very many services that are so essential to the well-being of their famllles and their neighbors.

It becomes clear, more so as every day goes by: The inflation we are in is an energy inflation. The ~ion we are going into might as well be called an "ener-cesslon"-an "ener-cesston," re­sulting from fa.ilure to respond to the challenge that ts laid down to us. I heard 1he critics of the President's energy plan

29292 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979

when they said, "Where are the provi­sions for mass transit and alternate forms of transportation?" That was a good question when asked, a.nd is still a good question, a.nd will be a good ques­tion tomorrow, I am sure, after the vote is over, a.nd the month after that and the year after.

I would hope that at least we would show some sensitivity to this chang'ing world around us, to our increasingly im­Poverished circumstances, a.nd agree that there are more important things than the automobile and the highways, and agree that new occasions demand new resPonses-not 30-year-old re­sponses, but new responses.

I urge the adoption of my amendment. Mr. BENTSEN. I yield myself such

time as I may need. Mr. President, I have enjoyed the rhe­

toric of the Senator from Connecticut, as I always do, but he has some problems with the facts. When he talks about the committee not having hearings, of course we did not have hearings. We are deal­ing with technical amendments. We are dealing with a certification date, deter­mining whether it is done on October 1 or January 1. We are talking about the question of ferries and subsidizing tolls for emergency use ferries. I have read the list of amendments, and they are tech­nical amendments. They have been con­sidered by the staff, they have been con­sidered by the members of this commit­tee. When the Senator talks about trying to change this kind of bill by bringing something that he says would drastically change the highway program, he is right; it would drastically change the highway program.

He says it is an idea that is 30 years old; no changes over 30 years-automatic pilot, full steam ahead, no deviation.

Not so. And the Senator had a good deal to do with what we have changed, as he well knows. We have changed how urban funds can be used; we have pro­vided the :flexibility to use funds for bus lanes, to tum in urban interstate projects for mass transit authorizations. We have changed this particular piece of legisla­tion, and we will continue to change it.

This idea of his is not a new one. It is something like a biennial blossoming. As I recall, it has been considered a number of times. In 1972 there were 18 votes for it, in 1973, 23 votes for it, in 1975, 22 votes for it, in 1978, 10 votes for it. Yes; 100 Senators considered it, they sure did, and they said it was a bad idea, and they said that the trust fund was working, and it was something that we ought to con­tinue.

The trust fund is not something that spurs spending; the trust fund, in ef­fect, has put a cap on spending. He cited some :figures of 97 percent of the transportation dollar going to the high­ways. Who paid for it? It is a user tax; the people that use the highways pay for them. That is where the money came from.

Then the Senator talks about rail­roads. Sure, I am for railroads, and I think we need railroads. But we have to understand where we build those rail­roads. They have to be built along con-

centrations of population, along corri­dors. I am delighted that the Senator from Connecticut has those concentra­tions of population in Connecticut. Across vast parts of my State I do not have it. Nor does the Senator from West Virginia. The present Presiding Officer <Mr. CULVER) does not have it.

But the Senator who is sitting in the chair as Presiding omcer is one who is interested in bridges, and U.."lderstands the dangers of bridges that need recon­struction, w!dening, and strengthening, and the number of fatalities we have had as a result of bridges failing. Where does the money for bridge repair come from? The highway trust fund. The Sena.tor from Iowa. wishes it could have been more, and I understand that, because we have thousands and thousands of bridges across this country that do not meet safe standards, and we are a. long way from finishing that job.

Abolish the highway trust fund? Well, you gut the Federal-aid highway pro­gram. That is what you do; you put the whole Interstate System in jeopardy. It is just as simple as that.

As far as I am concerned, the highway trust fund has two rare attributes: First, it is a Government program that works, and second, it does not spend more money than it collects. There are sure not many of those. But this one, the highway trust fund, is that kind of a program.

For two decades, it has provided the means to build a.n Interstate Highway System that is of enormous significance to the citizens across our country.

What do you think the transportation problems would be in this country if we did not have the Interstate System, if we did not have an Interstate System that provided an economical kind of transfer of goods across this country, instead of some of the tortuous trails that we have had to traverse in years past?

The Senator from Connecticut sug­gests that we continue to collect the funds, that we put them in the general revenues. Well, now, what does that mean? Does it mean he wants to cut the amount of funds that are going to high­ways? If he does not mean that, then why bother to change it from the high­way trust fund to general revenues?

The cost of maintaining highways is going up with inflation, escalating all the time. The demand for funds is con­stantly increasing. But the money that is going into the highway trust fund is leveling off. It has plateaued. I frankly believe that we have seen the peak 1n gasoline usage in this country, in spite of the increase in population, in spite of the fact that we have more automobiles every year. It has peaked, it has leveled, and it wlll probably go down. The reason is that we have mandated better mileage in our automobiles. The manufacturers are building cars that today give you 35 percent better mileage than they did just 4 years ago in this country, and they are going to have to do a lot more. Just a few moments ago I was talking with someone who was telling me that one manufacturer, Volkswagen, is coming out with an automobile that, 2 years

from now, will give you 75 miles to the gallon, with a diesel engine. I hope they do, and that American manufacturers will beat them to it.

We had expenditures of $8.5 billion in fiscal year 1979. To those people who think there is fat in. that fund, that we have billions of dollars sloshing around in the coffers begging to be spent, I say it is not so. It is not the case.

This committee a.nd this Senator have resisted efforts to mandate new and higher levels of expenditures for our highways. Last year the Senate conferees reduced the House-passed funding levels by nearly $16 billion over 4 years-re­duced them. When the Sena.tor talks about lobbies, now, does he think that is something that is popular with them, that this so-called powerful lobby he was talking about was pushing this Senator to reduce funding, that they wanted it reduced by $16 billion? Certainly not.

In the future, we are going to see this highway trust fund under continued pressure. ·

Another argument we hear is that our highways are inherently ineftlcient, that they increase our dependency on im­ported energy. Well, that is just not nec­essarily the case, Mr. President. We had the committee make a study of the most eftlcient means of transporting people around cities and we found that the most energy emcient modes were vans and buses, and those modes depend on the in­terstate and other highway systems. In addition we have seen that only a limited number of metropolitan areas have the population density to support nonhigh­way mass transportation.

In most areas of this country, mass transportation must take the form of multipassenger motor vehicles that uti­lize the regional road and highway net­work.

The argument that the Federal high­way program is inflexible and unrespon­sive to our current needs is also without merit. For 6 years, that program has been characterized by its :flexibility.

I spoke a moment ago how we can use these funds for the purchase of buses, construction of bus lines, fringe parking, and all the rest.

With the approval of the Secretary of Transportation, urban areas can substi­tute a mass transit project for an un­wanted interstate segment. The list goes on and on.

Mr. President, if you scrap the high­way trust fund as proposed by the Sen­ator from Connecticut, there will no longer be any certainty that adequate funds will be available to complete and maintain the vital arteries of highways across this country. Highway-related projects have long le8.dtimes, and the ability to enter into those obligations without waiting for appropriations al­lows the stat.e agencies to plan their programs far in advance and make the necessary :financial arrangements. To abolish the trust fund would be to re­place a proven, effective program with uncertainty we can ill afford.

There is an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it." And this one ain't broke; it is working.

.. ,

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29293 I do not pretend that the trust fund

is sacrosanct, that it cannot be improved. We have made an honest effort to make the fund flexible and responsive to cur­rent needs, and we are going to continue that effort. When we do the highway bill next year, I would be pleased to take a very close look at any proposal to im­prove the system my distinguished friend from Connecticut wants to present to the committee and give it full consideration at that time. But that is the time we ought to consider a major piece of legis­lation such as he is now proposing to us.

Let me also point out that the trust fund is not a spur to highway spending. Historically, highway needs have gen­erally far exceeded revenue generated by the fund-but we have made it a prac­tice not to provide authorizations that exceed revenues. In this important re­spect the fund has acted as a caP--not a spur-on highway spending.

Mr. President, this amendment is clearly inappropriate. It suggests a fun­damental change in transportation pol­icy that has been carefully considered and soundly rejected by the Senate.

Remember once again this is a techni­cal bill, and what the Senator from Con· necticut has proposed is a major, drastic change in a program which is working. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, could

I inquire-I was away from the ·cham­ber for a few minutes-what js the sta­tus now of the pending amendment of­fered by the able Senator from Connect­icut (Mr. WEICKER) ?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that under this amend­ment 1 hour has been allocated equally divided with 30 minutes to the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Con­necticut. The Senator from Connecticut has now used 17 minutes of his 30 min­utes, and the Senator from Texas has used 12 minutes of his time.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President. I yield such time as our distinguished chair­man <Mr. RANDOLPH) may require.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I hope that Senators will reject the amendment to terminate the highway trust fund offered by the able Senator from Connectlcut <Mr. WEICKER). I stress the fact that the trust fund has proved a valuable and flexible asset in meeting the highway needs of the Nation for more than 20 years.

It has afforded financing for the great­est public works program ever under­taken by any country in any a~e-the construction of the Interstate Highway System. It serves people. We recognize that this task is not yet comoleted. This is not the time to terminate the existence of the mechanism which has been re­sponsible for the monumental accom­plishment already achieved in this pro­gram.

We must also remember that the pri­ority accorded interstate construction­a justified priority, I add-has obscured a nµmber of other pressing highway needs. I speak of such needs as bridge replacement and rehabilitation, road­way resurfacing and repair and high­way safety. We should not, I emphasize, terminate a financing source which has

CXXV--1842-Part 22

proven itself equal to the task of ad­dressing needs of the magnitude of our Highway Transportation System.

Mr. President, I urge the rejection of this amendment for another important reason. The bill, H.R. 4249, now under consideration, makes technical amend­ments and addresses special needs, to last year's Highway Act.

The errors in the Senator's comments are many. They have been repeated year after year. Members here, and in the House of Representatives, have record­ed their votes in favor of the highway trust fund.

Mr. President, I do not have a desire to reiterate what has been said year after year, although the chairman of our Transportation Subcommittee is correct in saying that this is not the appropriate measure to which to offer the amend­ment.

The Senator from Connecticut has every right to offer it, but this is a bill that is clarifying, which takes care of technical situations, and what we call pressing needs in certain parts of the country. However, I am ready to go to a rollcall vote rather than to take addi­tional time.

Mr. President, I will say that the con­tinued errors in the argument of my col­league are as evident today as they have been in the past. The respo111Se to those arguments frankly has been the best evi­dence of the Senate's belief that the highway trust fund is the instrumentality for more than 20 years which has brought into being in this country the greatest public works program in the his­tory of any country in any part of the world. The Interstate program has been a peonle's program. It has served the peo­ple. The products of the farm, the fac­tory, the mill and the mine are moving over this network of roads in this coun­try, as well as those people who go from their homes to the mines of West Vir­ginia or into the pursuits of day-by-day gainful employment in every State of this Union, including Connecticut.

I would welcome, as I say, although I am not the one who should say that, a rollcaU vote on the amendment.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President. there is one in the U.S. Senate who has done more work on the bill pertaining to a modern hi~hwaY system across this country than the Senator from West Virginia. I applaud him for it.

I will say to mv distinguished friend from Connecticut that. once again, this is not the first time that I have had a maior piece of legislation which is tech­nical and someone wanted to attach other amendments to it. I want to say that I will be glad to listen to his pro­posal in the next year, and after I have given him a fair trial, I will do my best to defeat his pronosal.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 60 seconds to me?

Mr. BENTSEN. I will be delighted to yield such time as the distinguished chairman desires.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I appreciate my col­league's yielding. I had a predecessor in this body, Senator Matthew Mansfield Neely. On one occasion he looked at his friend across the aisle and said, "If he was in need, I would climb the highest

mountain to be by his side, I would swim the widest river to bring assistance to him, I would trudge through the snows of winter to help him, I would walk through the searing sands if I could be of assistance. Having said all this, the amendment he offers I cannot support."

He paid compliments to his friend as a friend, but the logic of the amendment he could not endorse.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from Connecticut.

Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, the dis­tinguished Senator from West Virginia speaks as one who has the votes in his pocket. I have no doubt he is going to prevail here on the fioor, no doubt at all. I only hope that it is within my lifetime to correct this. My position is established.

Mr. BENTSEN. I wish the Senator such a long lifetime.

[Laughter]. Mr. WEICKER. Now let me resppnd to

some of the facts which have been put forth in the debate. The distinguished Senator from Texas has said that the trust fund is a cap. He knows well, as well as I do, that it is not a cap. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that anticipated receipts will not cover authorized spending levels over the next 3 to 4 years. The trust fund is operating with a $7 billion deficit in 1978. The trust fund revenues are leveling off, but the expenditures, as he has indicated, are in­creasing. It is possible that general funds will have to be used.

It is not a cap. He might have many arguments on his side, but he should not use that one.

Point No. 2: He asked the question, Does the Senator f:rom Connecticut in­tend to cut highway funds? Yes, yes. Everybody thinks there is going to be a resolution of the energy crisis without any change in anything at all, that we can drive as much as we drove; that in the application of a transportation sys­tem, the highway is still going to be No. 1 and in its same relative position to other forms of transportation; that we can continue to embody or embrace those programs which do not give us addi­tional production to the fossil fuel.

The Senator from Texas knows full well I mentioned additional production of fossil fuels as being essential to our getting out of the energy crisis. I point out to my distinguished colleague that I was the only New England Senator-the only one, and have been since 1973-74. for 5 years-to vote for decontrol and deregulation, so much so that I am called by my opponents in New England the third Senator from Texas. Texas hardly needs a third Senator.

What we do need is additional produc­tion, along with the conservation I men­tioned, along with the alternate forms of transportation. That decontrol position is unpopular in New England, as I am sure my mandatory conservation posi­tion and my highway position is unpopu­lar in Texas. But, Mr. President, it is those unpopular decisions that are going to get us out of the crisis we are in. And until they are made, there is no getting out. That is the problem.

Even the President is tied hand and foot by the unwillingness of Congress to make the unpopular decisions. I am no

29294 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979

fan of President Carter's, but do I think he deserves more support on the power that is given to him to get us out of this energy problem? I sure do and I have supported him on those points.

If you ask the people of the State of Connecticut what are our priorities right now in that small State, they would an­swer, "We need more bus systems, we need more rail service." This does not mean to say we do not have some high­way needs, but they have become mini­mized as the Interstate System has been completed in some States. That is not the case in all States. What I am asking for is an option, locale by locale, to meet the circumstances of that area, and cer­tainly more specifically, the circum­stances that confront us as a Nation.

The Senator from Texas mentioned the fact that rail transportation is just good for those areas of heavy popula­tion concentration. That used to be the case; it is no longer. How many have heard Senator MELCHER from Montana stand up here and plead for Amtrak funds for his State, which, on a ridership basis up to now, would not justify addi­tional rail service or the maintenance of the rail service that was there? But with people not being in their automobiles in Montana, they also have to get around.

I do not care if there is only one Sena­tor. It has nothing to do with whether it is 1, 10, or 100,000; if people cannot move and cannot get into their auto­mobiles something should be done.

Yes, I supported the Senator from Montana, as I would Texas, Iowa, wher­ever, in seeing to it that their consti­tue!lts are protected from a crisis which is not regional in its nature but, rather, national.

Lastly, the business of its being a user tax. I pay it, as everybody does when we buy a gallon of gasoline. I am not nec­essarily paying that tax to build another highway; I am paying that tax so I can move-so I can move, however that oc­curs. Do you think the people who are sitting there in the world's greatest parking lot, on Long Island, bumper to bumper, for 2 hours, do you think that is what they want? Or do they want more efficient rail systems running be­tween Manhattan and the Island? They want to move, however that is best ac­complished. That is what we are paying our taxes toward.

How many of us have flown over sec­tions of this country, and all of a sudden see a high way going to nowhere and ending? That is what I can see with this automatic pilot. This legislative auto­matic pilot is going to keep on spitting out those highways, even though there are going to be no cars on them. As you fly across this couhtry, you are going to see stretch after stretch of concrete, end­ing nowhere with nothing on it. There will be the final testimony to the legisla­tive wisdom of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I have a great respect for the Senator f<rom Connecticut and his deep concern, and that is why I overlook his lapses in logic when he gets to something like the high­way trust fund. I accept his prejudice in this regard, but I cannot agree with him.

When he talks about long-distance

trains for passengers and how effective they are, I find that a little difilcult one to accept, too. Anybody who tries to get on a train and go from New York to Los Angeles is trying to entertain his grand.children. There cannot really be any economic reason for that. You can get all the people that take a passenger train for those long distances three air­plane tickets and buy the railroad buffs a free Lionel train set, and the taxpayer would be better off. Once again, there are places for passenger trains, but the places are Where you either have popu­lation corridors or you have reasonably close population centers to take care of.

As to what the Senator said about the deficit in the trust fund, let us be sure we understand what we are talking about. At the present time, the trust fund has a $12.5 billion surplus and we are trying to stretch that out. That is why we held down these expenditures this time, be­cause we can see some of the problems that are forthcoming in the way of de­creasing ·revenues coming from cars that give better gasoline mileage, so people are paying less and less into the highway trust fund as these years pass on.

We have brought forth what we think is a minimum program, needed for the modernization of our highways, for re­building the bridges that are not safe in this country, for trying to build safer roads to have the lives of our people. The program that we agreed on last year, after long and lengthy debate, after long and lengthy hearings, as a sound one for this country of ours brought about sub­stantial changes in the utilization of the trust fund. I ask my colleagues not to do violence to that now on a technical amendments bill that did not, in any way, anticipate this kind of major legis­lation.

I urge the defeat of the amendment. Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, I in­

tend to yield back the remainder of my time after just two comments-one ques­tion and one comment.

First of all, the Senator from Texas asked the question, where would we be if we did not have this system, this high­way trust fund? I will tell you where we would be: We probably would be where we were right after World War II, when we had no highways, and we would be where we are right now in the year 1979, where we have no rails. That is where we would be and where we are.

The question I ask the Senator from Texas-I have to lay my traps out in front of me here. I realize it is going to be several years before the correctness of my position is borne out.

I estimate that you fellows-by that I mean the committee, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and the dis­tinguished Senator from Texas-are go­ing to have to go for general fund moneys to balance things out sometime in the near future.

I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Texas would like to comment: At such time as any portion of this fund has to be supplemented by general funds, would that be the proper time, then, will we then have crossed the line to the elimination of the highway trust fund, therefore sending up the whole issue

each year for legislative determination, rather than just some small part of it, which is asking for supplementary funding?

Mr. BENTSEN. I say to my distin­guished friend, when that time comes­if it comes, and it may well-when we have problems with having adequate funds in the highway trust fund, I would not anticipate at that time going to gen­eral revenue. At that time, I would an­ticipate that we would increase the user tax to take care of it and that the users would continue to pay for the highway system in this country.

I know that is not going to be in the next year or two, but I have previously proposed that and I anticipate that I shall propose that again.

SAVE THE HIGHWAYS

• Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator WEICKER'S amendment to abolish the highway trust fund and divert revenues to the general fund of the Treasury. This action would result in the diminishment of our Na­tion's highway program, and highways remain the crucial link binding my State of New Hampshire.

The highway trust fund has been a model Federal program which has been of great benefit to New Hampshire. We must not suddenly turn our back on such a model program.

In addition, this program is still urgently needed. Recently, the Federal Highway Administration released some startling figures stating that:

Nearly half of the Nation's 1.9 million miles of paved roads are rated "very poor" or "fair";

Nine percent of all paved roads are beyond repair and must be rebuilt;

Approximately 105,500 of our 563,500 bridges are listed as needing repair or replacement. Allowing our Nation's high­ways to fall into disrepair will result in increased accidents, leading to increased injuries and deaths, and to the destruc­tion of property.

As the distinguished Senator from Connecticut knows, it is the motor fuel tax that supplies the majority of funds for our highway program. The program has been hit especially hard by inflation, since the Federal tax is fixed in cents per gallon of gasoline sold and does not increase with the inflation rate. There has been no increase in the 4-cent Fed­eral gasoline tax since 1959, thereby re­ducing the buying power of the funds available. Another cause of decreased revenues for the trust fund is the in­creased fuel efficiency of vehicles which tends to erode the total dollars available.

At the same time, there is concern re­garding the condition of our Interstate System. Some of it is over 20 years old and badly in need of repairs.

These f·acts make it necessary that we do not suddenly change course in our Nation's highway program. This Nation relies on its highways as an essential means of transportation.•

Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I am

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 29295

prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-tion then occurs on the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.

The aiSsistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the Senator from Delaware <Mr. BIDEN), the Senator from Nevada <Mr. CANNON), the Senator from Kentucky <Mr. HUDDLE­STON), the Senator from Louisiana <Mr. LoNG), and the Senator from North Carolina <Mr. MORGAN) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that the Senator from Montana <Mr. BAucus) and the Senator from Tennessee <Mr. SASSER) are absent on omcial business.

I also announce that the Senator from Alaska <Mr. GRAVEL) is absent because of illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana <Mr. BAucus), the Senator from Nevada <Mr. CANNON) and the Senator from Alaska <Mr. GRAVEL) would each vote "nay."

Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the Senator from Missouri <Mr. DANFORTH) is absent on omcial business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PRYOR). Are there Senators in the Cham­ber desiring to vote?

The result was announced-yeas 9, nays 82, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 370 Leg.] YEAS-9

Cha!ee Cranston Javits

Kennedy Pell Percy

NAYS-82 Armstrong Goldwater Baker Hart Bayh Hatch Bellmon Hatfield Bentsen Hayakawa Boren Heflin Boschwitz Heinz Bradley Helms Bumoers Hollings Burdick Humphrey Byrd, Inouye

Harry F., Jr. Jackson Byrd, Robert C. Jepsen. Chiles Johnston Church Kassebaum Cochran Laxal t Cohen Leahy CUI ver Levin DeConcini Lugar Dole Magnuson Domenici Mathlias Durenberger Matsunaga Durkin McClure Eagleton· McGovern Exon Melcher Ford Metzen.baum Garn Moynihan Glenn Muskie

Proxniire Tsongas Weicker

Nelson Nunn Packwood Pressler Pryor Randolph Riblcofl' Riegle Roth Sarbanes Schmitt Schweiker Simpson Stafl'ord Stennis Stevens Stevenson Stewarrt Stone Talmadge Thurmond Tower Wallop Wa.rnieT Williams Young Zorinsky

NOT VOTING-9

Baucus Bi den Cannon

Danforth Gravel Huddleston

Long Morgan Sasser

So the amendment <UP No. 663) was rejected.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I com­mend the chairman of the Transporta-

tion Subcommittee, Mr. BENTSEN, for holding hearings and reporting H.R. 4249, which addresses some of the prob­lems in the implementation of the Sur­f ace Transportation Assistance Act of 1978.

Under this law, the Secretary of Trans­portation had the authority to select three States in which to conduct access control demonstration projects. One of the States selected was Arkansas. Arkan­sas omcials, in addition to otncials from the other two States, have been engaged in a battle with the Federal Highway Administration over the Federal-State shares. Arkansas State officials assumed, quite naturally, that the $3.3 million project would be completely funded by the Federal Government as other demon­stration projects have been.

The Federal Highway Administration took the position that Congress intended for projects to be funded on a 75 to 25 percent matching basis. The committee report states clearly that the conferees on the surface Transportation Act in­tended that the funds for the access con­trol projects were to be obligated on the same basis as other demonstration projects, namely 100 percent federally funded. This should eliminate the con­fusion on this program and permit the States to proceed.

I urge expeditious action by the Senate on this legislation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment of the amendments and the third reading of the bill.

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill was read the third time. Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I commend

the committee, especially the chairman and ranking member of the full commit­tee and their staffs for their personal ef­f arts in addressing the critical bridge re­placement needs of States such as Dela­ware in these technical amendments.

In addition, I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, who represents the great State of Texas, for his understand­ing and support for a solution to this small-State problem. I also commend the ranking member of the subcommittee who represents the great State of South Dakota for his concern for the balanced bridge needs of States like his and my own.

These technical amendments would correct an oversight in the 1978 act which has had a severe impact on the critical bridge replacement needs of States such as Delaware.

Last year the Environment and Pub­lic Works Committee under the lead­ership of the chairman and ranking member established the $200 million dis­cretionary bridge program. This pro­gram addresses the critical needs of States to be able to fund high-cost bridge projects which cannot be funded in rea­sonable time under the regular bridge replacement program. Although not in­cluded in the Senate-passed version of the act, a provision was added in con-

f erence making only bridge projects costing $10 million or more eligible for funding from the discretionary bridge fund.

However, many vital bridge projects which impact entire regional transpor­tation networks cost many times the an­nual allocations of certain States, such as Delaware, under the regular bridge replacement program~but cannot be funded because the projects cost less than $10 million. These States are in a real bind when it comes to funding these bridge projects.

One such project is the Augustine Bridge, a vital, high-cost, high-tramc volume arterial link in the civic and ~ommercial heart of metropolitan Wil­mington, Del. Replacing this t1ridge, which has been closed as unsafe since May, 1978, will co~t over $6 million. But the $10 million minimum removes this project and other high-cost, high­tramc volume bridges costing less than $10 million from eligibility for the dis­cretionary bridge program. '!·he $10 mil­lion minimum also acts as an incentive to States to inflate the costs of their bridge projects in order to meet the minimum.

Last year when I brought the Augus­tine Bridge problem to the attention of the committee as well as the House Com­merce and Transportation Committee, their response was swift and responsible. In December 1978, I wrote the chairman and ranking member about the oversight in the 1978 act, and in January of this year I and the other members of the Delaware congressional delegation in­troduced S. 258, legislation to correct this oversight. At that time the commit­tee immediately began considering cor­recting the Augustine Bridge problem as part of these technical amendments. .

Section 8 of this bill would correct this oversight by also making eligible for the discretionary bridge fund those projects costing at least twice the annual alloca­tion to a State under the regular bridge program. In addition, section 8 would permit Delaware, which has previously trans! erred urban system moneys to its bridge replacement program in order to fund the Augustine Bridge project not eligible under the discretionary bridge program, to transfer those moneys ba<:k to its sorely needed urban system proJ­ects when the bridge project becomes eli­gible under section 8. This language pre­vents the anomaly of a State "robbing Peter"-its urban system projects-"to pay Paul"-its bridge project made eli­gible under the discretionary fund.

I have a couple of questions for the chairman concerning the committee's in­tentions to solve this Augustine Bridge problem once and for all under section 8. First, by making the Augustine Bridge eligible for the discretionary program under section 8, is it not the committee's intention that the Augustine Bridge is a bridge which has come to the commit­tee's attention as a logical choice for high priority assistance by the Secretary of Transportation under the discretion­ary program?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, the Senator from Delaware is correct. The committee intends that the Augustine Bridge fund­ing problem should be solved once and

29296 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979 for all, and that the bridge is a logical choice for high-priority funding in the discretionary program in fiscal year 1980.

Mr. ROTH. I also understand section 8 directs the Federal Highway Administra­tion to permit Delaware to transfer back urban system moneys to urban system projects where the Augustine Bridge has been funded as a §!_opgap measure under the State's urban system allocation. Is that the intention of the committee in approving section 8(b)?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, it is. The com­mittee believes that the Augustine Bridge should be considered quickly for funding when it becomes eligible under the dis­cretionary program. Section 8 Cb) con­tains language which the Federal High­way Administration has stated would ex­pedite their administrative obligations in considering the bridge for funding.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as I was campaigning for the Senate seat last year I came across a situation in Bay City, Mich., that should be corrected. Bay City has an established downtown district; this is attributable in large part to the preservation and character of the old buildings and street patterns in that area. Unfortunately, one of the bridges in downtown Bay City collapsed a few years ago. Bay City residents sought funds for its reconstruction. Some wanted to replace it in its same form­a two-lane bridge-in order to maintain the businesses and residences at both ends of the bridge. They were told by DOT, however, that if a study of prob­able future traffic needs showed a four­lane bridge was needed, they could have Federal money only for a four-lane bridge.

Many people in Bay City say that will result in the destruction of several blocks of small businesses and over 60 homes that were at both ends of the former bridge. Some Bay City residents did not want that; they just wanted their two­lane bridge restored so the businesses and residences could be preserved. The col­lapsed bridge has not been replaced. I am at a loss to understand why the Federal Government has to force communities to follow inflexible Federal concepts of what is good for them. I believe that the resi­dents of Bay City know more about the needs and desires of their community and should be allowed the option to re­place their bridge with a two-lane bridge, if that is their desire under these cir­cumstances.

DOT says their conduct is controlled by law-23 U.S.C. 109-pertaining to standards for Federal highway assist­ance. That law states:

(a) The Secretary shall not approve plans and specifications for proposed projects on any Federal-aid system if they fail to pro­vide for a facility ( 1) that wm adequately meet the existing and probable future traffic needs and conditions in a manner conducive to safety, durab111ty, and econ­omy of maintenance; (2) that wm be designed and constructed in accordance with standards best suited to accomplish the foregoing objectives and to conform to the particular needs of each locality.

Senator RANDOLPH, as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works

Committee and as author of this par­ticular statutory language, I ask your assistance in clarifying this language for me, DOT and the residents of Bay City. Does this section permit approval of only those projects and in particular, funds for the reconstruction of a bridge, which are estimated to meet probable future traffic needs or is that just one of several factors which the Secretary of DOT must consider. Should not the Secretary also weigh the etf ect of such construction on the local community and the impact of a wider bridge on existing businesses and neighborhoods?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Senator LEVIN, the assessment of future traffic needs of a proposed highway project is only one item to be considered by the Secretary in making a decision to approve a plan or specifications. Where other factors exist that outweigh the probable future traffic needs, the Secretary shall consid­er them and act accordingly. This means that where, as in Bay City, the preser­vation of the character of a business district is of great importance and value, and the local community supports the construction of a bridge which statisti­cally may not meet projected future traffic needs, the Secretarv may approve the plans and specifications for such a proiect. I agree with you, Senator, that the Federal Government should not ignore existing business and resi­dential patterns and needs when fund­ing a reolacement bridge.

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you for this clarification.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the Senators yield back their time?

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of mv time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Dakota yield back the remainder of his time?

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.

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

So the bill <H.R. 4249), as amended, was passed.

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

Mr. BOSCHWIT'Z. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi­

dent, there wfil be one more conference report brought up yet this afternoon. Votes will occur on any or all of them.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk wfil call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro­ceeded to call the roll.

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

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

ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS Mr. ROBERT c. BYRD. Mr. President.

I ask unanimous consent that at the moment there be a period for the trans­action of routine morning business not to extend beyond 15 minutes, and Sena­tors may speak up to 5 minutes each.

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

JAPANESE UNFAffi TRADE PRAC­TICES HURT AMERICAN RICE FARMERS Mr. LONG. Mr. President, in 1979,

the Government of Japan has initiated a. program to dispooe of nearly 5 million metric tons of surplus rice over the next 5 years. This program consists of massive export subsidies that allow Japanese rice to be sold at prices and on terms much more favorable than those of American rice, displacing sales of U.S. rice in foreign markets.

I am very troubled by this unfair trade practice of the Government of Japan. All of the countries that are parties to the agreements initiated at the conclu­sion of the Multilateral Trade Negotia­tions in Geneva early this year have pledged themselves to the elimination of just such practices as this. Subsidized exports distort world trade, create un­certainty, and invite retaliation. Where this Government can act to eliminate them, I believe it is our duty to do so.

Mr. President, the Government of Japan pays its farmers up to five times the world price for rice. The consump­tion of rice in Japan is on the decline. Normally, market factors would force producers of a commodity for which de­mand is declining to diversify, and to plant other crops. While it is said that the policy of the Japanese Government is to discourage rice production, these artificially inflated prices obviously have the opposite effect.

If the Japanese Government wants to buy surplus rice, and to make sure it will have more rice than can be con­sumed in Janan, that is the Govern­ment's own business. What is not purely a Japanese affair, however, is the impact of the exportation of that rice on the sales of other exporters of rice.

When Japanese rice is sold for export, it is sold at or under the world price. The loss is absorbed by the Government of Japan. That loss, Mr. President, is an export subsidy, just as surely and clearly as if it were a cash grant to farmers who export their crops.

Japan has during this year been sell­ing large quantities of rice to· Korea. Korea is a traditional commercial pur­chaser of American rice, grown by Amer­ic;an farmers whose Government is not paying 80 percent of its cost. Japan has been selling even larger quantities to Indonesia. In 1976 and 1977, Japan did not sell a single grain of rice in Indo­nesia. In 1978, they sold 100,000 tons. So far , in 1979, since the beginning of the subsidy program, they have sold nearly half a million tons.

Mr. President, Indonesia is one of the largest purchasers of American rice un­der Public Law 480, and has lately

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 29297

bought small quantities for cash. There is strong evidence that Indonesia could become a significant commercial pur­chaser of U.S. rice very soon. But that assumes that we are competing with other exporting countries who are not engaging in unfair export subsidization. Japan has been unfairly subsidizing its rice export, and Louisiana rice farmers should not have to pay the price for this unfair foreign trade practice.

Japan has also been offering grants and concessional sales of rice to other countries, including Bangladesh, Tan­zania, and Sierra Leone. There have been rumors of negotiations for sales to Peru. I do not oppose any legitimate form of food aid that will feed the hungry. But the Japanese seem to think that by sell­ing rice on concessional and not commer­cial terms, they get around their obli­gation to avoid subsidizing primary products.

In November of this year, negotiators from the Department of Agriculture will be meeting with their Japanese counter­parts in Tokyo. I think it is very impor­tant not only to America's rice growers and processors but to our overall trading relations with Japan, that the American negotiators take a firm position on the propriety and legality of the Japanese subsidy practices.

We should insist on four points. First, Japanese sales pursuant to their an­nounced surplus food disposal program during the current fiscal year, which ends in March 1980, should be limited to those already carried out or subject only to ministerial ratification in Japan. They predicted at the beginning of the year that they would sell 200,000 tons. Cur­rent transactions alone may total the quadruple of that figure. Any additional sales during the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1980, should be on a strictly commercial basis.

Second, the Japanese should agree to true consultations with the United States before concluding sales under the rice disposal program to any actual or poten­tial market for American rice, as re­quired by the FAO surplus food disposal principles.

Third, the Government of Japan should bear the burden of proving that any concessional sale is to a buyer who could otherwise not purchase rice. This would mean that the market for subsi­dized Japanese rice will be a pure addi­tion to what otherwise would be the world export market in the country.

Finally, the Japanese should be re­quired to sell rice at prices that do not make subsidized rice cheaper than un­subsidized rice. This, after all, is the evil of government subsidies-about which there was agreement in Geneva.

Mr. President, the November negotia­tions are among the first trade talks be­tween this country and Japan since the multilateral trade negotiations con­cluded. The United States should state clearly and emphatically that we mean to adhere to the obligations contained in the Geneva agreements, and that we expect our trading partners to do like­wise.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I as­sociate myself with the remarks of the

Senator from Louisiana. California rice growers as well are put in jeopardy by the Japanese Government's subsidy practices, which are in violation of the spirit of the Geneva agreements.

Mr. President, I am sympathetic with the plight of a government faced with overproduction of a commodity. But when export is adopted as a solution to domestic surplus problems, other nations' interests must be considered. Japan should not attempt to solve domestic problems by trampling on the rights of American traders who seek only to com­pete for foreign markets on equal terms.

I agree with the Senator from Loui­siana when he says that it is important for the United States not to acquiesce­or even to be seen as acquiescing-in a weakening of the principles of the new Geneva accords. Rice is an important ex­port crop in California, but even more important is the principle involved. Mas­sive domestic subsidies are an unfair method of obtaining advantages in the world market. The United States has joined with Japan in agreeing to avoid their use. If we protest firmly and loudly now, not only will we prevent the threat of serious harm to our rice industry, but we will go far toward preventing the spread of unfair trade practices in the future.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, as I lis­tened to the statements of the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from California, I found myself wondering whether the points they have proposed go far enough. It is, after all, possible that in the context of international nego­tiations, the Japanese will simply not agree to consult with us, or to raise their prices, or to do the other things we should ask. Or, it is possible that they will agree to do those things, but that the practical effect will not be very great. It is possible that the Japanese may agree to consult with us and then still sell sub­sidized rice that displaces exports from the United States.

I believe that a remedy already exists in American law to combat the very type of abuse that the Japanese are engaging in right now. Mr. President, that remedy can be found in title III of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act signed into law just a few months ago.

Title III is very clear. Whenever the President determines that a country is engaging in policies inconsistent with a trade agreement, or otherwise unjusti­fiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory, or that burden or restrict U.S. commerce, he can order the imposition of trade s~nctions. These can include quotas, withdrawal of concessions, or special im­port duties.

Mr. President, I am not even certain that the impropriety of what the Japa­nese are doing is determined only by the Geneva agreements. I think that, even apart from those agreements, subsidiz­ing exports that can interfere with sales from the United States would be an un­reasonable practice under section 301. But the Geneva text makes this abso­lutely clear. A subsidy may not be granted on a primary product if it gives the exporting nation "more than an equitable share of world export trade in

such product." "An equitable share" 1s defined in historical terms. The Japanese are new to the export trade in rice. Al­most any significant sales of subsidized rice creates more than "an equitable share" for Japan.

Mr. President, I fully agree that the Japanese practices must be stopped. I agree also that representations should be made during the Tokyo negotiations. I simply wonder whether those diplomatic efforts will be enough. Considering the harm threatened to rice farmers in my State, I want to be certain.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the remedy proposed by the Senator from Arkansas is a harsh one. I am not say­ing that there is not ample justification for invoking it. I believe that there is. Nor am I suggesting that the Senator is proposing retaliation against Japanese imports lightly. I agree that the serious­ness of the threat to our rice producers is more than sufficient to make a section 301 determination appropriate.

I do think, however, that the Ameri­can rice industry would want to give our negotiators every opportunity to negoti­ate a successful resolution without re­sorting to an action under title m. And I think a successful resolution can be reached, if our representatives in Tokyo make it clear that the Japanese export subsidy program is unacceptable.

Mr. President, the program is ob­viously unacceptable. For the Govern­ment of Japan to sell rice for export at a quarter of the price of purchasing that very same rice from domestic producers is to grant a subsidy. Without that sub­sidy, Japanese producers would have to absorb losses themselves, or diversify, or do any of the other things market forces require of an inefficient industry.

In the early part of this year, the Japanese Government was paying pro­ducers over $1,400 per ton, and export­ing at $225 to $275 per ton. Mr. Presi­dent, that is unfair to American and other rice exporters. It is in our power to stop it, if we act decisively.

Mr. President, I understand that the U.S. rice industry has already prepared a complaint under section 301 of the Trade Act. Whether that complaint will be filed is a question now in the hands of the Government of Japan. For mv part, I have no doubt that the complaint would succeed. But I think all of us pre­f er that the industry not be forced to file it.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Missis­sippi has but recently entered the grow­ing ranks of rice-exporting States. I want to add my voice to those of my colleagues who have called upon the Government of Japan to cease its unfair competition with rice producers in the United States. .

American rice farmers are not seeking any kind of special concession or favor. They are asking only to be allowed to compete on equal terms with their coun­terparts in Japan, just as they now com­pete with exporters from other nations.

Mr. President, I favor the approach taken by the junior Senator from Louisi­ana. I agree with him that, were a complaint filed by the U.S. rice in­dustry under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the President would be au­thorized to order retaliation against 1m-

29298 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979

ports from Japan into this country. I, too, believe that the seriousness of the threat to the American industry and to American trade policy in general more than justifies this extraordina.ry relief.

Like the Senator, however, I also hope that it will be possible to resolve this matter at the diplomatic level. I can­not accept the view that the Japanese will voluntarily assume a posture so clearly unacceptable under the terms of the agreements they signed in Geneva.

Mr. President, the multilateral trade negotiations resulted in what history may record as a great and irreversible step toward commercial detente among the trading nations of the world. A great many sensible measures were agreed upon, and many rational principles were enunciated. We believe in the results of the Tokyo round. We must insist that other nations which accented obligations under those agreements live up to them. This is of vital interest to American rice producers in the short run, and to all Americans concerned with international trade.

JACK PERLMUTTER

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Jack Perlmutter, a gifted Washingtonian, has established himself as a prominent American artist.

Mr. Perlmutter has become well known in South Carolina where he was artist-in-residence at the Gibbes Art Gallery in Charleston and the Museum School of Art in Greenville. Additionally he has displayed his works in a one-man show at my alma mater of Clemson University.

Currently, Mr. Perlmutter is a contrib­uting editor to Art Voices/South, a new magazine which concentrates on south­ern artists and art activities in the South.

Also he is a professor of art and chair­man of the graphics department at the Corcoran Gallery School of Art and is a highly respected artist.

Much of Mr. Perlmutter's art may be seen throughout Washington. One fine work is a painting which is now hanging in the National Air and Space Museum.

His art has been seen by countless peo­ple from across the country and has con­tributed greatly to our artistic heritage.

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DECI­SION ON TERMINATION OF MU­TUAL DEFENSE TREATY WITH TAIWAN

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the recent deci­sion bv Judge Gasch that President Car­ter violated the Constitution by unilat­erally terminating the U.S. Mutual De­fense Treaty with Taiwan.

As 1 of 25 plaintiffs in the lawsuit in which Judge Gasch made his ruling, I have taken the position that the Fram­ers of the Constitution prohibited the President from terminating treaties uni­laterally without the advice and consent of Congress. I continue to take that posi­tion and I am delighted that a Federal judge has upheld that interpretation of the Constitution as correct.

It is my understanding that the Jus­tice Department, acting for the Presi-

dent, plans to appeal the district court's ruling. I hope the appellate courts will see the wisdom of Judge Gasch's deci­sion and uphold it. By so doing, the Fed­eral courts will be following sound prin­ciples of constitutional law, thereby rec­ognizing the proper role of Congress in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.

AWARD TO SENATOR ROBERT MOR­GAN OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, re­cently it was a personal pleasure and great privilege to be included with a group of members of the Non-Commis­sioned Officers Association of the U.S.A. <NCOA) to present a special award to my colleague and friend, Senator ROBERT MORGAN of North Carolina.

A very handsome plaque named the "NCOA Vanguard Award," and especial­ly designed for the occasion, was given to Senator MORGAN for his dedication and loyalty to the noncommissioned and petty officers corps of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Among the many contributions he has made on behalf of this gallant corps-­the backbone of our military services­NCOA cited two of his bills and his in­terest in the uniformed recruiter.

One bill, already enacted into law, au­thorizes the first sergeants major of the Marine Corps to recalculate their retired pay, the same as provided later for their successors in all branches of the services. The second bill calls for equal per diem payments for officer and enlisted per­sonnel.

The third citation in the award is of great importance to the NCO and Petty Officer Corps. It is concerned that many recruiters are being unjustly charged with irresponsible recruiting practices when, in reality, the system is at fault. Senator MORGAN intends to see that these recruiters are fairly treated.

I was pleased, of course, to see the NCOA make this award to such a dis­tinguished legislator. What made it bet­ter was my being invited to assist in the presentation.

Again, I commend the NCOA for its excellent service to the enlisted person­nel of our Armed Forces, and I congratu­late Senator MORGAN for being honored !by this association of 180,000 men and women of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.

INCREASING WEAKNESS OF U.S. NAVY

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, a powerful letter has been written to President Carter by the National Presi­dent of the Navy League of the United States, J. J. Spittler, regarding the increasing weakness of the U.S. Navy.

President Spittler has rendered a fine service to our Nation by calling upon the administration to redress the serious shortage of ships in our Navy. He urges prompt action "to reverse this suicidal trend."

Mr. President. I ask unanimous con­sent that this letter be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter

was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: AN OPEN LE'ITER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES DEAR PRESIDENT CARTER: Much has been

written about your administration's plans for the 1981 defense budget and the ensuing four years. Frankly, the data I have seen and the reports I have read appall and frighten me. For I find it inconceivable that your planners could even remotely consider a budget that comes so close to decimating United States maritime power.

As I understand it, your Pentagon plan­ners would, among other things:

Reduce the Navy's five-year shipbuilding program to 46 ships, fewer than 10 ships a year and some 100 fewer overall than the program sought by your predecessor in office-a program endorsed by you in the first year of your presidency.

Cut aircraft procurement to a level well below the current rate at which the Navy loses aircraft in peacetime operations, even though naval aircraft procurement in the past two years also has been below that level.

Markedly reduce weapons procurement across the board, even though stockpiles of key weapons are lower now than they have been for years.

Call for further c1v111an personnel reduc­tions that would cripple even further the Navy's ab111ty to maintain and repair its ships and aircraft.

Eliminate all funding for new amphibious assault ships, without which naval seallft and Marine Corps combat capab111ties both will be drastically reduced.

Downgrade allocations for research and development, thus continuing a trend begun in your earlier defense budgets.

Slash the production llne of one of our most competent aircraft producers so severely that it might well be forced out of business.

Reduce nuclear-submarine construction cauabllity to the point that only one ship­yard would be building such ships, and then at a rate only an eighth that of the Soviet Union's building rate.

In short, Mr. President, your planners, presumably operating under your specific In­structions, would further reduce the Navy in the very near future to a level under 400 ships-at a time when over 600 are requlred­thus leaving the United States with a fleet only marginally able, if that, to maintain sustained air operations, far less capable of keeping even the present reduced Inventory of ships and aircraft in operation, and allo­cated fewer resources than at any time in the last half century upon which to rebuild that fleet in time of crisis.

Mr. President, can this possibly be the legacy you wish to leave your country? Do you really want our once-mighty Navy to be second best? In short, does the evidence speak for itself?

You may well attempt to answer those questions, and many others which could be asked, by contending that only minlmum­level planning figures are involved. It also 1s recognized that you have instructed your Secretary of Defense both to ask for an In­crease in the 1980 defense budget, and to anticipate more funds for the defense por­tion of the 1981 budget which you wlll sub­mit to the Congress in January. Mr. Presi­dent, that is all to the good. But it 1s not enough.

Wlll you momentarily reflect on the uses to which the limited additions to the 1980 budget will be spent? For example, the $2.7 billion addition you recently have requested of Congress will serve only: ( 1) to close the gap between the allowed 6 percent infiation rate and the actual double-digit rate: (2) to counter changes in currency rates caused by the weakened dollar; (S) to pay for the

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29299 higher fuel costs imposed by OPEC; and (4) to more fully fund maintenance and repair work already planned, and already in the budget.

Those expenditures may pay fully for what you previously have requested, Mr. President, but they won't buy any new hardware. They can't commence the rebuilding process of our naval and m111tary weapons inventory that ls so vital to the nation's safety. In fact, they'll do no more than permit the Navy to operate 1n a more realistic environment, rather than being forced to plan and operate under totally unrealistic funding postulates imposed by planners whose motives become more suspect.

And what will the 1981 budget permit the Navy to do to improve the situation? As nearly as I can interpret the more credible analyses I have read, Mr. President, the 1981 funds you reportedly plan to request wm, in the long run, only maintain the Navy at about today's dangerously reduced level. I do understand and appreciate, however, that there were some concessions ma.de affecting the whole 1981-1985 period and mitigating to some extent the worst effects of the earlier defense program guidance given the services last July.

DDG-47s wm be bunt at a. more sensible · rate of four a. yea.r. An experimental destroyer will be continued in the R&D stages-but wm not be funded for construction untll two yea.rs after originally planned. The attack submarine rate will be up slightly, although it still wm be below what ls required to bulld the Navy to previously approved and vitally essential force levels. Funding for the much­needed LSD-41 amphibious assault ship wm be restored in the later years of the period.

Aircraft production will climb above the rate of loss to attrition, but those aircraft remaining in the Navy's inventory wlll have to be flown far longer than desirable from either a safety or an operational viewpoint. The business base of one long-time supplier of Navy aircraft will be sustained, so that means he won't be forced to completely shut down. Weapons procurement will be up, thus increasing stockpiles modestly.

But even if those plans do become reality, at the end of the five-year period the Navy stlll would be barely able even to meet to­day's commitments, let alone those that will undoubtedly be imposed during the increas­ingly dangerous years a.head.

Because the fact is, Mr. President, what your budget planners refer to as an "en­hanced" shipbuilding program still would be more than 40 ships below what the Chief of Na.val Operations submitted to the Chair­man of the Senate Armed Services Commit­tee this year as being absolutely necessary if the Navy is even to hope to hold its own on the high seas. Insufficient numbers of aircraft will be bunt. Weapons stockpiles stm might not be enough to carry us through the first stages of a sustained war. Navy man­power will be down, with the shore estab­lishment being manned at only three-quar­ters of demonstrated need. And the Navy stm will be struggling just to stay even with the maintenance and repair backlog, while the ma 1or overhaul picture becomes next to impossible.

The defense budget increases you now ap­pear w1lling to approve will be of minimal help, although they might impress some un­informed voters. But they stm a.re a mighty long way from insuring that five years from now we will have a Navy adequate to carry out the traditional role of securing freedom of the seas.

Whlle our Navy is struggling to maintain bare steerageway, on the other side of the world the Soviet Union is building aircraft carriers and cruisers at an unprecedented rate.

They could have as many as eight carriers in ft ve years. They already have a cruiser at sea. with a. system as goo<l as our AEGIS

radar-and-weapons ca.pa.bllity-:-a capability we won't have in our fleet for at least two more years. As noted, their submarine con­struction rate is eight times ours. And each year they're operating farther from their home base3 on an ever larger scale and with greater effectiveness, competence, and con­fidence.

Mr. President, no matter what happens to SALT II, no matter whether the Soviet brigade in Cuba stays or goes, the United States still needs an ever more powerful Navy. All the strategic warfare capab1lity imaginable will not protect our waterborne oil lines if they become threatened by Soviet fleet units. Nor wlll our strategic forces en­able us to go to the aid of our allies around the world in confrontations short of nuclear war without further endangering our safety. Nor, finally, will our strategic forces afford assurance to our merchant marine, and those of our allies, that they can sail the seas peacefully and trade where and When they wish without intimidation by a. foreign power.

So, as you face the budget decisions im­mediately a.head, I implore you to pay more than lip service to the terribly serious needs of the Navy. Throughout the country I hear those who, despite the vigorous denials made by your budget planners, are convinced the Navy is deliberately, systematically, and ruthlessly being decimated-against the rec­ommendations of your senior naval and mili­tary advisers. When your planners slash naval ehlp and aircraft procurement plans for the future to the levels here indicated, I cannot but wonder if perhaps those critics aren't right.

Mr. President, when historians write the record of your time in office, you'll not want to be remembered for the methodical sink­ing of the Navy in which you once served and on which our nation, and the entire Free World, so strongly depend. But that may well be the most conspicuous mark you leave on the pages of history unle~s you act now to reverse this suicidal trend. For the mllltary reality in today's world is that to be second best is to be dead last!

Sincerely, J. J. SPITTLER,

National President, Navy League of the United States.

THE PORT OF PROVIDENCE BEGINS CONTAINER ~HTPPING SERVICE AND PROMOTES INCREASED TRADE Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, last

Friday marked an imoortant event in the area of international trade for Rhode Island.

I am pleased to announce that on Fri­day, October 19, the :first container barge left the Port of Providence loaded with Rhode Island and New England exports, via the Port of New York. This signaled the commencement of a new weekly con­tainer shipping service between Provi­dence and New York, that will connect the Port of Providence with modern con­tainerized ports throughout the world.

Almost all major ports deal in con­tainerized cargo because it is safer, faster, and more economical. Shipments made in containers reduce damage and pilferage. They can be loaded and un­loaded in just hours, while bulk cargo could take days to be transferred to and from ships. This means extra dock costs and lost time to shippers.

Containers can be placed on wheeled chasis and easily hauled by trucks or trains to their ultimate destination.

Friday's maiden voyage will have

several significant ramiftcations for New England trade.

First, New England businesses will now be able to save time and expense by utilizing a New England port that has access to every ship serving New York. The feeder service between Manhattan and Rhode Island is part of the same steamship line that ships exports and imports through New York port. The only cost to New England :firms is an overland freight charge from Providence.

Second, the use of container shipping is a :first for Rhode Island, and represents the :first step for the Port of Providence in becoming a major east coast container port.

Plans to rehabilitate the Port of Provi­dence to make it a full container ter­minal are already underway. Port, city, and State officials are pursuing Economic Development Administration matching loan programs, engineering :firms have completed the necessary preliminary studies on dock refurbishment, and pri­vate operators of the container barges are negotiating for the sale of a large permanent container crane.

Third, exporting will be made easier and more economical for companies, es­pecially smaller ones, that have previ­ously believed that shipping throµgh New York presented many obstacles. Companies from Rhode Island, Connect­icut, and southern Massachusetts can now watch their packages being loaded on the container barges in Providence.

This is an opportunity that Rhode Is­land has so desperately needed to help promote trade. As a member of the Seri­ate Export Caucus and of the Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, I am especially happy to note that the :first container shipment was an export ship­ment of New England products. The barge contained Rhode Island manufac­tured products from such prominent companies as Bostitch, makers of indus­trial fasteners and power tools, and Avid Corp., which produces acoustical and audiovisual equipment. In addition, there were containers with other New England products, from :firms such as the Norton Co., in Worcester, that were handled by Rhode Island freight forwarders.

Put simply, this type of port develop­ment stimulates exports; and Rhode Is­land, New England, and the Nation all stand to benefit from it.

Having sponsored a Providence confer­ence this past May on expanding the Rhode Island export market, I am con­vinced that there is not a product made in Rhode Island that cannot be sold abroad, whether it is jewelry, skate­boards, looms, or prosciutto ham. But it is unfortunate to think that of Rhode Is­land's total production of manufactured goods, less than 6 percent are exported.

I do want the world to "Discover Rhode Island," as our State motto says, and the maiden voyage of this container barge is a great step in that direction.

Congratulations are in order to the Mayor of the city of Providence, Vincent A. Cianci, Jr., and to the shipping and business communities for their commit­ment to this endeavor. Mayor Cianci has been instrumental in fostering this service.

I extend a very special note of appre-

29300 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 24, 1979

ciation to the port director, Mr. Eugene Neary, whose dedicated efforts have helped to turn one of the State's most important dreams into a reality. I com­mend Mr. Neary for a job well done and wish him and the Port much continued success.

Thanks to the work of the Mayor and of Mr. Neary, Providence is on its way to becoming a major port.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the following two articles on the Port of Providence be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Providence Journal, Sept. 12, 1979) SHIPPING LINES GIVE CONTAINER IDEA REALITY

PRovmENcE.-Five steamship lines serving nearly every major port in the world have agreed to provide container service to the Port of Providence using the McAllister barge feeder service, it ws.s disclosed last night at a meeting of the local World Trade Club.

Mayor Vincent A. Cianci Jr. told more than 100 members attending the dinner at the Holiday Inn that the first barge of the Mc­Allister firm is scheduled to arrive at the port Oct. 18. He said McA111ster bargers will arrive every Thursday from New York and return those evenings.

The mayor also said that the private op­era.tors of the container terminal that will open next month have found a large con­tainer crane in Rotterdam and are negoti­ating its purchase. If all goes well, the Port of Providence could have a permanent, heavy-duty container crane in operation at Berth 6, within four months, Cianci said.

Last night's announcements indicated that the container terminal plans are becoming reality and that the new service has elicited interest among shippers. The attendance at the meeting was the largest in several years, and shi~pers asked a number of questions about the technical aspects of the container operation.

"Everybody at the Port of Providence is enthusiastic," said Port Director Eugene Neary. "The adrenaline ls flowing."

The five steamship lines wm offer bills of lading directly to Providence, giving ship­pers the ability to send containerized cargo directly here from almost anywhere. Until now, most area companies have shipped goods or ordered materials through New York or Boston and trucked containers from those ports.

Most shippers prefer containerized cargo because it cuts down pilferage and damage. Containers, which can be"placed on wheeled chassis, can be easily hauled by trucks to their ultimate destination.

The steamship lines involved are Atlantic Container Lines, Evergreen, Sea Train, Dart and Farrell. They are e~pected to maintain an inventory of containers and wheeled chas­sis at the port for use by shippers.

Providence's container terminal is ex­pected to break the near-monopoly held on New England container shipping by the Port of Boston. Cianci, noting a Massport repre­sentative's presence in the audience last night, said, "We're out to be as big or bigger than the Port of Boston."

Providence will collect a fee of $16 per container and other fees. The initial con­tainer terminal here will involve two mobile cranes operating at Berth 2 and about three acres of storage area.

The McAllister firm expects to handle ini­tially about 100 containers, each 20 or 40 feet long, per barge. Port omcials have esti­mated that about 7,500 containers will go through the new terminal in the first 12 months.

Much of last night's program involved Cianci trying to sell shippers on the idea of using the new Providence container terminal.

"When you go to other ports, it's a three­or four-day effort to find your container," he said. "At Providence, it's a matter of hours. You can't justify to me driving to New York or Boston when you can drive your truck down 95 to get better service here at a lower price with no labor probleinS."

Cianci noted that McAllister, and any other container shipping service that comes in, has been guaranteed a berth every time one of its ships arrives.

A McAllister representative at the meeting said it was too early to say how large the firm's first cargo would be. He expects that exports will exceed imports because of "the enthusiasm in Providence."

"We have no qualms about this service working," he said.

(From the New England Business magazine, Sept. 16, 1979)

PROVIDENCE CoNTAINER PORT GAINS MOMENTUM

A baby taking its first halting steps, the Port of Providence is slowly inching toward its goal of beginning container operations.

Providence, one of New England's largest importers of bulk cargo, and several other coastal communities for almost two years have enviously eyed the virtual container­monopoly held by the Port of Boston. But la.ck of land, money and a 9-to-l imports-to­exports ratio have been the hurdles.

Now Providence seems finally to have found its stride. Late last year Mayor Vin­cent A. Cianci Jr. announced that private developer David Friedman, president of PM Industries which includes Port Providence Warehousing Inc., had agreed to provide the land for storage, and the money to buy cranes and other container terminal equip­ment. John J. Orr, who runs the local steve­dore operation, is to run the container ter­minal in partnership with Friedman.

Recently Cianci disclosed that McAllister Brothers, the largest carrier of cont.ainers into Boston, has agreed to bring in one barge a week of up to 200 containers, beginning October 1.

It was a breakthrough for Friedman, owner of a series of warehouses and a preparation service for imported cars brought through the port. He has been wooing steamship lines for almost a year.

In the original announcement last Novem­ber, Cianci said one line had agreed to bring in 25,000 tons of cr ntainers a. week through the port. But port insiders were skeptical, as that a.mount equaled the container traffic going through Boston's Moran terminal, an 8-year-old operation. When no container ships appeared as promised, Cianci's political opponents dismissed the container proposal as a preelection stunt. But port sources indi­cated that the mayor did indeed have a steamship line in hand, only to see it back out.

The mayor and Friedman have had trouble attracting shippers or stea.InShip lines, part­ly because of the import-export imbalance, they acknowledge. Ships don't want to come in full and leave without a cargo. But they say privately that another reason is Ma.ssport, which runs the Port of Boston.

Several Port of Boston employees last year indicated that a Providence container ter­minal could hurt their business. "A Provi­dence container port could do a hell of a. Job on us," one said.

"Those guys in Boston have been turning the screws," said one Friedman staffer. He said shipping lines have indicated fears that if they take some of their business to Provi­dence, they could end up with problems in Boston.

McAllister, which ships more than half of the containers going into Boston, apparently intends to circumvent this. The plan is to

solicit shippers to send their containers com­ing overseas to New York, where they will be transferred to a barge bound for Providence.

McA111ster's general manager admitted in a recent interview that the company did not have any shipping lined up. But Cianci said the city is embarking on a big sales push to get companies in Rhode Island and nearby Massachusetts and Connecticut to ship through Providence.

"We've had a number of flrinS say they would prefer to go through Providence, if it only had a container fac111ty," Cianci said, citing American Tourtster, which makes lug­gage in Warren, R.I.

Sida.I Aluminum, a New Jersey fl.rm which began shipping aluminum through Provi­dence abGut six months ago, indicated re­cently that it would love to ship the cargo in containers for better protection.

But Lawrence Carrera, a vice president in Friedman's firm, said it has been a vicious circle. The shippers want to see commitments by steamship lines first, and the steamship llnes won't come in unless they are guaran­teed enough business to make it profitable. And neither side will become enthusiastic until they see cranes up and container ships coming in.

So Friedman plans to provide two mobile cranes and five acres of backland for storing 20 to 40-foot-long containers on wheeled chassis. By contra.st, Boston containers are stacked for storage, in order to flt them all on a relatively short supply of land, 23 acres.

Friedman said he ls willing to commit 50 acres to the container terminal, if the traffic develops, and eventually plans to install two heavy-duty container cranes.

The question now is whether McAllister can make a. go of it in Providence, and whether a. once-sleepy municipal wharf will become a major East Coast container port, bringing badly-needed revenue to the city.

FAffi FINANCIAL INFOHMATION PRACTICES ACT AND PRIVACY OF ELECTRONIC FUND TRANS­FERS ACT OF 1979

Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. President, r com­mend Sena tor PROXMIRE for yesterday introducing the Fair Financial Inf orma­tion Practices Act and the Privacy of Electronic Fund Transfers Act of 1979.

This legislation, which represents the commitment of the administration to implement many of the recommenda­tions of the Privacy Protection Stu1y Commission, attempts to balance the legitimate needs of business for the effi­cient exchange of personal information in our society while safeguarding per­sonal privacy.

We are well aware of the technological advances in the communication and stor­age of information over the past few dec­ades which have contributed greatly to the economy and well-being of our Na­tion, nonetheless we must also recognize that these same technological advances represent a potential threat to one of the· most valued of our rights-the right of privacy.

Yesterday's standards are no longer adequate to deal with the enormous threat to the privacy of individuals rep-resented by the fact that these techno­logical advances have made detailed per­sonal information readily available from the records that business collects. The threat of economic harm to the individ­ual resulting from incomplete or inaccu­rate data is no less significant.

The Privacy Protection Study Com­mission recognized the need to move be-

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29301

yond our patchwork legislation and es­tablish a national privacy policy formu­lated under consistent guidelines appli­cable to all segments of society.

These two measures are a major step toward that goal. Our task will not have been completed, however, until we have resolved the issue of Government access to our personal records retained by busi­nesses such as creditors and insurers.

We expect the administration to pre­sent a further proposal, before the end of this year, dealing with access by Gov­ernment agents to our personal records held by creditors and insurers. I would agree with the Privacy Commission that safeguards against unwarranted intru­sion into our personal records by the Government is a very critical element in this important issue.

Over 80 years ago, a longtime resi­dent of the State of Massachusetts, des­tined to become one of the most dis­tinguished Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, declared that "the right to be let alone" is the right most valued by civilized man.

I am hopeful that consideration by the Congress of these measures as well as the issue of Government access will result in a national privacy policy that will finally provide adequate privacy safeguards for the individual.

I am supportive of Senator PROX­MIRE'S bill subject to whatever modifica­tion would seem to be reasonable follow­ing our hearings. ·

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS AND NATIONAL SECURITY

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am being given the "runaround" by the White House in trying to get an answer to some hard questions on satellite secu­rity questions.

I have expressed my concern over the need for national policy to address the problem of increased vulnerability of our communications systems to outside in­terference.

Advances in communications technol­ogy are concentrating greater percent­ages of our communications services on satellites. To facilitate public and indus­trial use of satellites, the Federal Com­munications Commission ruled on Thurs­day, October 18 to make licensing of Earth receiver stations optional. This decision heralds the explosion of satel­lite transmission.

While I welcome the increased services t.o rural and urban areas that will be pro­vided by satellite technology, the concen­tration of our communications on a few satellites requires policy to address na­tional security questions raised by these developments.

On two occasions I have written the President to urge action and to inquire about specific steps that have been taken in this area.

On both occasions, the response that I received from the White House offered nothing but superficial treatment of my concerns and gave no indication of con­sideration of the problem within the administration.

I express my deep alarm at this un­responsiveness.

I ask unanimous consent that my orig­inating letter of October 10 and the Oc-

tober 19 reply from the White House be printed in the RECORD.

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

U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., October 10, 1979.

Hon. JIMMY CARTER, The President, The White House, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: In April, 1979 I wrote to you to express my deep concern over questions of national security raised by developing commercial satellite tech­nology. Having found no study of this issue, I asked what attention has been given this problem by our federal agencies.

With increased use of satellite facilities for broadcasting, our control over informa­tion transmitted to the American public is significantly reduced. Proposals for direct satellite-to-home television broadcast are being enthusiastically promoted by private companies, promising new and improved communications services. I have been in­formed by the Federal Communications Oommissicn that there is nothing in present technology to prevent deliberate misuse or interference from an external source. Even when monitored by a. station, there have been cases involving the broadcast of incor­rect information for some time before the mistake was detected.

In the hands of unfriendly sources, a for­eign satellite could broadcast false informa­tion for a period of time which would threaten our national security under certain circumstances. Although this is an extreme example, the vulnerability of our central broadcast facilities to interference or sub­version poses a national security problem that requires immediate attention.

The National Association of Broadcasters has expressed concern that broadcasting satellites could present a vulnerable target to aggressors in time of war or when actions to disrupt the United States communica­tions system are contemplated. In the event that developing technology results in the concentration of all national television broadcast c01nmunications on a. relatively small number of satellites, these facilities could be easily destroyed, moved, or jammed, leaving no adequate •backup system for emergency communications.

Comments regarding communications se­curity ma.de Department of Defense officials at Senate hearings on 1978 appropriations support this concern. Statemeruts ma.de at those hea.rings emphasize the need to protect important communications links. Security measures a.re used by the Department to "protect command and control communica­tions from unauthorized access, ex;>loita.tion of commands or information, and attempts at communioa.tion deception." Although the Depa.rtment's communications security pro­gram includes all resources devoted to the protecstion of U.S. telecommunications against exploitation by foreign intelligence, it does not address problems involved in commercial operations.

Earlier responses to my letter of April 10 contained no information regarding the de­velo;>ment of communications and defense policy to address this n81tional security prob­lem. I respectfully request a report of efforts underway in the National Telecommunica­tions and Information Administrwtion, the Department of Defense, and other agencies and deoartiments concerned with naitional communications and security to ensure ade­quate protection of our communications facilities.

I urge your support for these efforts and thank you far your considerwtion of this serious matter.

Sincerely, LARRY PRESSLER,

U.S. Senator.

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, D.C., October 19, 1979.

Hon. LARRY PRESSLER, U .S. Senate, Washington, D .C.

DEAR LARRY: The President ~ked me to ac­knowledge his receipt of your letter of Octo­ber 10 regarding national security and com­mercial satellite telecommunications. He has been a.pprised of your request for a report on efforts underway to protect U.S. communica­tions facilities.

The President appreciates your comments and your concern. He has asked me to share your letter with several of his advisers, so th81t they might be aware of your views. A further response should be forthcoming.

Sincerely, FRANK MOORE,

Assistant to the President for Congressional Liaison.

BIG OIL PROTEST DAY Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is

regrettable that many Americans were manipulated by the media presentation of "Big Oil Protest Day" October 17, sponsored by a letterhead group calling itself the Citizens' Labor Energy Coali­tion.

Americans are properly concerned with the price of petroleum products, which has risen precipitately this year. But the group's so-called program is no wa;y to improve the situation. And the media's exaggerated attention to this nonevent was shocking.

The coalition's announced objectives were: First, a rollback of oil and nat­ural gas prices and reimposition of price controls; second, an investigation into what it termed "phony" shortages, pre­suma:bly manipulated by the oil com­panies; and third, establishment of a taxpayer-owned energy corporation. But many concerned Americans who carried placards in the protest obviously failed to consider the real consequences of the plan.

Brie:fiy stated, a rollback of oil and gas prices, with controls reimposed, would lessen the incentives both for peo­ple to conserve energy and for domes­tic producers to accelerate exploration for new energy resources. The matter of phony shortages had already been laid to rest by the Department of Energy and the General Accounting Office, both of which determined on the basis of in­dependent studies that the shortages were real. Nor is there any need for a taxpayer-owned energy corporation as long as there is aggressive competition among a vast number of domestic com­panies which produce, refine and market petroleum and petroleum products.

What is much more disturbing than the misguided zeal of the protest's lead­ers is the fact that, with today's com­munications technology, it is possible to mislead an entire nation by creating an event out of a nonevent. The "Big Oil Protest Day" was a case in point.

Though its sponsors, through a vigorous advance publicity campaign, predicted a massive turnout in about 20 cities around the country, only small groups of people actually showed up. At an earlier time in our history-before the mass impact of television-the pro­test would have been deemed a failure or it would have been ignored altogether.

Not so today. Because of the advance

29302 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979 publicity, TV networks scheduled cov­erage, not only of the nonexistent crowds, but also by multiple interviews with the protest leaders. Many of them were in­terviewed at length and given rich op­portunities to state the protest's goals again and again.

By sheer repetition, these goals began to take on the aura of validity. By impu­tation, the relatively small number of demonstrators became a symbol for what the sponsors claimed t;o be a much larger group of passive adherents. By inference, the viewing public began to think an event had really taken place.

When a nonevent can take on the sem­blance of a mass protest-can almost take on a life of its own-it is time for us to reconsider how well the media are serving the public. It is time, as well, to examine the real motives of those who organize such media events. Indeed, such an examination by the media could be far more productive than the coverage of phantom rallies.

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE ENROLLED Bll.L SIGNED

At 12: 29 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives delivered by Mr. Gregory, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bill:

S. 1030. An act to establish an emergency program for the conservation of energy and to provide for a. standby rationing ple.n for motor fuel.

The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the Acting President pro tem­pore <Mr. BRADLEY).

The message also announced that the House disagrees to the amendments of the Senate to the bill <H.R. 3824) to amend the District of Columbia Self­Government and Governmental Reor­ganization Act to authorize the Council of the District of Columbia to delegate its authority to issue revenue bonds for undertakings in the area of housing to any housing finance agency established by it and to provide that payments of such bonds may be made without further approval; requests a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon; and that Mr. DEL­L UMS, Mr. FAUNTROY, and Mr. McKINNEY were appointed as managers of the con­ference on the part of the House.

The message further announced that the House insists upon its amendment to the bill <S. 1037) to establish an ac­tuarially sound basis for financing re­tirement benefits for police officers, fire fighters, teachers, and judges of the Dis­trict of Columbia and to make certain changes in such benefits, disagreed to by the Senate; agrees to the conference re­quested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon; and that Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. FAUNTROY, Mr. MAZZOLI, Mr. McKINNEY, and Mr. MARKS were appointed as managers of the con­ference on the part of the House.

The message also announced that the House agrees to the report of the commit­tee of further conference on the disagree­ing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill <H.R. 4394) making appropriattons for the Department of Housing and Urban

Development, and for sundry indepen­dent agencies, boards, commissions, cor­porations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, and for other purposes.

At 1 :55 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives delivered by Mr. Ber­ry, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disa­greeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill <S. 975) to authorize appropriations for fis­cal year 1980 for intelligence activities of the U.S. Government, the Intelligence Community Staff, the Central Intelli­gence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the House has passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 4943. An act granting the consent of Congress to the compact between the States of New York and New Jersey provid­ing for the coordination, fa.cmtation, pro­motion, preservation, a.nd protection of trade and commerce in and through the Port of New York District through the financing and effectuation of industrial development proj­ects.

ENROLLED Bll.L SIGNED

At 4: 15 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives delivered by Mr. Greg­ory, announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bill:

S. 975. An act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1980 for lntelllgence a.nd ln­telllgence-rela.ted activities of the United States Government for the Tntelllgence Com­munity Staff, and for the Central Jntelllgence Agency Retirement and Disabmty System, to authorize supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1979 for the lntelllgence and ln­tell1gence-related activities of the United States Government, a.nd for other purposes.

The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the President pro tempore <Mr. MAGNUSON).

HOUSE BILL REFERRED The following bill was read twice by

its title and referred as indicated: H.R. 4943. An act granting the consent of

Congress to the compact between the States of New York a.nd New Jersey providing for the coordination, fac111tatlon, promotion, pre<;ervation, and protection of trade and commerce In and through the Port of New York District throu~h the fina.n~lng and effectuation of industrial development proj­ects; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED The Secretary of the Senate reported

that on today, October 24, 1979, he pre­sented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bill:

S. 1030. An act to establish a.n emergency program for the conservation of energy a.nd to provide for a standby rationing plan for motor fuel.

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITI'EES

The fallowing executive reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Labor and Human Resources:

John N. Gentry, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Labor.

<The above nomination from the Com­mittee on Labor and Human Resources was reported with the recommendation that it be confirmed, subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to re­quests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Sen­ate.>

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, as in executive session, from the Committee on Armed Services, I report the fallow­ing nominations: Gen. James E. Hill, USAF <age 57), for appointment to the grade of general on the retired list, and Maj. Gen. Kelly Howard Burke, USAF, to be lieutenant general. I ask that these two nominations be placed on the Executive Calendar.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The nominations will be placed on the Exec­utive Calendar.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolu­tions were introduced, read the first and second time by unanimous consent, and ref erred as indicated:

By Mr. BENTSEN: S. 1930. A b111 to provide for death gratui­

ties for the survivors of certain Central In­tell1gence Agency employees; to the Select Committee on Intelligence.

By Mr. THURMOND: S. 1931. A b111 for the relief of Ching-Yau

Cheng and Mel-Wa. Tam Cheng, his wife; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1932. A b111 for the relief of Ching-Kee Cheng and Wun-Mun Wong Cheng, his wife; tlons; to the committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. CHAFEE: S. 1933. A b111 to a.mend title XVI of the

Social Security Act to Increase the a.mount of the supplemental security dncome benefit payable to individuals ln certain institu­tions; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. BRADLEY: S. 1934. A bill to provide for authorization

of a price support loan program for munici­pal solid waste to energy systems; to the committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

By Mr. McGOVERN: S. 1935. A b111 to revise provisions of title

49, United States Code, which discourage contra.ct ratema.klng by railroad shippers; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. MATSUNAGA, and Mr. TSONGAS) :

S. 1936. A bill to ban the importation, manufacture, sale, a.nd transfer of Satur­day Night Specials, to Improve the effective­ness of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, relating to gun control, to promote more effective management of certain law enforcement functions of the executive branch by transferring functions of. the Sec­retary of the Treasury under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, relating to gun control to the Attorney General, a. ban pos­session, shipment, transportation, and re­ceipt of all firearms by felons, to provide relief for victims of handgun crimes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. RIEGLE (for himself, Mr. LE­VIN, Mr. BAYH, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. EAGLETON, Mr. NELSON, Mr. MATHL\S, and Mr. MCGOVERN) :

s. 1937. A blll to authorize emergency loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, a.nd Urban Affairs. ·

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29303

By Mr. GLENN (for himself and Mr. RIBICOFF):

S. 1938. A bill to ensure adequate protec­tion of workers , the general public, and the environment from harmful radiation ex­posure, to establish mechanisms for effec­tive coordination among the various Federal agencies involved in radiation protection activities, to develop a coordinated radiation research program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

By Mr. BAKER: S. 1939. A b111 to amend title 28 of the

United States Code to provide that certain judicial pleadings in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may be conducted in the Span­ish language, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RF.SOLUTIONS

By Mr. BENTSEN: S. 1930. A bill to provide for death

gratuities for the survivors of certain Central Intelligence Agency employees; to the Select Committee on Intelligence.

INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS BENEFITS

e Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to provide for the payment of 1 year's salary to the surviv­ing dependents of CIA employees who are killed overseas as a result of hostile or terrorist acts, or in connection with intelligence activity having a substantial degree of risk.

We live in a time of global instability and danger. We face aggressive, provoca­tive, and dangerous behavior by adver­saries who are bent on the destruction of those very freedoms we Americans take for granted. Around the world we are faced with serious threats to Ameri­can interests and serious dangers to American security.

It is absolutely essential that our Na­tion have intelligence information that is timely and accurate. We ml.15t have strong ground personnel to obtain in­formation that is only available through on-the-spot analysis.

Mr. President, our intelligence officers perform the most difficult work under dangerous and often deadly circum­stances. Their mission is vital to our na­tional security, vital to protecting our national interests, and vital to the West­ern alliance.

These people who so courageously serve our country are vulnerable to for­eign enemies, terrorists, and a small band of disgruntled former intelligence employees who have undertaken a reck­less effort to destroy our intelligence capability and endanger our security.

We have seen a station chief in Athens, Greece, Richard Welch, mur­dered shortly after his identity had been revealed.

I have introduced S. 191, which would provide criminal punishment for former Government employees who reveal the identities of acting intelligence officers. I am confident that this bill can be enacted in the current Congress, and I will do everything that I can to see that it is. At the same time, we can never eliminate the great dangers facing our personnel overseas.

The bill I introduce today will provide assistance to the widows and children of

CIA employees who are killed overseas as a result of hostile or terrorist acts, or in connection with intelligence ac­tivities with a substantial degree of risk. Benefits such as this are already avail­able to employees of the State Depart­ment killed under similar circumstances and death benefits are also provided by the Federal Government to public safety officers in this country.

This bill would provide benefits to dependents of those who so courageously serve our country. We owe it to them for the risks they take on our behalf.

This bill has recently been introduced by Representative DERWINSKI and others on the House side, and like them, I hope that benefits are never paid out. I hope there would be no deaths resulting from dangerous intelligence work. Neverthe­less, in the dangerous world we live in it is possible, and this bill is necessary.

Also, I would add, it is fair, it is just, it is a clear statement of support of in­telligence officers who serve this Naticn at great personal risk, and I would hope it will be given swift approval by Con­gress. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 191, and the bill I intro­duce today.•

By Mr. CHAFEE: S. 1933. A bill to amend title XVI of

the Social Security Act to increase the amount of the supplemental security in­come benefit payable to individuals in certain institutions; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCES FOR SSI RECIPIENTS

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am to­day introducing a bill which provides for an increase in the personal needs al­lowance for SSI beneficiaries in medical facilities .

Mr. President, when the supplemental security income program was enacted by Congress in 1972, it contained the pro­vision that when an aged, blind, or dis­abled person eligible for SSI benefits be­comes an inmate of a hospital, extended care facility, nursing home, or inter­mediate care facility receiving medicaid support, such individuals' benefit would be reduced to $25 a month to cover basic personal needs. Although the medicaid program supports the major institutional costs, including shelter and medical care, for such individuals, this $25 monthly personal needs allowance is expected to cover all other incidental personal ex­penses.

These are truly the for gotten people. It has been 7 years since this provision was enacted, and even though social security and SSI benefits have been increased to account for growing infiation, this per­sonal needs allowance has remained the same. The same allowance also applies to social security beneficiaries who are in medicaid institutions, and even though their benefits have increased, they do not receive personally a share of this in­crease.

This meager amount can hardly be ex­pected to cover the everyday needs of in­stitutionalized persons, such as clothing and personal necessities, much less the cost of such small luxuries as a magazine

or transportation for an occasional visit outside the facility.

My bill would increase this personal needs allowance to $30 a month for SSI recipients. This is a very modest, long overdue increase for our institutionalized aged, blind and disabled citizens.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

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

s. 1933 Be it enacted by the Senate and Home of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) clauses (1) and (U) of section 1611 (e) (1) (B) of the Social Security Act a.re each a.mended by striking out "$300" and inserting in lieu thereof 1n each instance "$360".

(b) Clause (111) of section 161l(e) (1) (B) of such Act is amended by striking out "$600" and inserting in lieu thereof "$780".

(C) The amendments made by this section sha.11 be effective with respect to benefits pay­able on or after the first day of the first month that begins more than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

By Mr. BRADLEY: S. 1934. A bill to provide for authoriza­

tion of a price support loan program for municipal solid waste to energy systems; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TO ENERGY ACT OJ!' 1979

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I intro­duce for appropriate reference a bill to provide :financial incentives to municipal solid waste to energy systems.

In the past decade, resource recovery in the United States has evidenced the potential to play a major role in pro­viding sections of the country with an alternative source of energy derived from urban waste. Today, there are seven large resource recovery facilities in operation, extracting energy from waste. Those plants have a combined daily design ton capacity of 5,800 tons. Small-scale com­mercial systems now in operation repre­sent another 500 TPD in capacity. Four more plants with a combined ton-per­day capacity of 6,200 tons are in an ad­vanced stage of start-up.

Recovery technology has crossed the threshold of technological feasibility and the Federal Government should now turn its attention to the widespread commer­cialization of urban waste to energy con­version systems. The systems in place today demonstrate that several tech­nologies for both small and large scale systems can provide effective, reliable. and affordable means for recovering use­ful energy from waste while simultane­ously solving the serious waste disposal problems of many local governments.

Yet the potential for resource recovery to make a significant contribution to -the Nation's energy goals by substituting re­covered energy products for increasingly scarce and expensive fossil fuels has barely been tapped. The capacity in place today will process less than 3 percent of the Nation's waste stream in 1980. The Nation continues to discard the energy equivalent of 200 mlllion barrels of oll

29304 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 24, 1979

annually by landfilling and dumping solid waste. Although resource recovery offers the dual attractions of both eco­nomically disposing of waste and pro­ducing energy, the implementation of a project involves the commitment of large amounts of capital and is a complex and time consuming task. Successful imple­mentation requires securing a reliable and sumcient supply of solid waste as a feedstock; obtaining the long-term con­tractual commitment of an energy buyer who is suitably located and whose energy requirements can be technically satisfied at an economically attractive price; and selecting a technology which can reliably produce a product to the buyer's specifi­cations, reduce the volume of waste for ultimate landfilling to stipulated levels, and operate in conformance with various Federal and State environmental regula­tions.

In addition to the above-mentioned considerations, as a business venture in­volved in the sale of energy or fuel re­source recovery projects must also meet competitive constraints in the local marketplace. Specifically, a substitute fuel must be produced for sale at a more advantageous price to the buyer than the fuel it displaces. Furthermore, the disposal of waste must be at a price that is competitive with the cost of landfill disposal.

The sale of a recovered energy prod­uct in a local market drives the eco­nomics of a resource recovery project and the price acquired for that energy product is the crucial ingredient in de­termining commercial feasibility. The capital, operating, and maintenance costs of a project must be balanced by energy revenues and disposal (tip) fees. insutncient energy revenues in the early years of project operation can de­lay or def eat the implementation of a project. This is so because implementa­tion occurs in a political context where local public otncials have strong incen­tives to choose the least costly near term dispasal alternatives, even where long run economics may argue for another choice.

Although resource recovery facilities have been demonstrated to be economic ventures in some areas of the country, there are situations where the price that can be obtained in the local mar­ket for the fuel substitute produced by the resource recovery project is too ex­pensive in the short term to allow im­mediate implementation. For example, a resource recovery project producing energy to displace regulated natural gas may be competing against a fuel price of $1.50 to $2.00 per million Btu, while a project displacing oil is competing against a fuel price of $3.70 per MMBtu. While this gap presently exists, escala­tion in the price of gas and other fossil fuels which are substitutes for oil will close that gap over time.

Resource recovery projects typically have escalator clauses in their contracts with their energy buyers which have the effect of increasing revenues as the market price of the displaced fuel rises. Thus, using reasonable assumptions about escalation, these projects will be

economically attractive over their useful life. This does not, however, solve the immediate problem of the local public otncial who seees a tip fee for disposal that may be significantly higher than the cost of landfill disposal in the early years of project operation. <Revenues from the energy stream of a recovery facility are governed by the cost of com­peting fuels; whereas, the disposal <tip) fee is ultimately governed by localized political considerations; that is, what the citizenry will tolerate.)

The local otncial may delay a decision to go forward with project implementa­tion where the tip fee is not competitive with landfill disposal and where the cost for the energy produced is not competi­tive with existing fuels~ As a consequence, a potentially valuable source of energy will continue to be buried in the ground.

In many respects urban waste to en­ergy conversion systems can be compared to solar hot water and solar fiat plaJte collector heating systems. If judged on a life cycle cost basis <where competing fossil fuels are expected to increase in cost) those alternative energy systems using renewable resources, will be com­petitive over time.

National policy should encourage dis­placement/conservation of higher qual­ity fossil fuels including especially oil wherever possible by accelerating devel­opment of alternative energy resources even where local energy market condi­tions pose barriers. A short-term price support loan program can shift forward to the present energy revenues in early years which would normally not be real­ized until later years through the effects of fuel escalation. This enables a project to show a lower "tip" fee in early years, and appear more attractive to local deci­sionmakers.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The price support loan program for urban waste to energy systems proposed by this legislation is premised on a na­tional policy to encourage substitution of alternative fuels for scarce fossil fuels. A resource recovery project may receive a payment from the Federal Government for the recovered energy it produces. The payment will only extend for a 7-year period, on the assumption that the dis­parity between the price of energy that can be produced for a waste-to-energy facility and the price of conventional fossil fuels will have largely disappeared.

It is not, however, an open ended sub­sidy which would undermine the incen­tives that now exist in the resource re­covery marketplace for creating eco­nomically and technically sound projects. The program is designed so that only those projects which are fundamentally economic over their life cycle will be supported. It is important that the in­troduction of Federal subsidies into the resource recovery marketplace not have the effect of discouraging waste to energy systems vendors from assuming the risks for the satisfactory performance of their technology, nor should they inadvertent­ly relax the responsibilities of projoot sponsors for establishing secure markets for the sale of the energy product they produce on the basis of good faith buyer/ seller negotiations. The program should

also encourage the implementation of projects on an accelerated basis.

In order to achieve the objectives stated immediately above, the bill which I am introducing incorporates the fol­lowing spectfic points:

1. LOAN PAYBACK

The program is designed as a loan paid out to the project over a 7-year term and lim'ited specifically to a payment for on!y that energy or fuel which is actually produced. Beginning in the eighth year and over the balance of the project amortization period, or 15 years <which­ever is less), the cumulative amount of the loan must be repaid at an interest rate not to exceed 5 percent. Since most resource recovery projects are financed with revenue bond issues, and since the market for revenue bonds demands ade­quate coverage of economic risks, the ef­fect of this provision is to force a care­ful economic analysis to assure that only those projects which can reasonably ex­pect repayment of the loan will be financed. Thus, the availability of a Fed­eral subsidy will not tend to result in s1mply more costly projects.

2. PRODUCTION AND SALE OF ENERGY

Loan payments to the project are con­tingent upon the production and sale of an energy product to a buyer. Payment is made on a per million Btu basis for only that amount of recovered energy which is produced and used internally or sold by the project. Thus, a project has strong incentives to make sure it has a secure deal with its energy buyer and to that assure the technology it selects can reli­ably produce the anticipated amount of energy product. Because the program is premised on energy production, it should not encourage high risk, unreliable tech­nology where proven technology is avail­able. Furthermore, by limiting the Fed­eral incentive to the production of energy the risk to the system vendor and the local municipality is not removed.

3. CAP ON LOAN PAYMENT

The program establishes a ceiling of $2 per million Btu on the amount of the per unit price differential Which is the basis for the loan payment. Th1s lim­itation is intended to discourage use of the program in cases where the prices of the displaced fuel is unrealistically low, which would, in tum, create economic ditnculties with the repayment provision. The $2.00 cap approximates the spread between the current cost of low sulfur oil and reasonably good quality ooal.

4. FIXED SUPPORT PB.ICE

Since the purpose of this program is to accelerate development of an alter­native energy resource, it is important that the program design not induce delay. The standard support price which establishes the basis of the per unit sub­sidy a project receives is set by regula­tion on the basis of the price of oil at the beginning of the program and does not change thereafter, even though the actual market price of oil can be ex­pected to increase. This encourages a project to proceed with implementation sooner rather than later, since the price support differential will narrow as a consequence of escalation in the price of the fuels displaced.

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29305

5. SUNSET PROVISION

The program is designed so that all payments for support will cease as of December 31, 1994. This recognizes that the original gap between the standard support price and local market prices will have largely disappeared by that time. It also encourages projects toward rapid implementation, otherwise the 7-year term of their loan payment will be cut short.

6. ARMS LENGTH NEGOTIATIONS

The intention of the price support loan is to improve the economics of the project. It should not simply be passed through as a price discount to the energy buyer. Since the recovered energy pro­duced by a project is always sold at some discount to the buyer, to make it attrac­tive versus the competitive fuel, there is a tendency on the part of the energy buyer to bargain for a higher discount where a price support is involved in the project. This is counteracted by a provi­sion in the Bradley amendment that bases the per unit price support on the differential between the buyer's actual fuel costs, which must be documented, and the standard support price. Increas­ing the discount given to the buyer for the energy from a resource recovery facility cannot increase the amount of the subsidy.

7. FACILITATE PRIVATE FINANCING

The rigorous requirements of revenue bond financing could be an impediment to the utilization of the program if the effect of terminating the price support payment in year 7 were to cause a sud­den increase in the fees (particularly the tip fee) which must be the sources of revenue for covering debt service, op­eration and maintenance costs, as well as repayment of the cumulative amount of the price support.

If the parties to the financing question the ability of the project to realistically obtain this revenue once price supports are terminated then tax exempt revenue bond financing might not be possible. There are several program provisions which deal with this problem.

The per unit amount of a price support to a project declines in equal decrements over a 7-year period, to zero. This is the only basis on which the unit amount of the price support can change. It is not influenced by the price behavior of the displaced fuel, once the price support agreement has been made. This steady trend is important in terms of the integ­rity of project financing agreements un­der revenue bond financing, which must anticipate the eventual elimination of the subsidy and identify in bond inden­ture agreements what other revenues <either energy or tip fees) will provide debt service coverage.

Second, the term of the repayment to the Federal Government for the price support disbursements is spread over a 15-year period and, in negotiating a price support agreement, the Secretary has the flexibility to set a repayment sched­ule that takes into account the needs of the project in terms of the time at which its fuel escalation clause will gen­erate the revenues needed for repayment.

8. SPECIAL PROVISION TO DISPLACE OIL IMPORTS The bill also recognizes that it is in

the national interest to reduce use of im­ported oil. Therefore a special price sup­port is made available to a project which displaces the use of oil. Not­withstanding the provisions of the pro­gram, which base the price support on the difference between the price of oil and the price of displaced fuel, a project displacing oil will receive a spe­cial support payment. It is set at the level of 80 cents a million Btu in the first year to be reduced in accordance with the me­chanics of the program which otherwise remain the same in all other respects. This provides a special economic incen­tive to projects that displace oil.

9. PROGRAM FINANCING A total authorization of $196,000,000

is proposed to support this program which will trigger the investment to bring 20,000 to 30,000 tons-per-day of garbage processed to a useful form of energy over the life of the program.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of these remarks.

Finally, I want to emphasize that I consider this proposal to be a first draft. I am hopeful that as the Senate con­siders the question of Federal involve­ment in the development of alternative energy resources that my colleagues will consider the proposal in that package of legislation that will provide this coun­try with alternative sources of energy and that interested parties will provide comments and criticism that will help fashion an acceptable bill that will bene­fit and stimulate the widespread use of municipal solid waste-garbage-as a useful source of energy.

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

s. 1934 Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the

"Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Act of 1979".

FINDINGS SEc. 2. The Congress hereby finds the.t-­(a) embedded in the municipal solid

waste stream is a store of energy and energy intensive materials which can be recovered and used and, as a consequence, conserve increasingly scarce and expensive supplies of higher quality fossil fuels;

(b) a commitment to develop this energy resource on a priority basis can potentially produce the equivalent of 149 million barrels of oil annually by 1990 with an approximate dollar value at preva111ng world market energy prices or three billion dollars annually, and can reduce the unfavorable impact of oil imports on the balance of payments by an equivalent magnitude;

(c) the volume o! discarded material in the municipal soUd waste stream is increas­ing and the agencies of State and local gov­ernments with municipal solid waste man­agement responsibil1tles confront growing problems in disposing of this waste in en­vironmentally soulld and economically ac­ceptable ways;

(d) the technologies to convert waste to energy and recover valuable materials have demonstrated commercial feastb111ty to a.

degree that has warranted significant pubUc and private investment in developing re­source recovery projects;

(e) further improvements in the develop­ment of economical, commercially demO'Il­stra.ted resource recovery technology for the primary purpose of energy production will represent a significant innovation in the state-of-the-a.rt and wm present the oppor­tunity to develop export markets for this technology; and,

(f) the implementation of resource recov­ery projects ls a demanding, time consuming, and costly process, imposing signflcant bur­dens on project sponsors and participants th.at often frustrate or delay a successful out­come of the project.

DEFINITIONS SEC. 3. For the purposes of this Act--(a) the term "standard support price"

means, that price set by the Secretary which reflects the most costly conventional fossil fuel used in not less than 10 per centum of the industrial and commercial boilers in the United States with a nameplate capacity of 20,000,000 Btu's per hour. Provided, That in no event shall the standard support price be less th.an the average cost per million Btu value over the preceding three months of imported 0.7-per centum sulfur No. 6 fuel oil f~ee on board in New York Harbor; and, Pro­vided further, That the Secretary shall de­termine the standard support price within six months o! the enactment of this section. Such price shall be set on a cost per m1111on of Btu value basis.

(b) the term "adjusted support price" means that price which ls determined by multiplying the standard support price by such price support factors as are determined by the Secretary. The adjusted support price shall be applicable where electricity or steam produced by a resource recovery project ls sold to any user.

(c) the term "price support factor" means those factors which take into account any operating efficiencies, other cost savings and any other economic benefits realized in pro­ducing such electricity or steam as deter­mined by the Secretary pursuant to pub­lished regulations.

ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRICE SUPPORT LOAN PROGRAM

SEc. 4. (a) The Secretary of Energy (here­inafter referred to as "Secretary") may enter into price support loan agreements with the owner or operator of a resource recovery project pursuant to the terms o! which quarterly disbursements to such participant shall be made in an amount calculated by multiplying the quantity (measured in mll­lions of Btu's) of recovered fuel products or electricity or steam produced by the re­source recovery faclllty by the support price as determined with reference to:

(1) (A) in the case of recovered fuel prod­ucts except as provided in subparagraph (B), the lesser o!-

(1) the difference between the standard support price and the average cost of fuel per mlllion British thermal units ("Btu's") value during the previous four fiscal quarters to the customer purchasing recovered fuel products from the resource recovery project, or

(11) $2.00 per million Btu value; or (B) Notwithstanding the above, in the

case where a recovered fuel product dis­places the use of oil, the amount of price support shall be the difference between the customer's actual cost of oil and the stand­ard support price plus $0.80 per million Btu value; or

(2) (A) in the case or recovered electricity or steam except as provided in paragraph (B), the lesser of-

(1) the difference between the adjusted support price, and the average cost per

29306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 24, 1979

mlllion Btu value during the previous four fiscal quarters for electricity or steam pur­chased by the customer on a cost per milllon Btu basis, or

(11) $2.00 per milUon Btu value times any price support factor establlshed by the Sec­retary; or

(B) Notwithstanding the above, in the case where a recovered electricity or steam product displaces the use of oil , the amount of price support shall be the difference be­tween the customer's actual cost of oil and the standard support price plus $0.80 per mil­lion Btu value.

(b) The value of the price support deter­mined pursuant to subsection (a) shall be reduced each fiscal quarter beginning with the fifth consecutive fiscal quarter during which the resource recovery project has maintained commercial operation at sub­stantially the level for which it ls designed and, Provided that: The value of such price support shall be zero by the end of the twenty-eighth fiscal quarter as measured from the first of the four consecutive fiscal quarters referenced above.

(c) The amount of disbursements made pursuant to this section and which remains outstanding at the end of the twenty-eight consecutive fiscal quarters during which this price support program is utmzed by any project shall bear interest at a reasonable rate determined by the Secretary, in con­sultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, but in no case shall such interest rate ex­ceed five percent and, Provided that: Such interest shall not begin to accrue until the final disbursement has been made.

( d) The terms of the agreement between the Secretary and the owner or operator of the project shall require full repayment of the cumulative total of the amounts dis­bursed by the Secretary thereunder, Pro­vided that: Such repayment shall commence at a date no later than one year after the date of the last disbursement by the Secre­tary and shall be completed no later than the earller of fifteen years after such date or the time at which the indebtedness in­curred to acquire the resource recovery proj­ect has been repaid, and shall provide for a repayment schedule as mutually agreed upon by the Secretary and the owner or operator of the project, after taking into account the impact of the timing and amount of annual repayment on the economic stab111ty of the project and the integrity of the financing agreements.

(e) Price support operations undertaken by the Secretary pursuant to this section a.re hereby expressly limited to the use and sale of recovered fuel products and recov­ered electricity or steam produced by a re­source recovery project and shall not extend to the sale of other recovered materials pro­duced by such products.

(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Secretary shall have no authority to disburse amounts pursuant to any price support loan agreement made un­der this section after December 31, 1994.

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS SEC. 5. For purposes of carrying out the

provisions of this section, the amounts of $36,000,000 are authorized to be appropri­ated for the fiscal year 1980; $67,000,000 a.re authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1981; $93,000,000 a.re authorized to be appro­priated for fiscal year 1982.

Mr. McGOVERN: S. 1935. A bill to revise provisions of

title 49, United States Code, which dis­courage contract ratemaking by railroad shippers; to the Committee on Com­merce, Science, and TransPortation.

IMPROVING RAll.. INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE

• Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, after chairing a series of Joint Economic Sub-

committee hearings for more than a year, I am convinced that railroad shippers and railroads themselves, through mutu­ally beneficial contract agreements, can clear away the morass of confusion and alarm surrounding the prospect of re­duced economic regulation of the rail industry.

Accordingly, I have today introduced the Railroad Contract Act of 1979.

The thrust of the bill is to promote voluntarily reached rail service contracts between shippers and railroads regard­ing rates and performance by clearly establishing as a matter of law that such contracts are legal.

In my judgment, this legislation may constitute the best step taken to bring the rail industry in line with the objec­tives of national energy and transporta­tion policies by opening the way for rail­roads and shippers to establish the most efiicient means of utilizing the national rail system.

Under this legislation it would be a matter of national policy to encourage shippers and railroads to engage in con­traict negotiations free of the often coun­terproductive Interstate Commerce Com­mission regulatory intervention that now frequently shapes ratemaking proceed­ings.

The premise of the legislation is that rail shippers and the railroads, more than any Government entity, know best what their requirements and problems are, and how they can be resolved. If given the opportunity afforded by this bill, railroads and shippers will be free to initiate economic regulatory reform without having to wait on or be re­stricted by cumbersome and unsatisfac­tory standards and criteria to be estab­lished by the ICC.

Rail service contracts hold out inher­ent benefits to both the railroads them­selves and to shippers. Contracts permit railroads to know with certainty over the long run what demands shippers will make and how much they will pay for such service. Railroads thus can more efiiciently schedule a.nd utilize equip­ment and personnel. Sh;ppers, in return for guaranteeing minimum service pay­ment. will be assured of far greater serv­ice adeouacy.

Mr. Presi.dent. I want to emphas1ze that. although the bi.11 encourages free contract bargaining bv shipoers and the rail industry. it nevertheless retains presently existing common carrier serv­ice obligati.ons for all noncontract ship­pers. Beyond that, it keeps in place all presently existing proh;bitions against discriminatory. prejudicial. or otherwise abusive practices that have or could vict;mize shippers.

Moreover, the bill provides that simi­larly situated shippers, such as grain shi.ppers, are entitled to enter into simi­lar rail contracts in order to assure competitive equity.

All contracts freely negotiated by shippers and railroads would be subject to ICC approval only for purposes of determining whether the requirements of such agreements would result in re­duced service to noncontract shippers.

No railroad would be permitted to take locomotives and freight cars away from noncontract shippers or reduce their

service in other ways in order to fulfill the terms of a contract.

To this end, the bill requires that the ICC, immediately following enactment, undertake a nationwide survey of the freight car and locomotive fleet of all railroads so that it can determine whether the size of various fleets is ade­quate to the demands placed on them and whether individual contracts will interfere with noncontract service.

To further protect shipper interests and for the benefit of all interested par­ties, the bill would establish within the ICC an information retrieval system on rail contract ratemaking. This provi­sion directs the ICC to make noncon­fidential summaries of contracts avail­able to inform shippers and others of the provisions of various contracts and developing trends in the rail service con­tracts area as a whole.

Moreover, the legislation encourages shippers who are being Poorly served by one railroad to seek ICC approval allow­ing a competing railroad to provide truck service to that rail line. Thus, non­contract shippers, especially those ship­pers who must rely heavily on rail trans­port, will have added bargaining lever­age to obtain adequate service.

Mr. President, we long ago passed the point where the rail industry ceased to be the dominant transportation mode of the Nation, yet Government regulatory policy continues to hamstring the abil­ity of our seriously weakened rail system to effectively compete with trucks and barges.

By allowing railroads and shippers free rein to dedicate specified amounts of rolling stock to stated routes and schedules in return for shipper guar­antee for payment for specified service, we will have done much to modernize marketplace for railroads and rail shippers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent to have the text of the Railroad Contract Act of 1979 printed in the RECORD.

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

s. 1935 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Railroad Contract Act of 1979".

SEc. 2 . . (a) Chapter 107 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subchapter: "Subchapter VI-RAn.ROAD CONTRACT RATES

"§ 10791. Exemption from common carrier obligation

"(a) A rail carrier may enter into a con­tra.<:t with a shipper for transportation at rates and conditions of service agreed on by such rail carrier and shipper. Such contracts shall not be construed as adversely affecting the common carrier obligation of such rail carrier if such contracts do not prejudice service to non-contract shippers.

"(b) The Commission may not, after ap­proving a contract entered into between a rail carrier and a shipper in accordance with subsection (a), take any action under sub­chapter II of chapter 111 which would inter­fere with the performance of such contract.

"(c) rn reviewing and aporoving contracts under subsection (a) the Commission _shall consider only the effect upon service to non-

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 29307

contra.ct shippers. A contract entered into under this section shall be considered ap­proved unless the Commission, in consulta­tion with appropriate Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, determines within thirty days after receipt of such con­tract that such contract will prejudice serv­ice to non-contract shippers. For the pur­poses of review and approval of contracts under this section the Commission shall only require the submission of such contract ln­forma.tlon it determines necessary to ful­fill the purposes of this section a.nd section 10792(2). "§ 10792. Railroad contract rate advisory

service "The Commission sha.ll establish a. ra.11-

roa.d contract ra.te Advisory service. The Ad­visory service shall-

" ( 1) be responsible for the initial review and approval of all contracts entered into under section 10791;

"(2) compile a.nd disseminate to Inter­ested parties non-confidential summaries of the provisions of individual contracts in­formation relating to the provisions of con­tracts entered into under section 10791 with regard to various goods, items, and commodi­ties covered by such contracts; and

"(3) provide the Commission and inter­ested parties with advice regarding contracts described in section 10791. "§ 10793. Directed contract service

" (a) The Commission shall, not later than thirty days after the date of enactment of this Act, promulgate standards and criteria to be used by the Commission and carriers in determining similarities between shippers for the purpose of offering contracts to such shippers pursuant to subsection (b) .

"(b) Any carrier which enters into 'a. contract pursuant to section 10791 shall enter into good faith contract negotiations with shippers who are similarly situated pursuant to findings of the Commission in section 10793 upon application by such shipper. If a contract ls not a.greed to within ninety days a.fter such shipper ap­plies to the carrier to begin contract nego­itla.tions the Commission may direct the carrier to enter into an agreement which ls determined reasonable and equitable."

(b) The index for chapter 107 is a.mended by inserting the following ·after 10786: "Subchapter VI-Railroad Contract Rates "Sec. "10791. Exemption from common carrier

obligation. "10792. Railroad contract advisory service. "10793. Directed contra.ct service.".

SEC. 3. (a) Subcha.pter II of chapter 111 of title 49, United States Code, ls a.mended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "§ 11129. Survey of rail capacity

"The Commission shall lmmedlaitely after the date of enactment of this section com­mence a survey of the rail service capacity of the nation's railroads. Such survey shall be periodically updated and shall be used by the Commission in making determina­tions under sections 10791 and for such other purposes a.s the Commission may determine.". ·

(b) The index for chapter 111 ls a.mended by lnsecting the following after 11128 · "11129. Survey of rail capacity.". ·

SEc. 4. Section 11344 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection·

" ( c) A rail carrier, or a. person controlled by or affiliated with a rail carrier may apply for approval of a transaction which involves motor carrier transportation to serve inade­quately served shippers located on another railroad. Such application shall be approved by the Commission if the shippers demon­strate present evidence of impaired rail serv­ice which results in the serious failure of

the railroad serving the shippers to meet the rail equipment or transportation schedules of shippers or to seriously .ran to otherwise provide adequate normal rail servcles re­quired by shippers and which shippers would reasonably expect the railroad to provide. The Commission shall approve or disapprove applications under this subsection within thirty days after receipt of such applica­tion. The Commission shall approve appli­cations which are not protested by interested parties within thirty days following receipt of such application.e

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. MATSUNAGA, and Mr. TSONGAS) :

S. 1936. A bill to ban the importation, manufacture, sale, and transfer of Sat­urday night specials, to improve the ef­fectiveness of chapter 44 of title 18 United States Code, relating to gun con~ trol, to promote more etiective manage­ment of certain law enforcement func­tions of the executive branch by trans­! erring functions of the Secretary of the Treasury under chapter 44 of title 18 United States Code, relating to gun con~ trol _to the Attorney General, to ban pos­session, shipment, transportation and receipt of all firearms by felons, t~ pro­vide relief for victims of handgun crimes and for other purposes; to the Commit~ tee on the Judiciary.

HANDGUN CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1979

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on be­half of Senators JAVITS, WILLIAMS, RIBI­COFF, STEVENSON, MATSUNAGA, TSONGAS, and myself, I introduce the Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979 to curb the senseless killings caused by the prolif­erating use of handguns in America.

Handgun shootings can occur any place, and injure or kill anyone. There a:e. no geographical limits. Handgun killmgs and woundings occur in the east south, north, and west. Hundreds of thousands of American fami1ies sutier e~ch year from the scourge of handgun violence.

During the Vietnam war the number of American civilians murdered by handguns here at home in the United States was larger than the number of American soldiers killed in combat in Indochina.

The Vietnam war is over. Yet our hand~n war continues to escalate, fuel­ed daily by the easy availability of handguns. Conservative estimates sug­gest that there are now 50 million hand­guns in civilian hands. Each year, we add nearly 2 million additional hand­guns to that arsenal. At the current rate of production and sales, over 100 million handguns will be in civilian hands by the year 2000.

America today is an armed society­ar~ed against our neighbors, armed agamst our families, armed against our­selves. Our society has become captive to the fea: of crime and violence. Fearing for their safety, residents on the block and in local neighborhoods purchase handguns to defend themselves. But rarely are these handguns used for self­defe~se. Instead, they become the qui.ck solution to a heated family argument. Instead, they are stolen by a criminal and used to commit new crimes against society. They fall into the hands of chil-

dren who harm themselves--often fa­tally.

The last time the Congress faced up to the handgun problem was in 1968. But the past decade's unprecedented wave of handgun crime and violence demon­strates that there are flagrant loopholes in the existing law that must be closed.

Every year, another quarter million citizens are killed, wounded or threat­ened with handguns. Every year, every month, every day, every hour, many of our constituents are added to the toll of handgun victims.

The American people want strong handgun control laws. •Every responsible public opinion poll reports that handgun owners are willing to accept common sense controls on handguns. But Con­gress is stymied by a narrow segment of gun owners who, through intense lobby­ing and political intimidation, block the Government from dealing with this na­tional problem.

The Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979 seeks to address the concerns of the handgun industry, handgun sellers, handgun owners and the millions of Americans who want us to do something about handgun crime.

The Attorney General, Benjamin Civ­iletti, has today released the annual FBI crime report, which shows an increase of 5.2 percent in violent crime during 1978. According to the report, handguns were used in 49 percent of the murders in the United States in 1978. The Attorney General had earlier stated that violent crime increased by 13 percent during the first half of 1979. So the rise in violent crime goes on unchecked.

My colleagues are aware that hundreds of bills have been introduced in recent years on the gun problem. They run the entire gamut: From a total ban on hand­guns, to the total repeal of the Nation's current gun laws. My proposal today, the Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979, seeks to find common ground between law-abiding, responsible handgun own­ers and those Americans who do not own or wish to own handguns the majority of Americans who favor handgun con­trols.

Let me first state what this legisla­tion will not do.

The legislation does not apply to long guns-that is, rifles or shotguns. It does not restrict hunting in any way. It ls not a foot-in-the-door piece of legisla­tion that will lead in the future to con­fiscation of sporting weapons.

The bill is not retroactive. No law­abiding citizen must do anything to re­tain possession of a handgun. The b111 does not confiscate any handgun. The bill does not jeopardize anyone's right to legitimately buy or use a handgun. The bill does not limit pistol clubs.

Instead, the bill is carefully designed to reduce handgun crime. It w111 achieve this goal by stopping the commerce in Saturday night specials through a ban on the manufacture, importation, as­sembly, sale, transfer, and distribution of these easily concealable weapons of violence.

In 1968, Congress wisely prohibited the importation of these nonsporting weap­ons. But Congress left a loophole larger

29308 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE October 24, 1979 than the law. We failed to stop the im­portation of parts for these cheap hand­guns and their domestic assembly. The proposed legislation applies basically the same criteria currently used on imports to all domestic manufacture and sales.

The legislation also establishes a broad-based, independent commission to examine the handgun marketplace and determine within 1 year whether the criteria should be revised. Such factors as the handgun's concealability, sport­ing value, and criminal potential would be carefully weighed. Congress would consider the :final recommendations of this panel.

The bill would also reduce handgun crime by attacking the illegal traffic 1n handguns. The first step is to assure that all handgun transactions are in com­pliance with existing Federal laws.

A reasonable regulatory procedure must be established to insure that a handgun purchaser does not have a criminal record, a history of mental ill­ness, or drug addiction, is at least 21 years of age, and is properly identi:fiable.

A Federal procedure is established which a purchaser must follow unless the State in which the purchase is made has a comparable law. The bill requires the purchaser to appear before a licensed dealer and provide appropriate data. The dealer will then verify this information with law enforcement authorities. The purchaser is subject to a maximum 21-day waiting period before delivery. If the purchaser has previously complted with a State procedure, simtlar to the Federal process, he need only show the handgun dealer a valid State license in order to complete the purchase.

This preclearance procedure will cover the sale of every handgun, includ­ing all secondary transfers. Individuals who are not dealers will have to conduct the transfer through a licensed dealer.

The legislation also encourages States to adopt license-to-carry laws, modeled after the successful Bartley-Fox law in the State of Massachusetts. A recent study of the impact of this law shows a dramatic reduction in the number of gun deaths and gun assaults. The law requires a person to have a license to carry a handgun outside his home or place of business. Failure to abide by the law car­ries a mandatory jail term.

Why is a person carrying a concealed handgun on the street to begin with? If there is a legitimate need to carry that handgun, the individual will take the re­sponsible step of securing a license. To encourage States to pass a license-to­carry law, the legislation will allow any­one possessing a valid license to purchase a handgun through Interstate Com­merce.

These procedures are fair to those who wish to purchase handguns. Yet they will also help restrict the availability and use of handguns by the criminal.

In addition to procedures governing the sale of handguns, we must also in­crease the responsibility and account­ability of licensed handgun manufac­turers, handgun importers, handgun dealers, and handgun owners.

We have all heard the arguments about the establishment and cost of a large Federal bureaucracy created to su-

pervise handgun control efforts. The pro­posed legislation creates no such bu­reaucracy. It does not call for a Govern­ment-run, centralized registration sys­tem. However, those who engage in the handgun business or maintain handgun ownership must recognize the serious consequences caused by misuse of these handguns.

To allay the fears of handgun owners and yet facilitate handgun tracing, the maintenance of handgun information is made the responsibility of the handgun industry itself.

Each licensed handgun manufacturer or importer will be ultimately responsi­ble for keeping track of the disposition of all handguns introduced into com­merce. They will be required to maintain records by serial number of all handguns produced, imported, received, sold, trans­ferred, maintained in inventory, de­stroyed, lost, or stolen. They will receive periodic reports from all dealers with whom they do business on transactions involving the manufacturer's or import­er's handguns. Manufacturers and im­porters will also conduct periodic audits of handgun dealers to insure the accu­racy of records received from dealers.

Periodically, these manufacturers and importers will submit summary data, without serial numbers or individual names, to the Federal agency overseeing the law.

Through this accounting mechanism within the handgun industry, a partner­ship against handgun crime will be es­tablished. Tracing a stolen handgun will become as quick and easy as tracing a stolen automobile. At the same time, handgun manufacturers and importers will be able to notify owners of any de­fect or potential problem. And Federal agencies and the industry will be able to identify illegal handgun commerce.

The legislation also requires the theft, loss, or disappearance of any handgun to be reported to the appropriate law en­forcement authority. Studies have con­sistently shown that stolen handguns constitute a major source of weapons for the criminal. Besides aiding in law en­forcement efforts, such reporting will al­low the police to restore the lost or stolen property to the legitimate owner or business.

Handgun owners will also oe prohib­ited from loaning or renting their hand­guns to anyone, except for use in their presence or on their premises. Again, this provision seeks to deter the misuse of these weapons.

To underline the emphasis on hand­gun commerce as opposed to long gun commerce, a separate commercial licens:. ing scheme is established for handguns. Higher commercial handgun fees are included.

Handgun dealers are also required to take appropriate security precautions to protect their place of business.

The legislation also contains provi­sions to limit the opportunities ·for il­legal tratllc in handguns. Pawnbrokers, because of a long history of abuse, are prohibited from dealing in handguns. There is a limit on the number of hand­guns one can buy. In a given year, a dealer may not sell more than three handguns to one person, unless special

permission is obtained for sales to hand­gun collectors or other legitimate users. This provision is aimed at curtailing the existing practice whereby blackmar­keteers have been able to make large­scale purchases of handguns in States with ineffective laws, and then resell them in States with tighter handgun control laws.

The Handgun Crime Control Act ot 1979 also seeks to remedy the situation arising from the 1971 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Bass (404 U.S. 336). The Court significantly restricted the Federal Government's ability to prose­cute felons for possession of handguns. The Court ruled that the Gun Control Act of 1968 did not indicate a clear legis­lative intent to proscribe possession, un­less a specific impact on commerce was caused by the act of possession involved in the prosecution. This legislation states clearly that possession of handguns by felons does in of act burden Interstate Commerce, and that an impact on com­merce by individual acts of possession need not be proved.

We have also heard the argument that we must punish the handgun criminal and other misusers of handguns. This legislation will do that as well. 'The pen­alty section of the legislation is aimed at deterring handgun crime, by imposing strict punishment for crimes involving handguns, and improving the effective­ness of handgun laws by clearly estab­lishing the legal liability for noncom­pliance.

Under the bill, a mandatory jail term will be imposed on those who use or carry a handgun during the commiss~on of a Federal felony. The bill also encourages States to adopt a mandatory 6-months term of imprisonment for persons found guilty of carrying a handgun outside their home or place of business, without a valid State license to do so.

Besides insuring that criminals go to jail, we must put teeth into the law as it relates to other citizens. If a handgun owner or commercial licensee fails to report a theft or loss of a handgun, and it is subsequently used in the commission of a felony, the owner or licensee will be subject to a fine. In addition, a commer­cial licensee or handgun owner will be civilly liable to the victims if he illegally sells or trans! ers a handgun to another person who then uses that handgun in the course of a crime.

We must also do a better job of en­forcing the laws already on the books. I strongly believe that we must have better enforcement of existing laws .. To that end, all aspects of the administration and enforcement of Federal gun laws--except tax collection-would be trans! erred by the bill from the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice, in order to enable the Department of Justice to develop a greater concentration and focus on handgun crime.

Finally, the legislation seeks to aid the innocent victims of handgun violence. The bill provides for a victim compensa­tion program consisting of Federal grants to support federally approved State pro­grams for personal injury and death re­sulting from handguns.

The time has come for this Nation to

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29309

enact responsible legislation to end the plague of handgun crimes. Together, the President, the Congress, the handgun in­dustry, handgun owners, and handgun victims can enact an effective handgun control law that is fair to all concerned.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the full text of the Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979 and accompanying materials.

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

s. 1936 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979".

FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE

SEc. 2. The Congress finds and declares­( l) that easily concealable handguns are

used in a substantial percentage of the criminal offenses committed with handguns;

(2) that easily concealable handguns have no sporting purpose and constitute a serious threat to general law enforcement, to the public safety, and to the integrity of State and local firearms control laws;

(3) that the existing ban on importation of easily concealable handguns has been effectively subverted by the importation of parts and the domestic assembly, manufac­ture, and sale of the weapons the Congress banned from importation;

(4) that public opinion polls have con­sistently indicated that a substantial major­ity of the American public as well as a sub­stantial majority of American handgun owners favor the introduction of more effec­tive handgun controls;

(5) that legitimate purposes for handgun ownership wm not be impeded by the regu­lation of 111egal tramc in handguns to ensure that commerce tn handguns ts responsible and accountable;

(6) that the receipt or possession of fire­arms and ammunition by persons barred by Federal law from such receipt or possession constitutes--

(A)- a burden on commerce within and among States; and

(B) a threat to the domestic tranqullity; (7) that it ts necessary to provide (A) a

new organizational structure for improved performance, coordination, and evaluation of firearms control functions at the Federal level, and (B) more effective coordination between Federal, State, and local govern­mental agencies in an effort to assist States and localities in Improving interstate and local regulation of llllclt handgun tramc;

(8) that a person obtaining a Federal license to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms should be an importer, manufac­turer, or dealer operating not only within the Federal laws but also within State and local laws;

(9) that the burden on commerce caused by illegal possession of handguns by felons and by persons barred from possession of handguns by Federal, State, or local law requires an Increased obligation on the trans­feror of handguns and on law enforcement agencies to assure that there ls no sale or transfer of a handgun to a person not au­thorized to possess It;

(10) that the fees for licenses for hand­guns importers, manufacturers, and dealers must be determined according to the cost of administering and enforcing the provisions established for regulating the commerce in handguns; and

( 11) that the innocent victims of hand­gun crime have been forgotten and ignored

CXXV--1843-Part 22

and should be compensated for the ha.rm they suffer as a result of handgun violence. TITLE I-AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 44

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, GUN CONTROL

DEFINITIONS

SEc. 101. (a) Section 921 (a) (11) of title 18, United States Code, 1s a.mended to read as follows:

"(11) The term 'dealer' means any person who 1s (A) engaged in business as an ammu­nition retailer, (B) engaged in business as a gunsmith, (C) engaged in business as a firearms dealer, or (D) a pawnbroker whose business includes the ta.king or receiving by way of pledge or pawn, of any firearm or ammunition as security for the payment or repayment of money. The term 'licensed dealer' means any dealer who 1s licensed under the provisions of this chapter.";

(b) Section 921 (a) of such title is amended-

(1) by redesigns.ting paragraphs (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20) as para.graphs (19), (20), (21), (22), (23), (24), (25), (26), and (27), respectively; and

(2) by a.dddng after paragraph (11) the fol­lowing new paragraphs:

"(12) The term 'ammunition retailer' means any person who is not otherwise a dealer and who is engaged in the business of selling ammunition at retail, other than ammunition for destructive devices.

"(13) The term 'gunsmith' means any per­son who 1s not otherwise a dealer and who ls engaged in the business of repairing fire­arms or making or fl tting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms.

"(14) The term 'firearms dealer' means any person who is engaged in the business of selling firearms or ammunition at wholesale or retail.

"(15) The term 'handgun' means a firearm which has a short stock and whdch ts de­signed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. The term also includes any combination of parts from which a handgun can be assembled.

"(16) The term 'handgun model' means a handgun of a particular design, specifica­tion, and designation.

"(17) The term 'pistol' means a handgun having a chamber or Chambers as an integral pa.rt or parts of, or permanently a.lined with, the bore or bores.

"(18) The term 'revolver' means a handgun ha.vdng a breechloading chambered cyllnder so arranged that the cocking of the hammer or movement of the trigger rotates the cyl­inder to bring the next cartridge in line with the barrel for firing.".

( c) Section 921 ( 19) (as redesigns. ted by clause (1) of subsection (b)) is a.mended to read as follows:

"(19) The term 'pawnbroker' means any person whose business or occupation includes the ta.king or receivdng by way of pledge or pawn, of persona.I property as security for the payment or repayment of money.".

(d) Section 921(25) (as redesigna.ted by clause (1) of subsection (b)) is a.mended to read as follows:

"(25) 'Department' means the Department of Justice; ".

UNLAWFUL ACTS

SEC. 102. (a) Section 922(a.) (1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after "manufacturing" a comma and the fol­lowing: "repairing".

(b) Section 922(a.) (2) (A) of such title is a.mended-

(1) by inserting after "replacement fire­arm" a comma and the following: "other than a handgun model which has not been approved by the Attorney General under section 923A, "; and

(2) by inserting after "customizing" a semicolon and the following: "except that an individual may not mail a handgun model

which has not been approved by the Attor­ney General under section 923A, except for the purpose of modifica.t.don pursuant to sub­section (d) (3) ".

(c) Section 922(a) (3) of such title ls amended by striking out "a.nd (C)" and in­serting in Heu thereof " ( C) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a. handgun pursuant to section 922A(a.), and (D) ".

(d) (1) Section 922(a) (5) of such title ts amended by striking out "resides in any State other than that in which the trans­feror resides (or other than that" and insert­ing in lieu thereof "does not reside in the State in which the transferor resides (or does not reside in the State".

(2) Section 922(a) (5) of such title is fur­ther a.mended by strdking out "and" at the encl of clause (A) and by inserting before the period a comma a.nd the following: " ( C) the loan or rental of a. handgun, other than a. handgun model which has not been ap­proved by the Attorney General under sec­tion 923A of this chapter, to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting pur­poses within the premises or in the presence of the transferor, and (D) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a handgun pur­suant to section 922A(a.) (2) ".

(e) Section 922(b) (2) of such title is amended by inserting after "other disposi­tion" a. comma and the following: "or the place of residence of the purchaser,".

(!) Section 922(b) (3) of such title 1B a.mended by redesigns.ting clause (C) as els.use (D) a.nd by inserting after clause (B) the following: "and (C) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a handgun, other than a handgun model which has not been ap­proved by the Attorney Genera.I under sec­tion 923A of this chapter, to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes within the premises or in the presence of the transferor".

(g) Section 922(c) of such title ls amended-

(1) by inserting after the words "may sell a firearm" a comma and the following: "other than a. handgun,"; and

(2) by deleting ", in the case of any fire­s.rm other than a shotgun or a rifle, I a.m twenty-one yea.rs or more of age, or that, ln the case of a. shotgun or a rifle," in subsec­tion (c) (1).

(h) (1) Section 922(d) of such title ts repealed.

(2) Section 922(h) of such title ts repealed. (i) Section 922 of such title is amended­(1) by redesignating subsections (e) and

(f) as subsections (j) a.nd (k), respe9tively; (2) by redesigns.ting subsection (g) as

subsection (f) ; (3) by redesigns.ting subsections (i), (J),

(k). (1). and (m) as subsections (1), (m), (n), (c). and (P), respectively; and

( 4) by inserting after subsection ( c) the following new subsections:

"(d) (1) It shall be unlawful for any li­censed manufacturer, licensed imoorter 11-censed dealer, or licenc;ed collector to manu­facture, assemble. sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun, other than a curio or rellc, in the United States unless the handgun model has been approved by the Attornev General pursuant to section 923A of this chapter.

"(2) It shall be unlawful for any person other than a. licensed manufacturer, ltcensed importer, licensed dealer, or ltcensed collector to sell or transfer any handgun, other than a curio or relic, in the United States unless that person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the handgun model has been approved bV the Attorney General pursuant to section 923A of this chapter.

"(3) (A) This subsection shall not preclude a.n individual from ma.111ng a handgun model which has not been a.oproved by the Attorney General pursuant to section 923A of this cha.oter which he owns in comolia.nce with Federal, State, and local law to a Ucensed imnorter, licensed ma.nu!a.cturer. or Ucensed dealer for the sole purpose of modi!ying the

29310 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979 handgun to comply with the standards of a handgun model approved under section 923A of this chapter, if such person first wraps the handgun in a package tor ma111ng and does not remove the handgun from his residence or business premises prior to informing the local law enforcement authorities that he intends to do so.

"(B) This subsection does not apply to the manufacture, sale, delivery, or other transfer of a handgun to the Attorney General for testing and analysis by the Attorney Gen­eral or a research organization designated by him.

" ( e) It shall be unlawful for any person to modify a handgun if the handgun model was previously approved by the Attorney General under section 923A of this chapter 1f as a result of the modification the handgun no longer meets the standards of a handgun model approved under section 923A.".

(j) Section 922(f) (3) of such Act, as re­designated by subsection (h) of this section, ls a.mended-

( 1) by deleting "drug (as defined in sec­tion 201 (v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)" and inserting ln lieu thereof "substance"; and

(2) by deleting "(as defined ln section 4731 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954); or" and inserting in lieu thereof "as defined ln section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); ".

(k) Clause (4) of section 922 (f) of such title (as redeslgnated by subsection (h) of this section) and the matter following such clause (4) are amended to read as follows:

"(4) who has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent or has been committed to a mental institution; or

"(5) who, being an alien, ls lllegally or unlawfully in the United States;

"(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable oondi­tions; or

"(7) who having been a citizen of the United States has renounced his citizenship; to possess, ship, transport, or receive any firearm or ammunition. It shall be unlaw­ful for any licensed importer, licensed manu­facturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or hav­ing reasonable cause to believe that such person ls a person described ln clause (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). (6), or (7) of this sub­section.".

( 1) Section 922 of such title ls further amended by inserting after subsection (f) (as redeslgnated by subsection (h) of this section) the following new subsections:

"(g) It shall be unlawful for any person­.. ( 1) who, while being employed by an

employer who ls prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition under clause (1), (2), (3), (4). (5), (6), or (7) of subsection (f}, and

"(2) who, knowing or having reason to believe such an employer ls a person de­scribed in clause (1). (2), (3), (4). (5), (6), or (7) of subsection (f), to possess, transport or receive any firearm or ammunition in the course of such employ­ment unless the Attorney General waives the prohibition under this subsection with respect to such a person pursuant to such uniform procedures as the Attorney General prescribes.

"(h) It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or transport any firearm or ammuni­tion in interstate or foreign commerce 1f such shipment or transportation is in viola­tion of a State law in a place to which or through which the firearm was shipped or transported or of an ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery, or other disposition.

"(1) (1) It shall be unlawful for any 11censed importer, 11censed manufacturer, li­censed dealer, or llcensed collector to sell or

transfer three or more handguns to the same person, other than another licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, llcensed dealer, or li­censed collector, ln a period of three hundred sixty-five days or less, unless the transferee has obtained prior approval of the purchase from the Attorney General, pursuant to regu­lations promulgated by the Attorney General.

"(2) It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a llcensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to purchase or receive three or more handguns in a period of three hundred sixty-five days or less, unless the person has obtained prior approval of the purchase from the Attorney General pursuant to regu­lations promulgated by the Attorney General.".

(m) Section 922 of such title is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(q) It shall be unlawful for any person, including a licensed importer, manufac­iturer, dealer or collector, who has knowledge of the loss, theft, or disappearance of a handgun in his possession or control to fall to report the loss, theft or disappearance to the chief law enforcement omcer of the place where the handgun was kept, within twenty­four hours after discovering the loss, theft, or disappearance, and to the Attorney Gen­eral within five days after discovering the loss, theft, or disappearance. Each such report shall contain (1) the serial number, (2) the model, (3) the caliber, (4) the manufac­turer of the handgun, ( 5) the date and place of theft, loss or disappearance, and (6) a complete statement of facts and circum­stances surrounding the theft, loss or dis­appearance.".

TRANSFER OF HANDGUNS

SEC. 103. (a.) Chapter 44 of title 18, United Sates Code, ls a.mended by inserting after section 922 the following new section: "§ 922A. Transfer of handguns

"(a) In any case not otherwise prohibited by this chapter, a person In lawful possession of a license or perm! t to carry handguns is­sued under a State licensing or permit grant­ing program which has been approved by the Attorney General pursuant to subsection (c), may purchase or receive a handgun in any State only if such purchase or receipt would not be in violation of any State or local laws applicable at the place of transfer, and if-

.. ( 1) the transferee appears in person at the business premises of a licensed dealer in handguns, and if-

" (A) the transferee has shown the licensed dealer his license or permit to carry hand­guns and the licensed dealer has verified the current validity of that license or permit to carry and has stamped on such permit or license the date of transfer or purchase. The licensed dealer shall maintain a record of the permit or license number of the trans­feree, the expiration date of the license, the date of the purchase or transfer, and the serial number of the handgun purchased or transferred; or

"(B) the transferee provides identification sufficient to establish, under regulations pre­scribed by the Attorney General, reasonable grounds to believe that the individual de­scribed on the permit or license is the trans­feree, and the dealer reasonably believes that the individual described on the permit or license ls the transferee; or

"(2) in the event of a. transfer by a trans­feror other than a licensed importer, manu­facturer, dealer or collector, to a transferee other than a licensed importer, manufac­turer, dealer or collector, the transferee has supplied the transferor with a certificate that establishes the current validity of the license or permit and that was obtained from a local law enforcement agency or licensed dealer in handguns In a form and In a man-ner prescribed by the Attorney General; and

upon completion of the transfer, the trans­feror has reported the transfer on a form to be provided by the Attorney General to a licensed dealer who shall maintain a record of that transfer pursuant to this subsection. The licensed dealer shall maintain a record of the permit or license number of the trans­feree, the expiration date of the license, the date of the purchase or transfer, and the serial number of the handgun purchased or transferred for the purpose of clause (2) (A).

"(b) In any case not otherwise prohibited by this chapter, a person in lawful posses­sion of a license or permit to purchase hand­guns issued under a State licensing or per­mi t-grantlng program which has been ap­proved by the Attorney General pursuant to subsection (d), may purchase or receive a handgun in that State, only 1f such purchase or receipt would not be in violation of any local laws applicable at the place of trans­fer, and if-

" ( 1) the transferee appears in person at the business premises of a licensed dealer In handguns and if-

" (A) the transferee has shown the licensed dealer his license or permit to purchase handguns and the licensed dealer has verified the current validity of that license or permit to purchase and has stamped on such permit or license the date of transfer or purchase. The licensed dealer shall maintain a record of the permit or license number of the transferee, the expiration date of the license, the date of the purchase or transfer, and the serial number of the handgun purchased or transferred;

"(B) the transferee provides ldentlflca­tlon sumctent to establish, under regula­tions prescribed by the Attorney General, reasonable grounds to belleve that the in­dividual described on the permit or license ls the transferee, and the dealer reasonably belleves that the individual described on the permit or llcense is the transferee; or

"(2) in the event of a transfer by a trans­feror other than a licensed Importer, manu­facturer, dealer or collector, to a transferee other than a llcensed Importer, manufac­turer, dealer or collector, the transferee has supplled the transferor with a certlflcate that establlshes the current validity of the license or permit and that was obtained from a local law enforcement agency or llcensed dealer In handguns In a form and In a man­ner prescribed by the Attorney Genera.I; and upon completion of the transfer, the trans­feror has reported the transfer on a form to be provided ·by the Attorney General to a licensed dealer who shall maintain a record of that transfer In the same manner as for transfers under subsection (a) (2) of this section.

"(c) The Attorney General shall review State laws providing for licenses or permits to carry handguns. The Attorney General shall certify any such law as approved under this section 1f the law contains provisions to assure that-

.. ( 1) a license or permit to carry ls issued only after (A) positive determination of the identity of the appllcant; (B) an examina­tion of pertinent local, State, and Federal records; (C) a determination that the ap­pllcant has not been convicted of, and ls not currently charged with an offense punishable by imprisonment for one year or more; and (D) the application and examina­tion reveal no other grounds for disqualifica­tion to possess a handgun under Federal or State law;

"(2) the llcense or permit to carry to be issued provides, on its face, a photograph or other reliable means of determining that an individual possessing the permit or li­cense is the individual to whom It was Issued;

"(3) each license or permit to carry issued to an individual ls cancelled upon the holder becoming ineligible to have a llcense or permit, and for the purpose of this clause a license or permit shall be deemed cancelled

Octob~r 24, 1979 ~ONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29311 it t~e State issues at least monthly, t~\t~ · Department and to all licensed dealers within the State, a list of cancelled license or per­mit numbers;

"(4) the license or permit to carry a hand­gun ts only is.sued to an individual it that individual would not be prohibited from pur­chasing and carrying a handgun under the local law applicable at his place of residence;

"(5) the license or permit to carry a hand­gun is effectively nonalterable or the State law punishes the alteration thereof;

"(6) the State maintains a record of the names of individuals who have been issued a license or permit to carry a handgun;

"(7) the license or permit to carry a hand­gun is only issued to individuals with a legit­imate need to carry a handgun outside their residence or place of business, including, but not limited to--

" (A) law enforcement personnel; "(B) licensed security guards; "(C) individuals who meet standards of

demonstrated need for the use of handguns for protection of their person or property;

"(D) individuals who meet standards of demonstrated need for the use of handguns for legitimate sporting purposes; and

"(E) individuals who, for a limited period of time, must transport a handgun in their possession through or within the State;

"(8) the State periodically reviews the need of an individual for a license or permit to carry so that any license or permit to carry may be cancelled when the need no longer exists; and

"(9) the State provides a mandatory pen­alty of imprisonment for a term of at least six months for all individuals who are found guilty of carrying a handgun outside of their residence or place of business without a li­cense or permit to carry a handgun. The Attorney General shall publish monthly a composite list of cancelled license or permit numbers, by State, for all States submitting lists under clause (3) of this subsection.

"(d) The Attorney General shall review State laws providing for licenses or permits to purchase handguns. The Attorney Gen­eral shall certify any such law as approved under this section if the law contains pro­visions to assure that-

.. ( 1) a license or permit to purchase is is­sued only after (A) positive determination of the identity of the applicant; (B) an ex­amination of pertinent local, State, and Fed­eral records; (C) a determination that the applicant has not been convicted of, and is not currently charF"ed with an offense pun­ishable by imprisonment for one year or more; and (D) the application and exami­nation reveal no other grounds for disqualifi­cation to possess a handgun under Federal or State law;

"(2) the license or permit to purchase to be issued provides, on its face, a photograph or other reliable means of determining that an individual possessing the permit or li­cense is the individual to whom it was is­sued;

"(3) each license or permit to purchase a handgun issued to an individual-

" (A) allows the licensee or permittee to carry the handgun outside of his residence or place of business for not more than twen­ty-four hours from the date he actually re­ceives the handgun from the transferor, but only if the handgun ls carried in nonfunc­tional form;

"(B) expires within two years, with re­newal predicated on a redetermination of the holder's eligib111ty;

"(C) is cancelled upon the holder becom­ing ineligible to have a license or permit, and for the purpose of this subclause a license or permit shall be deeemd cancelled if the State issues, at least monthly, to the Depart­ment and to all licensed dealers within the State, a llst of individuals whose Ucenses or permits are cancelled;

"(i) the license or permit to purchase a lf~ndgun is only issued to an individual if that individual would not be prohibited from purchasing a handgun under the local law applicable at his place of residence;

" ( 5) the license or permit to purchase a handgun ls effectively nonalterable or the State law punishes the alteration thereof; and

"(6) the State maintains a record of the names of individuals who have been issued a license or permit to purchase a handgun. The Attorney General shall publish monthly a composite list of cancelled licenses or per­mits, by State, for all States submitting lists under clause (3) (C) of this subsection.

" ( e) In any case not otherwise prohibited by this chapter, and, except as provided in subsections (a) and (b), a licensed dealer in handguns or other person may sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a handgun to another person in the State of residence of that per­son (other than a licensed importer, manu­facturer, or dealer) only if the transferee appears in person at the business premises of a licensed dealer in handguns and lf-

"(1) the transferee submits to the dealer a sworn statement on a form prescribed by the Attorney General which state&-

"(A) his name, and his residence; "(B) that his receipt, purchase or pos­

session of the handgun will not be in viola­tion of Federal law, or of a State or local law applicable to his place of residence and that he does not intend to resell or transfer the handgun to a person who ls barred from purchasing, owning or possessing it by Fed­eral, State, or local law applicable to "the place of the residence of the transferee;

"(C) the title, name, and address of the chief law enforcement officer of the place of the transferee's residence;

''(2) a State or local law applicable at the place of the residence of the transferee re­quires that an individual must have a per­mit or license to own, carry, purchase, or possess the handgun, a true copy of such permit or license shall be attached to the sworn statement, and any other information required to be supplied to purchase, acquire, possess, own, or carry a handgun under such State or local law shall also be attached to the sworn statement; •

"(3) the transferee provides identification sufficient to establish. under regulations pre­scribed by the Attorney General, reasonable grounds to believe that the individual named on the sworn statement ts the transferee, and that the residence of the transferee is at the address stated in his sworn statement;

"(4) the dealer has, prior to delivery of the handgun, forwarded immediately by regis­tered or certified man (return receipt re­quested), to the chief law enforcement officer of the place of residence of the transferee and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation a copy of the sworn statement (with the at­tached copy of any State license or permit), in a form prescribed by the Attorney General, for the purpose of-

"(A) notitylng such officer of the proposed transaction, and permitting such officer to check the identity and record of the trans­feree, and to determine and report to the dealer whether ownership or possession of the handgun bv the transferee would be in violation of Federal law or of State or local law of the residence of the transferee;

"(B) permitting an identity and record check by the Federal Bureau of Investiga­tion which shall, within fifteen days of re­ceipt of the sworn statement from the dealer, transmit to the dealer a report whether the transferee is prohibited by law from receiv­ing a handgun; and

" ( 5) the dealer-" (A) has received the report of the Fed­

eral Bureau of Investigation; "(B) has received the report of the chief

law enforcement omcer of the place of resl-

dence of the transferee, or has received a return receipt evidencing delivery of the statement to the chief law enforcement of­ficer, or has had the statement returned due to the refusal of the named addressee to accept such letter in accordance with United States Postal Service regulations, or 21 days have elapsed after the licensee submitted the sworn statement of the transferee and the licensee has not been advised that the transferee is prohibited by law from receiv­ing a handgun; and

"(C) has not received a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation or from the chief law enforcement officer that the trans­feree ts prohibited from shipping, possessing, transporting or receiving a handgun under subsection (f) of section 922, or that the transferee is less than twenty-one years of age, or that the receipt, purchase, or pos­session of the handgun by the transferee would be a violation of State or local law applicable at the place of residence. A copy of the sworn statement, a copy of any State license or permit to purchase or carry, and a copy of any notification to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the ap­propriate chief law enforcement officer, to­gether with the report received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the law enforcement officer under this subsection. shall be retained by the licensee as part of the records required to be kept under section 923(g).

"(f) In the case of a transfer of a hand­gun by a transferor, other than a licensed dealer in handguns, to a transferee, other than a. licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector, and except as provided in subsections (a) and (b), the transferor shall not transfer the handgun unless he has received from the transferee or from a licensed dealer in handguns a written certi­fication on a form provided by the Attorney General, that the dealer has followed the procedure required under subsection (e). Upon completion of the transfer, the trans­feror shall notify the dealer, on a form pro­vided as part of the certificate, that the transfer has taken place. The dealer shall maintain a separate record of the serial numbers of handguns involved in transfers reported to him under this section .

"(g) The provisions of this section shall not apply to loans or rentals of handguns at legitimate shooting ranges for use on the premises for periods of less than twelve hours and under conditions prescribed by regulation.

"(h) A licensed dealer in handguns who arranges for the transfer of a handgun be­tween nonllcensees shall be entitled to charge the transferee a fee to be determined by the Attorney General but not to exceed $10 per transaction.

"(i) Nothing in this section shall be con­strued to permit an individual to carry a handgun in any State if such a carrying is illegal in that State.".

(b) The analysis of chapter 44 of such title ts amended by inserting after item "922" the following new item: "922A. Transfer of handguns.".

LICENSING

SEc. 104. (a) Section 923(a) (1) of title 18, United States Code. is amended-

( I) by redesig_nating clauses (B) and (C) as clauses (C) abd (D), respectively;

(2) by adding after clause (A) the fol­lowing new clause:

"(B) of handguns, a fee of $5,000 per year;"; and

(3) by inserting in clause (C), as re­destgnated by this subsection, "or handguns" after "destructive devices".

{b) Section 923(a) (2) of such title 1s amended-

(1) by deleting the word "or" at the end of clause (A);

29312 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979 (2) by redesignatlng clause (B) as clause

(C); (3) by inserting after clause (A) the fol­

lowing new clause: "(B) of handguns, a fee of $5,000 per year:

or": and (4) by inserting "or handguns" after "de­

structive devices" the first time they ap­pear in clause (C), as redesignated by this subsection.

(c) Section 923(a) (8) of such title is amended-

(1) by redesignatlng clauses (B) and (C) as clauses (E) and (F) , respectively;

(2) by adding after clause (A) the fol­lowing new clauses:

"(B) in handguns, a fee of $500 per year; "(C) in ammunition for handguns that

1s not also used in rifles, a fee of $100 per year;":

"(D) who is a gunsmith, a fee of $100 per year;": and

(8) by inserting "or handguns" after "de­structive devices" each time the term ap­pears in clauses (E) and (F), as redesig­nated by this subsection.

(d) Section 923(a) of such title 1s amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the license fees paid pur­suant to this section shall be used by the Attorney General for the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this chapter.".

(e) Section 928(c) of such title is amended by inserting "(1)" after the subsection designation and by adding at the end there­of the following:

"(2) A pawnbroker may not be licensed as a dealer in handguns or handgun am­munition, and a handgun dealer or dealer in handgun ammunition may not conduct his business from the premises of a pawn­broker.".

(f) (1) The matter preceding clause (A) of section 923(d) (1) of such title is amended to read as follows:

" ( 1) Any application submitted under subsection (a) or (b) of this section shall be approved if the Attorney General finds that-".

(2) Section 923(d) (1) (B) of such title is amended to read as follows:

"(B) the applicant (including, in the case of a corporation, partnership, or association, any individual possessing, directly or in­directly, the power to direct or ca use the direction of the management and policies of the corporation, partnership, or associa­tion)-

"(1) 1s not prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving firearms or ammunition under section 922 (f) or (g) of this chaDter:

"(11) ls not prohibited by the law of the State or by the relevant ordinance of his place of business from conducting the busi­.ness of transporting, shipping, receiving, selling, transferring, owning, or possessing the firearms or ammuntion to which the license would apply; and

"(111) certifies he wm not employ in­dividuals in his licensed business who are prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping or receiving firearms or ammuni­tion under section 922(f) .".

(3) Section 923 (d) (1) (E) (i) of such title is amended by inserting before the com.ma the followin~: "and such premises .are appropriate nonm.o'bile nremises pro­tected by such adeouate security devices as the Attorney General shall by regulation prescribe;".

(e:) Ser.tion 923(d) (2) of such t.tt.le is amended by deleting "forty-five" and insert­ing in lieu thereof "ninety".

(h) Section 923 ( e) o! such title ls amended to read as follows:

"(e) The Attorney General may, after no­tice and opportunity for hearing, suS"Oend or revoke any llcense issued under this sec-

tion, or may subject the llcensee to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per violation, if the holder of such license has violated any provision of this chapter or any rule or regu­lation prescribed by the Attorney General under this chapter. The Attorney General may at any time compromise, mitigate, or remit the liab111ty with respect to such vio­lation. The Attorney General's action under this subsection may be reviewed only as pro­vided in subsection (f) of this section.".

(i) Section 923(f) of such title is amended to read as follows:

"(f) ( 1) Any person whose appllc.a.tion for a license is denied and any holder of a Ucense which is susoended or revoked or who is assessed a civil penalty shall re­ceive a written notice from the Attorney General stating specifically the ground upon which the appllcation was denied or upon which the Ucense was suspended or revoked or the civil penalty assessed. Any notice of a susoenslon or revocation of a Ucense shall be given to the holder of such llcense be­fore the effective date of the suspension or revocation.

"(2) If the Attorney General denies an ap­pllcation for, or suspends or revokes a li­cense, or assesses a civil penalty, he shall, upon reouest by the aggrieved party, prom.iptlv hold a hearing to review his dental, suspension, revocation, or assessment. In the case of a susnenslon or revocation of a license. the Attorney General shall upan the request of the holder of the Ucense stay the effective date of the susoension or revocation. A hearing held u-r.der this para­izraT'lh shall be held at a l~tion convenient to the aggrieved party.

"(3) If after a hearine: held under para­l?l"&T'lh (2) the Attorney General decides not to reverse his decision to denv an anpllca­tion or suspend or revoke a llcense or assess a civil penalty, the Attorney General shall give notice of his decision to the &P.'l?rl"v"d partv. The agmeved part.y mav at any tlme within sixty davs after the date notice was E?iven under this naraln'aph file a netltlon with the United States district court for the district in which he re';ides or has his princioal nlace of business for a fudictal re­view of such dental, suspension. revocation, or assessment. In a proceedine: conducted under this subsection. the court may con­sider anv evidence snbmltted by the parties t.o the proceedine-. If the court decides t.hat the Attornev General was not aut.horized to cf.env the annllcatlon or to suspend or revoke t.he Uc-ense or to assess the civil penaltv, the court shall order the Att.ornev General to take such action as may be necessary to comrylv wft.h t.he 1udi;nnent of the court.".

{.f) Section 923(g) of such title ls amended to read as follows:

"(I?) (1) Each Ucensed lmoorter, licensed manufacturer, llcensed dealer. and llcensed collector shall main ta.in such records of im­portation. production, shipment. receint. sale, or other disposition. of firearms and a.mmu­nitlon at such nlace. for such period, and in such form as the Attorney General may by rei;mlattons prescribe.

"(2) Each Ucensed importer and licensed manufacturer shall for each handsrnn im­ported, received or manufactured by such imnorter or manufacturer, m~tntain accurate records kept according to the serial number of each such handgun for 10 years from the dfl.te ot each dirmosltlon. of (Al the <'isnosl­tlon of each such hanr.tmin whether thl'ough sale, transfer, destruction, loss, theft, or other means. (B) the date of such dlsoosl­tion, and (C) in addition for each sale or transfer of each such handgun inclutfing snbsequent transfers reported bv a licensed dealer under subsection (b) of section 922A., of the model, the name and address of the transferor. and the name and address or license number of the transferee.

"(3) Each licensed deqler in handronins shall, for each handgun received or trans­ferred by or through him under section 922A,

maintain accurate records kept according to the serial number of each such handgun, of (A) the disposition of each such handgun, whether through sale, transfer, trade-in, destruction, loss, theft, or other means, (B) the date of such disposition, and (C) in addi­tion for each sale or transfer of such hand­gun, of the model, the name and address of the tran!!feror, and the name and address or license number of the transferee. Each such dealer shall monthly transfer such records to the importer or manufacturer whose serial number appears on the handgun.

" ( 4) Each licensed importer and Ucensed manufacturer st> all, pursuant to such regula­tions as the Attorney General shall prescribe, conduct periodic audits of the records re­ceived from Ucensed dealers under paragraph (3) of this subsection to ensure the accuracy of such records.

"(5) In the event that a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or collector loses his license, sells or transfers his business to an­other person or corpora.tlon, dies, or in any other way ceases doing business as a Ucensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or collector, he shall transfer, or cause to be transferred, to the subsequent purchaser or transferee of the business, or in the event that there is no subsequent purchaser or transferee of the business, to the Department, the records m3Jntained unde~· this section. All reports under subsection (b) from dealers with re­spect to transfers of handguns with serial numbers associated with an importer or manufacturer who has ceased doing business, shall be sent to the subsequent purchaser or transferee of the business, or in the event that there ls no subsequent purchaser or transferee of the businesB, to the Depart­ment.

"(6) (A) All licensed importers, llcensed manufacturers, Ucensed dealers, and licensed collectors shall make such records available for inspection at all reasonable times, and shall submit to the Attorney General such regular reports and information with respect to such records as he shall by regulations presc.rlbe, including, but not limited to, quarterly reports, kept according to handgun size and model, summarizing the disposition of all handguns transferred by or through that licensed importer, licensed manufac­turer, licensed dealer or licensed collector. No such regular r~ports shall cont:iln the name or address of any non-commercial Ucensee.

"(B) The Attorney General may enter dur­ing business hours the premises (including places of storage) of any firearms or ammu­nition importer, manufacturer, dealer, or col­lector for the purpose of inspecting or exam­ining (1) any records or documents required to be kept by such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector under the provisions of this chapter or regulations issued under this chapter, and (11) any firearms or ammuni­tion kept or stored by such importer, manu­facturer, dealer, or collector at such premises. Upon the request of a State or any political subdivision thereof, the Attorney General may make available to such State or any political subdivision thereof, any information which he may obtain by reason of the pro­visions of this chapter with respect to the identiftcatlon of nersons within such State or polltical subdivision thereof, who have purchased or received firearms or ammuni­tion, t~ether with a description of-such fire­arms or ammunition.".

(k) Section 923 (i) of such title ls amended bV tnsel'."tlng at the end thereof the fol1ow-1ne;: "The Attot'ney General shall approve for ea.ch Ucensed imoorter and manufacturer a. serial number code unique to that importer or manufacturer.".

EASll. Y CONCEALABLE HANDGUNS ll.LEGAL

SEC. 1015. (a) Chapter 44 of title 18 ts am0 nded by inserting after section 923 the following new section:

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29313

"§ 923A. Easily concealable handguns "(a) (1) The Attorney General shall ap­

prove for manufacture, assembly, importa­tion, sale, or transfer any handgun model 1f he has caused to be evaluated and tested representative samples of such handgun mod­el, and has found that such handgun model satisfies the criteria established pursuant to subsection (b) of this section and made ef­fective pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.

"(2) The Attorney General is authorized to make exceptions to the handgun criteria for handguns particularly appropriate for use for law enforcement purposes by law enforcement authorities. The Attorney General may by regulation approve the manufacture and sale of limited quantities of such handgun models only to law enforcement authorities that have a demonstrated need to use such handguns for law enforcement purposes. Such hand­gun models shall not be sold or resold to any other individuals.

"(b) ( 1) The Attorney General shall ap­point a Handgun Criteria Commission for the purpose of developing criteria by which handgun models may be evaluated according to the frame size and other factors as may be appropriate to determine whether such handgun models are easily concealable, are handguns with potential for criminal use or are hand15uns particularly suitable for sport­ing purposes.

"(2) The Commission shall be comprised of 15 members from among individuals who are representative of-

" (A) the handgun industry, including at least two hand~un ballistics experts;

"(B) law enforcement personnel and mem­bers of the Armed Forces; and

"(C) citizens groups and the general public.

"(3) (A) The Commission shall within one year from the date of enactment of the Hand­gun Crime Control Act of 1979 submit to the Attorney General a report setting forth the criteria established pursuant to subsec­tion (b) ( 1) of this section. The Attorney General shall within thirty days after the submission of the report publish the pro­posed criteria in the Federal Register, to5ether with notice for an opportunity to comment on the criteria. The Attorney General shall pub­lish the final criteria in the Federal Re!?ist.er within sixty days after the period for public comment has ended.

"(B) Every two years thereafter the Com­mission shall evaluate the effectiveness of the then existing criteria. !f the Commis.,ion de­termines that handguns that satisfy such criteria are significantly involved in handgun crime, the Commission shall submit to the Attorney General a report recommending ap­propriate revisions of such criteria. The At­torney General shall prepare revised final cri­teria pursuant to the procedures set forth in subsection (b) (3) (A) of this section, Until such revised final criteria become ef­fective pursuant to subsection <c) of this section, the Attorney General shall apply the existing final criteria.

"(4) (A) Any vacancy in the Commission shall not effect its powers but shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointm0 nt was made.

"(B) Eight members shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may conduct hearin~. The ch9.irman of the Commission shall be selected from among the members by the members of the Commission.

"(5) The Commi.,sion may. in carrying out the provisions of this chapter, slit and act at such times and places. hold such hearings, take such testimony. require by subnena or otherwise the attendance of such witnes<ses and the production of such books, paners, and doc11ments, administer oaths. and have such Printing and binding done, as the Com­mission r!eems advisable.

"(6) (A) Suboenas shall be issued unner the signature of the Chairman or any mem-

ber of the Commission designated by him and shall be served by any person designated by the Chairman or any such member. Any member of the Commission may administer oaths or atfirmations to witnesses appearing before the Commission.

"(B) The provisions of section 1821 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to wit­nesses summoned to appear at any such hearing. The per diem and mileage allow­ances of witnesses so summoned under au­thority conferred by this section shall be p3.id from funds appropriated to the Com­mission.

"(C) Any person who willfully neglects or refuses to appear, or refuses to qualify as a witness or to testify, or to produce any evi­dence in obedience to any subpena duly is­sued under authority of this section shall be fined not more than $500, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both. Upon the certifica Uon by the Chairman of the Commission of the facts concerning any such willful disobedience by any person to the Un1te1 States At•torney for any judicial dis­trict in which such person resides or is found, such Attorney shall proceed by information for the prosecution of such person for such offense.

"(7) The Commission may acquire direct­ly from the head of any department, agen­cy, instrumentality, or other authority of the executive branch of the Government available information which the Commis­sion determines useful in the discharge of its functions. Each department, agency, in­strumentality, or other authority of the ex­ecutive branch of the Government shall co­operate with the Commission and, to the extent permitted by law, furnish all infor­mation reouested by the Commission.

"(8) Subject to such rules and regula­tions as may be adopted by the Commission, the Chairman is authorized to--

"(A) appoint and fix the compensation of an executive director, and such additional staff personnel as may be necessary, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing a-poo1ntments in the competitive service, and without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter nr of chapter 53 of such title relating to classifioation and General Schedule pay rates, but at rates not in excess of the maximum rate for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of such title:

"(B) procure temporary and intermittent services to t1->e same extent as is authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed $100 a day for individuals;

"(C) enter into airreement.s with the Gen­eral Services Administration for procurement of necessary financial administrative serv­ices, for which payment shall be made by reimbursement from the funds of the Com­mission in such amounts as may be agreed upon by the Chairman of the Commission and the Administrator of General Services; and

"(D) enter into contracts with Federal, State, and local public a!?encies, private business concerns, institutions, and other or­ganizations for the conduct of research which the Commission determines to be nec­essary.

"(9) (A) Members of the Commission who are otherwise employed by the Federal Gov­ernment shall serve without compensation but shall be reimbursed for travel, subsist­ence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in carrying out the duties of the Commission.

"(B) Members of the Commission not ot.herwise employed by the Federal Govern­ment shall receive compensation at a rate fixed bv the President but not in excess of the duty rate prescribed for GS-18 under sect.Ion 5332 of f"itle 5. United States Code, includin!;{ traveltlme, tor each day they are engaged in the performance of their duties

as members of the Commission and shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel, sub­sistence, and other necessary expenses in­curred by them in carrying out the duties of the Commission.

"(10) There are authorized to be appropri­ated such sums as may be ·necessary to carry out the provisions of this subsection.

"(c) (1) All final criteria established by the Attorney General under subsection (b) (3) (A) of this section shall be transmitted to the Congress. Such criteria shall become ef­fective at the end of the first period of 60 calendar days of continuous session of Con­gress after the date on which such criteria are transmitted to the Congress unless, be­tween the date of transmittal and the end of the 60-day period, either House passes a reso­lution stating in substance that the House does not favor the criteria submitted under this section.

" ( 2) The provisions of section 908 and sec­tions 910 through 912 of title 5, United States Code, shall apply to any resolution consid­ered under this subsection. For the purpose of the preceding sentence of this paragraph-

" (A) all references in such sections to 're­organization plan' shall be treated as refer­ring to criteria submitted under section 923A of title 18. United States Code,

" ( B) all references in such section to 'resolution' shall be treated as referring to a resolution of either House of Congre:!s, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: 'That the --- does not favor --- of the criteria submitted under sec­tion 923A of title 18, United States Code, transmitted to the Congress bv the President on---, 19-.', the first blank therein being filled with the name of the resolving House and the other blank spaces therein being appropriately filled, and

"(C) all references to the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Government Operations shall be treated as referring to the Committee on the Judiciary.

"(d) Prior to the time that the criteria established pursuant to subsection (b) (3) (A) of this section become effective pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the Attor­ney General shall, within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979, cause to be evaluated and tested representative samples of all handgun models in manufacture on or after October 22, 1968, or, in the event of hand­gun models manufactured after the date of enactment, within 120 days after the date of manufacture. The Attorney General shall ap­prove for manufacture. assembly, importa­tion, sale, or transfer any handgun model it he has found that--

"(1) in the case of a pistol, the handqun model meets the requirements of subsection (e): and

"(2) in the case of a revolver, the hand­gun model meets the requirements of sub­section (f).

" ( e) In the case of a pistol, the handgun model meets the requirements of subsection (d) <1) if the hand•mn model-

"(1) has a positive manually operated safety device, or a safety device equal or superior to the manually operated safety device,

"(2) has a combined length and height of not les<> than ten inches with the height (measured from the ton of the weapons, ex­cluding sights. at a right-angle measurement to the line of the bore. to the bottom of the frame, excluding magazine extensions or re­le~s~s) being at least four inche<; and the len'!th (measured from the muzzle. parallel to t\\e line of the bore. tot.he bark nf tlie part of the weaoon that is farthe"t to the rear of the weapon) being at least six inches, and

"(3) attain<> a total of at least sPventy­five points under the following criteria:

"(A) OVERALL LENGTH.-One point for each one-fourth inch over six inches;

29314 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979 .. (B) FRAME CONSTRUCTION.-(1) fifteen

points 1! made of steel having an ultimate tensile strength of at least fifty-five thou­sand pounds per square inch, and (11) twenty points 1! made of high tensile stl'ength alloy having an ultimate tenslle strength o! at least fifty-five thousand pounds per square inch;

"(C) PISTOL WEIGHT.-One point !or each ounce, with the pistol unloaded and the magazine in place;

"(D) CALIBER.-(1) zero points 1! the pistol accepts only caliber .22 rlmfire short, or metric equivalent, or ca.Uber .25 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol), or metric equivalent ammunition, (11) three points 1! the pistol accepts either caliber .22 rlmfire long rifle, or metric equivalent, ammunition or any ammunition within the range delimited by caliber .32 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol), or metric equivalent, and caliber .380 ACP (Au­tomatic Colt Pistol), or metric equivalent, (111) 10 points 1! the pistol accepts caliber 9x19 mllllmeter (al~o known as Luger or Parabellum) ammunition or ammunition of an equivalent or greater projectlle diameter or ammunition o! equivalent or greater power loading, and (lv) 1n the case of ammu­nition not falling within one o! the classes enumerated in division (1) through (111) o! this subparagraph, such numbers o! points not greater than ten (following the classifi­cation schedule of this subparagraph (D) as nearly as practicable) as the Attorney Gen­eral shall determine appropriate to the su1t­ab111ty !or sporting purposes of handgun models designed for such ammunition;

"(E) SAFETY FEATURES.-(!) five points if the pistol has a locked breech mechanism, (11) five points 1! the pistol has a loaded chamber indicator, (111) three points 1! the pistol has a grip safety, (iv) five points 1! the pistol has a magazine safety, and (v) ten points if the pistol has a firing pin block or lock; and

"(F) MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT.-(!) two points if the pistol has an external hammer./ (11) ten points if the pistol has a double­actlon firing mechanism, (111) five points 1! the pistol has a drift adjustable target sight, (lv) ten points 1! the pistol has a click adjustable target sight, (v) five points 1! the pistol has target grips, and (vi) two points 1! the pistol has a target trigger.

"(f) In the case of a revolver, the hand­gun model meets the requirements o! sub­section (d) (2) 1! the handgun model-

"(1) has an overall frame (with conven­tional grips) length of !our and one-halt inches (measured from the end of the frame nearest the muzzle, parallel to the line of the bore of the back o! the part o! the weapon that ls fa.rthest to the rear o! the weapon);

"(2) has a barrel length (measured from the muzzle to the cylinder face) o! at least four inches;

"(3) has a safety device which, either (A) by automatic operation 1n the case of a double action firing mechanism or (B) by automatic or manual operation in the case of a single-action firing mechanism, causes the hammer or transfer bar to retract to a point where the ti.ring pin or other firing mechanism does not rest upon the primer of the cartridge, and which once activlated, ls capable of withstanding the impact of a weight equal to the weight of the revolver, dropped a total of five times !rom a height of thirty-six inches above the rear of the hammer spur onto the rear o! the hammer spur with the revolver in a position such that the Une o! the barrel ls perpendicular to the place of the horizon, or (C) which ls determined to be equal or superior to those listed above: and

"(4) attains a total o! at least !orty-five points under the following criteria:

"(A) BARREL LENGTH.--one-hal! point for

each one-fourth inch that the barrel ls longer than four inches;

"(B) FRAME CONSTRUCTION.-(i) fifteen points if made of steel having an ultimate tenslle strength of at least fifty-five thou­sand pounds per squa.re inch, and (11) twenty points if made of high tenslle strength alloy having an ultimate tenslle strength of at least fifty-five thousand pounds per square inch;

"(C) REVOLVER WEIGHT.-one point !or P.ach ounce with the revolver unloaded;

"(D) CALIBER.-(1) zero points 1! the re­volver accepts only caliber .22 rimfire short, or metric equivalent, or ca.Uber .25 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol), or metric equiv­alent, (11) three points 1! the revolver accepts caliber .22 rimfire Jong rifle, or metric equiv­alent, or ammunition in the range between ca.Uber .30, or metric equivalent, and caliber .38 S&W (Smith & Wesson), or metric equivalent, (111) four points 1! the revolver accepts caliber .38 Special (Smith & Wesson Special), or metric equivalent, (iv) five points 1! the revolver accepts ca.Uber .357 Magnum, or metric equivalent, ammunition or ammunition of an equivalent or greater projectlle diameter or ammunition of equiv­alent or greater power loading, and (v) 1n the case of ammunition not falling within one of the classes enumerated in divisions (1) through (lv) o! this subparagr·aph such number o! points not greater than five (fol­lowing the classification schedule o! this subparagraph (D) as nearly as practicable) as the Attorney General shall determine ap­proporlate to the suitab111ty !or sporting pur­poses of handgun models designed for such ammunition: and

"(E) MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT.-(!) five points if the revolver has either drift or click adjustable target sights, (11) five points if the revolver has target grips, and (111) five points if the revolver has a target hammer and a target trigger.

"(g) (1) The Attorney General shall give written notification of the results of evalua- · tion and testing conducted pursuant to sub­section ( 1) of this section to the licensed manufacturer, Ucensed importer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who submitted a sample o! a handgun model !or such eval­uation and testing. Jf any handgun model falls to meet the standards for approval, the notification o! the Attorney General shall state specifically the reasons !or such finding.

"(2) Any licensed manufacturer, llcensed importer, licensed dealer, or Ucensed col­lector who submitted to the Attorney Gen­eral for testing a handgun model that ls subsequently found not in compliance with the criteria established under this section shall have ten days from receipt of notifica­tion o! noncompliance within which to sub­mit in writing specific objections to such finding and a request for retesting such model, together with a justification there­for. Upon receipt of such a request the At­torney General shall if he determines that sutflclent justification for retesting exists, promptly arrange for retesting and notify the aggrieved party of the results. If the Attorney General determines that retesting ls not warranted, the Attorney General shall promptly notify the aggrieved party of his determination. If upon retesting the finding of the Attorney General remains adverse, or if the Attorney General finds that retesting ls not warranted, the aggrieved party may within sixty days after the date of the notice of the Attorney General of such finding file a petition in the United States district court in the district in which the aggrieved party resides or has his principal place of business in order to obtain judicial review of such finding. Such review shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 706 of title 5, United States Code.

"(h) The Attorney General shall publtsh

in the Federal Register at least semiannually a list of handgun models which have been tested and the results o! the tests. Any handgun model-

.. ( 1) not in manufacture on or after Oc­tober 22, 1968; and

"(2) which has not been tested or for which the test results have not been pub­lished; shall be deemed to be approved under this se~tion until notice of the disapproval of the handgun model has been publtshed in the Federal Register. The list shall also be in­cluded with the published ordinances re­quired under section 921 (a) (26) to be fur­nished to each licensee under this chapter.

"(i) Within 120 days after the final hand­gun criteria become effective pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the Attorney General shall cause to be tested and eval­uated representative samples of all handgun models in existence on or after October 22, 1968. The Attorney General shall cause to be tested and evaluated representative samples of any handgun models manufactured or imported any time thereafter, within 120 days after the date of manufacture or im­portation of such models.".

(b) The analysis of chapter 44 of such title 1s amended by inserting after item "923" the following new item: "923A. Easily concealable handguns.".

PENALTIES SEc. 106. (a) The first sentence of sec­

tion 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after the words "vio­lates any provision of this chapter" a comma and the following: "other than subsection (g) or (q) of section 922 or, in the case of the transfer of a handgun between non­licensees, section 922A,".

(b) Section 924(a) of such title ls amended by inserting " ( 1) " after the subsec­tion designation and by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"(2) (A) Whoever violates section 922 (g) of this chapter shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

"(B) Whoever, being an individual who is not a licensee, violates section 922 ( q) of this chapter, shall-

"(i) fc;r the first offense, be fined not more than $500, and

"(ii) for the second and subsequent of­f ens-es be fined not more than $1,000 or im­prisoned not more than six months, or both.

" ( C) Whoever violates section 922 ( q) of this chapter if the handgun, the loss or theft of which such person falls to report under section 922(q) is used in the commission of an offense punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, such person shall be fined not more than $5,000 or impri~oned not more than one year, or both. If there ls a transfer of a handgun between non-licensees in violation of section 922A, the transferor and transferee · shall each be liable to a civil pentalty of $100, except that (1) if the hand­gun transferred in violation of section 922A bye non-licensee is used by the transferee, in the commission cf an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, the transferor shall be fined not more than· $1,000 or imprisoned not more than six months; or (11) if the unlicensed transfer is, in fact, an unlicensed dealer in handguns, the dealer shall be subject to the penalties applicable to any other violation of this chapter.".

( c) Section 925 ( c) of such title is amended to read as follows:

" ( c) Whoever-.. ( 1) uses a firearm to commit any felony

for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, or

"(2) carries a firearm during the commis­sion of any felony for which he may be prose­cuted in a court of the United States, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for the commission of such felony, be sentenced

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 29315 to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than ten years in the case of the first offense, and to a term of im'\)ris­onment o! not less than two nor more than twenty-five years for a second or subsequent offense. Nothwithstanding any other provi­sion of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of such person or give him a pro­bationuy sentence, nor s•hall the term of im­prisonment im-:>osed under this subsection run concurrently with any term of imprison­ment imposed for the commission of such felony nor shall the defendant be eligible for parole for a term specified by the court for at least one year for a first offense and at least two years for a subsequent offense, un­less the court finds that, at the time of the offense-

"(A) the defendant was less than eighteen years old;

"(B) the mental capacity of the defendant was significantly impaired, although the im­pairment was not such as to constitute a de­fense to prosecution;

"(C) the defendant was under unusual and substantial duress, although not such duress as would constitute a defense to prosecution; oa.·

"(D) the defendant was an accomplice, the conduct constituting the offense was prin­cipally the conduct of another person, and the participation of the defendant was rela­tively minor." .

( d) Section 924 of such title is amended by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and inserting after subsection (c) the following new subc:-ection:

"(d) Any person including any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or Ucensed collector who negligently sells, transfers, or deUvers a handgun in vio­lation o! the provisions of this chapter shall be civilly Hable !or the death or injury suf­fered by an individual as a result of the use of the handgun by the transferee in the commission of an offense that causes death or personal injury to that individual.".

EXCEPTIONS; RELIEF FROM DISABn.ITIES SEc. 107. (a) (1) Section 925(a) (2) of title

18, United States Code, is amended by in­serting after "firearms" a comma and the following: "other than a handgun of a model which has not been approved by the Attorney General pursuant to section 923A of this chapter,".

( 2) Section 925 (a) ( 2) of such title is fur­ther amended by inse:.-ting after "may receive a firearm" a comma and the following: "other than a handgun of a model which has not been approved by the Attorney Gen­eral pursuant to section 923A of this chapter".

(3) Section 925(a) (4) of such title ts amended by inserting after "of any fl.rearm" a comma and the following: "other than a handgun of a model which has not been approved by the Attorney General pursuant to section 923A of this chapter,".

( b) ( 1) Section 925 ( c) of such title ts amended by inserting "(1)" after the sub­section designation and by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"(2) Any individual who, having been ad­judicated as mentally incompetent, or who, having been committed to a mental institu­tion, subsequently has been adjudicated by a court or other lawful authority to have been restored to mental competency, if such court or other lawful authority specifically finds that the individual is no longer suffering from a mental disorder and that the posses­sion of a firearm by the individual would not pose a danger to the individual or to the safety of another individual, shall be relieved from the disabilities imposed by this chapter with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, or possession of firearms Incurred because of such adjudication or commitment.".

(2) Section 925(c) (1) of such title, as re-

designated by this section, ls amended by inserting after "National Firearms Act" the following: "or of a State or local law which relates to the importation, manufacture, sale, or transfer, of a firearm".

( c) Section 925 ( d) ( 3) of such title ts amended to read as follows:

"(3) ls of a type that does not !all within the definition of a firearm as defined in sec­tion 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; ls not a surplus mmtary fl.rearm; ls generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and, 1! a handgun, the model has been approved by the Attorney General pursuant to section 923A of this chapter; or".

RULES AND REGULATIONS SEc. 108. (a) Section 926 of title 18, United

States Code, is amended-(1) by deleting "and" at the end of para­

graph (1); (2) by deleting the period at the end of

paragraph (2) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and "and";

(3) by adding after paragraph (2) the fol­lowing new paragraph:

"(3) regulations precluding multiple sales or transfers of handguns under section 922(i) to persons who do not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such purchase or transfer is for lawful pur­poses, as defined in the regulations.".

(b) Such section 926 ls further amended by inserting "(a)" before "The" the first time it appears and by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection~

" (b) Any officer or employee of the De­partment who is designated by the Attorney General to carry out the provisions of this chapter is authorized to administer such oaths or affirmations as may be necessary for the enforcement of this chapter and any other provision of law or regulation admin­istered by the Bureau.". COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF HANDGUN

CRIME SEc. 109. (a) Chapter 44 of title 18, United

States Code, is amended-( 1) by inserting immediately after the

section analysis of the chapter the follow­ing: "Subchapter I-FIREARMS GENERALLY"; and

(2) by adding after section 928 the fol­lowing new subchapter: "Subchapter II-COMPENSATION OF VICTIMS

OF HANDGUN CRIME "Sec. "941. Program authorized; amount of pay-

ment. "942. Eligibility; application. "943. Payments. "944. Reports. "945. Administration. "946. Advisory Committee on Victims of

Handgun Crime. "947. Definitions. "948. Authorization of appropriations. "§ 941. Program authorized; amount of pay­

ment "(a) Subject to the availablity of amounts

appropriate:i for any fiscal year, the Attorney General shall make a.n annual grant for each fiscal year and may make supplemental grants for compensation of victims of hand­gun crime to each State program that quali­fies under sectio.n 942.

" (b) Except as provided in section 943 (a), the grants made to a qualifying State program under this subchapter for any fiscal ye::i.r shall equal-

" ( 1) 100 percent of the cost, as determined by the Attorney General, of paying com­pensation for personal injury or death for such fiscal year !or which the determina­tion is made for qualifying crimes that are described in section 947(8) (B); and

"(2) 25 percent of the cost, as determined by the Attorney General, of paying com-

pensation for personal injury or death for such fiscal year for qualifyl..ng crimes that are described in section 947(8) (A) .

"(c) The Attorney General shall not have the power to modify the disposition of any individual claim that has been processed by any State ·program. "§ 942. Eligibility; applicatio.n

"(a ) (1) A State program for the com­pensation of victims of handgun crime qualifies for grants under this subchapter if the Attorney General finds that such pro­gram is in effect in such State on a statewide basis during any part of the Federal fiscal year for which grants are to be made and if such program meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (2) through (10) of this sub­se:::tion.

"(2) The program offers-" (A) compensation for personal injury to

any individual who suffers personal injury that is the result of a handgun crime; and

" (B) compensation for death to any sur-viving dependent of any individual whose death is the result of a handgun crime.

" (3) The program offers the right to a hearing with administrative or judicial re­view to aggrieved claimants.

"(4) The program requires as a co.ndition for compensation that claimants cooperate with appropriate law enforcement authori­ties with respect to the handgun crime for which compensation is sought.

"(5) The program does not have a limita­tion based on the financial means of the victim or any surviving dependent.

" ( 6) There is in effect in the State a re­quirement that appropriate law enforcement agencies and officials exercise reasonable care to insure that victims of a handgun crime are informed of-

.. (A) the existence of a State program of compensation for injuries sustained by vic­tims: a.nd

"(B) the procedure for applying for com­pensation under that program.

"(7) There is in effect in the State a law or rule that the State is subrogated to any claim the victim, or a dependent of the vie_ tim, has against the perpetrator of the hand­gun crime for personal injury or death re­sulting from the handgun crime, to the ex­tent of any money paid to the victim or dependent by the program.

"(8) There is in effect in the State a law or rule that, in addition to or in lieu of any other penalty, a perpetrator of a crime may be required to make restitution to any victim or victim's surviving dependent for that crime.

"(9) The program does not require any claimant to seek or accept any benefit in the nature of welfare unless such claimant was receiving such benefits prior to the occur­rence of the handgun crime that gave rise to the claim.

"(10) The program requires denial or re­duction of a claim if the victim or claimant contributed to the infliction of the death or injury with respect to which the claim is made.

" ( 11) The program does not require as a precondition to payment that any person be apprehended, prosecuted, or convicted of the handgun crime that gave rise to the claim.

"(b) A State desiring to receive payments to carry out a State program under this seG­tion shall submit an application to the Attor­ney General at such time and in such form and containing or accompanied by such in­formation as the Attorney General shall by regulation prescribe.

" ( c) If a State has a crime victim compen­sation program in effect on the effective date of this subchapter which does not otherwise quall!y under subsection (a), such program shall be deemed qualified for grants under this subchapter until the day after the close ot the first regular session of the State legis­lature that begins after the effective date of

29316 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979 this subchapter. Thereafter, only programs which comply with the requirements of sub­section (a) shall be eligible for grants under this subche.pter. "§ 943. Payments

"(a) In computing the annual cost of a que.11fy1ng State program for the purpose of establishing the amount of Federal grants under section 941 (b), there shall be excluded from such cost any amount for administra­tive expenses incurred in carrying out the program, any a.mount for which the program has received proceeds pursuant to section 942(e.) (7), and any a.mount representing State compensation a.wards-

.. ( 1) for pain and suffering; "(2) tor property loss; "(3) to the extent the amount of any

a.we.rd to a victim, or the aggregate amount of any awards to the surviving dependents of a victim with respect to such victim, exceeds $35,000;

"(4) to any claimant who has received or who ls entitled to receive compensation for personal injury or death from any source, other than from a compensation program as­sisted under this subchapter or from the per­petrator of the handgun crime, an amount not to exceed the amount of that compen­sation;

"(5) to any claimant other than a claim­ant 62 years of age or older whose award would be for an amount less than $100 or for lost earnings or loss of eupport computed on the basis of less than five work days;

"(6) to the extent the amount of any award for loss of earnings to a victim, or the aggregate amount of any awards for loss of support to the surviving dependents of a victim with respect to such victim, exceeds $200 per week per individual;

"(7) to any claimant who failed to file a claim under the State program within one year after the occurrence of the handgun crime, unless good ca.uc;e for such failure to file has been found by the appropriate State agency; and

"(8) to any claimant who failed to report the handgun crime to law enforcement au­thorities within seventy-two hours after the occurrence of that handgun crime, unless good cause for such failure to report has been found by the appropriate State agency.

"(b) Grants under this subchapter may be ma.de in advance or by way of reimburse­ment. "§ 944. Reports

"Not later than one hundred and thlrty­five days after the end of each fiscal year in which grants were made to State programs under this subcha.pter, the Attorney Genera.I shall submit a report to the Senate Commit­tee on the Judiciary and the House Com­mittee on the Judiciary. The report shall lnclude-

"(1) with regard to ea.ch qualifying State progra.m-

"(A) the number of 1nd1v1duals compen­sated;

"(B) a statistical presentation of-"(1) the kinds and corresponding amounts

of los<.; compensated; "(11) the range in the monetary value of

claims a.warded; "(111) the reasons for denial of claims; and "(iv) the types of crimes that resulted in

claims; "(C) a description of the adminic;tratlve

mechanisms and procedures used in proc­essing claims, including claims for emer­gency ascistance if the program provides for such assistance.

"(D) the time required to process claims, includine; claims for emerirency assi<:tance if the orogram provides for sue'"> assistance:

"(E) efforts made to publicize the pro­gram;

"(F) administrative expenses; and "(G) the number of handgun crimes de-

scribed in section 942(7) (B) which were compensated; and

"(2) with regard to the activities of the Attorney General in carrying out the pro­visions of this subchapter-

" (A) an itemized statement of grants and expend! tures;

"(B) copies of all rules promulgated pur­suant to section 945(b) (2); and

"(C) projected expenditures for the Fed­eral fiscal year in which the report 1s re­quired to be submitted. "§ 945. Administration

"(a) The Attorney General i;hall adminis­ter the provisions of this subchapter. The Attorney General shall not delegate primary responsibil1ty for administering any provi­sion of this subcha.pter unless such delega­tion is made to an individual who is com­pensated at a rate provided under the Exec­utive Schedule under subchapter II of chap­ter 53 of title 5, United States Code.

"(b) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this sub::ha;pter, the Attorney General ls authorized to--

"(1) promulgate such rules, regulations, and procedures as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this section, including rules and regulations regarding the data to be kept by State programs receiving funds under this section and the manner in which these data shall be reported to the Attorney General; and

"(2) approve in whole or in part, or deny, any application for an annual or supple· mental grant under this subchapter. "§ 946. Advisory committee on victims o1

handgun crime "(a) There ls esta:blished an Advisory Com­

mittee on victims of Handgun Crime to be composed of nine members appointed by the President. The President shall appoint seven of the members of the Committee from among individuals w'ho are officials of State programs that qualify under this subchapter.

"(b) The Committee shall advise the At­torney General with respect to the adminis­tration of this subchapter and generally on policies relating to the compensation of vic­tims of handgun crimes.

"(c) (1) The Committee shall select its own chairman and vice chairman and shall meet at the call of the chairman but not less than two times a year.

"(2) (A) The term of office for each member of tre Committee shall be one year.

"(B) The Committee shall make such in­terim reports as it deems advisable and an annual report of its findings and recommen­dations (including recommendations for changes in the provisions of this subchha.p­ter) to the Attorney General each year. The Attorney General shall transmit each such report to the President for transmittal to the Congress, together with his comments and recommendations.

"(C) A vacancy in the Committee shall not affect its activities and five members thereof shall constitute a quorum. The Attorney General shall be an ex officio member of the Committee.

"(d) Any member ~-ppointed to fill a va­cancy occurring prior to the expiration o! the term for which his predecessor was ap­pointed shall serve only for the remainder of the term. Members shall be eligible for reap­pointment and may serve after the expiration of their terms until their successors have taken office.

" ( e) ( 1) Members of the Committee who are otherwise employed bv the Federal Gov-ernment shall serve without comoensatton but shall be reimbursed with travel, subsist­ence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in carrying out the duties of the Oommittee.

"(2) Me<mbers of the Committee not other­wise employed by the Federal Government shall receive compensation at a rate fixed

by the President but not in excess Of the daily rate prescribed for GS-18 under section 5332, title 5, United States Code, including traveltime for each day they a.re engaged in the performance of their duties as members of the Committee and shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in carrying out the duties of the Committee.

"(f) The Attorney General sha\l make available to the Committee such staff, infor­mation, and other assistance as it may re­quire to carry out its activities. "§ 947. Definitions

"As used in this subchapter-.. (1) The term 'administrative expenses' in­

cludes any fee awarded by the State agency administering a State compensation program to any claimants attorney, if such !ee ls paid in addition to, and not out of, the a.mount of compensation awarded to such claimant.

"(2) The term 'claim' means a written re­quest to a State compensation program for compensation for personal injury or death made by or on behalf of a victim, or any sur­viving dependent of a victim, of a handgun crime.

"(3) The term 'compensation for death' means compensation for loss that is the re­sult of death caused by a handgun crime, in­cluding-

"(A) all appropriate and reasonable ex­penses necessarily incurred for ambulance, hospital, surgical, nursing, dental, prosthetic, and other medical and related professlona.l services and devices relating to physical or psychiatric care, including nonmedical care and treatment rendered in accordance with a method of healing recognized by the ap­propriate State agency;

"(B) all appropriate and reasonable ex­penses necessarily incurred for physical and occupational therapy and rehab111ta.t1on; and

"(C) loss of past and anticipated future earnings.

"(4) The term 'dependent' means, with re­spect to any State compensation program, any dependent as defined by such State for purposes of such program.

( 5) The term "compensation for personal injury" means compensation for loss that ls the result of personal injury ca.used by a qualifying crime, including-

(A) all appropriate and reasonable ex­pens<?s necessarily incurred for ambulance, hospital, surgical, nursing, dental, prosthetic, and other medical and related professional services and devices relating to physical or psychiatric care, including nonmedlcal care and treatment rendered in accordance with a method of healing recognized by the law of the State;

(B) all appropriate and reasonable ex­penses necessarily incurred for physical and occupational therapy and rehabilitation; and

(C) loss of past and anticipated future earnings;

"(6) The term 'personal injury' means, with resµect to any State compensation pro­gram, personal injury occurring in such State as defined by that State for the pur­poses of such program.

"(7) The term 'property loss' does not in­clude expenses incurred for medical, dental, sur~ical, or prosthetic services and devices.

"(8) The term 'handgun crime' means any act or omission by which the victim's in­jury or death is caused, in whole or in pa.rt, by a handgun , and such act or omission-

.. (A) ls crlmtnany punishable under any statute of a State and that such State desig­nates as appropriate for compensation under its program;

"(B) would be a handinin crime under subparagraph (A) except for the fact that such act or omii;sion is subject to exclusive Federal jurisdiction.

"(9) The term 'State' means any State of

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 29317 the United States, the District of Columbia., the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa., the Virgin Islands, the Northern Marlana. Islands or the Trust Ter­ritory of the Pacific Islands. "§ 948. Authorization of appropriations

"(a.) There is authorized to be appropri­ated for each fiscal year beginning after Sep­tember 30, 1979, a.n a.mount equal to 25 per centum of all receipts of the Federal Gov­ernment attributable to the payment of pen­alties under section 924 of this chapter, for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the determination ls ma.de, to be avail­able for payments under this subchapter.

"(b) There are authorized to be appropri­ated for ea.ch fiscal year beginning after Sep­tember 30, 1979, such additional sums as may be necessary for payments under this sub­chapter.".

(b) The chapter analysis of pa.rt I of such title 18 is a.mended by inserting after item "44" the following: "I. Firearms generally ________________ 921 "II. Compensation of victims of hand-

gun crime _____________________ 941".

TITLE II-GUN CONTROL FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED TO ATTORNEY GEN­ERAL

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

SEc. 201. (a) There a.re transferred to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General shall perform, all functions of the Secretary of the Treasury under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, commonly known a.s the Gun Control Act of 1968.

(b) Within one hundred and eighty days after the effective date of this section, the President may transfer to the Department any function of a.ny other agency or office, or part of any agency or office, in the executive branch of the United States Government if the President determines that such function relates primarily to functions transferred to the Department by this section.

( c) ( 1) Subcha.pter I of chapter 44 of such title 18, a.s redeslgna.ted by section 109(a.), is amended by striking out "the Secretary" whenever it appears in such subcha.pter and inserting in lieu thereof "the Attorney General".

(2) Section 103 of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is amended by striking out "the Secre­tary of the Treasury" and inserting in lieu thereof "the Attorney General". ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIREARMS SAFETY AND

ABUSE CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

SEC. 202. (a.) There is established within the Department of Justice the Firearms Safety and Abuse Control Administration. The Administration shall be headed by an Administrator appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Sen­ate. The Administrator shall be under the supervision and direction of the Attorney General.

(b) The functions of the Attorney General under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, and under this Act shall be adminis­tered through the Administration.

ANNUAL REPORT

SEC. 203. (a.) The Attorney General shall preps.re and transmit to the Congress as part of the annual report of the Department of Justice a report on the activities of the Adminlstra ti on.

(b) Each such report shall include a de­scription of the effective use of the resources of the Federal, State, and local law enforce­ment agencies in controlling lllicit handgun traffic, the extent of intergovernmental co­operation in controlling such traffic, a de­tailed summary of the activities of the Ad­mintstrat.ion, an assessment and evaluation of specific programs of Federal, State. and local law enforcement agencies to reduce llliclt handgun traffic. a. descriotion of the nature, extent, and effect of Federal, State,

and local law enforcement agency intelli­gence operations relating to illicit handgun traffic, and such recommendations, includ­ing recommendations for additional legisla­tion, a.s the Attorney General deems appropriate.

TRANSFER OF OFFICES AND PERSONNEL

SEC. 204. (a) All personnel, liabiUties, con­tracts, property, and records as a.re deter­mined by the Director of the Office of Man­agement and Budget to be employed, held, or used primarily in connection with any func­tion transferred under the provisions of sec­tion 101, a.re transferred to the Attorney General.

(b) (1) Except as provided in para.graph (2) of this subsection, personnel engaged in functions transferred under this Act shall be transferred in accordance with applicable laws and regulations relating to transfer of functions.

(2) The transfer of personnel pursuant to subseotion (a) shall be without reduction in classification or compensation for one year after such transfer.

SAVINGS PROVISIONS

SEc. 205. (a.) All orders, determinations, rules, regulations, contracts, certificates, and privileges-

( 1) which have been issued, ma.de, granted, or allowed to become effective in the exercise of functions which a.re transferred under this title, by (A) any a.gencv or office, or pa.rt thereof, a.nv functions of which a.re trans­ferred by thic; title, or (B) any court of com­petent .furisdictlon; and

(2) which are in effect at the time this title takes effect, shall continue in effect according to their terms until modified, terminated, super­seded, set aside, or repealed by the Attorney General, by any court of competent jurisdic­tion, or by operation of law.

(b) The provisions of this title shall not affect any proceedings pending at the time this section ta.kec; effect before any agency or office, or part thereof, functions of which a.re transferred by this title; but such pro­ceedings, to the extent that they relate to functions so transferred. shall be continued before tbe agency or office, or pa.rt thereof, before which they a.re pending at the time of such transfer. In either case orders shall be in such proceedings, apoeals shall be ta.ken therefrom, and payments shall be made pursuant to such orders, as 1f this title had not been enacted; and orders issued in any such proceedings shall continue in effect until mo;tfied, terminated, super­seded, or reoea.led by the Attorney General, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by operatton of law.

( c) ( 1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)-

(A) tbe provisions of this title sha.11 not affect suits commenced prior to the date this section takes effect; and

(B) in all such suits proceedings shall be had, appeals taken, and 1udgments rendered, in the same manner and effect as if this title had not been enacted. No suit, action, or other proceedin~ com­menced by or against any officer in his offi­cial ca.pa.city as a.n officer of any &.F:ency or office, or pa.rt thereof, functions of which are transferred by thi<> title, shall abate by rea.c;on of the enactment of this title. No ca.use of action by or against any agency or office, or part thereof, functions of which are transferred by this title, or by or against any officer thereof in his official capacity shall abate by reason of the enactment of this title. Ca.uses of actions, suits, or other proceedings may be as~erted by or against the United States or such official of the Department as may be a.opropriate and. in any 11tie:a.tlon pending when this section takes effect, tbe court may at any time, on its own motion or that of any party, enter

a.n order which wm give effect to the provi­sions of this subsection.

(2) If before the date on which this title takes effect, any agency or office, or officer thereof in his official capacity, is a party to a suit, and under this title any functions of such agency, office, or part thereof, or officer is transferred to the Attorney Gen­eral then such suit shall be continued by the 'Attorney General (except in the ca.se of a suit not involving functions transferred to the Attorney General, in which case the suit shall be continued by the agency, office, or part thereof, or officer which was a. party to the suit prior to the effective date of this title).

(d) With respect to any function trans­ferred by this title and exercised after the effective date of this title, reference in any other Federal law to any agency, office, or part thereof, or officer so transferred or functions of which a.re so transferred shall be deemed to mean the Department or of­ficer in which such function is vested pursu­ant to this title.

(e) Orders and actions of the Attorney General in the exercise of functions trans­ferred under this title shall be subject to judicial review to the same extent and in the same manner as if such orders and ac­tions had been by the agency or office, or pa.rt thereof, exercising such functions, im­mediately preceeding their transfer. Any statutory requirements relating to notice, hearings, action upon the record, or admin­istrative review that apply to any function transferred by this title sha.11 apply to the exercise of such function by the Attorney General.

(f) In the exercise of the functions trans­ferred under this title, the Attorney General shall have the same authority as that vested in the agency or office, or pa.rt thereof, exer­cLslng such functions immediately preceding their transfer, and his actions in exercising such functions shall have the same force and effect as when exercised by such agency or office, or part thereof.

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 206. As used in this title-( 1) "Department" means the Department

of Justice; and (2) "function" includes power and duty.

COMPENSATION OF ADMINISTRATOR

SEC. 207. Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"(70) Administrator, Firearms Safety and Abuse Control Administration, Department of Justice.". TITLE ID-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS; UNLAWFUL ACTS

SEC. 301. (a) Section 842(d) (5) of title 18, United States Code, ls a.mended-

(1) by deleting "(as defined in section 4761 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954) ";

(2) by deleting "drug (a.s defined in section 20l(v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos­metic Act) " aind inserting in lieu thereof "substance";

(3) by deleting "(as defined in section 4721 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954); or" and inserting in Ueu thereof "a.s defined in section l 02 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) "; and

(4) by striking out "or" a.t the end of such section.

(b) Section 842(d) (6) of such title ts a.mended to read as follows:

"(6) has been adjudicated a.s mentally in­comoetent or ha.c; been committed to a men­tal institution; or

"(7) being an a.lien. is mega.Uy or unlaw­fully in the United States.".

(c) Section 842(i) (3) of such title ls amended-

'1) bv deletin~ "drug (as defined in Fection 4761 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954) ";

(2) by deleting "drug (as defined in section

29318 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 24, 1979 201 (v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos­metic Act)" and inserting in lieu thereof "substa.nce";

(3) by deleting "(as defined in section 4731 (a.) of the Internal Revenue Code of 19E4); or" and inserting in lieu thereof "as those terms a.re defined in section 102 of the Con­trolled Substrunces Act (21 U.S.C. 802) "; and

(4) by striking out "or" at the end of such section.

(d) Section 842(i) (4) of such title is a.mended to read as follows:

"(4) who has been adjudicated as men­tally incompetent or has been committed to a mental institution; or

" ( 5) who. being an alien, is 1llega.lly or un-lawfully in the United States;". '

EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS; LICENSING SEc. 302. (a) Section 843(c) of title 18,

United States Code, is a.mended by deleting "forty-five" and inserting in lieu thereof "ninety".

(b) Section 843(d) of such title is a.mended to re!ld a.s follows:

"(d) (1) The Attorney General may revoke a license or permit issued under this chapter if the person holdi~ the license or permit is ineligible to acquire explosive materials under section 842 ( d) .

"(2) A person who has a license or permit issued under this section and who violates a provision of this section or a rule or regu­lation prescribed by the Attorney General under this chapter, shall be subject to a civil penalty, to be imposed by the Attorney General, of not to exceed $10,000 for each vio­lation, or to suspension or revocation of his license or permit, or to both the civll pen­alty and revocation or suspension. The At­torney General may at any time comprolnlse, In!tigate, or remit such penalties. An action of the Attorney General under this subsec­tion ls subject to review only as provided in subsection ( e) o! this section.".

(c) Section 843(e) of such title is amended to read as follows:

"(e) (1) Any person whose application ts denied or whose license or permit is srni­pended or revoked or who is assessed a civll penalty shall receive a written notice from the Attorney General stating the specific grounds upon which such denial, suspension, revocation, or civil penalty ts based. Any notice of a su-;pension or revocation of a license or permit shall be given to the holder of such license or perlnlt prior to or con­current with the effective date of the suspen­sion or revocation.

"(2) I! the Attorney General denies any application for, or suspends or revokes, a license or permit, or assesi::es a civil penalty, he shall, upon request by the aggrieved party, promptly hold a hearing to review his de­nial, suspension, revocation, or assessment. In the case of a. suspension or revocation. the Attorney General may upon a request of the aggrieved party ~tay the effective date o! the suspe11sion or revocation. A hearing under this section shall be at a location con­venient. to the ag-grieved partv. The Attorney General shall give written notice of his de­cision to the aggrieved party within a rea­sonable time after. the hearin~. The aggrieved party may, within sixty days after receiot of the written ~er.ision of the ..Attor­nev Genera.I flle a petition with the United States court of appeals for the district tn which he resides or has his principal Place of business !or a judicial review of such de­nial , suspension. revocation. or assesc;ment pursuant to sections 701 through 706 of title 5, United States Code.".

NONMAll.ABLE FIREARMS SEc. 303. Section 1715 of title 18, United

States Code, ls a.mended-( 1) by addln~ after the words "Such arti­

cles" in the second sentence the words ", other than hand1n1ns whose transfer ls re­stricted under section 922(d) ,";and

(2) by adding after the second sentence

the following new sentence: "The Postal Service shall promulgate regulations, subject to approval of the Attorney General, con­sistent with section 922(d) of this title, con­cerning conveyance in the mails of hand­guns subject to that section for the United States or any department or agency thereof, or to any State, department, agency, or po­litical subdivision thereof."'. STUDY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF CRIME CONTROL

LAWS

SEc. 304. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations established by the Act entitled "An Act to establish an Advisory Cominlsslon on Intergovernmental Relations", approved September 24, 1959, 1n consultation with the United States Confer­ence of Mayors and the National League of Cities, and representatives of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies shall in­vestigate, analyze, and report within six months of the enactment of the Act upon (1) intergovernmental problems involved in controlling lllicit handgun tramc, and (2) the effectiveness of the Omnibus Crime Con­trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, and par­ticularly the requirements for licensing of manufacturers, importers, and dealers.

REPEALER SEC. 305. Title VII of the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ( 18 U.S.C. Appendix 1202-1203) is hereby re­pealed.

EFFECTIVE DATE SEc. 306. This Act and the amendments

made by this Act shall become effective 120 days after the date of enactment, except that-

(1) the amendments to section 922(a) (2) (A) of chapter 44 shall not preclude the re­turn, within 30 days of the effective date, to the person from whom it was receiued, of a handgun of a model not approved by the Attorney General under section 923A which was transferred to the licensed im­porter, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector before the ef­fective date of the Act;

(2) sections 102(j). 301 (a). 30l(c), and 305 shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act;

(3) a valid license issued pursuant to sec­tion 923 of title 18, United States Code, shall be valid until it expires according to its terms unless it is sooner suspended, revoked, or terminated pursuant to applicable provisions of law; and

(4) the first publication of the list re­quired under section 923A(g) shall be made on or before the expiration of the 60-day period following the date of enactment of this Act.

SUMMARY OF THE HANDGUN CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1979

A. Purpose of the act: 1. Reduced handgun crime by banning all

commerce in "Saturday Night Specials." 2. Reduce handgun crime by eFFective en­

forcement of existing law a.s to who may or may not legally acquire a handgun.

3. Reduce handgun crime, and the illegal handgun traffic it feeds on, by requiring that the handgun industry be responsible and ac­countable for the products from which they profit.

4. Reduce handgun crime by requiring that hg.ndgun owners be responsible and account­able for handgun possession, ca.re, use and ultimate dlspo:sition.

6. Reduce handgun crime through imposi­tion of stiffer penalties, mandatory sentenc­ing and civ1111ab111ty.

6. Reduce handgun crime by strengthening our Federal regulatory apparatus for admin­istering and enforcing handgun control laws.

7. Aid the innocent victims of handgun crime.

B. Focus of the act: 1. Reduction of handgun crime through

the control o! handguns only. This legisla­tion does not affect commerce, possession or use of long guns (e.g, rifles, shotguns) in any way.

2. Prospective only-legislation does not require legal handgun owners to take a.ny specific action to maintain ownership of ex­isting handguns.

3. Establishes standards o! responsibility and accountability for handgun ownership and commerce commensurate with the haz­ardous nature of handguns.

4. Emphasizes enforcement of existing law and verifloation of existing eliglb111ty criteria for those who wish to acquire or carry hand­guns.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE HAND­GUN CRIME CONTROL Acr OF 1979

Section 1: This is the title of the bill and emphasizes

that the legislation ls designed to oomba.t handgun crime by: banning the importation, manufacture, sale and tra.nsfer of "Saturday Night Specials"; improving the effectiveness of the 1968 Gun Control Act; promoting bet­ter enforcement of gun laws; and aiding the victims of handgun crime.

Section 2 : Congressional findings: 1. "Easily concealable handguns" have no

sporting purpose and are used in a large per­centage of criminal offenses.

2. The existing ban on the importation o! "easily concealable handguns" has been ef­fectively undermined by the importation of their parts, and their domestic assembly.

3. The public, including the mafority of handgun owners, favors effective handgun control.

4. That legitimate handgun ownership should not be impeded by these controls.

5. To more effectively enforce gun laws, the authority for handgun regulation, should be transferred from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department.

6. There ls a need for stronger controls on the handgun industry to combat 1llegal traf­fic in handguns.

7. Receipt of firearms by persons barred from possession burdens interstate com­merce. This finding is a response to the Su­preme Court ruling in U.S. v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 1971, which restricted the government's abillty to prosecute felons in possession o! fl.rearms.

8. Federal licensing provisions for fl.rearms' manufacturers, importers and dealers do not preempt state and local laws.

9. Fees for federal commercial licensees should be determined according to the cost of administration and enforcement of the law.

10. That innocent victims of ha.ndgun crime should be compensated.

Section 101: Amends section 921-Deftnl­tions sections:

Adds and changes definitions to fit with the new regulatory scheme. Terms defined are: "dealer," "licensed dealer,'' "ammuni­tion retailer," "gunsmith,'' "firearms dealer," "handgun." "handgun model,'' "pistol,'' "revolver,'' "pawnhroker,'' and "Department." "Handgun" is defined to include its parts. "Department" is defined as the Department of Justice, as authority is shifted from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Attorney General.

Section 102: Unlawful acts: Un-ier current Federal law (Ut, U.S.C. Sec­

tion 922): A. 1. Only a federally llcensed individual

can engage in the business of importing, manufacturing or selllng firearms and am­munition.

2. The commercial Ucensee cannot ship firearms or ammunition to a non-licensee except:

The commercial licensee can return a fl.re­arm or a replacement firearm to a non­licensee.

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 29319 A non-licensee can mail a. firearm to a com­

mercial Ucensee for repair or customizing. A commercial licensee can ship to military

or law enforcement personnel who are al­lowed to receive firearms through the malls.

3. The law applies to the United States and its territories, Including the District of Co­lumbia. and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

4. A non-licensee cannot transport Into or receive ln the state where he resides, a. fire­arm obtained in another state.

5. A non-licensee cannot transfer a firearm to an Individual from anothr state except to:

Carry out a. bequest Temporarlly loan the tndtvldual a. firearm

for a. sporting purpose. 6. No one can make a. mtsrepresenta.tlon or

present false 1dentlficatlon in connection with obtaining a. firearm from a. Ucensee.

B. A commercial ltcensee cannot transfer: 1. A rlfie, a. shotgun or their ammunition to

an individual younger than 18 years old; or a. handgun (1.e., a. revolver or pistol) and its ammunition to an Individual younger than 21 years of age.

2. A firearm to an tndlvldual in the state, where purchase would be Illegal under the state law, at the place of sale or delivery.

3. A firearm to an lndlvlduA.l who does not reside in the state of the commercial licensee except:

This does not apply to the sale of a rifle or a. shotgun to an lnrttvldual from a con­tiguous state. lf that sale would not violate the law of both states.

Does not aoply to the temnorary loan or rental of a. firearm to an individual for a lawful soortlne; purpose.

Does not apply to renlaclng a stolen. lost or Inoperative rifle and shote;un which ls being used• for hunting, or In a. match or contest.

4. A destructive device. machlneITTin, short­barrelled shoti:mn or rifte. to anyone except those sneciflcally authorJzed.

5. A fl.rearm or ammunition to anv nerson unless the commercial licensee not.es Jn his records the name, age and place of residence of that person.

C. A commercial licensee may transfer a firearm to an individual who does not apoear In nerson if that lnnlvldual provides a sworn st<i.tement: notice ls made to law enforce­ment authorities; there ls a seven-day delay before delivery of the firearm: and appro­priate records are maintained by the licensee.

D. A commercial licensee cannot transfer a firearm to any person that he has reason to believe ts a: felon (under indictment for, or has been convicted In any court of, a crime punishable bv imprisonment for a term exceeding one year); ls a. fugitive from justice, an unlawful drug user or addict; a mental defective.

E-F. Sets requirements for malllng fire­arms.

G-H. Those prohibited from purchasing a firearm may not transport a firearm In lnter­st'Lte commerce.

I. It ls 1Ilegal to transoort stolen fl.rearms. J. It is illegal to receive stolen firearms. K. It ls illegal to transport or receive fire-

arms with the serial number removed or altered.

L. It ls 1Ilegal for an lndlvldual to Import firearms unless duly licensed.

M. It ls 1Ilegal for a llcensee to keep false records.

This leglslatlon amends Section 922 to focus on unlawful acts involving handguns, particularly "easlly concealable handguns."

1. It restricts certain activities with "easlly conce::i.lable handguns" such as repairing, renting or mailing such handguns.

2. No handgun may be loaned or rented to another person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes. unless it is done in the presence of the owner, or on the premises of the owner.

· 3. A commercial licerµ;ee may not sell or deliver a handgun to any person if that Bl.le or delivery ls in violation of the law, in the place of residence of the purchaser.

4. A commercial licensee may not sell a handgun to any person who does not appe::i.r in person at the commercial llcensee's place of business. -

5. Bans the manufacture, sale or transfer of "easily concealable hundguns," except those cll.ssifled as curios or relics by the Secretary of the Treasury under the 1968 Gun Control Act.

A non-llcensee may only transfer a hand­gun if that individual knows or has reason­able cause to believe that the handgun is not an "el.sily concealable handgun."

An individual may mail an "easlly con­cealable handgun" to a commercial llceusee for modiflcation to meet the legal standards for handguns, if that individual notifies tile local law enforcement agency of his Inten­tions prior to mailing the handgun.

6. Prohibits the modification of a handgun if, as a result of such modification, the hand­gun falls under the "easily concealable hand­gun" definition.

7. Prohibits felons, fugitives from justice, drug users, mental defectives, 1Ilegal allens, those who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, and those who have renounced their citizenship, from possessing, transporting or receiving firearms in Inter­state commerce.

8. Prohibits a.n employee from possessing, transporting or recelvlng any firearm In the course of his employment if the employer ls prohibited by law from such activity.

9. Unlawful to ship or transport a firearm if such shipment violates the law of the state to which or through which the gun ls shipped, or an ordinance appllca.ble at the place of sale, dell very or other disposition.

10. A commercial licensee may not sell to one person, and one person ma.y not purchase, more than three handguns in one year with­out the special approval of the Attorney General.

11. It ls unlawful for any person to fall to report the theft, loss or disappearance of a handgun to the chief law enforcement offi­cer of the place where the handgun was kept, within 24 hours after discovering the loss, theft or disappearance. It is also to be re­ported to the Attorney General within 5 days. Each report is to contain the serial number, model, caliber, manufacturer of the handgun, date and the place of theft, loss or d1sappea.r­ance, and a complete statement of facts and circumstances surrounding the theft, loss or disappearance.

Section 103: Transfer of Handguns: This section sets out special provisions for

the transfer of handguns, except in the situ­ations where both parties a.re commercial licensees, 1.e., licensed Importers, manufac­turers or dealers. The system for transfers provides alternative procedures which require a. check on the eligibillty of the purchaser to receive the handgun.

1. Any purchaser with a valld state llcense­to-carry a handgun, which is Issued under a. state llcensing system that meets certain minimum Federal criteria, may purchase a. handgun In any state by: the purchaser appears In person at the licensed dealer's premises and (1) shows the dealer the li­cense; (2) the dea~er verlfies Its valldlty; (3) the purchaser provides sufficient ldentlfica­tlon to the dealer for hlm to reasonably be­lieve the indlvldual described on the Ucense is the purchaser; and (4) the dealer main­tains specified records of the transaction.

In the event of a. transfer occurring be­tween two non-commercial llcensees, the would-be-purchaser must provide the seller with a certificate that establishes the current validity of the state llcense-to-carry. This certificate must be obtained from the local law enforcement agency or a licensed dealer In handguns in a form prescribed by the

Attorney General. Upon completion of the transfer, the seller must forward a prescribed form to a. licensed dealer for recordkeeplng.

2. A purchaser with a valid state license to purchase, which is Issued under a state licensing program approved by the Attorney General, may purchase or receive a handgun in that state if:

The purchaser appears In person at the llcensed dealer's premises and ( 1) shows the dealer the license; (2) the dealer verifies Its valldity; (3) the purchaser provides sufficient identification to the dealer for him to reason­ably belleve the individual described on the llcense ls the purchaser; and (4) the dealer main ta.Ins speclfied records of the trans­action.

In the event of a. transfer between two non-licensees the purchaser must provide the seller with a certlficate which estab­llshes the validity of the llcense-to-purchase from a local law enforcement agency, or a llcensed dealer in handguns on a form pre­scribed by the Attorney General. Upon com­pletion of the transfer, the seller reports the transaction to a licensed dealer 1n a form pres~ribed by the Attorney General.

Under procedure, the Attorney General must approve state llcense-to-carry laws. The standards for approval require the fol­lowir. g minimum provisions:

(1) Prior to issuing the license-to-carry, the state must perform an Identity and rec­ord check and determine that the individual ts not barred from possessing a hand:;un un­der Federal or state law.

(2) The license-to-carry provides a. means of establishing the Identification of the 11-cense (e.g. photograph).

(3) The state shall issue at lea.st monthly to the Department of Justice and to all 11-censed dealers wlthln the state, a list of can­celled license numbers.

(4) The llcense-to-carry may only be is­sued if a person would not be prohibited from purchasing or carrying a handgun un­der the law at his place of residence.

(5) The state license-to-carry ls non­alterable.

(6) The states maintain a record of the names of Individuals who have been Issued a license-to-carry.

(7) The llcense-to-carry ls only Issued to Individuals with a Iegltlmate need to carry a handgun outside their residence or place of business.

(8) The state maintains a record of 11-censees and perlodlcally reviews peoples' ell­gib11ity for licenses-to-carry.

(9) The state provides for a. mandatory penalty of six months Imprisonment for those found guilty of carrying a handgun outside of their residence/business without a license-to-carry.

As to procedure (2), the Attorney will use the following standards in approving a state's llcense-to-purchase program:

(1) The llcense-to-purchase ls only is­sued after verifying the Identity of the In­dividual and determining that he ls not barred by local, state or Federal law from possessing a handgun.

(2) The license-to-purchase provides a photograph or other evidence to verify lden­ti ty of holder.

(3) Each llcense-to-purchase allows the lndlvldual to carry the handgun In a non­functional basts outside hls home or place of business not more than 24 hours from the date of receipt.

The license expires within two years and must be renewed by redetermining the holder's eliglb11ity. Each month the state provides the Attorney General and the deal­ers in that state with a llst of cancelled licenses.

(4) The license-to-purchase is issued to an individual if he is not barred from purchase under the local law of his place of residence.

(5) The state license-to-purchase is non­alterable.

29320 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979 (6) The state maintains a record of the

names of 1nd1v1duals who have been issued a license-to-purchase.

Under both procedures, states submit a list to the Attorney General of cancelled licenses which are sent to dealers for reference, to determine validity of licenses.

3 Unless the purchaser has a valid state license-to-carry or a valid state llcense-to­purchase, he must undergo a record and identity check. He must appear in person at the business premises of a licensed dealer :

He must submit a sworn statement stat­ing his name and residence; that his pur­chase will not be ln violation of Federal, st!Lte, or local law applicable to his place of residence; that he does not intend to resell lt to an individual barred from ownership. The statement must also set forth the title, name and address of the chief law enforce­ment officer of the purchaser's place of residence.

The purchaser must attach a true copy of any permit required to purchase, own, and carry a handgun in his place of residence.

The purchaser must provide sufficient iden­tification to verify his identity.

The dealer, prior to delivery, must forward to the chief law enforcement officer of the purchaser's residence and to the FBI a copy of the sworn statement.

The dealer must wait 21 days for the veri­fication reports from the law enforcement agency and the FBI. The FBI ls required to respond in 15 days. These reports are to be maintained by the dealer.

If, after 21 days, the FBI report has been received, a.nd the dealer has received no in­dication that the purchase ls prohibited, the dealer may transfer the handgun even if the local police fall to respond in 21 days.

In the event of a transfer between two non-licensees, the seller may not transfer the handgun unless he has received from the purchaser or licensed dealer a written cer­tification that the dealer has followed the verification procedure set forth above. Upon completion of the transfer, the seller shall notify the dealer that the transfer has taken place.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to loans of rentals of handguns at legitimate shooting ranges. A licensed dealer who arranges for the transfer of handguns between non-licensees shall be entitled to a. fee of not more tha.n $10.

Section 104: Licensing: 1. This section deals with various com­

mercial licenses Pnd raises fees to support administration and enforcement efforts. The section also provides for several types of li­censes for several tyoes of dealers, e.g., gun­smiths (dealers only involved in the repair of hand({uns). or ammunition dealers for whom a lower Uoense fee ls required. '

a . The fee for dealers in handguns is raised from $10 to $500. The fee for manu­facturers of ha.ndc;-uns is raised from $50 to $5,000; and the fee for im"lorters of hand­guns is raised from $fi0 to $5.000.

b. Conditions for commercial licenses: (1) Present law reouirP.s that t.he a'Opll­

cant be over 21: not orohibited from -oos­sei::stng a hqntfe:un under the law: not. have willf11ll:v violated anv of the orovisions of the cha'Oiter: not orovid~ false info .. mation on his aoolica,t.ion; and have appropriate bu.c;ini;>i:;c; nremi1>es.

(2) The leeislatlon sets forth the follow­ing additional requirements:

A. Commercial llcensees must be doing business in compllance with state a.nd local laws.

B. Commercial llcensees must take aupro­prtate security precautions to prevent thefts.

C. Commercial llcensee must certify that he will not em"Oloy individuals in his 11c-ensed business who a.re prohibited from possessing transporting, shipping or receiving firea~ under the law.

D. Procedures for denial, suspension and revocation of licenses, and allows fines in addition to extreme penalty of license revoca­tion.

E. Provides for a system of private, decen­tralized record maintenance through the commercial network:

Licensed importers, manufacturers, deal­ers and collectors must keep records of the importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition of all firearms and ammunition as prescribed by the Attorney General.

Licensed importers and manufacturers must keep records by serial number, of each handgun he imports, receives or manufac­tures for a period of ten years from the date of disposition. These records shall in­clude: the disposition of the handgun, whether it was sold, transferred, destroyed, lost or stolen; the date of the disposition; and for subsequent sales and transfers re­ported by licensed dealers, the name and address of the transferor, and the name, address or license number of the transferee.

Licensed dealers mt4St keep by serial num­ber a. record of each handgun received or transferred by or through them. The record shall include: whether the disposition wa.s through sale, transfer, trade-in, destruction, loss, theft, or other means; the date cf such disposition; and for each sale or transfer of that handgun, the model, the name and ad­dress of the transferor, and the name and address or license number of the transferee. Each dealer shall monthly transfer such records to the importer or manufacturer whose serial number appears on the hand­gun.

Ea.ch Ucensed importer and licensed man­ufacturer shall conduct periodic audits of the records received from Ucensed dealers to ensure their accuracy.

In the event the Ucensee sells or trans­fers his business, the appropriate records a.re to be transferred to the new owner. If the Ucensee ceases business, the records are sent to the Department of Justice.

All licensees shall make their records avail­able for inspection by the Attorney General. They shall submit quarterly reports kept according to handgun size and model, but not including the name and address of any noncommercial Ucensee, to the Attorney General, summarizing the disposition of all handguns transferred by or through that licensee.

Section 105: Easily Concealable Handguns Ille<1:al:

The Attorney General shall approve for manufacture, assembly, im"Oortation, sale or transfer any handgun model which satisfies the criteria established by the Handgun Concealabillty Criteria. Commission.

As recommended by the Commission, the Attorney General shall c'let.errnine 1'and!?Un. models particularly appropriate for law enforcement authorities. Bv regulation, he can approve certain quantities for manufac­ture, available only to these authorities.

The Handgun Criteria Commission wUl be appointed by the Attorney General to eval­uate bandl7uns accorfilng to frame si7e and other factors, to determine such handgun models that are easlly concealable, are hand­guns with potential for criminal use and a.re handguns particularly suitable for sporting purposes, for criminal use, or are particularly suitable for snorting purposes.

The Commission will have 15 members who are representative of the handgun indus­try, the law enforcement community, the Armed Forces, citizen groups a.nd the general public. Within one year. the Commission wlll submit to the Attorney General a report setting forth the proposed criteria. T1'e At­torney General within 30 days of receiving the report shall oubltsh the proposed criteria In the Federal Register for comment. Every two yea.rs thereafter tb e Commission shall evaluate the effectiveness of the criteria and shall revise them if necessary.

The criteria establlshed by the Commission shall be transmitted to the Congress. They will become effective at the end of 60 calen­dar days from the day they are sent to the Congress, unless either House passes a resolu­tion stating in substance that the House does not favor the criteria submitted.

Prior to the time that the criteria estab­lished by the Attorney General becomes effec­tive, he shall approve within 120 days the manufacture, assembly, importation, sale or transfer, any handgun model that:

For a pistol: Has a positive manually operated safety device; a combined len1?th and height of not less than ten inches. The height being at least four inches and the length six inches. Must attain a total of at least 75 points under the criteria of overall length, frame construction, weight, ca.Uber, safety features and miscellaneous equipment.

For a revolver: Must have an overall frame length of four a.nd one-half inches; a barrel length of at lea.st four inches; has a safety device; attains a total of 45 points under the criteria of barrel length, frame construc­tion, weight, ca.Uber, and miscellaneous equipment.

Th.is measure sets forth procedures for testing and evaluating handguns to deter­mine whether they satisfy the aforemen­tioned standards; and provides for an oppor­tunity for retesting or review of any adverse findings. The Attorney General is also obli­gated to publl~h a. list of approved hand­guns in the Federal Register.

Section 106: Penalties: Present law provides crlmlnal penaltiee for

violllltlon of the gun control laws, and trans­porting a. firearm with Intent to commit a felony. Using or carrying a firearm during the commiss>ion of a felony is punishable as a separate offense, a.nd for the second offense, a mandatory imprisonment is required.

Under this legislation: ( 1) A person who possesses, ships, trans­

ports or receives firearms or ammunition, while employed by an employer who he has reason to know is prohibited from possess­ing, shipping, tran.,.porting or receiving fire­arms or ammunition, faces up to a $100 fine and imprisonment of not more than one year or both.

(2) If an individual falls to report a. theft or loss of a handgun: on the first offense he will face a. fine of not more tha.n $500; for the S'econd and subsequent offenses he shall be fined not more than $1000, or im­prisoned not m.ore than six months or both.

(3) If the individual fa.Us to report a theft or loss of a handgun, and it ls subsequently used In a felony, the individual faces a fine up to $5000 or being imprisoned not more tha.n one year or both.

(4) An 1llegal transfer between non­Ucensees ma.ke each liable to a civil penalty of $100. If the transferee subsequently uses the handgun in the commission of a. felony the tralliSlferor shall be fined not more tha.n $1000 or imprisoned not more tha.n six months.

(5) If someone uses or carries a fl.rearm in the commission of a felony, he will re­ceive a ma.nda.tory sentence of 1-10 yea.rs for the first offense; and 2-25 yea.rs for the second offense.

(6) Any person will be civ1lly liable to a handgun victim if he negll,rently sells a handgun to a. person in violation of the provision of the act, and that person then uses the handgun in a. crime against that victim.

section 9: Rel1ef from D1sab111t1es: This section contains some technical

amendments and a provision permitting those who have been found to be mentally m to purchase handguns once their health has been restored.

Section 10: Rules and Regulations: This section deals with the Attornev Gen­

eral's authority to prescribe rules and regu­lations. It contains techLical amendments and adds a specific power for agents to ad-

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29321 mtnlster such oaths as are necessary ln the enforcement of firearms laws.

Section 11: Compensation for Vlctlms of Handgun Crlme:

This section outlines a system to provide Federal grants to support federally approved state programs !or compensation for personal injury and death of victims of handgun crime. Funding ls derived from regular ap­propriations. An Advisory Committee on Vic­tims of Handgun Crime ls appointed by the President to advise the Attorney General on pollcies relating to the compensation of vic­tims of handgun crimes.

Section 12: Transfer of Functions: All !unctions relating to the gun control

act now performed by the Secretary of the Treasury are transferred to the Attorney General.

There ls establlshed in the Department of Justice the Firearms Safety and Abuse Con­trol Administration. It wlll be headed by an administrator appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Attorney General will report annually to the Con­gress on the activities of this agency, the im­pact of the firearms laws and recommenda­tions for new leglslatlon.

Section 13: This section sllghtly alters the current explosives provisions ln order to update the language concerning drug users to conform with the Controlled Substances Act.

Section 14: This section revises the pro­visions deallng with explosives' license hold­ers. It extends to 90 days the time the At­torney General has to approve or disapprove a license appllcatlon and it permits the Jus­tice Department to impose cl vll fines or sus­pensions on licensed dealers for violations of explosives regulations.

Section 15: Technical amendments to the postal regulations.

Section 16: This repeals part of the exist­ing gun control laws which are made re­dundant by the provisions to this b111.

Section 17: This section contains the effec­tive dates of the legislation.

Mr. JA VITS. Mr. President, I join with Senator KENNEDY in the introduction to­day of the Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979. The need fo1 Federal handgun legislation has long been clear to me. New York has one of the toughest gun control laws in the Nation. But over 90 percent of handguns used in New York City come from out of State. Only when we have strong Federal legislation. that effectively bans cheap Saturday Night Specials, and provides for improved rec­ordkeeping for the estimated 50 million handguns in circulation, will we be able to control this pernicious traffic.

Every year, 250,000 citizens are as­saulted with handguns. Of these, 9,000 are murdered. Handguns, which are eas­ily obtainable and for which so often no one is accountable, are responsible for an average of 24 deaths a day.

Recently an ABC News-Louis Harris poll was released revealing that a 78 per­cent to 20 percent majority of the Ameri­can people favor a "Federal law requiring that all handguns people own be regis­tered by Federal authorities." Results also show an almost equally strong ma­jority <76 to 26) favor control of the sale of handguns.

The Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979 is legislation that respects the views of the majority of the people in this Na­tion, rather than of a well-organized minority.

The bill attempts to reduce handgun crime in several ways. All commerce in

Saturday Night Specials is banned. The bill closes an important loophole in the 1968 Gun Control Act by also banning commerce in parts for Saturday Night Specials.

Senator KENNEDY has a detailed analy­sis of the legislation in his statement. I believe that the stricter controls on the transfer of handguns, the new require­ments on obtaining commercial handgun licenses, and the increased penalties, civil liabilities and mandatory sentencing provisions will lead to more effective reg­ulation. The innovative victim compen­sation program is also worthy of support.

Mr. President, crime statistics are ap­palling. Polls show that the American people recognize the need to control the increasing rates of murder, aggravated assaults, and armed robberies through Federal handgun legislation. It is clear that the time has come for Congress to have the political courage to fight for what is right and for what the people want. I urge support of the Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979.

Mr. President, it is amazing that we have not yet even now gone to effective gun control in view of the dreadful rec­ord of homicides in this country, espe­cially in the major cities. I urge my col­leagues to support the Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979. e Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, I join Senator KENNEDY in sponsoring the Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979, a bill designed to reduce handgun violence in the United States.

The fear of crime in America is first and foremost a fear of violence. And the principal instrument of violent crime 1n the United States is the handgun.

In 1967, 5, 700 murders, approximately 37 percent of the total number of homi­cides in the United States, were com­mitted with handguns. By 1973, the num­ber of handgun murders had almost dou­bled, with the percentage of murders attributable to the use of handguns rising from 37 to 53 percent. In 1978, handguns accounted for more than 9,500 deaths in the United States, 49 percent of the total number of homicides in that year.

It is time to protect the lives-of citi­zens and of policemen-that handguns endanger. Our present gun laws are too limited and too inconsistent to be effec­tive. Since control of handguns is im­possible in any jurisdiction if they re­main uncontrolled in another, effective national laws are the only satisfactory solution to the plague of handgun vio­lence. I believe that the bill introduced today is a workable and practical means of curbing the increasing numbers of crimes and deaths involving the use of handguns, and I urge its passage.• e Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Massachusetts <Mr. KENNEDY), in introducing the proposed Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979. I wish to commend the Senator from Massachusetts for his tireless efforts in formulating this bill which I believe represents a reasonable and effective approach to solving the serious problem of handgun crime in the United States.

Mr. President, I need not recite the

results of numerous national opinion polls which clearly indicate that crime across the Nation is one of the greatest domestic concerns of a majority of Americans today. I am sure that all Sen­ators are fully aware of public opinion on crime nationally and within their own States. However, I would like to take a moment to speak about the crime situation in my home State of Hawaii.

Mr. President, the people of Hawaii have told me through cards, letters, and opinion polls, that crime to them is of grave concern, perhaps a domestic con­cern equal to that of inflation. I might emphasize that we in Hawaii have never had a crime problem similar to compar­able areas on the mainland. Neverthe­less, we have been experiencing steady and alarming increases in both violent crimes and nonviolent crimes over the last several years.

From 1975 to 1978, robberies were up 1n Hawa1i by 40 percent; aggravated as­saults were up by 13.5 percent; bur­glaries were up by 10 percent; larceny was up by 30.6 percent; motor vehicle thefts were up by 13 percent; and f orc­ible rapes were up by 7.9 percent. More recently, the State of Hawaii's criminal justice statistical analysis center issued a report which found that in the first 6 months of this year, murders in Hawaii were up 44 percent; robber'ies were up 11 percent; forcible rapes were up 6.7 per­cent; and in some parts of Hawaii, ag­gravated assaults were up 45.5 percent and robberies were up a whopping 85.7 percent.

Needless to say, Mr. President, these are alarming statistics to a State whose economy is dependent, to a certain ex­tent, on a healthy tourism industry.

Like other States, Hawaii has moved rapidly over the last several years to stem th'is spiraling increase in crimes. One of the most significant steps which was taken by Hawaii's State legislature was the enactment in 1975 of a handgun con­trol law banning the ownership of cheap, nonsporting, concealable handguns, bet­ter known as Saturday Night Specials. Our State legislature determined that these types of handguns, which are de­signed to serve no other function than to k'ill human beings at close range, account for a disproportionate number of the weapons used in violent crime in Hawaii.

As in so many other areas, my State of Hawaii was far ahead of many other States in recognizing that there is a clear correlation between the sheer availabil­ity of inexpensive, concealable handguns and the number of violent crimes com­mitted in this country each year. By lim­iting the availability of Saturday Night Specials, the State of Hawaii was at­tempting to reduce significantly handgun violence in the islands.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, it is generally agreed 1n our State that Hawaii's Saturday Night Special law has not resulted in significant reductions in handgun crime. One of the reasons for this failure is, and I believe this is one of the most important and effective argu­ments for the enactment of a national handgun control law, that effective handgun control cannot be achieved through purely State and local initta-

29322 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979

tives. This was a finding of the House Judi: iary Committee in its report on H.R. 11193, the proposed Federal Firearms Act of 1976. The House committee stated in its report that its investigative record "clearly demonstrates that handgun commerce is extremely fluid, respects no jurisdictional boundaries, and, as such, escapes the reach of individual States and political subdivisions." I am afraid to say that as long as a large pool of substandard, concealable handguns is available at low cost and easy access on the mainland, these types of weapons will find their way to Hawaii.

Mr. President, the Senator from Mas­sachusetts has described vividly how handgun crime in the United States has grown to near epidemic propor­tions in the past two decades. In order to reduce handgun crime, the Congress must move now to ban all commerce in substandard, con­cealable handguns, tighten existing con­trols on the transfer of handguns, and generally strengthen the enforcement of our gun control laws. In my judgment, the proposed Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979, being introduced today by the Senator from Massachusetts, will ac­complish these goals in a moderate, reasonable, and effective manner, which all sides of the gun control issue will be able to support.

The bill being introduced today is cer­tainly not a combination of hastily con­ceived ideas; Senators should make no mistake about that. Many of the pro­visions contained in this legislation were taken from the handgun control bill re­ported in 1976 by the House Judiciary Committee. That bill was the subject of extensive hearings and investigation by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime. It was a clean bill which was drafted after the subcommittee had re­viewed hundreds of proposals, including a handgun control bill recommended by President Gerald Ford, and received hours of testimony from a broad range of witnesses.

I am sure that the distinguished chair­man of the Judiciary Committee <Mr. KENNEDY) intends to review the proposed Handgun Crime Control Act in a similar manner to make certain that the ap­proaches taken in the bill will achieve the goal of maximizing the reduction of handgun violence and be both reason­able and responsive to other legitimate needs of our citizens in terms of fire­arms.

The proposed Handgun Control Act makes the following provisions:

First, it bans the manufacture and importation of, and all commerce in Saturday night specials. The factoring criteria contained in the bill, which will be used to determine if a handgun is sub­standard, is the same language which was approved by the House Judiciary Committee in 1976.

Second, the bill will reduce handgun crime by imposing stricter, though sim­pler, controls on the legitimate commerce in handguns through an improved hand­gun transfer system requiring law en­forcement verification of all prospective handgun transferees' eligibility. Impor­tantly, under this section of the bill, a

21-day waiting period is established to allow a law enforcement check of a handgun purchaser for felony convic­tions or other circumstances which would, under existing law, disqualify that person for ownership of a firearm. Es­tablishing this so-called cooling off pe­riod will close a loophole in the Gun Control Act of 1968 which allows pur­chasers to take immediate possession of weapons and does not require a back­ground check of such individuals. It is hoped that with the enactment of this section, fewer handguns will be sold to persons with criminal records or who are otherwise unqualified to own such a weapon, and the number and frequency of casual crimes---erimes in which a per­petrator purchases a handgun immedi­ately prior to committing a crime-will be reduced.

Third, the bill improves upon the pro­cedures established in the Gun Control Act of 1968 to control commercial gun traffic by imposing stricter requirements for acquiring a commercial handgun li­cense, and imposing businesslike record­keeping procedures and high standards of responsibility and accountability at all levels of the handgun industry.

Fourth, the bill encourages States to enact laws limiting the carrying of handguns in public to legitimate citizens authorized to do so, and requires that handgun owners be responsible and ac­countable for the possession, care, use, and ultimate disposition of handguns.

Fifth, the bill will deter handgun crime by imposing stricter punishment for crimes involving handguns, and im­proving the effectiveness of handgun control regulations by increasing legal liability of individuals for noncompli­ance with license-to-carry laws.

Sixth, the bill includes a section, based on S. 190, the proposed Victims of Crime Act of 1979, of which I am a cosponsor, which provides a victim compensation program consisting of Federal grants to State programs for compensation for personal injury and death of victims of handgun crime.

I strongly believe, Mr. President, that it is in the best interest of the American people to strictly limit the availability of inexpensive, nonsporting, concealable handguns. I am convinced that the leg­islation Senator KENNEDY is introducing today would not place undue restrictions on honest citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of hand­guns for recreational or other lawful purposes. It is, indeed, important to note that this legislation would not impose any national system of gun registration or licensing. The bill, on the contrary, goes to great lengths to encourage State licensing systems to minimize Federal involvement. Enactment of the Kennedy bill, which would restrict the availability of sub.standard, nonsporting handguns, would, in my estimation, be a giant step forward in our fight against crime in tbis Nation. It would also sharply reduce the number of handgun deaths which occur in the United States each year.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to give this important bill thoughtful and favorable consideration.• e Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. President, the

right of the American people to keep and bear arms is fundamental. It is part of the Bill of Rights, and I could not sup­port any bill that infringed on this basic right. Thus in 1976 I opposed a Massa­chusetts ballot initiative which would have banned the possession, ownership, or sale of all handguns. I thought it un­constitutional, and so did a majority of voters in Massachusetts.

But even before article I, the Con­stitution includes among its purposes to "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, [and] promote the general welfare • • •" When ideals clash in our democracy, we are challenged to find practical approaches that do not compromise the principles involved. The chronic, mushrooming destructive power of handgun crime in America is such a challenge.

Handguns now kill nearly 10,000 people in this Nation each year. They are a prime accomplice in the pathetic fact that homicide is the leading cause of death among black teenagers and young adults. They represent a relentless threat to individual citizens and to society as a whole. We have every right to take prudent measures in our common de­fense.

Mr. President, the Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979 is a reasonable, con­stitutional program to reduce the violent consequences of the free and easy hand­gun trade in this country. It applies standards of responsibility and account­ability to the handgun market that are finally appropriate to the lethal nature of these weapons. It stresses more eff ec­tive enforcement of existing laws. Ths legislation does nothing-absolutely nothing-that impairs the use of long guns such as rifles and shotguns. On the other hand, it would end our do-nothing attitude toward a huge loophole in 1968 gun legislation by banning finally the im­portation of Saturday Night Special parts.

Mr. President, I commend Senator KENNEDY for this comprehensive, bal­anced bill, which I am proud to cospon­sor. I respectfully urge my distinguished colleagues to follow the vast majority of Americans in supporting such legis­lation.•

By Mr. RIEGLE (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. BAYH, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. EAGLETON, Mr. NELSON, Mr. MATHIAS, and Mr. McGoVERN) :

s. 1937. A bill to authorize emergency loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corp.; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

(The remarks of Mr. RIEGLE when he introduced the bill appear earlier in to­day's proceedings.)

By Mr. GLENN <for himself and Mr. RIBICOFF):

s. 1938. A bill to insure adequate pro­tection of workers, the general public, and the environment from harmful ra­diation exposure, to establish mecha­nisms for effective coordination among the various Federal agencies involved in radiation protection activities, to devel-

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONJ\L. ~CORD - SENATE 29323 op a coordinated radiation research pro­gram, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. FEDERAL RADIATION PROTECTION MANAGEMENT

ACT OF 1979

• Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, with the co­sponsorship of the imminent chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (Senator Rrn1coFF), the Federal Radia­tion Protection :Management Act of 1979. This bill seeks to bring order to a chaotic situation that cannot be allowed to re­main chaotic any longer. More than 20 Federal agencies are currently engaged in activities involving radiation protec­tion and/ or research. The demise of the old Federal Radiation Council 1970, de­spite the transfer of some of its authori­ties to EPA, has resulted in a serious erosion of interagency coordination in this area. The lack of focus or leader­ship of the Federal program places the health and safety of the American peo­ple in needless jeopardy. This bill seeks to provide the focus and leadership presently lacking in the Federal pro­gram.

While the consciousness of the public to the radiation exposure problem has been raised significantly in the past year, particularly in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island accident, the ques­tions, the problems and the concerns go well beyond Three Mile Island. In fact, the major source of radiation ex­posure to the general population in the United States is through diagnostic medical procedures. If we look at man­made sources of radiation exposure we find that the average American receives more than 90 percent of such exposure from this source. It is also important to understand that there is an element of radiation exposure that we can do nothing about.

Every person is exposed to a certain level of background radiation from the Earth's atmosphere and its soil. There are wide variations in this exposure from an average yearly dose of about 45 mil­lirems for persons living in the Wash­ington, D.C. area to about 128 millirems a year for persons living in the area of Leadville, Colo.

There is now sufficient evidence in the medical literature to conclude that a concerted effort must be made to elimi­nate unnecessary exposure of the popu­lation to radiation. To do so requires that we increase our attention to is­sues such as the overuse of medical X-rays, the licensing and inspection of all radiological equipment, the under­training of radiological personnel, the li­censing of institutions providing such training, the use of radioactive materials in consumer products, the validity of current radiation dose limitations for persons in certain occupations and the adequacy of the public education pro­gram regarding radiation protection. The latter point cannot be overemphasized.

People in this country want to know what radiation is and what it can do to them. They want to know how well pro­tected they are from the ill-effects of radiation and how they might be better protected. They are turning to the Fed­eral Government with these questions--

and they have a right to some good an­swers.

The answers to these questions depend upon thorough research, reasoned find­ings and intelligent implementation of policy. Some of the best minds in the United States are working on radiation research and protection. The problem is not a lack of talent in dealing with these questions; the problem is that Federal agency jurisdictions in this area are over­lapping and fragmented.

The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, has the responsibility for setting overall exposure standards. But the question of how these standards are to be translated in terms of the licensing and inspection of equipment as well as the training and licensing of radiologic personnel is left to other agencies or to the States. The National Institutes of Health is the chief health research or­ganization of the U.S. Government, but most of the research in ionizing radiation is funded and managed by the Depart­ment of Energy.

The question of overlapping and frag­mented jurisdiction by Federal agencies was addressed by an interagency task force established last year by President Carter. The Government Affairs Sub­committee on Energy, Nuclear Prolifera­tion and Federal Services, of which I am chairman, explored the report of this in­teragency task force in hearings earlier this year.

I believe, after careful study of the recommendations made by the task force and by the former Secretary of HEW, that the bill I am introducing today, the Federal Radiation Protection Manage­ment Act, will significantly improve the organization of the Federal Govern­ment's efforts in radiation research and protection.

Its thrust is simple; it sets up two councils, one dealing with radiation pro­tection and the other with radiation re­search, that bring together the many Federal departments and agencies in­volved in these matters.

The first, the Federal Radiation Pro­tection Council, would be chaired by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, or his designee; EPA is the Federal agency most directly in­volved with health protection standards. This Council would provide advice and guidance on radiation protection stand­ards, review the various agencies' au­thorities over radiation-related matters and recommend any necessary changes in those authorities, identify the agen­cies' research needs, help develop public education programs on radiation health and safety, and review State and local radiation control programs. After 1 year, it would submit a report and recom­mendations dealing with Federal radia­tion protection legislation.

The second group, the Federal Confer­ence on Research into the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, would have as its chairman the director of the National Institutes of Health; that orga­nization's mission, more than any other Federal agency's, is health-related re­search. The conference would advise on the development of radiation research projects; issue an annual comprehensive

Federal agenda on radiation health ef­fects research; make various recom­mendations regarding the conduct of that research and the dissemination of its results: and assist in the develop­ment of public education programs. It would also review agency radiation research requests according to several criteria in order to decide whether each proposed project has scientific merit and, if so, whether the requesting agency is the right group to do it. It would also issue a report noting the inadequacies of Federal research and recommending legislative changes.

Mr. President, the organizational changes that would follow enactment of this bill would help fill the gap of lead­ership and coordination that has been missing from the Federal program in radiation protection. The bill presents an opportunity to not only increase government efficiency in this area, but to provide a mechanism for raising the level of protection for the public against unnecessary radiation exoosure.• e Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator GLENN in introducing the Federal Radiation Pro­tection Management Act of 1979.

The effectiveness of Federal programs to protect the public from radiation haz­ards is clearly a matter of widespread concern. At present, radiation health and safety is a particularly complex and varied field, involving a large number of Federal departments, commissions, and agencies. The public rightfully ex­pects an orchestrated Federal approach to these hazards.

Responsibility is now scattered and uneven, resulting in jurisdictional dis­putes and regulatory confusion. Too many agencies are charged with admin­istering too many laws. And nobody has the clear ability to overview the total situation, or the power to guide and co­ordinate that dispersed authority. As a result coordination is not always syste­matic, the extent of the risk is not fully understood, and some potentially signifi­cant hazards are not subject to any Fed­eral controls at all.

I am deeply concerned about this mat­ter. And the Governmental Affairs Com­mittee, over the past several years, has been actively involved in studying this problem, and finding ways to better co­ordinate Federal radiation protection activities.

In December 1977, pursuant to Senate Resolution 71, the committee published volume V of our "Study on Federal Reg­ulation," which discussed the need for more effective coordination of radiation programs. Thereafter, in April 1978, the opinion of a wide range of informed groups and individuals in the private sector was solicited on the study's find­ings. The comments were very helpful to the development of this legislation. In early May of this year, the committee held hearings on the institutional rec­ommendations of the HEW task force on radiation protection. At that time we heard from a number of witnesses on the problems in this area. This bill is a product of those efforts.

Thus, we have approached this diffi­cult and complex area with deliberate

29324 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE October 24, 1979

care. The proposals contained in the bill we introduce today have already been the subject of thorough consideration. I believe these proposals are a workable solution to the organizational confusion that now plagues this important area of Federal regulation.•

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS s. 1465

At the request of Mr. TALMADGE, the Senator from California <Mr. HAYAKAWA) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1465, the Farm Credit Act Amendments of 1979.

s. 1792

At the request of Mr. McGOVERN, the Senator from Wisconsin <Mr. NELSON) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1792, a bill to authorize the President of the United States to present on behalf of the Con­gress a specially struck gold medal to Simon Wiesenthal.

s. 1922

At the request of Mr. DoMENICI, the Senator from Colorado <Mr. ARMSTRONG) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1922, a bill relating to appeals to certain orders can­celing permits to graze livestock on pub­lic rangelands.

AMENDMENT NO. 523

At the request of Mr. McCLURE, the Senator from South Carolina <Mr. THUR­MOND) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 523 intended to be pro­posed to S. 1020, a bill to authorize ap­propriations for the Federal Trade Com­mission.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLU­TION 47-SUBMISSION OF A CON­CURRENT RESOLUTION TO AP­PROVE THE EXTENSION OF NON­DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROD­UCTS OF CHINA

Mr. RIBICOFF (by request) submitted the following concurrent resolution, which was ref erred to the Committee on Finance:

S. CON. RES. 47

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep­resentatives concurring) , That the Congress approves the extension of nondiscriminat.ory treatment with respect to the products of the People's Republic of China transmitted by the President to the Congress on Octo­ber 23, 1979.

Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, under the statutes, when MFN is sought for any country, the majority leader is respon­sible to introduce the legislation or he can request th.at another Member of this body do so.

The majority leader <Mr. RoBERT C. BYRD) has requested me accordingly to submit a. concurrent resolution, and I now do s·o.

Hearings on this concurrent resolution will be held on November 6 by the Sub­committee of International Trade of the Finiance Committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the resolution will be received and appropriately referred.

SENATE RESOLUTION 264-SUBMIS­SION OF A RESOLUTION RELAT­ING TO EXCESS PROFITS OF MA­JOR OIL COMPANIES

Mr. DURKIN submitted the following resolution, which was ref erred to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules and Administration, jointly, by unanimous consent:

S. RES. 264

Resolved, That--SECTION 1. (a) There 1s hereby established

a. select committee of the Senate to be known as the Select Committee on Petroleum Cor­poration Activities, to conduct an investiga­tion and inquiry of the extent to which il­legal, improper, and unethical activities are engaged in by domestic and multinational petroleum corporations individually or in oombination with others, and to determine whether in its judgment any occurrences which may be revealed by the investigation and inquiry indicate the necessity or desir­abillty of the enactment of congressional legislation to safeguard the nation's eco­nomic, environmental, and social welfare.

(b) (1) The select committee created by this resolution (hereinafter referred to as the "select committee") shall be composed of fifteen members as follows: (a) two mem­bers from the Committee on Appropriations; (b) two members from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; (c) seven members from the Committee on Ener­gy and Natural Resources; ( d) two members from the Committee on the Judiciary; ( e) two members to be appointed from the Sen­ate at large: (2) Members appointed from each committee named in clauses (A) through (D) of para.graph (1) shall be evenly divided between the two major political parties and shall be appointed by the Presi­dent pro tempore of the Senate upon the recommendations of the majority and mi­nority leaders of the Senate. Four of the members appointed under clause {E) of paragraph (1) shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate upon the recommendation of the majority leader of the senate and three shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate upon the recommendation of the minority leader of the Senate.

(3) The majority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the Senate shall be ex officio members of the select committee but shall have no vote in the committee and shall not be counted for purposes of deter­mining a quorum.

(c) No Sena.tor may serve on the select committee for more than eight years of con­tinuous service, exclusive of service by any Senator on such committee during the Ninety-sixth Congress.

{d) At the beginning of each Congress, the Members of the Senate who a.re members of the majority party of the Senate shall elect a chairman for the select committee, and the Members of the Senate who are from the minority party of the Senate shall elect a vice chairman for such comxnittee. The vice chairman shall act in the place and stead of the chairman in the absence of the chair­man. Neither the chairman nor the vice chairman of the select committee shall at the same time serve as chairman or ranking minority member of any other committee re­ferred to in paragraph 6 (f) of Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

(e) For the purposes of paragraph 6(a) rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Sen­ate, service of a. Senator as a. member of the select committee shall not be taken into account.

SEc. 2. That the select committee ls au­thorized and directed to do everything nee-

essary or appropriate to make the investi­gations and studies specified in section lta). Without abridging or limiting in any way the authority conferred upon the select com­Inittee by the preceding sentence, the sen­ate further expressly authorizes and directs the se~ect comxnittee to make a complete in­vestigation and study of the activities of any and all persons or groups of persons or organizations of any kind which have any tendency to reveal the full facts in respect to the following matters or questions: ( 1) Whether major oil corporations have accrued profits through lllegal or unethical means; (2) whether major oil corporations acting individually or collectively, have acted to manipulate and adversely affect the market; (3) whether major oil companies have created unstable and inequitable petroleum products supply conditions; (4) whether major oil corporations have engaged in anti­competitive monopolistic practices in viola­tion of U.S. antitrust law; (5) whether do­mestic oil corporations have willfully con­tributed to creating adverse lnfiationary conditions in the economy; (6) whether ma !or oil corporations have illegally or un­ethically manipulated Federal Government activities; (7) whether any of the existing laws of the United States a.re inadequate, either in their provisions or manner of en­forcement to safeguard the economic and environmental stab111ty and well being of the Nation.

SEC. 3. (a) The select committee, for the purposes of accountability to the senate, shall make regular and periodic reports to the senate on the nature and extent of the intelligence activities of the various depart­ments and agencies of the United States. Such committee shall promptly call to the attention of the senate or to any other ap­propriate committee or committees of the Senate any matters requiring the attention of the senate or such other committee or committees. (b) On or before March 15 of each year, the select committee shall sub­Init to the Committee on the Budget of the Senate the views and estimates described in section 301 ( c) of the Conczressional Budget Act of 1974 regarding matters within the jurisdiction of the select committee.

SEC. 4. (a) For the p1irposes of this resolu­tion, the select committee is authorized in its discretion (1) to make investigations into a.nv matter within its jurisdiction, (2) to make expenditure from the contingent fund of the Senate. (3) to employ person­nel, (4) to hold hearings. (5) to sit a.nd act at any time or place durin~ the sessions, recesses, and ad1ourned periods of the Sen­ate, (6) to require, by subpena. or other, wise, the attendance of witnesses and the production of correspondence. books, papers, and documents, (7) to take depositions and other testimony, (8) to procure the service of consultants or organizations thereof, in accordance with the provisions of section 202 (i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and (9) with the prior consent of the Government department or agency concerned and the Committee on Rules and Admin­istration, to use on a reimbursable basis the services of personnel of any such department or ae:enr-v.

(b) The chairman of the select committee or anv member thereof may admlnister oaths t-0 witnesses. (c) Subpoenas authorized by the select committee may be issued over ·the signature of the chairman. the vice chair­man. or any member of the select committee designated by the chairman, and may be served by ant' person desi~nated by the chairman ·or any member signing the sub­poena.

SEC. 5. The select committee shall formu­late and carry out such rules and· procedures as it deems necessary to prevent the dis­closure, without the consent Of the person

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29325 or persons concerned, of information in the ~ession of such committee which unduly infdnges upon the privacy or which violates the constitutional rights of such person or persons. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent such committea from publicly disclosing any such information in any case in which such committee determines the na­tional interest in the disclosure of such in­formation clearly outweighs any infringe­ments on the privacy of any person or per­sons.

SEc. 6. For the period from the date this resolution 1s agreed to through September 31, 1980, the expenses of the select committee under this resolution shall not exceed $450,000, of which amount not to exceed $30,000 shall be available for the procure­ment of the services of individual consult­ants, or organizations thereof, as authorized by section 202 ( 1) of the Legislative Reorga­nization Act of 1946. Expenses of the select committee under this resolution shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Sen­ate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the select committee, except that vouch­ers shall not be required for the disburse­ment of salaries of employees paid at an an­nual rate.

SEc. 7. Nothing in this rsolution shall be construed as constituting acquiescence by the Senate in any practice, or in the conduct of any activity, not otherwise authorized by law.

Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, in the wake of the major multinational oil com­panies' recent announcement of ex­orbitant third quarter profits, I am sub­mitting today a resolution which calls for a special Senate Select Committee to investigate the preposterous profits un­fairly earned by the major oil companies at the expense of the hard-working American consumer.

The major oil conglomerates' rise in third quarter profits over la~t year borders on the criminal. Conoco reaped a rise in profits of 134 percent over the same period last year.

AMOCO was up 49 percent. ARCO was up 45 percent. Occidental Oil Co. earned excessive

profits of almost 1,000 percent-a ten­fold increase.

Gulf enjoyed record profits, up 97 per­cent from last year.

And Exxon, the world's largest oil com­pany, saw their profits rise 118 percent to well over a billion dollars.

Even as these staggering profits were announced, Clifton c. Garvin, Jr., Ex­xon's chairman, dared to claim that marketing earnings in the United States "continue to be depressed, as they hav~ been throughout 1979."

The Senate cannot allow this cavalier attitude and the obscene profits on the part of the major oil companies to stand unchallenged.

We will never get today's 15 percent inflation rate under control while we have runaway energy costs and bloated oil profits. The highly scandalous and in­flation fueling activities of the major oil companies certainly rival, if not exceed, the scope of the Watergate scandal.

The major oil companies raked in these outrageous profits while people in New Hampshire, New England, and throughout the Nation were trapped in gas lines and forced to pay prohibitively high gasoline prices of over a dollar a

CXXV--1844-Part 22

gallon. We have since learned that these long lines and high prices were caused by the artificially low supplies ·created by the oil companies. At the sameaime the major oil companies also withheld home heating oil from the small business supplier and the hard-working home­owner which has caused the price of home heating oil to climb beyond the means of the average consumer ..

A full investigation by a Senate Select Committee, similar to the Senate Water­gate Investigation is absolutely neces­sary. It will go a long way to bring out all the facts and insure that the major multinational oil companies do not con­tinue to reap unjust profits at the ex­pense of those who can least afford it.

I urge my Senate colleagues to join with me today in standing up to the major multinational oil companies. The oil companies have called the shots for too long. It is high time that the Ameri­can public, the elderly, the handicapped, and low- to moderate-income families receive their full representation here in Washington. A Senate Select Committee to investigate the oil companies prepos­terous profits is an essential step in that direction.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolu­tion submitted by the Senator from New Hampshire <Mr. DURKIN) be referred jointly to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules and Administration.

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

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED FOR PRINTING

SOCIAL SERVICES AND CHILD WEL­FARE AMENDMENTS OF 1979-H.R. 3434

AMENDMENT NO. 553

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. DECON­CINI, Mr. RIEGLE, and Mr. HATFIELD) sub­mitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them, jointly, to H.R. 3434, an act to amend the Social Security Act to make needed improvements in the child welfare and social services pro­grams, to strengthen and improve the program of Federal support for foster care of needy and dependent children, to establish a program of Federal support to encourage adoptions of children with special needs, and for other purposes.

INDIVIDUAL SAVINGS ACT OF 1979-S. 1488

AMENDMENT NO. 554

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. NELSON submitted an amend­ment intended to be proposed by him to S. 1488, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for the partial exclusion of interest from gross income. • Mr. NELSON. Mr. President. earlier this year I introduced S. 1488, the Indi-

vidual Savings Act of 1979. I would now like to off er a technical amendment to the bill which; first, corrects a typo­graphical error; and second, clarifies the types of accounts from which interest re­ceived would be excluded from taxation.

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

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

AMENDMENT No. 554 On page 2, line 8 , insert " (other than in­

terest or dividends on a money market certifi­cate or on an account for which the rate of interest is negotiable)" after "accounts".

On page 3, line 5, strike out "$100" and insert "$500".e

HANDGUN CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1979-S. 1936

AMENDMENT NO. 555

<Ordered to be printed and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.)

Mr. McCLURE <for himself, Mr. HELMS, and Mr. MELCHER) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them, jointly, to S. 1936, a bill to ban tho importation, manufacture, sale, and transfer of "Saturday Night Specials," to improve the effectiveness of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, relat­ing to gun control, to promote more ef­fective management of certain law en­forcement functions of the executive branch by transferring functions of the Secretary of the Treasury under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, re­lating to gun control to the Attorney General, to ban possession, shipment, transportation, and receipt of all fire­arms by felons, to provide relief for vic­tims of handgun crimes, and for other purposes.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I am to­day submitting an amendment to the handgun crime control bill of 1979 de­signed to bring about a fair and effective answer to the problem of criminal mis­use of fire arms. By any standard the Gun Control Act of 1968 has failed to halt the increase in violent crimes which plagues our country. The reason for that failure, I suggest, is that the Gun Con­trol Act of 1968 is fundamentally mis­directed. It burdens the law-abiding citi­zen who obtains firearms through legal channels while affecting not at all the criminal who long before 1968 was barred from legally possessing guns.

It is easy to erect obstacles to those who want to buy firearms for hunting or target practice or defense of their home and family. These peoole want to obey the law. But these people have nothing whatever to do with the crime problem. Yet, they, not the professional criminal. are the victim of gun control laws. So I propose that we redirect Federal gun laws to deter this criminal behavior without infringing on the traditional right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arm~. To do this I offer this a.mendment which simply reoeals a law t.h-:i.t has failed, the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I introduced a ,.imilar bill. S. 38, on the ftrst day of the 96th Congress as well as during the 95th Congress, and was

29326 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979

pleased to see that the principles behind these bills made signiftcant gains. Dur­ing consideration of the criminal code reform legislation, the Senate adopted several amendments I offered to refine the mandatory sentencing provisions and strengthen the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Congress also cut the budg­et of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and blocked their plan to impose national registration of firearms transactions. We voted to continue the civilian marksmanship program and forced the withdrawal of a nominee with extreme antigun views to head the LEAA.

These victories were made possible by the vigilance of millions of Americans who were willing to make their voices heard in defense of traditional Ameri­can values, and their rights as granted under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the text of my amendment be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

AMENDMENT No. 555 Strike all after the words "That this Act

may be cited as the "Handgun Crime Control Act of 1979," and insert in lieu thereof the following new section:

"Sze. 2. Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code nown as the "Gun Con­trol Act of 1968", is hereby and the same ts repealed."

DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS DE­REGULATION ACT-H.R. 4986

AMENDMENT NO. 556

<Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.>

Mr. MORGAN submitted an amend­ment intended to be proposed by him to H.R. 4986, an act to amend the Federal Reserve Act to authorize the automatic transfer of funds, to authorize negoti­able order-of-withdrawal accounts at depository institutions, to authorize fed­erally chartered savings and loan asso­ciations to establish remote service units, and to authorize federally insured credit unions to maintain share draft ac­counts, and for other purposes. •Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, I sub­mit an amendment and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, H.R. 4986, the Deposi­tory Institutions Deregulation Act, as reported by the Senate Banking Com­mittee, phases out the interest rate dif­ferential contained in regulation Q over a period of 10 years. The amendment I am introducing would substitute for that provision in the bill, a formula to tie the differential directly to the com­mitment of a financial institution to housing finance. Specifically, the amend­ment makes rate control permanent and provides a differential for all financial institutions-banks, credit unions, mu­tual savings banks, and savings and loan associations-provided that such insti­tutions have and maintain at least 60 percent of their entire loan portfolio in

residential real estate. Included within the definition of residential real estate are home improvement loans, and loans for mobile homes. This amendment rec­ognizes the need of long-term lenders to attract savings while extending credit over protracted terms. The amendment provides an incentive for all financial institutions to engage in this important area of lending activity, that of making homeownership possible.

On two other amendments which I have previously introduced, Mr. Presi­dent, I ask unanimous consent that two letters discussing these amendments be printed in the RECORD.

First is a letter from Hon. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Governor of Indiana and chairman of the National Governors Association. Governor Bowen writes on behalf of the NGA in support of my amendment to strike title II of H.R. 4986. Title II would give the Federal Re­serve authority to require reserves of nonmember financial institutions. Gov­ernor Bowen writes that this "complex and controversial matter • • • should not be handled in a piecemeal fashion through H .R. 4986," and states that the NGA supports my amendment "because the granting of such authority to the Fed would constitute an unwarranted preemption of State authority in an area that we believe properly belongs to the States."

A second letter from Hon. Jay Janis, Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, is addressed to Sena­tor CRANSTON, and a copy has been made available to me. Chairman Janis warns that a lowering of the minimum denomi­nation on money market certificates to $1,000 would have a "highly adverse" . effect on the earnings of thrift institu­tions, and would be particularly "deva­stating" on S. & L.'s in the Boston and New York Federal Home Loan Bank dis­tricts. I urge my colleagues to give care­ful attention to both these letters.

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

AMENDMENT No. 556 Beginning on page 15, line 24, strike the

entirety of Sections 107, 108, 109, and 110, through page 21, line 20, and substitute in lieu thereof the following:

Section 107(a) Strike paragraph 7 of Pub­lic Law 89-597.

Section 107{b) Strike section 102 o! Pub­lic Law 92-200 and substitute in lieu thereof the following:

"An interest rate differential of at least ~ per centum may be paid on any category of deposits or accounts of a bank, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and savings and loan, building and loan or homestead association (including cooperative banks), the deposits or accounts of which are insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corpo­ration, any mutual bank as defined in § 3f of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or any credit union, the accounts of which are in­sured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, provided that such institu­tions shall have and maintain loan portfolios in which sixty per cent of such loans are comprised of loans secured by liens of single family residential real estate. mobile home loans or home improvement loans."

NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION, October 23, 1979.

Re H.R. 4986-Depository Institutions De-regulation Act of 1979.

Hon. RoBERT N. MORGAN, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORGAN: This is to advise you of the strong support of the National Governors' Association for the amendment you plan to offer on the floor of the Senate to delete Title II of H.R. 4986, the Depository Institutions Deregulation Act of 1979.

Title II of H.R. 4986 would grant the Fed­eral Reserve Board (Fed) compulsory re­serve-setting authority over nonmember banks and other state-chartered depository institutions with respect to their Negotiable Orders of Withdrawal (NOW) accounts and share drafts. This Title should be stricken from the bill. Whether or not the Fed should have compulsory reserve-setting authority over state-chartered nonmember commercial banks and over other depository institutions not now amuated with the Fed is currently being considered by the Senate Banking Committee in several bills (S. 85, H.R. 7. and S. 353) designed specifically to deal with this complex and highly controversial matter. It should not be handled in a piecemeal fashion through H.R. 4986.

NGA also opposes Title II of H.R. 4986 be­cause the granting of such authority to the Fed would constitute an unwarranted pre­emption of state authority in an area that we believe properly belongs to the states.

The National Governors' Association greatly appreciates your efl'orts on this matter.

Kindest personal regards, 0Tis R. BOWEN, M.D.,

Governor.

FEDERAL HOME LoAN BANK BOARD, October 23, 1979.

Hon. ALAND. CRANSTON, U .S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR CRANSTON: In response to your request, we have analyzed the impact of implementing the provision of S. 1347 that could lead to a lowering of the minimum denomination on money market certificates to $1,000.

We estimate the percentage of passbook accounts of S&Ls would decrease to 16 per­cent of total accounts by the second quarter of 1980 if the minimum denomination were lowered. This compares to 24 percent with­out any such change. In addition, there would be an attrition of maturing long­maturity certificates into higher rate MMCs so that there would also be a reduction in long-term certificates as a percentage of total accounts.

The results on earnings would be highly adverse. A reduction in the minimum de­nomination of MMCs to $1,000 ts estimated to result in a rate of return on assets of 0.14 of 1 percent by the second half of 1980 compared to 0,34 of 1 percent if this action were not taken. Even the latter rate of re­turn would be the lowest that S&Ls have experienced in the post-World War II period and compares wtih 0.82 of 1 percent in 1978. With the MMC at $10,000, S&Ls would be experiencing severe earnings probleme, par­ticularly in light of the recent Fed actions, and would imply about 20 percent of all S&Ls having a negative income. With the even lower rate of return on assets implied by the $1,000 minimum denomination, we estimate that 37 percent of S&Ls would have a negative income during the second half of 1980.

The impact on S&Ls in the Boston and New York Federal Home Loan Bank districts would be more devastating. These associa­tions. have a higher proportion of their sav­ings accounts in passbook accounts and already sutfer from low profitability. A re-

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29327 duction in the minimum denomination on MMC.s would, in the second halt of 1980, produce a. loss of 0.23 of 1 percent on assets for S&Ls in the Boston district, with over 57 percent of S&Ls having a. negative income. It would produce a. loss of 0.25 percent of 1 percent on assets in the New York district, with over 52 percent of S&Ls in this district having a. negative income. The impact on mutual savings banks, concentrated in the Northeast, would be particularly devastating.

I thought you might be interested in a.n analysis of the effect of the $1,000 provision done by Home Savings and Loan Association in California., the country's largest savings institution. Using conservative estimates, their analysis indicates a. cost increase of 70 basis points in 1980 1f the provision were adopted. This represents a. substantial de­crease in income for this institution, on the order of 75 percent.

Over the long run, we remain committed to a. phasing-out of rate control. I stated this in my support of S. 1347, which, at that time, did not include the provision to reduce the minimum denomination. However, any such phasing-out, including a reduction in the minimum denomination on MMCs, must take account of the extremely difficult finan­cial environment facing thrifts.

The information contained in this analysis was obtained before the recent Fed actions. If data had been available, the results would have been even more devastating.

Sincerely, JAY JANIS ••

AMENDMENT NO. 557

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. STEVENSON (for himself, Mr. PERCY, Mr. TSONGAS, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MOR­GAN, Mr. MOYNIHAM, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. LEVIN, a.nd Mr. DuRENBERGER) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to H.R. 4986, supra.

NOTICES OF HEARINGS SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. President, I wish to ann_ounce that the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has scheduled oversight hearings on the ~th-In-Lending enforcement activi­ties o~ the Federal financial regulatory agencies. The hearings will be held on Wednesday, October 31 and Thursday, November 1 at 10 a.m. in room 5302 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. If you ?ave any questions regarding the heanngs, please contact the subcommit­tee at 224-7391.

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

~ Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President I would hke to announce for the information of the Senate and the public, the scheduling of a public hearing before the Commit­tee on Energy and Natural Resources on the nominations of the following:

Dr. Ruth M. Davis of Maryland to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy <Re­source Applications).

Dr. William W. Lewis of the District of Columbia to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy <Policy and Evaluation).

Charles B. Curtis Esq. of Maryland to be reaopointed as a member of the Fed-eral Energy Regulatory Commission.

The hearing is scheduled for Wednes­day, October 31, beginning at 8 a.m. in

room 3110 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. : · •· ·

Those wishing to testify . or who' wish to submit written statements for · the hearing record should write to the Com­mittee on Energy and Natural Resources, room 3106 Dirksen Senate Office Build­ing, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information regarding the hearing, you may wish to con tact Jessie Mackenzie of the committee staff on extension 47147.e COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES

•Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, the Committee on Labor and Human Re­sources will hold a hearing on S. 1089, the "ERISA Simplification Act of 1979." This legislation, similar in intent to por­tions of S. 209, the "ERISA Improve­ments Act of 1979," is different in its approach toward achieving improve­ments Act of 1979,'' is different in its approach towards achieving improve­ments in the administration of ERISA and reduction of ERISA paperwork. The committee's efforts to attain these goals will be assisted by comments on S. 1089 from witnesses and others in connection with the hearing process.

The hearing will be held on Wednes­day, November 7, 1979, in room 4232 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, begin­ning at 9: 30 a.m.

Requests to testify or present state­ments for the record should be directed to Steven J. Sacher, special counsel to the committee, (202) 224-1097.•

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Com­mittee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today beginning at 2 p .m. to hold a hear­ing on the SALT II treaty and protocol.

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

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT

THE RHODESIAN CONFLICT e Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, the Rhodesian confiict is at a critical turn­ing point. If there is any hope left for a peaceful solution to this tragic war, it lies in the London Conference now being held under the aus!1ices of the British Government. The Carter administra­tion's policy toward Rhodesia has un­fortunately equated conditions in Rho­desia with those formerlv encountered in the American South. Quite to the con­trary, the Rhodesian conflict is not sim­ply one of majority rule. It cannot be regarded as analogous to the American civil rights movement with its slogans of "black power; one man--one vote; white vs. black." It is rather a. more complex problem, that is deeply based on tribal warfare and conflicting loyalties.

The new black majority government of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is being threatened not only by a massive guerrilla war, but by these traditional tribal divisions dat­ing back to 19th century battles between the Matabele and the Ma.shona, and the animosities left over these clashes.

As one ponders the future of this un­f ortuna.te country, dangers as well as op­portunities come to mind. Among the former, tribalism may continue to play a detrimental risk by preventing a peace­ful settlement and the return of pros­perity. In this context, I want to call the attention of my colleagues to an article appearing in the Salisbury Herald, Fri­day. October 5, 1979, recount'.ng of clashes between the tribal forces support­ing the leaders of the Patriotic Front.

The article indicates that a prevail­ing view of the Rhodesian conflict is in­accurate. This view holds that the Pa­triotic Front is effectively united by com­mon ideology. Actually hostility based on tribal differences is paramount. The aforementioned article deserves the at­tention of my colleagues and I hereby re­quest that it be printed in the RECORD.

The article follows: PF "GOT THE HELL IN"

ZANLA terrorists loyal to Robert Mugabe and the ZIPRA forces of Joshua Nkomo ap­pear set for a major confrontation to settle long-simmering tribal differences.

Senior security men say there 1s growing evidence of a. drama.tic escalation of fighting between the two groups, ma.inly in south and south-west Ma.ta.beleland-a. traditional ZAPU stronghold-where ZANLA is seeking ascendancy.

Instances that have come to light: ZANLA leaders a.re instructing their troops

to seek out and destroy ZIPRA forces. ZIPRA terrorists are encouraging sym­

pathetic tribespeople to report any ZANLA presence in their areas to the security forces.

ZANLA are increasingly resorting to beat­ings, torture and murder to win support.

ZIPRA ls pledged to a. no-holds-barred war against the ZANLA "enemy".

The information was gleaned from cap­tured terrorists and others who have sur­rendered-all of whom had been in inter­faction clashes-and from captured docu­ments.

It is difiicult to assess accurately the full extent of the conflict because contacts be­tween the rival groups often occur in remote areas or sparsely populated tribal trust lands. Both sides mop up after clashes, burying their dead and removing the injured.

"They have obviously got the hell in with each other and are giving it a. full go" a. se­curity forces spokesman said. He confirmed the number of clashes was escalating.

ZANLA's determination to gain supremacy 1s indicated by the number of men moved into southern Mata.belela.nd, where it is now numerically superior.

CAMPAIGN

There is evidence that the campaign 1s be­ing directed by ZANLA's hierarchy, and in­tell1gence sources indicate that on Septem­ber 15, Rex Tichafa, a. senior member of the Mozambique War Council, was drafted into the Tull area. to plan a.n intensified war against ZIPRA strongholds.

Documents captured by security forces also provide proof of top-line involvement.

ZANLA terrorists who have surrendered indicated this week that since entering th& country they had been involved in more contacts with ZIPRA than with security forces.

One, Chida. Moyo, was in 10 clashes with ZIPRA in the Kezi and Gwa.nda. areas from February to May. Six ZIPRA and five ZANLA men died. Seven ZANLA terrorists were wounded.

He said his group had been constantly subjected to surprise attacks by ZIPRA act-ing on information supplied by the locals.

"Some of the engagements were short. In others we stayed a.nd !ought. The attacka

29328 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979 were mostly lnitlated by ZIPRA. We only attacked for revenge."

Robert Mbunkunye (29), entered the coun­try ln April.

"I Joined a group that had been operating here for some time. They told me they had been 1n numerous skirmishes with ZIPRA.

"Before giving myself up, I was involved 1n two fights with them. We were told to fight ZIPRA. They were considered the enemy as much as the security forces."

Cheetah (25), was involved in two con­tacts with ZIPRA in the Gwanda area 1n May and July. Both were attacks on ZANLA base camps.

He said tribal differences were the main cause of the inter-faction fighting.

"We don't llke them. They do not Uke us." A ZANLA terrorist, captured this year, said

that in April hls group was involved ln a clash with ZIPRA, ln which one ZANLA terrorist was killed.

In June, they discovered two ZIPRA ter­rorists in a kraal which they surrounded. They opened fire, kllling the ZIPRA ter­rorists.

Another captured ZANLA man said time was spent trying to persuade tribesmen to support ZANLA and forget traditional loy­alty to ZIPRA.

In May, his group went to an area to in­vestigate a clash between ZANLA and ZIPRA. Several ZAPU supporters, thought to have given information to ZIPRA, were executed.

A Police patrol in the Gwanda area was recently preceded by a ZIPRA group telllng locals to give the Pollce information about ZANLA.

And there have been instances where locals, frightened to divulge information to c;ecu­rity forces for fear of retribution by ZANLA have been beaten by ZIPRA.

The feed-back has resulted in intensified contact between ZANLA and the security forces and spiralling ZANLA casualties.

ZANLA, frustrated in efforts to win locals on their side, has now resorted to a reign of terror to gain support.

On September 26, at the Benfer Estates in the Um.zlngwane farming area about 30km from Beltbrldge, terrorists took 40 men, women and children from a farm compound. Those who did not escape were ordered to strip.

One of the men, Davison Moyo, said: "They told us to Ile on the ground. The terrorists set fire to plastic fert111ser bags and dropped them on the men's private parts. I was badly burned. The pain was very bad.

"The people should hate them for what they did to us."

One young mother, Marabunl Muleya, was ordered to leave her child behind when she was taken.

She said: "They were bad to us. They set fire to the women's clothing after they had stripped and dropped it on their bodies. One woman was held down by the terrorists. They forced a burning stick into her gen­itals"

The woman said the terrorists told them they should not work on the farm but return to the tribal trust lands to grow food for ZANLA.

TORT'OllED

Captured documents compiled by ZANLA indicated that on August 8, tn the Gwanda area, a 22-year-old woman, Selina, was tor­tured to give information about ZIPRA.

The documents said: "She told the com­rades of some masses who were working hand in hand with ZIPRA. The comrades accused Selina's brother of being a. member of ZIPRA and that she had moved her home into an area where ZIPRA operated.

"She was sentenced to death. The com­rades killed her by beating her with stones."

Another document records that on August 7. again in the Gwanda area, a tribesman,

Alias (32), married with children, was ac­cused of being a sell-out. He was tortured.

He was accused of sending his son to in­form ZIPRA that ZANLA was in the area.

"He was sentenced to death. There were 14 people in the v1llage when the comrades stoned Alias to death. The action shocked the masses, who ran away."e

SENATOR KENNEDY ADDRESSES THE HUMAN CRISIS IN CAMBODIA

•Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, there is a growing consensus in Congress and in the Nation that the United States must play a major role in the interna­tional humanitarian relief effort now underway in Cambodia. We must act to deliver food to the hungry and medicines for the victims of disease and epidemics. And we must use our diplomatic leverage to help lessen the basic political tensions which are the cause of the enormous human crisis which threatens the sur­vival of the Cambodian people. No one in America has done more to help form this consensus and to bring these prob­lems to our attention than Senator KEN­NEDY. In an address this morning at Georgetown University, Senator KEN­NEDY gave a realistic and eloquent de­scription of this major tradegy. He called for a six-point program of action which I endorse and fully support. Mr. Presi­dent, Senator KENNEDY has combined the best aspects of America's humanitarian traditions with the need for creative di­plomacy. I know I speak for all my col­leagues by recognizing the Massachusetts Senator for his excellent proposals and for his strong moral concern.

I ask that the Senator's remarks, en­titled "The Human Crisis in Cambodia." be printed in the RECORD for the benefit of my colleagues.

The text of the speech follows: ADDRESS OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY

I welcome this opportunity to address the graduate students of Georgetown University. Under the leadership of Father Healy, Georgetown 1s known throughout the world for its excellence in learning and its com­mitment to the basic moral values of our world society.

My subject today 1s a massive human trag· edy that ls taking place half way around the world in an area the size of Missouri, the tragedy that ls engulfing the people of Cam­bodia. I know that many of you here today are deeply concerned about that tragedy. I comm!lnd Georgetown's own involvement in the growing world-wide effort to alleviate the suffering.

Georgetown students are now on their way to Indochina to work with the voluntary agencies, to bring some measure of comfort and assistance to the enormous number of starving and homeless refugees who need our help. By their unselfish work, the stu­dents are also bringing credit to this uni­versity, demonstrating again the meaning of the truth that individuals and institution:> can make a difference 1f they care enough to get involved.

Help for Cambodia. from individuals and voluntary groups 1s critical at this time. But so is help from governments, including the government of the United States.

I come here today deeply tro:ubled by the past indifference of our nation and our gov· ernment to the tragedy in Cambodia. Archi­bald MacLeish has written:

"When the fact ls disassociated from the feel of the tact in the minds of an entire

people and in the common mind of a civiliza­tion-that people---that clvlllzation-ls in danger."

The people of this nation and the leaders of this nation must begin to feel the genuine horror that ls the dally existence of m1111ons of Cambodians. The awesome scale of the present suffering alone should be ca.use enough for America's concern. Our baste decency and humanitarian instincts as a nation are being tested. We cannot stand mute in the face of a calamity of such un­speakable proportions, a tragedy of dee.th and human misery greater than any the world has known since the days of the holocaust.

But there ls an additional reason for Amer­ica's concern. Cambodia ls on our conscience. This nation cannot wash its hands of the people of that land. Of course, the Cambo­dian tragedy has been compounded many times over by domestic tyrants and foreign invaders in recent years. Whatever the ulti­mate verdict of history may be on the degree of respons1b111ty the United States must bear for the present tragedy in Cambodia, we cannot escape the moral consequences of our actions during the Vietnam War, which helped to launch the descent into hell of that once beautiful and peaceful land.

It ls said that Cambodia ls fast becoming a country without children. Infants and young children are dying in Cambodia today, dying from starvation and disease, dying from causes that could easily be prevented it only the world would care.

What can we tell our own children about the deaths? What can we tell ourselves? That the world looked the other way to this holocaust of the 1970's, as it did to another holocaust of the 1940's? That diplomats de­layed while children died? That governments could not agree on simple steps to launch the missions of relief?

Unless more ls done, and done now, mll­Uons of men, women and children may die. The very existence of the Cambodian people may be extinguished.

Already, the nation has lost nearly he.If its population from the ravages of war and the barbarity of the Pol Pot regime. Now, Cambodia faces famine and the relentless spread of disease among its remaining peo­ple.

We have known the statistics for many months. The figures are among the worst the world has ever seen. From the field reports our Senate Judiciary Committee has re­ceived, it ls clear that three and a halt mil­lion Cambodians now face severe starvation. Over half of them will die in the next few months unless we act.

Over 250,000 sick and starving refugees have fled into Thailand to escape the !amine and the violence. Relief workers along the border predict this number will soon be doubled as the famine spreads.

In the few camps and towns that can be seen across the border, 300 Cambodians are now dying every day.

Voluntary agency and international relief omctals report that acute famine exists in northeastern and central Cambodia. They report the entire country ls on the move in a fearful and frenzied search for food. Roads are clogged with starving people, vainly seek­ing food, wandering toward their certain death.

Our intell1gence reports estimate that the current harvest wm be less than 20 percent of the normal level. This drastic shortfall in food production will be compounded by the complete breakdown of Cambodia's trans-portation system, and by the continuing warfare in many areas of the country.

They also report that disease ls rampant-­bubonic plague, malaria, dysentery--<liseases especially fatal to infants and young children.

America and other nations in the interna­tional ·community have known of the Cam­bodian crisis for many months. We have

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE ' 29329 known since la.st spring from our own intel­ligence reports of the imminent shortfall in food production. We have known for many weeks of the spread of disease and fa.mine.

According to a.n official report received by our Embassy in Thailand: "The physical condition of newly arrived refugees over the pa.st few days wa.s among the worst we have witnessed. Assuming that only the strongest a.re able to make the trek into Thai territory, it appears that those stm inside Cambodia. a.re reaching the point where it is no longer possible for them to survive."

The United States government had that report on September 17, over a. month a.go But during that time, and throughout the recent months, our government was more concerned with the credentials fight over Cambodia's seat a.t the United Nations, than with the issue of ma.ss starvation among its people. Our government wa.s more concerned with which dicta.tor-Pol Pot or Heng Sa.m­rin--sits in the United Nations, than with the many children dying in the nation they purport to lead.

La.st April, when the warning signs were already completely clear, I called for a.n in­ternational conference on Indochina.. I sug­gested that the United States, Japan, and the ASEAN countries should meet to help Cambodia., before conditions deteriorated beyond recall and a.n overwhelming refugee crisis developed. Other countries joined in similar calls-including Brita.in, Sweden, Australia., and Japan. But the voice of the United States has been most notable by its silence.

In June, I met with Secretary Genera.I Waldheim a.t the United Nations in New York to express my sense of urgency a.bout the crisis. On June 18th, I ca.lied a.gain for a.n International effort to deal with the mounting refugee crisis, and to support the United Nations effort. I urged the United States government to undertake a.n Immedi­ate new Initiative, and to answer the cries for help with Immediate food and other re­llef supplies.

In Geneva. la.st July, an lnterna.tlona:I con­ference wa.s convened on Indochina.. Under Secretary General Waldheim and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, that con­ference achieved a. major breakthrough. It responded to the plight or the Vietnamese "boat people" and generated new interna­tional support and participation in the refu­gee program. But the subject of Cambodia. was dropped from the agenda. of the confer­ence, without protest by the United Sta.tes, and with no a..<>Surance it would be con­sidered later.

I raised this question with Secretary Cyrus Vance at a. hea.rlng by the Senate Judiciary Committee later in July. Mr. Vance a.greed that fa.mine threatened in Cambodia., and that there was an urgent need to a.ct. He sa.ld that, although we faced many diploma.tic hurdles, we would be wtll­ing to work with others to begin a. major international effort !or relle!.

But three months have passed, with no action by the government. Incredibly, the only movement was the heroic effort of the Red Cross and UNICEF to do the job alone.

Fina.Uy, In an effort to expedite U.S. action, Congress Itself began to a.ct. On October 11th, the Senate amended the foreign aid blll to urge that all available funds be used for the crisis in Cambodia, with a. specific request for an initial $30 mlllion contribution. To­day, three members of the Senate-Jim Sasser of Tennessee, Max Ba.ucus of Mon ta.na. and John Danforth of Missouri-are actu­ally In Cambodia., prodding America. Into more effective actions for relief.

This afternoon, I understand that the President plans to announce that the $30 mill1on is a.t last to be provided.

That action ls a welcome step. But it ts

only a. first installment, compared to the _ neeQ. that now exists. The Red Crosa, UNICEF,

and the U.N. Jiigh Commissioner for Refu­gees have alrea.dy appealed for funds to deal with the crisis.

We must take essential steps now if we are to stave off mass starvation in Cambodia. and a.void even graver dangers to the peace in Southeast Asia.:

First, dollars cannot do the job alone. We must begin a.n immediate ma.sslve airlift of food and medicine to Cambodia., In conjunc­tion with the work of the Red Cross and the other voluntary agencies already in the field. In a. similar crisis in 1975, the United States alrlifted over 400 tons a day of rice to the city of Phnom Penh. We can do the same agaln In 1979, to ea.se the much more drastic crisis now ta.king place before our eyes.

Second, we must be prepared to supple­ment these Immediate actions with incre·ased ca.sh assistance. It is estimated that up to $200 mllllon in food and medicine and other supplies may be needed over the next nine months. Together, America and other na­tions must Insure the need is met.

Third, we should press urgently !or an in­ternational conference on Cambodia by all concerned nations. The Geneva. Conference la.st summer catalyzed effective international action to deal with the pllght of the boat people. A similar conference now could gen­erate prompt action on Cambodia, and pre­vent vast new deaths from starvation, dis­ease, and the bayonets of brutal dictators.

Fourth, we should use every possible dip­lomatic means to achieve a military cease­fire In Cambodia.. We should seek peace, neu­tra.Uty, and Independence for Cambodia and Laos, with effective international guarantees. Without a political solution of this kind, the unending flow of refugees from Indo­china. will go on. I do not minimize the difficulty of this effort. But it should receive the highest priority of American diplomacy, and it should Involve the highest leaders of this nation.

Fifth, we should reinforce this interna­tional action wl th strong pressure on Hanoi and Phnom Penh to join In resolving the crisis. Our allies in Europe and Asia. should also join the effort. We should challenge the Chinese and the Soviets to cooperate. The approaches should be high-level and direct. We cannot afford a. policy of diplomatic non­lnvolvement or under-Involvement. Weak or Ineffective action now will only reduce America's credlb111ty further in the area, and undermine our diplomacy with other nations.

Sixth, we must Increase our efforts in Thai­land to cope with the rising tide of refugees. We must also encourage lnterna.tiona.l efforts to resettle Cambodian and other Indochinese refugees. For the vast majority of refugees, we must work to create conditions permit­ting them to return to their homes In peace. For countless others, however, resettlement must take place in other lands. The United States has already enacted legislation to fa.clllta.te this action, and other countries should be encouraged to make a. greater effort on their own.

The human crisis of Cambodia cries out !or urgent action by peoples and nations in every corner of this earth. It ls time to end the long period of delay and neglect. We can no longer avert our eyes.

As we act to end the tragedy of Cambodia, let us remember the words of the Bengali poet Tagore, who wrote, "Life ls given to us. We earn It by helping to give it."

This rich nation once brought death and devastation to Cambodia.. Now, we have a unique opportunity to bestow the gift of life. The tragedy is upon us. The hollow eyes of children peer out from our morning news­paper. Their faces are pressed against our window, waiting for an answer.e

IMPACT STATEMENT FOR S. 1873, THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DIS­ABILITY ACT

• Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, on October 10, 1979, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported S. 1873, a bill to es­tablish a procedure for the processing of complaints directed against Federal judges, and for other purposes.

Rule 29.5 of the rules of the Senate requires that reports accompanying legislation contain an evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation. Through an oversight, such a statement was not included in the report on S. 1873.

Mr. President, I state for the record that it is the judgment of the Judiciary Committee that enactment of S. 1873 will result in a minimal amount of additional regulation.

This proposed legislation, if enacted, will efiect or regulate approximately 1,500 judicial officers; create 13 attorney and secretarial positions; 11 circuit judi­cial councils; and the Administrative Of­fice of the U.S. Courts. Each attorney and secretary will be needed to process approximately 177 of the 2,300 annually projected complaints. Projections of the number of complaints that will be filed are uncertain. For purposes of this legis­lation, 3 percent of the number of pris­oner petitions filed along with the num­ber of criminal defendants convicted was used as an estimating base. The circuit judicial councils will be required to meet on the average of six times a year to act upon these complaints. The Administra­tive Office of the U.S. Courts will be re­sponsible for providing administrative, professional, and financial assistance to the judicial councils. The administrative office will also be responsible for the preparation of reports required by the House of Representatives, including the annual report showing the number of complaints filed with each judicial coun­cil and the action taken on each com­plaint. Two additional attorney positions and two secretarial positions will be re­quired in the administrative office in order to prepare these reports.

The economic impact of such regula­tion on these parties is as fallows:

Cost estimate for 1981 A. Circuit judicial councils:

Miscellaneous Expenses ____________ $81, 600 Salaries and expenses of 13 attor-

neys and 13 secretaries ___________ 559, 000 Travel of judicial council members__ 46, 000 Contractual court reporting________ 13, 000

B. "Court"/Admlnlstratlve Office: Salaries and expenses of 2 attorneys

and 2 secretaries ________________ _ Travel for 5-judge court sessions ___ _ Contractual court reporting ______ _ Counsel fees ______________________ _ Witness fees and travel to de novo

hearings ------------------------

86,800 20,000 2,500

25,000

28,500

Total cost (2,300 complaints) -$861, 900

The cost of prisoner travel and U.S. marshals' expenses would be the respon­sibility of the Department of Justice and have not been included in these esti­mates.

I further state for the record that the provisions of S. 1873 providing for the im-

29330 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 24, 1979 position of sanctions against members of the Federal judiciary will have mini­mal impact on the personal privacy of the affected individuals. Sanctions that may be imPoSed under the act are au­thorized only if the judicial omcer is or has been unable to discharge emciently the duties of his or her omce by reason of mental or physical disability, or is or has been engaged in conduct inconsistent with the effective and expeditious admin­istration of justice. These provisions, however, will not excise the rights of the disciplined judge, a public figure, who in accepting the Federal judicial omce, must yield to some extent privacy rights relating to those matters which are le­gitimately within the scope of the public interest.

In addition, there is insumcient factual information available at this time to make determinations on the amount of additional paperwork that will result from regulations promulgated pursuant to this bill.•

TRIBUTE TO GENERAL JONES • Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, the October 29, 1979, issue of Time maga­zine carries on its cover the picture of Gen. David C. Jones, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This issue of Time includes a far-ranging article on the Na­tion's defense posture with a special es­say on General Jones.

I have long been impressed with Gen­eral Jones' patriotism and his commit­ment to the national interest. I do not always agree with h~m on defense issues, but I have never doubted his ability and his dedication.

I am proud of the fact that he is a native of South Dakota. As was the case with me, General Jones left college to join the Army Air Corps in the spring of 1942. He has maintained his interest in flying and in the larger concern of airpower ever since.

I ask that the essay on General Jones be printed in the RECORD. I also ask that the balance of the Time magazine article to which I have referred to be printed in the RECORD.

The articles follow: HE Is ExAsPERATED WITH PEOPLE

ABOUT HALF THE TIME

"He gets into an airplane and he just doesn't know how to turn toward the passen­ger compartment," says a ~enior aide about General David C. Jones. Indeed, dunlng his frequent trips around the U.S. and to many parts of the globe, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff invariably takes charge of the plane's controls.

Heading straight for th"e cockpit is a habit that Jones acquired during his 37 years in the Air Force. But he is no mere hot pl.lot. Cool, meticulous, low-key and dogged, Jones typifies the new breed of mm tary managers. Explains a senior Pentagon aide: "The era is over of flamboyant combat heroes rising to the top of the m111tary. The m111tary is no longer going to wdn the budget game through image and authority. The brass are going to win it by knowing their stuff and knowing how to present it."

At this, Jones ls an ace. During the cur­rent SALT II ratlflcatlon hearings, he has ma.de numerous trips up Capitol Hllll to testify. Leaning intently across the witness table, with rows of ribbons glistening on his four-starred uniform, he has persuasively

argued the mmtary case: that SALT n is acceptable if the U.S. increases dts arsenal to counter the growing Soviet threat. To a sig­nificant degree, it has been the clarity and force of Jones' arguments that transformed these hearings into a wide-ranging analysis of national defense needs. The Jones touch was also evident in a successful campaign against the Office of Management and Budget; OMB wanted to ldmit mmtary pay raises to 5 %, but Jones got 7%. He has been equally persuasive at the White House, where he helped sell Jimmy Carter on the MX mo­bile ICBM.

Jones does not win every argument, of course. Indeed, he stlll bears the scars of the fight over the B-1 supersonic bomber. Carter canceled that project in June 1977, when ex­Bomber Pilot Jones was Air Force Chief of Staff and the plane's leading advocate. Carter's surprise decision shook the Air Force. Its generals immediately began talk­ing of mounting a campaign in Congress to save the bomber and they looked to Jones to lead the attack. Jones concluded instead that such a campaign would have almost no chance of succeeding. "That was an agoniz­ing decision," he recalls today. "Maybe we could have made a better case, but the Presi­dent had made his decision."

Some Air Force hard-liners, stlll smarting from the B-1 experience, have insinuated that the J.C.S. chairmanship was the reward Jones got for going along with the White House. To be sure, Carter, like most Presi­dents, prizes team players. But the main element in Jones' selection was the problem­solving managerial talent that he had dem­onstrated during his four years as head of the Air Force and prior to that as com­mander in chief of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe between 1971 and '74.

What was more unusual about Jones' ap­pointment as the nation's top soldier was that he neither attended a service academy nor finished college. A native of South Dakota, he dropped out of Minot State in North Dakota in April 1942 to join the Army Air Corps. Ten months later he had his pilot's wings as a second lieutenant. To his dismay, instead of being sent into combat, he spent the war in the U.S. training other pilots. His combat turn came during the Korean War, during which he flew B-29 bomber missions over North Korea.

His first important staff job came in 1955 at the Strategic Air Command, where he served two years as an aide to its legendary Chief, General Curtis LeMay. Jones refers to LeMay as "my mentor." In 1964, at age 43, Jones decided to learn to fly fighters. He outperformed many of the students who were half his age and went on to command an F-4 Phantom wing. Major posts in NATO, Viet Nam and back at SAC later earned him his stars.

As Chairman, Jones works at least a dozen hours dally, many of th.1m at his stand-up desk in his spacious second floor Pentagon office. Not directly involved in commanding troops, he primarily oversees and coordi­nates the four service chiefs. He took a speed-reading course to help him through the mountains of paper work, and he writes memos fluently with both right and left hands. "I do it totally unconsciously," he says of this unusual ambidexterity. "It de­pends on how I'm sitting or standing."

Reserved and dignified, Jones is not known to slap many backs or crack many jokes. No one but a few retired generals, especially LeMay, would dare call him "Davey"-at least not to his face. Explains former Air Force Vice Chief of Staff William McBride: "I've never seen him slam a desk or shout at anybody. But at the same time, he is ex­asperated with people about half the time. It is hard to work for him if you're mediocre. He demands that everybody be as good as he is---and that's pretty tough." But Jones can also show tenderness. When ailing, wheel-

chair-bound Omar Bradley, 86, visited the Pentagon in July 1978, Jones personally took the nation's only living five-start general on a nostalgic 45-minute tour of the headquar­ters.

Jones tries to play racketball every day and tries to jog a couple of miles daily. "I ran before it became popular," he says. He and his wife Lois (they were married in 1942) live in the Chairman's sprawling official resi­dence at Fort Myer, in Virginia, a short dis­tance from the Pentagon. Their two daugh­ters are living on the West Coast, and their son David, 18, is attending Auburn Univer­sity in Alabama. "He tells me he wants to be an Air Force pilot," the Chairman says of his son, and then adds with a smile, "If he doesn't, he'll have to go to work." For one who does not seem to regard the Air Force as work, David Jones has done quite a job.

THE PRICE OF Pown Through a driving rain that swept the

Cuban coast, 2,100 U.S. Marines stormed into Guantanamo Bay, the tiny U.S. m111-tary base that perches like a lighthouse on the eastern tip of Fidel Castro's island for­tress. Most landed by helicopter from sea­borne troop carriers, but a quarter of the force hit the beach in more classic Marine style, splashing ashore aboard tracked am­phibious vehicles. Though their rifles, tanks and howitzers were unloaded-no live am­munition was carried throughout the op­eration-their performance was intended by Jimmy Carter to be a firm and well-publi­cized demonstration of Washington's concern about the presence of a Soviet combat bri­gade in Cuba.

But that was only one of a pride of U.S. mmtary maneuvers round the world last week. At Grafenwohr, West Germany, ·a U.S. tank battalion roared into combat exercises after having been fl.own in from Fort Hood, Texas, on a "no notice" emergency drlll. At Florida's Eglin Air Force Base, 20,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen prepared to launch "Bold Eagle 80," a nine-day maneuver to practice coming to the aid of an invaded ally. In the Indian Ocean, a U.S. Navy seven-ship carrier task force joined up with a five­ship Middle East force to show the flag.

All these military activities were designed to maintain the U.S. readiness needed both to protect the nation and meet its far­fiung obligations. But just how well the Pentagon would be able to carry out its awe­some responsib111ties is a matter of growing concern in Washington. Both in the Ad­ministration and in Congress, officials con­front a question that will not go away: Could the U.S. successfully counter a major Soviet m111tary thrust, no matter where it came? If the answers seems doubtful, then the next question inevitably is: What must be done to ensure the nation's security?

Those two related questions have domi­nated the Senate debate on ratification of the SALT II accord. More generally, they have been infi.uencing the way other coun­tries view the U.S. as a world power. The search for answers has already caused one of the most far-ranging U.S. defense contro­versies since World War II.

The debate began stirring in scholarly journals, inside think tanks and on Capitol Hlll. It has assumed a. heightened sense ot urgency during the SALT hearings, in which both expert witnesses and Senators have been expressing grave concern about the sta.te of the nation's military strength. Armed with volumes of facts and statistics, they have convinced a. growing number of citizens that the U.S. can no longer afford to postpone tough and costly defense decisions if it In­tends to remain a superpower. As a result, a consensus has been emerging that favors a stronger U.S. mmtary estabUshment, some­thing that would have seemed impossible

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 29331

only a few years a.go. Badly-and un!a.1rly­acarred by the Viet Nam War, the armed aervlces were !orced into a period of re­trenchment, receiving little popula.r backing !or their expensive needs. But the national mood and the international realities are both changing.

In the coming months, the focus o! <the debate wm be the fiscal 1981 de!ense budget, the final details o! which a.re now being drafted in highly technical but often heated sessions behind closed doors at the Pentagon, White House and Otnce of Management and Budget. Congress wlll get a look at this dra!t in a few weeks, two months before the rest of the federal budget ls shown to Capitol H111. This unusual preview, at first resisted by the White House, is an attempt by the Adminis­traition to prove that it will increase defense spending. Severa.I key Senators have been threatening to oppose SALT II unless more money is earmarked for modernization and expansion of the U.S. arsenal. This, they say, is the price of power.

A key participant in the mounting debate is the omcer who must plead the Pentagon's case, the top-ranking man among the na­tion's generals and admirals and the only mmtary personage who can carry his argu­ments directly into the President's Oval Of­fice. He is David C. Jones, 58, the cool, per­suasive Air Force general who serves as ninth Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Sta.ff. In an interview with Time Pentagon Correspond­ent Don Sider, Jones stressed that he ls more worried about U.S. security today than when he became chairman 15 months a~o. Because of the "continued m111tary bulldup by the Soviet Union," he says, there ls a "need !or us to do more." Fully in agreement is Jones' civilian boss at the Pentagon, Secretary o! Defense Harold Brown: "The gap between U.S. and Soviet de!ense expenditures cannot continue to expand without a dangerous tllt in the relevant balances of oower and a weak­ening of the overall U.S. deterrent."

The loudest alann. has been sounding on Capitol Hlll. Senator Sam Nunn, the Georgia. Democrat who is emerging as one of the most 1n1luent1al m111ta.ry experts in Congress, has warned, "We 1n this country have gone to sleep, [while] the Soviet Union has d111gently, consistently, steadily set about the task of building the most awesome mllLtary machine mankind has ever seen." As a result, argues Arizona Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, the U.S. is "no longer t.he No. 1 mmtary coun­try 1n the world." Rather, it is "No. 2, and not a very good No. 2."

What many critics of current defense poll­cles want ls an increase in mllltary spending of 5 % annually (after adjustment for infla­tion) for at least the next five years. Such an increase has been endorsed by General Jones. Harold Brown, however, has argued that a 3 % boost might prove adequate; this is the rate of annual growth pledged by the U.S. and the other NATO states last year. But Brown has also said, "It may not be feasible to do what we need to do with the 3 % . If not, we'll ask for more." Brown also has warned, "The last thing I would want to see ls some unsustalnably large increase in defense budgets over a very short time, fol­lowed by no increase or by decreases over a much longer perlOcl. We've experienced that too often in the past."

Even the lower 3 % figure means b1111ons of extra dollars in mmtary costs at a time when the White House has been struggling to trim the estimated $29 b1111on federal budget deficit in order to fight lnfia.tlon. The de­fense outlays for fiscal 1980, which began Oct. l, wm be about $122 billion, although Congress and the Administration have not yet definitely agreed on a figure. Simply to maintain this level !or the next fiscal year, compensating only !or an estimated infla­tion rate Qf 10%, the .Pentagon would need

an extra $12.2 bllllon. A 3% hike, after ln­fiatlon, would require spending $4 b1llion over that; a 5% real boost would mean yet an addltlona.l $2.6 billion outlay.

Other critics charge that a nation in which 25 mlllion cltlzens are classified as living below the omclal poverty line can ill afford huge increases in mllitary spending. The $2 blllion to $3 billion required to bulld one new nuclear carrier, says Democratic Representative Patricia Schroeder of Colo­rado, could support 1,000 New York schools for a year. The $4.3 blllion needed to bulld 860 miles of track for the proposed MX missile could finance all the nation's mass­translt systems for two years. Even the $60 mlllion used to bulld one C-5-A transport could feed 12,000 fam111es of four for a year. Asks Schroeder: "How do we let them get away with that?" Somewhat more cau­tiously, Senator Edward Kennedy, who now supports an increase in defense spending, has warned against asking "the poor. the black, the slck, the young, the cities and the unemployed to bear a disproportionate share."

If the confiicting demands for military and social-welfare spending cannot be rec­onciled, the two alternatives are to increase taJtes, a measure that most Americans strongly oppose, or increase deficit financing, which would worsen the lnfiatlon that is already ravaging the economy. The debate over the Pentagon budget is thus not sim­ply a debate over defense requirements­though that ls fundamental and important enough-but also a debate over national priorities, over how best to allot resources among the nation's pressing social, economic and security needs.

General Jones and his allies do not fiinch at any such challenges. Although the finan­cial requests of the mmtary appear stagger­ing, Jones argues that "we are spending less on defense in real terms today than we did at the tlme of the '62 Cuban mlsslle crisis." He ls right. When reckoned in "constant dollars," to avoid the distortion of infiation, the estimated U.S. defense outlays for fiscal 1980 are just about what they were in the strikingly low mllitary budgets of the last Eisenhower yea.rs and lower than in most years since then. An even more telling com­parison ls the one between Pentagon spend­ing and some key economic indexes. In 1955 defense spending claimed 58.1 % of federal expenditures and equaled 10.5% of the gross national product. Ten years later, it had shrunk to 40.1 % of federal spending and 7.2% of G.N.P. In the current fiscal year, it ls down to 23 % o! federal spending and 4.9% of G.N.P., the lowest lt has been since the early 1940s.

Wha.t makes today's mmtary budget ap­pear gargantuan ls inflation. The Pentagon has not been immune to the rising prices that plague all Americans. As a consumer of 170 mllllon bbl. of fuel annually (con­servation measures have cut that from 193 milllon bbl. in 1974) , the military has been extraordinarily hard-hit by last spring's OPEC price jump, which added $888 million to the Pentagon's fuel b111. Other costs have simllarly skyrocketed. :rnfiation has pushed up the salary-and-benefits cost of both unl­!ormed personnel e.nd clvlllan employees (the unl!ormed-to-civman employee ratio ls 2 milllon to 900,000).

The steady decline in the share of U.S. na­tional wealth devoted to arms would be a welcome development l! the same had hap­pened to the Soviets. Instead, they continue to pour an estimated 11 % to 13% of G.N.P. into defense. Today they spend from one­fifth to two-fifths more than the U.S. does on the milltary. (The range in estimate is so broad and imprecise because ruble costs In the u.s.s.R. are hard to convert to dollar outlays in .the U.S.) While the Pentagon 1s

just now asking for at least a 3 % larger budget, Soviet annual increases have been at about 5 % for the past 15 years. Says Harold Brown: "Through all our negotia­tions with the Soviets, they have kept on lncreaslng their mllitary efforts, carrying out what they had planned to do e.nd beginning new programs." Overall, Moscow has spent about $100 billion more than the U.S. on arms ln the past decade.

The result of these divergent. U.S.-Soviet trends was lnevltable: a substantial Soviet ge.ln in the balance o! forces. The comfort­able strategic superiority that Washington enjoyed only ha.If a dozen some years ago has now been replaced by, at best, nuclear parity. The Soviet's deploy more land-based lntercontlnental belllstlc misslles than the U.S. (1,400 vs. 1,054), and more submarine misslle-la.unchlng tubes (950 vs. 656). By 1985 they could nearly close completely the current U.S. lead in strategic nuclear war­heads (9,200 vs. 5,000). The only remalning category of clear-cut U.S. strategic supe­riority ls the manned bomber; the advantage ls 348 vs. 150, but the aircraft providing this lead are almost all aging B-52s, some of which date back to 1956.

Because of the Soviet strategic buildup and modernization, the U.S. Minuteman ICBMs will soon be subject to destruction by e. surprise attack. Thls ls what Pentagon omclals label the window of vulnerablllty, a period that could last from !our to slx years, beginning ln the early 1980s. This window and the current strategic balance will scarcely be changed by SALT II, though the treaty could restrain the Soviets from further widening of the ge.p.

In conventional arms, Soviet gains have been almost equally impressive, and in some ways are of more concern. Explains William Perry, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering: "The Soviets a.re outproducing us by 2 to 1 or more ln most categories of mlllt.e.ry equipment [and] de­ploying mllita.ry equipment that ls no longer inferior ln qualltY." The U.S.S.R. leads the U.S. ln total milltary manpower (3,658,000 vs. 2,022,000), tanks (50,000 vs. 10,500), artlllery (40,700 vs. 18,000), tactical warplanes (4,350 vs. 4,164) and major warships (523 vs. 260). The ma.in American advantages are ln hlgh­technology weapons, such as guided antitank mtsslles, and the ab111ty to deploy forces rapidly into distant e.reas with aircraft car­riers, Marine Corps units and airborne !orces.

There are substantial geopolltlcal dangers in the Kremlln's expanding milltary strength. Senator Henry Jackson, the Washington Democrat, warned the Senate that Moscow's growing power could "mean an increasingly aggressive Soviet international policy." Harold Brown agrees. Referring to increasing Soviet interference in Africa and the Middle East, he says, "We've seen the Soviets become more adventurous in their behavior. This ts an inevitable consequence of their great.er confidence ln their mmtary capab111ties."

To counter Moscow's bulldup, the U.S. 11 already modernizing lts forces with new weapons systems, ranging from the Trident nuclear-mlsslle submarine to the Patriot antiaircraft misslle. But much more will probably be required, and at a quicker pace.

The most important measures concern strategic arms, even though such weapons systems take only 7% of the defense budget. As Jones put it, "The strategic balance sets the tone for what goes on in the rest of the world." The Administration has just taken an important step in this area by approving a $33 bllllon, ten-year program for the MX ICBM. The movable MX ls theoretically in­vulnerable to surprise attack, so when the Pentagon starts deploying the first of these missiles in Utah and Nevada in 1986, the win­dow of vulnerab111ty will begin closing. The u.s .. has ,also been .movlng ahead with the

29332 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENA TE October 24, 1979 t4.4 blllion air-launched cruise missile pro­gram; the 1980 budget provides $90 mlllion !or it. Under the current timetable, the first cruise missiles are to be deployed at the end ot 1981 and would probably be launched from converted B-52s.

Another step to increase the nation's stra­tegic capab111ty, a proposal by Air Force Chie! ot Staff Lew Allen Jr., is to radically upgrade 155 of his F-llls. A major part of his plan: extending the fuselages of 66 of the FB-111 fighter-bombers 104 inches and installing the General Electric engines that were designed originally for the canceled B-1 bomber. Thia would enable these FB-llls to fiy into the U.S.S.R. taster at 740 m.p.h., vs. 450 tor the B-52) and more safely at low altitudes. The FB-111 would be more diftlcult for the Soviets to detect, in part because it shows up as a smaller radar image than the B-52. What might prevent Allen's project from taking off is its price tag : $6 blllion.

More certain o! deployment is the Pershing n nuclear missile, a $1.5 blllion weapon sys­tem that occupies a gray area in analysts' calculations of the strategic balance. Because its 1,000-mile range would prevent it from hitting the Soviet Union !rom the U.S., the Pershing II is not, strictly speaking a strate­gic weapon. But since it could strike Russia. !rom bases in Western Europe it ls something considerably more than a tactical battlefield nuclear device llke the atomic cannon or the proposed neutron warhead.

Moscow has recently expanded its own arsenal o! similar weapons. In the past year the Soviets have stationed in Eastern Europe an estimated 100 atomic-tipped, multiwar­head SS-2 intermediate-range ballistic ir.ls­slles and about 90 supersonic Backfire bomb­ers. These could strike all Western European countries. Warned Henry Kissinger at a Sep­tember NATO conference in Brussels: "If there ls no [Western) theater nuclear estab­lishment on the continent of Europe, we are writing the script for selective black­mail in which our allies will be threatened."

Far along in development, the Pershing n could be based in Europe by the mid-1980s, and this prospect has already prompted denunciations from the Kremlin. Britain 1s expected to base some new Pershlngs on its territory, but West Germany last week in­dicated that it would do so only 1f joined by one other Continental NATO member. Bonn's ruling Social Democratic Party ts worried about a potential uuroar from tts vocal le!t wing 1f West Germany becomes the only Continental NATO state to have nuclear missiles capable of reaching the U.S.S.R. Washington remains opt!m!sttc that at the mid-December meeting of NATO, sev­eral countries wlll agree to accept the Per­shing n.

Despite all the attention paid to strategic weapons, experts are nearly unan.lmous that the U.S. would be making a dangerous error 1f lt continued ooncentratlng as much as it has on the nuclear balance. As long ago as the mid-1960s, when targets in the U.S. first became vulnerable to Soviet ICBMs, the threat of massive nuclear retallatlon lost some of its credibtllty, and thus Fome of its abtlltv to deter Soviet ag~ession. Wo11ld U.S. leaders really de!end Western Europe by launching a nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R. 1f that could triizizer a devastating Soviet counterstrike at New York or Loe Angeles? The question echoes more loudly now that the U.S. no longer boasts strai;eqtc superiority. As Ktsstn~er out it in Brussels, "It ls absurd to base the strategv of the West on the credtbtllty of the threat of mutual suicide." Wtth U.S. and Soviet stra­telrlc nuclear forces tendln.iz to cancel e~h other out. Washington needs adeouate non­atomic forces to counter threats that could ransre from an armored tnvastnn of Gel"­many to a brushfire war in the Third World. Bays Jones: "If you don't have the capabillty

to respond around the world to different crises, then the risks can be very great."

Since 1975 the Army and Air Force have been allocating increasing resources to con­ventional weapons and missions. But so widely ls it felt that more must be done that the Pentagon plans to spend most of any budget boost it gets on its conventional forces. Initially, says Jones, the extra funds would mostly be used for "new procurement, more suppltes, more ammunition and fixing personnel problems."

Translated into specifics, here ts where the money might go:

GROUND FORCES

The Army requires more trucks, suppltes and ammunition. In mid-September, Nunn charged that the Army had only "one-third of the ammunition and equipment it needs to ... sustain simultaneously a war in Europe and a minor contingency in the Middle East or outside of Europe." Nunn was referring to the omctal U.S. doctrine of having the re­sources to fight 1~ wars at the same time: a major confrontation with the Soviets in Europe, plus a regional skirmish. Said Nunn: "In the category of tank ammunition de­signed specifically to destroy other tanks, the Army bas on hand about one-fourth of the requirement postulated by the Department of Defense !or sustained combat ln Europe." In addition, he said, the service ts short almost 60,000 wheeled vehicles "required to move ammunition, fuel, wounded soldiers, food, weapons and to support ju.st about every other Army mtsston."

Providing these needed vehicles would cost about $4 billton. An extra $600 mtllton 1s needed annually by the Army just for enough bullets. arttllery shells and mortar rounds ?or adequate training. So tight has money been that Army crews training in Europe have been allowed to fire only one TOW antitank mtsstle (cost: $5,000 each) a year. Experts belteve that minimum proficiency would require three TOWs annually tor e!l.ch crew. Several additional b1llions or dollars 1n each of the next few years would be required 1f the Army sought faster deltvery of some major new weapons. Only eight Black Hawk helicopters are produced monthly, the mtnimum needed to keep the a~embly 11ne open. The Army would like 15 choppers a month.

Maintenance of more prosaic maMrlel bas long been shortchanged too. Overhauls are needed for heating plants, sewage systems, hospitals and living quarters. The cost of putting Army faclltties and equipment into shape: •i.1 b1111on. Milllons could also be used to give U.S. ground and air units more training and better gear !or fighting on bat­tlefields that have been contaminated. Soviet forces have been practlctng extensively on techniques for disabllng foes with chemical and biological agents.

TACTICAL AmCRAft

The U.S. Air Force deploys the world's most sophisticated and deadly warplanes, but the Soviets have been catching up. No longer are their planes confined prtmarlly to air defense. In the past decade, the Soviets have deployed a famtly of aircraft that, like U.S. warplanes, can support ground units in combat and strike deep inside enemy territory to destroy airfields and supply depots. Says Brigadier General John Chain, the Air Force's deputy director o! plans: "They've closed the tech­nology gap. They have damned good equip­ment and their people are well trained."

The latest U.S. warplanes-the F-15 Eagle, A-10 Thunderbolt and F-16-far outclass anvthtng the Soviets now fly, but American quaUtv ultimately could be overtaken by Russian quantity. The Soviet Union has been turning out about 1,150 fle;hters annually, or whtch 25 % are exported to tts w~rsaw Pact allles. Bv contrast, the U.S. has been butldtng only 500 such planes each year, and 303 have been sold to other nations.

Tbls year the U.S. A1r Force 1a scheduled to take delivery of 350 new fighters. General Chain would also like to see a more rapid deployment of the EF-111. This t25 m1111on aircraft ls packed with computers and other electronic gear that can Jam the radar on Soviet planes that would be used to spot U .s. aircraft and guide mlsstles to them. The EF-111 also could neutralize Soviet ground­ba.sed radar. Current planes call tor the A1r Force to buy 42 EF-llls over an unspectfted period of time. Like the Army, the A1r Force has an ammunition shortage. CUrrently, lt is very low on atr-to-air miaslles.

NAVAL J'OBCES

In no area bas the U.S.S.R. been catching up !aster than at sea. Just two decades ago, the Red fleet was primarily a coastal defense force, rarely venturing far from lts home shores. Today, its 1,769 vessels constitute a full-fledged blue-water navy. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy bas been steadily declinlng, from 955 ships two decades ago to f58 today. This ts roughly half the number of ships the Navy bad before the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Complains a high Navy oftlcial: "We've been underinvesting tor 15 years. Shipbutld­ing has been dlsm.al." Because of its 13 mam­moth aircraft carriers and the high tech­nology crammed into its other surface ships and submarines, the U.S. Navy stlll com­mands the seas. For how long, ls another matter. There are lndicattons that the So­viets may be building their ftrst large-deck aircraft carrier and are already well along with the construction of a 30,000-ton nuclear battle cruiser.

Ju.st to keep the U.S. fleet at Its present size would require construction of 17 new vessels annually. Yet the fiscal 1980 budget authorizes only 14 new ships. Thia includes a $2 btllion aircraft carrier, slx guided­misstle frigates and two nuclear attack sub­marines. The admirals would like an extra $2 b1111on to $2.5 b1llion for shipbutldlng tn 1980. Tbls would buy two more attack sub­marines, one more destroyer armed with the devastatingly accurate AEGIS guided-missile weapons system, a landing ship for the Marines and two oilers. The oner shortage typtftes the Navy's plight. Whtle at least 21 otlers are needed to keep the fleet steaming, only 16 are avallable and ten of these were commissioned before the end of World War II. Mines are also scarce, and torpedo stock­piles are so low that there are not even enough to arm all U.S. attack subs tor two patrols.

AMPHIBIOUS FORCES

Sending ln the Marines has tradlttonally been one of the nation's most effective means of intervening in distant lands. There ls concern now, however, over whether the Leathernecks could really reach the beaches. Declares Nunn: "If the U.S. Marines were called upon to undertake a major landing in the Persian Gulf or elsewhere tn the Mid­dle East, they would probably have to walk on water to get ashore." With only 83 am­phibious ships, the Marines are suffering from a severe shortage of vessels for such operations and probably could not land more than one division at a time.

The fiscal 1980 budget earmarks $41 mil­lion for start-up costs for the first $300 mtl­llon LSD-41, a 15,774-ton amphibious vessel that could carry about 340 Marines. But senior omcers would like a commitment of $1.2 b1111on for four of the new LSDs. The Marines also want 336 British-designed, ver­tlcal-takeotr Harrier attack planes (cost: $15.7 b1111on), plus 33 heavy-lift and attack heli­copters ($400 mllUon for the fl.rst year's production) . Bringing Marine Corps ammu­nition stockptles up to a level that could sustain combat operations would cost an extra $1.5 bllllon; tmprovtng battlefield com­mand systems would run $400 million.

So hard up tor cash ls the corps that it ls

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 29333 reluctantly planning to shrink itsel!. Through attrition, it w111 drop to 179,000 by mid-1980, a reduction of 10,000. Says a senior Marine otncer: "We are reducing manpower to pay our b1lls. There is no sense in having a force like the Marine Corps 1! it does not have the means to go to war."

RESUPPLY CAPABILITIES

According to General Jones, "In any large operation or full-blown contllct short of a nuclear exchange, lift becomes a very critical factor." He feels that the Pentagon's ab111ty to resupply troops rapidly on the battlefield is "one of the areas in which we run into limitations early." Though the Air Force would have sutncient planes to rush troops overseas, including requisitioned commercial airliners, it would not have enough to take along their arms and equipment.

The Air Force wants more transport air­craft, but has not yet decided how many. Also needed are additional tankers !or air­borne refueling of transport and combat planes. In fiscal 1980 the Air Force w111 be buying four KC-10 tankers, a version of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 jetliner, at a total cost of $200 m1111on. In all, the service will purchase 20 of the $50 mllllon tankers.

The total annual cost of the programs that the experts have cited tops $30 bllllon, and even these would not exhaust the Pentagon's shopping list. Yet this sum already exceeds what a 5 % m111tary budget boost would yield. Chairman Jones and the Joint Chiefs therefore wm have to set program priorities, an exercise that has almost always aggravated lnterservice rivalries.

More and better weapons would obviously strengthen all the armed forces, but they will not solve what many experts !eel ls per­haps the nation's most serious military shortcoming-manpower. Admits Chairman Jones: "We have a growing personnel prob­lem in the m111tary." To Senator Gary Hart, the Colorado Democrat, "the big factor in the strategic equation is not weapons. None of them makes any difference 1! the people aren't there to man them."

The basic total numbers reveal no man­power shortages. The 562,419 men and women in the Air Force and the 524,514 in the Navy bring both services up to 99 percent of th_eir authorized minimum force levels; the Army with 752,468 soldiers and the Ma­rines With 189,000 stand at 98 percent. But these figures a.re deceptive. The Air Force, for example, badly needs pilots and technical otncers. The Navy ls short of more than 20,000 petty otncers in such critical areas as avia­tion, nuclear propulsion and medical care. Complains Admiral Thomas Hayward, the Chief of Naval Operations: "Our retention of second-termers has dropped from a barely satisfactory 59 percent in 1975 to a totally unsatisfactory 48 percent today." F1rst-term­ers have been proving even harder to retain· the Army's re-enlistment rate for this group ls a dismal 38 percent. Notes a senior Penta­gon otncial: "The absence of skllled people can take a. very sophisticated weapons sys­tem and turn it into mush."

One of the most disturbing trends has been the fall in recruitment. For the first eleven months of fiscal 1979 (through this August). the 127,500 men and women re­cruited by the Army were only 89 percent 'Of its goal and a 5 percent drop from a year earlier. Though the other three services have been doing better, all are below their targets.

Worse yet, the quality of the recruits has been dropping. Only 72 percent of those in­ducted during the first eleven months of fiscal 1979 had high school diplomas, com­pared with 76 percent for the previous year. Yet the electronic gear on today's battle­fields requires highly sk1lled G.I.s. Warns General Edward Meyer, the Army's new Chief of Staff: "Clearly there ls some level at which the Army has to say, 'Whoa! That's

far enough. We can't take any more of the [low intelligence) category.' "Meanwhile, the intense pressure on mmtary recruiters to fulfill quotas, as well as the lure of bonuses they receive for doing well, apparently has prompted widespread cheating among them. Some 1,100 recruiters are now being investi­gated by the Pentagon.

Would more money cure the manpower problem? Some experts think so. States C.N.O. Hayward: "Since 1972, when we had the last major pay adjustment, real mm­tary compensation has declined about 1'7 percent In .purchasing power. Average union pay and benefits have increased 5 percent in purchasing power during the same period." From this, the nation's top admiral con­cludes that "the system is totally out of whack when a janitor on union scale makes almost the same salary as a chief petty otncer With 17 years of service." General Jones puts it in different terms. "There ls a popular perception that the mll1tary receives too many benefits. I say, 1f military benefits are all that great, why are we having all these people leaving?" But to improve pay and benefits would be very costly. A wage increa~e that simply permitted servicemen to catch up with infiation since 1972 (about 75 percent) would cost $5 blllion. Rein­stating attractive educational benefits, simi­lar to the old G.I. Bill, would run an addi­tional $1 billion.

Whether the Pentagon can afford to pay billions more for manpower when it needs blllions just for ammunition is going to be one of the most controversial questions tn the defense budget debate. Yet even now, a surprising 60¢ of every Pentagon dollar goes for personnel costs. The Soviets, by contrast, devote less than 30 percent of their defense outlays to personnel. How the Kremlin does this is no secret. Because the U.S.S.R. never abolished conscription, 75 percent of all So­viet males are drafted. (The rest are deferred for the fam111ar reasons: poor health, family need, employment in a critical job.) But the Pentagon is compelled to rely entirely on volunteers and thus must pay wages and offer benefits reasonably competitive With those available in the private economy.

For demographic reasons, the manpower squeeze is going to get even tighter. Because of generally declining birth rates since 1960, a decreasing number of Americans will be reaching the minimum m111ta.ry enlistment age of 18 in the 1980s. The Pentagon Will have an ever more ditncult time getting enough recruits to maintain the armed forces at their present strength of 2 million. In view of this prospect, there has been a revived question­ing of the concept of the all-volunteer force, which was started in 1973. Some analysts have called outright for the restoration of the draft. Others have suggested merely a return to compulsory registration for all 18-yea.r-olds so that conscription machinery could start moving quickly 1f needed in a crisis. In September, the House of Represent­atives voted against restoring registration but asked the White House to study the question and report to Congress.

That the American arsenal needs strength­ening is a proposition that has a diminishing number of dissenters, at least in Washington. There are some, like Senator Hart, who con­tinue to argue that the Soviet threat bas been exaggerated and that the Pentagon might not need all the money it bas re­quested. Among most otncials and experts, however, the debate is no longer whether to boost defense spending but how much and in what way. One substantial fear is that a higher defense budget would fuel infia.tlon. Insisted Maine's Edmund Muskie in a mid­September Senate speech: "The enemy who has the capacity . . . to devastate the econ­omy-the defense budget, the Government's overall budget-ls not the Soviet Union or any other enemy I can foresee. It is the enemy called infiatlon."

A noninfiationa.rv means of obtaining the money needed to buy more arms might be to free funds by cutting the Defense Depart­ment's fat. Though Chairman Jones has stressed that it is "just plain wrong" to think that somebody can tap a 'mother lode' by issuing an order to get more etnclent over­night," he has admitted that "our feet should be held to the fire to be more etnclent."

One recommendation by Washington's Brookings Institution: a.bout $500 million could be saved annually if the Pentagon stopped paying clv111an blue-collar employees more than what comparable non-Govern­ment workers earn in the same community. Another by Congress's General Accounting Otnce: a. gain of $300 million if the m111 tary would simplify the methods by which it pro­tects its telephone conversations from eaves­droppers.

Even 1! these recommendations are feasible (and accepted), the Pentagon would still have to turn to the federal budget for more money. This would alarm those critics who have argued that defense expenditures are particularly lnfiatlonary. Concluded Colum­bia Professor Seymour Melman in a report on the subject: "Cause and etrect links the mm­tary economy to lnfiatlon and unemploy­ment." The kernel of a thesis put forth by Professor Lloyd Dumas of the University of Texas is that "people who do m111tary-related work and the firms they work for receive a fiow of money that ls not balanced by a production of goods and services that can be used to absorb that money."

Such reasoning, however, could be applied to just about every expenditure by a Gov­ernment bureaucracy, from the State Depart­ment's outlays for American diplomats to the battalions of inspectors employed by reg­ulatory agencies. Moreover, whatever infia­tionary impact the Pentagon :night have, it is relatively minor compared With that of other Government programs. Today, defense outlays are only halt as much as Washing­ton spends on social welfare programs. Says Murray Weldenbaum, a member of TIME'S Board or Economists: "The tnfiationary ef­fects of defense spending are sutnciently mlld so that the decision about how much ls to be spent on arms should be made on other, noneconomic grounds." It is notable that those years when the Pentagon budget was largest in real dollars, and took its greatest share of the G.N.P. and federal budget, were also the years when the nation enjoyed some of its lowest lnfiation rates. In 1955 infiation was nil, and in 1965 it was around 2 percent. Increases of more than 2,000 percent in Gov­ernment spending on health and housing in the pa.st decade, declares Nunn, show that the pattern of infiation fits "the real increase in nondefense spending." Observes Oregon Senator Bob Packwood: "Let's lay to rest the shibboleth that we have been chipping away at human resources spending on behalf ot defense."

It can be maintained, in fa.ct, that a na­tion's most fundamental social-welfare ob· ligation to its citizens ts to defend them against attack. The responsib111ty for this ls entrusted to the armed forces, but the U.S. m111tary has been denied sutncient resources to fulfill the responsib111ty. Catching up now ls certain to be expensive. How much it wlll cost and how long it will take are urg~nt questions that the mounting debate on na­tional defense Will have to resolve. What ex­actly ls the price of power?

Even more critical perhaps ls another ques­tion: Are Americans wUUng to pay the price? There is, of course, a widespread sense that the U.S. confronts a. deadly threat from the Soviets, and that something must be done about it. But deciding what to do Will test the nation's confidence and nerve a.s well a.s its ability to see issues in a long-term per­spective. It will also require a challenging self-examination in which the U.S. wetgh11

29334 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 24, 1979 it.a role as a superpower and balances the in­herent heavy burdens against the benefits. How such a process turns out could set America's course for the closing decades of the century.e

TEXAS NURSE WEEK

• Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, Texas Nurse Week is October 21-27. It is time for each of us to consider what nurses mean to us and recognize the valuable contribution these professionals give our community.

Nurses practice in many situations: Homes, hospitals, community agencies, clinics, schools and industry, to name a few. Today, nurses are emerging into new roles in order to bring the delivery of good health care closer to the consumer. an example of one of the new roles is the nurse practitioner. A nurse practitioner works closely with patients to assess their health by physical examination, patient education, and nursing care. A special­ized nurse practitioner could be further educated to be a certified nurse midwife, a specialist in helping the elderly and many other areas underserved in today's society.

Currently, the nursing profession is encouraging the return of nonworking nurses to practice through refresher courses and inservice training. Fewer than two-thirds of the 55,000 registered nurses in Texas are practicing. The greatest need for nurses is in rural areas. Fortunately, the number of applicants and graduates of nursing schools has risen sharply in the last half decade. The number of men in nursing has also increased.

Nurses continue to be very important members of a health care team of pro­fessionals·. Increasing complexities in health care services, coupled with ad­vances in knowledge, have increased the need for well oreoared nurses. The nurse is a viable solution to curbing the rising cost of health care to the consumer/ patient.•

THE STARVING CHILDREN OF CAMBODIA

• Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Prec:fdent, a pic­ture in this morning's Washin~on Post tells the whole story of the famine in Cambodia. It shows a starvin~ 7-month­old Cambodian child in Thailand­wide eyed. shrunken, his bones draped with sa~ging flesh. It is a grotesque por­trait of the suffering of innocent children and of the fate of an entire nation.

How can this shocking picture fail to move us? We must respond urgently to help meet the food and medical needs of the 2 to 3 million Cambodians who face imminent starvation or death from epidemics. I understand that President Carter will be announcing todav a food relief program. Now we must do all we can to deliver the foodstuffs and medical supplies as rapidly as possible.

The article accompanying the photo­graph is a moving account of one re­porter's traumatic confrontation with the human tragedy of Cambodia. r ask to print it in the RECORD to alert my col­leagues to the sense of desperation which

visitors to Cambodia are feeling. I am also submitting an account of the forth­coming mission to Cambodia by three of our colleagues, Senator SASSER, Senator BAUCUS, and Senator DANFORTH. I wish them every success and I hope that their participation will strengthen the capac­ity of the Senate to provide the financial and diplomatic commitment necessary to deliver the food to the hungry children as soon as possible.

The texts of the articles follow: A F'UTILE DASH WITH A DYING Boy

(By John Burgess) BANGKOK.--Somewhere on the road be­

tween Thaila.nd's newest mass encampment of refugees and a small hospital 35 miles away, an emacia.ted Cambodian boy, probably a.bout 12 yea.rs old, died next to me in the front seat of my ca.r.

I do not know his name. whether his par­ents were alive, or precisely wha.t he died of. He was one of countless Cambodian children who ha.ve succumbed to disease and malnu­trition in recent months.

Another boy, who lay motionless a.nd wide­eyed in the back seat, survived the drive last week. A Tha.1 doctor la.ter diagnosed malaria.­believed to be the most serious disease among Cambodians, though it could be easily con­trolled if people had once-a-week preventa­tive pills. The boy was wheeled off to a wa.rd already crowded with refugees immobilized by disease.

A nurse said the dead boy's body would be sent ba.ck to the ca.mp a.t Klong Kai Tuen, where about 30,000 Cambodians are sleeping beneath trees, oxcarts and plastic sheeting. Every day, corpses are collected there and carried into the forest for hasty burials.

The experience was for me traumatic con­firma.tion of months of reports that war and politics have created famine and epidemics in Cambodia and kept rea.dily a.vaila.ble aid from ma.ny of those who despera.tely need it.

When Vietnamese forces pushed into the country last December to overthrow the Khmer Rouge regime of Pol Pot, Cambodian society wa.s once a.gain turned upside down. Guerrilla fighting continued sporadically as hundreds of thousands of people traversed the country on foot returning to home vil­la.ges from which Khmer Rouge forces had removed them.

As a result, only a fra.ction of the country's rice fields were planted and tended through to ha.rvest. Reports filtered out that food stocks were dangerously low and that Cam­bodia.'s few hospitals were filling with people showing the stark symptoms of severe mal­nutrition.

Meanwhile, politica.l bickering slowed re­lief efforts. Western countries do not recog­nize the Heng Samrin regime, installed in Phnom Penh by Vietnam. They declined di­rect conta.ct and insisted tha.t aid be chan­neled through the United Na.tions a.nd Inter­national Committee of the Red Cross.

Heng Samrin officials in turn argued with the two agencies over the amount of relief and who would get it. rn Auguc;t, t.oken once­a-week fiights began into Phnom Penh­most carrying 40 tons of supplies when relief officials estimated 1,000 tons a day were re­quired.

Despite warnings from Phnom Penh that nothing must ro to Khmer Roul!'e zones-an apparent attempt to starve them into sub­mission-relief groups sent food to them through Thailand, including one area where the boy who died in my car probably lived.

But there politics intruded a.gain to help keep children hungry: Khmer Rouge soldiers get priority over food supplies-a fa.ct at­tested to by the presence of well-fed, healthy young men among the boys' fellow refugees.

I and another Journa.ltat, John McBeth of the Hong Kong magazine Far ~stern Economic Review, saw the chlldren after we

had spent several hours last Saturday at the Klong Kai Tuen camp, a.bout four miles from the Cambodian border.

Its people are among the more than 65,000 soldiers and civilians who bega.n crossing into Tha.Uand from Khmer Rouge zones Oct. 11, when Heng Samrin troops, believed to be Vietnamese, began a. sweep around the Phnom Malai hills 1n western Cambodia..

On Sa.turday Thal and foreign doctors from an a.sBOrtment of relief agencies were work­ing furiously in a. makeshift clinic-a fra.me of tree branches freshly cut from the forest, topped by plastic sheeting.

Hundreds of sick people squatted in the sun waiting their turn. Consultations were quick-some as short as 30 second.s-a.nd \ll?Ually ended with dispensing of vitamins and drugs to treat malaria and dysentery. The seriously 111 were arrayed, shoulder-to­shoulder, on mats beneath the shelter.

Saline-dextrose solution-the normal emergency treatment for severe malnutri­tion-dripped through needles into patients' forea.rms from bottles suspended from the shelter's bes.ms.

McBeth and I were about to leave when I noticed a spindly limbed boy lying on h1a side benea.th the shelter. He breathed ln starts and stared ahead vacantly. Flies were crawling undisturbed a.round his mouth­the usual prelude to death in refugee camps-­and the smell of feces came from his filthy pants and fatigue shirt.

"Is the kid going to die?" I asked a Thai doctor. "He will for sure if he doesn't get to a real hospital," the doctor replied. I asked lf we could take him, but the man shrugged and said, "You have to talk to the soldiers."

Sick or healthy, Cambodian refugees are normally required to stay at sites the Thal a.rmy designa.tes for them. But we were in luck-the officer in charge agreed. imme­diately to my request and wrote out a pass on a slip of notebook paper.

The doctor then suggested we take out two others, both malaria. cases. Did he know their names? I asked. He shook his head-with one clinic for 30,000 people, there was no time to worry about names.

Our car could only take two children com­fortably, so we asked other Journalists to take the third and any others allowed to leave.

One of the malaria.I cases, a boy of about 15, was stretched out across the back seat. For the child I had first noticed, we reclined the front bucket seat and la.id him on lt.

McBeth drove and I sat on the gearbox between the two bucket seats with my arm over the child to support him when we crossed rough roads. As we rolled out of the camp he coughed and stirred sl1ghtly, and we began to think there was more life ln him tha.n first appeared.

But a.fter a. only mile he again began breathing fitfully. Thick white liquid oozed from his Ups and dripped onto his shirt.

For the rest of the 35-mile tri~peeding a.long dirt and paved highways, passing everything on the road-he lay inert. The stench from his clothes wa.s terrible, and we rolled down the windows despite clouds of dust raised by other vehicles.

Five miles from the hospital we began to suspect he was dead. There was no pulse or sign of breath and his arms dropped limply when I lifted them.

At the hospital I bundled him out of the ca.r onto a wheeled stretcher. A nurse felt for a pulse, then shined a. fla.shlight into his pupils. They did not res.ct. She pronounced him dead.

Her confirmation was a. shock. During the ride I had been thinking how I would visit him in the hospital, watch him recover and perhaps even adopt him.

The other boy was still conscious and feebly responded to inquiries ln Cambodian a.bout hls name. A doctor listened to his chest, called him malarial and orderlles wheeled him past the dead boy.

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 29335 We searched through his clothes for some­

.thing to establish his identity. There was only one pocket, containing two pills ap­parently given him at the camp and some dried-out chm peppers.

He probably died of dysentery and malnu­trition. It ls possible his parents were dead; the state of his clothes indicated he had lain untended for many days. If his parents were dead, they might never learn how he died. Thousands of people come and go at the camp dally and the word we sent back of his death could easily have gone astray.

We left for Bangkok tha.t same night. A doctor there advisei that there was a small chance the boy had had cholera and I dis­infected my clothes and the car as a pre­caution.

Few people visit ca.mps like Klong Kai Tuen without an emotional reaction. On Oct. 18, Thai Prime Minister Krlangsak Choman­an flew to another camp containing an es­timated 35,000 newly arrived Cambodians. He was reported to be so disturbed by what he saw that he decidei no one would be forced back across the border, as the govern­ment had intended to do if neces.sary.

Current plans call for construction of a refugee center with a capacity of 300,000 peo­ple. Diet and medical care there wlll pre­sumably be far better than wha.t the peonle are receiving today. For the moment, how­ever, there are too many cases like the boy who died in our car.

THREE U.S. SENATORS TAKING FOOD Am PLAN TO CAMBODIA TODAY

(By John Burgess) BANGKOK, Oct. 23.-Three U.S. Senators are

scheduled to fly to Phnom Penh We"'nes­day morning to seek approval of a plan they have devised to .truck internationally do­nated relief supplies directly from Thailand to famine-ravaged zones controlled by the Vietnamese-supported Heng Samrln govern­ment.

When they land in Phnom Penh Sens. James Sasser (D-Tenn.). Max Baucus <D­Mont.) and John Danforth (R-Mo.) wlll be the first official U.S. visitors to Cambodia since the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh in 1975.

Analysts in Banglrnk believed that the VlP.tnamese an1 their clients in Phnom Penh had approved the trip partly to gain in­creased international standln~ for the diplo­matically isolated re!Zlme installed by the Vietnamese in January after toopllng the Khmer Rouge government of Pol Pot. The U.S. has not had diplomatic relations with eithP.r government.

"The sole mission of our trip ls humani­tarian" Baucus said at a press conference here. "Our visit in no way ... amounts to reco1mit.lon of any form of government In cambodla."

rrn Washtn!?ton the State Deoartment said the senators• visit should not be talren as ind1cat1ne- anv rno~e by Washington toward reoognttlon of the Heng Samrln f?oirernment.

fSoolresmq,n HodrHnP-" Carter said that for pollcy reasons. no senior U.S. ot!'lr.!als will accomoany the American legislators to Pl'lnom Penh.

r Assistant Secretarv of State Richard Hol­brooke, who went to Ban1Zkok with the Sen­ators, wm not travel with them to Phnom Penh.

f"We have to be sure no mixed ste:nal will come out of It .. " Carter said. "Tt seems safer not to have lmnllcatlons raised" about possible U.S. recognltion.1

Approval for the Americans' visit was re­ceived this morntn~ from the Vtetname!'e em­bassv in Ban'!kok. Aldf's said the delegation would fly to Phnom Penh early tomorrow aboard a U.S . government jet that brought them to Ban~kok.

The senators' visit comes at a time when Cambodia is faced with severe shortages ot

basic foodstuffs. Warfare and politically motivated bickering ls slowing the delivery of international aid to the village level.

The three men are members of a special senatorial delegation on refugees. On Mon­day they traveled to the Cambodian border to talk with people who recently fled into Thailand in response to escalated fighting.

Today they detailed their proposals to open a "land bridge" into Cambodia. The trucks and supplies would be provided by agencies like the United Nations Childrens' Fund and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The convoys would deliver the aid along routes 5 and 6 which pass close to areas in which guerrlllas loyal to the ousted Khmer Rouge regime operate.

Methods of delivering aid that the Heng Samrln authorities have approved by air to Phnom Penh and by sea to Kompong Som have a capacity of less than half the 1.000 tons per day that Cambodia needs Danforth said. "If permls.sion were given tomorrow" for their proposals he stated "in a period of about three to five days trucks loaded with food would be moving from Thailand."

Vietnamese troops in Cambodia could be asked to provide security for the convoys the senators said, a possibility that was dis­cussed this morning in a meeting here with Vietnamese Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Nguyen Co Thach. Thach told them Vietnam would help with security 1f the Phnom Penh authorities so requested, the senators said.

The senators said they did not know who exactly might pose a security threat to the trucks, though one did mention the pos­slbllity of hijackings.

Indochina watchers in Bangkok believed that any threat would probably come from Khmer Rouge ~uerrmas who would not look kindly on hundreds of heavily laden trucks passing into the territory of their adversaries.

Khmer Rouge enclaves a.re currently re­ceiving some relief trucked in directly from Thailand. In Phnom Penh, Heng Samrin officials have repeatedly condemned those shipments and demanded that all Cambo­dian relief be channeled through their gov­ernment.

The senators said they had not sought a guarantee of security from the Khmer Rouge, nor did they intend to.

When pressed for details on the expected threat to the convoys, U.S. Embassy sources said the question was more one of clearance than of security. It is simply a practical problem, one source said. Aid "cannot be moved without the permission of the Viet­namese Army."

However, this explanation conflicted with the senators' statements, which implied the Vietnamese would be asked to provide some sort of escort force.

Sasser said that Thal Prime Minister Kriangsak Chama.nan had expressed "warm support" for the relief convoy idea. Thailand is anxious that food enter Cambodia to re­duce the flow of refugees across its borders.

Sources reported today that tl'le Th:a1 Supreme Command has told the United Na­tions that 180,000 people have entered its territory in recent months from Cambodia or are gathered just across the border. To­morrow the Thal army will begin moving 90,000 of them to a new refugee center away from the border·•

STATEMENT ON COST ESTIMATE ERROR IN REPORT 96-362

e Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, on October 10, 1979, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported S. 1873, a bill to es­tablish a procedure for the processing of complaints directed against Federal judges and for other purposes.

S. 1873 was accompanied by Report

96-362. A printing error was made on page 18 of that report, paragraph 5. Un­der the headings "Estimated authoriza­tion level" and "Estimated outlays" the fiscal year range should read "1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985" rather than "1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984."•

ANGOLA e Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, in re­cent months, there have been several positive developments occurring in Africa. Three bloodthirsty dictators­Bokassa in the Central African Empire, Idi Amin in Uganda, and Macias 1n Equatorial Guinea--have been over­thrown. Nigeria and Ghana have re­turned to civilian rule. An all-parties conference on Rhodesia has been con­vened in London and progress has been made on the Namibian negotiations. In South Africa it appears that some sub­stantive steps forward have also been taken to reduce racial tensions.

These developments compel us to take a fresh look at the role of the United States in the continent. To encourage further progress in this direction and ex­tend our in:fiuence in Africa, the United States should take a bold step forward­it should extend diplomatic recognition to Angola.

I became convinced of the wisdom of this policy during my trip to Angola last December. Representatives of other NATO countries and American business­men operating in the country all told me they favored normalization of relations. During his visit to the United States last month, President Tolbert of Liberia, who is serving as the current head of the Organization of African Unity, also made a strong plea for U.S. recognition of Angola, emphasizing that this is the psychological moment to move since a new head of state, Jose Edwardo dos Santos, has been installed. No single gesture would better serve U.S. interests in the continent at this propitious time than diplomatic recognition of the Lu­anda government.

Two recent press accounts have argued this case very strongly. A Baltimore Sun editorial quoted President Carter while campaigning for the Presidency in 1976:

I think that the United States position in Angola should be one which admits that we missed the opportunity to be a positive and creative force for good in Angola during the year we supported Portuguese colonization. We should also realize that the Russian and Cuban presence in Angola, while regrettable and counterproductive of peace, need not constitute a threat to United States• inter­ests, nor does that presence mean the exist­ence of a Communist satelUte.

Prof. Gerald Bender, an expert on An­gola, pointed out in his excellent op-ed piece in the New York Times that many officials in Washington have been en­coura~ed by the peaceful succession of dos Santos after the death of President Neto, and by Angola's record of coopera­tion with the West, particularly its recep­tivity to foreign investment, its recon­ciliation with Zaire, and its commitment to negotiated solutions to the conflicts in Rhodesia and Namibia.

Mr. President. I request that these two articles be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. They under-

29336 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 24, 1979

score the need for Washington to take the long overdue step of putting our re­lations with Angola on a realistic foot­ing. It is my hope that the administra­tion will take this opportunity to re­assess its position, basing its decision not on presumed domestic constraints but on an objective assessment of our foreign policy interests in southern Africa-an area of the world that Ambassador Marshall D. Shulman described on Oc­tober 16, 1979, in his testimony before the House Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, as the region represent­ing "the most serious potential problem on the horizon in United States-Soviet relations."

The article fallows: OPPORTUNITY IN ANGOLA

Jimmy Carter, campaigning for the presi­dency in 1976, had this to say a.bout Angola.:

"I think that the United States position in Angola. should be one which a.dmits tha.t we missed the opportunity to be a. positive and creative force for good in Angola. during the yea.rs we supported Portuguese colonization. We should also realize that the Russian and Cuban presence 1n Angola., while regrettable and counterproductive of peace, need not constitute a threat to United States• inter­ests, nor does that presence mean the exist­ence of a. Communist satellite."

Since moving into the White House, Mr. Ca.rter has pulled back-just as he has on withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea.. He has joined Congress in holding that the United States wm not recognize Angola until Cuban troops have departed, a.vowing tha.t they represent a. direct threat to this coun­try's interests. This has been a dubious pol­icy. The change in leaders, therefore, offers an excellent opportunity for updating Amer­ican policy. There a.re indications that the government, which is not monolithic, is anx­iously courting U.S. support.

Regarded by the U.S. as hopeful signs a.re the following: With calm and surprising speed, the ruling hierarchy chose Edoardo Dos Sant.os president to succeed Dr. Neto. Foreign Minister Paulo Jorge and External Minister Robert de Almeida., both moderates, have been ma.de full central committee mem­bers of the rullng party-the Popular Front for the Liberation of Angola..

President Dos Santos, in his inaugural ad­dress, indicated that Angola w111 follow his predecessor's pollcies, which the United States apparently favored. Angola, he said, wm continue seeking peaceful solutions to the problems of southern Africa. and main­taining already established diplomatic ties whlle seeking others. His courutry would also seek international assist ance f<Yr solving its myriad development prOblems.

iA. Mairxist poet and revolutionary, Dr. Neto readily acknowledged that his countrv needed U .S. assistance. Two and one-half tim~s the size of France a.nd with a population of onty six m1llion, Angola pas the ootent lal for being one of the most Prosperous in Africa. because of its vast natural wealth. Gnlf 011 Oor~ration already has a. booming ooera­tion in Ca.binds. orovince. which. ironicq,lly is protected by Cuban trooT)s. The Booing Company a.Jso ls develoning the country's a.Lroort facilltie'>. Manv other opportunities exist for utlllzlng American capital a.nd know-how.

United State~ non-recogntt.ion may have the unde.,ired effi:oct of ma.intaini..,g Angola's depPnd~nce on the Soviet Union Pnd Cuba.. So as Mr. Dos Santo.c; extends a. frlenrflv hand, Presldent. Carter should respond. t~klnq c~re,

however, not to arouse the Sens:i.te's C'lstro­philes Into even stronger opposition to SALT ll.

U.S. POLICY ON ANGOLA (By Gerald J. Bender)

Los .ANGELEs.-Until his death in Septem­ber, Angola's first President, Agostinho Neto, wa.s described in the news media as a "Soviet puppet" a.nd a "dogma.tic Marxist," while United States officials were concerned more with his Ouban guests than his foreign a.nd domestic pollcies. Since his death, he has been described as "moderate ... a strong natlonallst . . . honest . . . committed to nonallgnment . . . [and a.n 1 uncompromis­ing supp<Yrter of multiraciallsm."

The newer perceptions' closeness to reality underscores a fundamental problem of Amer­ican foreign pollcy toward the third world: How to distinguish genuine nationalist or moderate leaders (with whom America. can maintain reasonable relations) from radical Marxists who wm eschew their na.tional in­terests ln order to advance Soviet policies.

Western leaders a.re trying to assess the prospects of the Angolan Government, now led by 37-year-old Jose Eduardo dos Santos, ln pursuing the same moderate policies that Dr. Neto did, especially with res:oect to re­ceot.lvlty toward foreign investment, non­alignment . peaceful relations with neighbors such as Zaire, and continued cooperation in the sea.rch for n~ottated, not mllltary, iSOlu­tions in Southern Africa..

But as the only Western nation tl:'lat :tias not reco~ni?.'ed the Ane;olen Government, the United States ha.s little first-hand in­tell1gence with which to make such an as­sessment. One Defense Deuartment analyst sa.ys, "We know practically nothing a.bout dos Santos or the rest of the M.P.L.A. leader­slilo and much of what we do know annea.rs to be inaccurate." One high State Depart­ment official complained that until recently the Central Intelllgence Agency apoeared to gather most of its information from the Na­tional Union for the Total Independence of Angola. (a. rlva.l movement stm f'!?hting the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola.} wblle the department was higJily depe..,dent on African governments and Eu­ropean allies whose perce~tions or interests do not always coincide with ours.

However, many Washington officials have been encouraged bv the rapid, peaceful tran­sition. Mr. dos Santos, sworn in three c'a'l!'; after Mr. Neto's funeral , pledged to uphold an of the Mr. Neto's pollcles, from recogni­tion of the necessity for continued Western economic assistance to his commitment "to continu':! to help find solutions which wiJl bring rSouthern Africa.] peace and sta'b111ty."

American on companies, a. number of which a.re seeking or expanding rights for further oll exploration in Angola, are no doubt pleased by the selection of Mr. do<> Santos as President. He holds a degree l"' petroleum engineering and was Angola's chief negotiator with Texaco, which signe ... a. $360 m11lion contract with the Government shortly before Mr. Neto's death. Texaco ex­pects to be producing 50,000 barrels a day bv next year. Gulf already produces 150,000 barrels a day in Angola and is investing ap­proximately $80 milllon to increase produc-tio~ ·

Contrary to the predictions of former United States officials, the M.P.L.A. has not attempted to deny its resources to the United States. Most of its oll and other major exports, such as coffee, are shipped here. Americans concerned about the dwin­dling supply of oil available should also be concerned that Washington adopt a more enlightened policy towards the recognition of the dos Santos-led Angola.

The State Department, from Secretary Cyrus R. Vance on down, appears to solidly favor recognition of Angola. They receive support not only from businessmen and academics but also from a. growing numbe~ o! Uberal Republicans. All are concerned

a.bout the presence of some 20,000 Cuban troops in Angola, but they recognize that the Cubans wm not be withdrawn whlle Angola remains under continual attack from South Africa.

In the meantime, America. has far more to gain by normalizing relations with Angola now than it could possibly lose politically from recognizing the Government while th~ Cubans are still there.

The stab111ty of the Angolan regime, dem­onstrated by the smooth transition, presents the Carter Administration with an excellent opportunity to change its policy toward recognition. America tried its best to make Agostinho Neto out as its enemy but his pragmatism and statesmanship never con­formed to our unfounded perceptions and accusations. Mr. dos santos has now indi­cated that he, like Mr. Neto, is prepared to normallze relations with the United States on the basis of mutual respect. One should not underestimate, however, the genius of the United States to make enemies out of potential friends in the third world.e

HOW TAXFLATION ADDS INSULT TO INJURY

• Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, more people than ever before are aware of the impact inflation has on their tax liabilities be­cause acute inflation continuing over a number of years has such a dramatic impact on taxes. The inflation tax in­crease, or taxfiation, hits every taxpayer who owes taxes for the year. This is be­cause taxflation operates through the declini.ng real value of the fixed dollar amounts in the tax code-for example, the zero bracket amount and personal exemption-and through bracket creep, or the pushing of taxpayers into higher marginal rate brackets.

No one is immune from taxflation, but it is interesting to note which taxpayers suffer the most from these automatic tax increases. It has been observed that people in the lower income brackets are more likely to suffer because the tax brackets are narrower at lower incomes. But there are other compelling reasons why eliminating taxflation would be of greatest benefit to low-income tax­payers.

Consider the significance of tax ex­emptions and deductions to people with marginal incomes. These are not the in­dividuals who benefit from tax loopholes because they do not have income to spare for investments or, in these times, for owning their own home. This means that low-income taxpayers are unlikely to itemize deductions and will instead use the zero bracket amount. But unless Congre~s acts to change it, the zero bracket amount declines in real value each year because of inflation. As a re­sult, it is of less value to low-income taxpayers, whose taxes thereby increase.

The situation is the same with the personal exemption. Personal exemptions constitute a much greater prooortion of income in the lower brackets. 'rherefore, lower income taxpayers suffE'r most acutely when the real va1.ue of the per-sonal exemption decl.ines each year be­cause of inflation. Obviously, the declin­ing value of the personal exemption aJso has an unusually heavY impact on the tax liability of large families. It is appar­ent that marginal income taxpayers have the most to lose to taxflation.

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29337 Indexing the income tax for inftation

would relieve low-income taxpayers from this burden. The zero bracket amount and personal exemption, and their real value would be maintained constant un­less changed by Congress. Similarly, the tax bracket cutoff points would be changed to reflect the rate of inflation. The Federal Government would no longer receive a revenue windfall for doing nothing about taxes.

Mr. President, the Tax Equalization Act, S. 12, would do all of the above. The Senator from Kansas has intro­duced S. 12 which would adjust the zero bracket amount, personal exemption, and tax brackets according to the rise in the Consumer Price Index. My col­leagues who express concern at the plight of marginal wage earners ought to promote the cause of tax equalization. There is no better way to help those whose productivity is most vital to our economy than by relieving them of the burden of taxflation. Our low-income wage earners are suffering enough from inflation without having to pay a tax penalty as well.•

THE STRUCTURE OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

e Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, the Secretary of Agriculture, Bob Bergland, has written a provocative essay, "It's Time to Rethink Our Farm Policy," in the November issue of the Country Journal. I commend this article to every Member of the Senate.

Secretary Bergland, through this ar­ticle, demonstrates his sensitivity to the changing structure of American agricul­ture. He believes that the structural characteristics of our system of farming make the formulation of farm policy a most difficult and complex task. He has begun to set the tone for a fresh debate on our farm program, the lifeblood of some 3 million farm families, which will be a major issue of the 97th Congress.

The Secretary has called for a na­tional dialog on the structural issue. He will be leading a series of 1 O hearings that will begin in late November of this year. One of those hearings, I might add, will be in Fayetteville, N.C., on November 28.

Mr. President, I request that the text of Secretary Bergland's article be printed in full in the RECORD.

The article follows: IT'S TIME TO RETHINK 0uR FARM POLICY

(By Bob Bergland) In Roseau County, Minnesota, where I

grew up and farmed, the harvest is in, the first dusting of snow lies on the fields, and folks who live there-among them my oldest children-are getting ready for Thanks­giving and the holiday season.

The people in Roseau County, like people everywhere, are worried about inflation and energy. But there is an air of comparative well-being in that community that ts com­mon to much of farm country in this autumn of 1979.

The truth ls that our countryside boasts more people and more opportunity today than it has in decades. Nonmetrooolita.n areas are growing faster than metropolitan

areas, and the most rapid growth ls taking place in the most rural counties. What ls more, this nonmetropolitan growth ls tak.­lng place in every U.S. Census region.

I think what we're seeing ls convincing evidence that rural development efforts launched in the fifties and accelerated in more recent years have helped reverse nearly a century of mlgratlcn out of the country­side. In 1900, 85 percent of all Americans lived on farms or in small towns. But from 1945 to 1970, more than 20 milllon left their rural homes for the cities. In the 1950s, more than a million a year were fleeing the countryside. In the 1960s, the yearly number of departures dropped to 600,000-not be­cause the rate had slowed, but because the source, the rural populaticn base, had shrunk so much in the previous years.

But in the seventies, the pattern re­versed itself. Rural areas gained more than 2 million people, and the growth of rural nonfarm jobs y.ras double the rate of urban jobs in metropolitan areas. Some people, of course, simply opted for country life. Their motivation was more esthetic than eco­nomic. But for many others, the economic factor was of equal if not overriding Im­portance. Earlier this year a report issued by the Urban Land Institute specifically credited those federal and state programs that channeled development money, man­power, and project resources Into rural communities with having been a m!l.jor factor in bringing people and opportunity back to the countryside.

On the farm front, our agricultural ex­'ports continue to set new records; com­modity prices .are up and relatively stable; and there ls a good chance that net fa.rm income-which increased 40 percent in 1978--could set a new all-time record this year. So I think we are also seeing evidence that farm policy -and progr.a.m.s have created a tough, emclent, market-responsive food and agriculture system that rewards the prudent and emclent producer, has all but eliminated hunger in Americ!l., provides food aid where it is needed overseas. and still feeds the American consumer for propor­tionally less of hls.. or her income than most other c2nsumers In the world pay.

Yet tn the last several years-and some­what 1p my surprise-I have become tn­cre:l.Singly uneasy about the state of agri­culture and what it portends for the future of rural America. Somehow I sense that we have no clear purpose or direction, that what semblance of publlc policy we have is shaped by events and circumstances rather than by vision and deliberation. Programs that are the product of reactive policy tend to be themselves reactive, nar­rowly focused, transient--0r expedient. There are some 144 different farm commodi­ties, for example, and at any one time per­haps 20 of them are in trouble. When the trouble occurs, pressure builds on the Con­gress to apply a "patch"-higher support prices, emergency allocation for fuel, sub­sidies for energy to power irrigation sys­tems, or something else in the way of a quick fix. What ls more, what policy we have had over the years, for all its remark­able successes, may have had other con­sequences few foresaw, and many may not want.

Three per:::onal experiences In recent times brought these misgivings home. After a speech I made in Iowa several years ago, I was visited by ten young families . They were tenant farmers. And the land they farmed was being sold out from under them. They wanted to get together to buy that land and Sl.Ve their chosen way of life. They couldn't get the financing. And I thought to myself the old appro!l.c':les just won't do. There has to be a better way.

And then, last winter, hundreds of farm­ers drove their tractors into Washington to tell us that fa.rm programs that had helped increase total farm income to the second

highest level on record and not buffered them from the threat of .financial ruin. Most or' these farmers were not marginal opera­tors. Many had substantial farms. Big ma­chinery. Heavy investments. And an equally heavy debt load.

I dld not agree with their argument--that government-mandated 90-per-cent-of-parity price supports would save them. I said that what they were asking would only aggravate their problems, be::ause It might price them out of the exuort market and further Inflate the land, capital, and production costs that were at the root of their predicament.

Nevertheless, that demonstration pointed up the inescapable conclusion that what we now have in the way of public policy in agri­culture neither gets to the root of an elemen­tal problem, nor addresses the full spectrum of problems arising from the differences in American farming operations. As good as the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 ls, it is fl.awed as its predece~sors were fl.awed. It, too, falls to recognize the wide diversity in farms and farm problems.

This is why I responded as I dld last spring when a young woman reporter stood up at a. press conference In Kansas City and asked me what the goals were for U.S. farm policy. Her question was perceptive. I thought hard, and then I told her that while we had food policy goals, we did not have farm policy goals that are consistently and explicitly h­pressed. The means and ends become blurred. Price supports, target prices, or the reduction of surplus stocks tend to become the sole focus of policy. Lost ls the ultimate goal of these measures-a rate of return for agricul­ture that ls comparable to that earned by other industries.

These incidents, coupled with the mulling over of fundamental questions about agri­culture through a quarter of a century of farming, seven years in the Congress, and three as Secretary of Agriculture, have moved me now to call for an intensive re­view-within and beyond the Department of Agriculture-of all the basic questions re­lating to what economists call the "struc­ture" of agriculture, to order new or fine­tuned research on the issue, and to invite a national public discussion of how public policy might be changed to reshape farm structure and redirect Its course.

What do economists mean by farm struc­ture?

To get at this matter of structure, we have to ask a number of questions. Among them are these: What is the number and the size of our farms? How do they vary by type and by location? How do they relate to their markets? Who owns or controls our agricul­tural land, and who makes the decisions about its use? What are the technological requirements of our various farms? What obstacles stand in the way of a family get­ting into farming? How does a farmer retire without selling his land to his neighbor, a speculator, or a developer? What are the so­cial and economic characteristics of farm operators and owners?

By the time this ls read, many papers on the questions involved in structure-and some of the new research efforts-will have been completed by economists, sociologists, and historians within the USDA, and by experts from the land grant unlversltles, foundations, and other public Interest groups. Other commentaries and recom­mendations have been solicited from farm organizations, rural life associations, includ­ing the church-aflliated; and from many other individuals or institutions who have a direct or tangential stake in the future of agriculture and the rural community.

It is my hope that the factual data col­lected will serve as an informational base for the national discussion that will begin in the next few weeks at a series of ten public hearings. I will chair these meetings at locations throughout the country.

29338 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENA TE October 24, 1979 What then? A filing away of just another

report on just another public exercise? Not if I have anything to say about it. In 1981, the Congress will renew or revise basic farm legislation. By that time I hope we wlll have amassed the most comprehensive and reliable base of data and recommendations ever compiled for developing not only a new farm blll, but for making whatever adjust­ments are deemed necessary in tax laws, credit programs, and government regulations that afl'.ect the structure of American agricul­ture.

I am telling all participants in the farm structure project to let the factual chips fall where they may, regardless of how those facts might contradict their own-or my own-pre ju dices.

For that reason I want to explain my own philosophy, attitudes, and opinions, for they explain why I have initiated this project.

At the heart of the issue of structure ls the clash between two venerable American ethics. The democratic ethic is predicated upon the belief that control of resources and political decisions should be as broadly based as possible. The enterprise ethic holds that there should be no limits on the amount of property men and women can fairly earn their work.

These two-ethics co-existed in rural society even beyond the time that commercial fam­lly farms began to outnumber the self-sus­tained family farms. It was not until after World War II-when policy makers made a conscious decision to seek a more efficient use of agricultural resources, and a surge of new technology made it possible for farmers to work more land than ever before-that the enterprise ethic became the dominant ethic in shaping the structure of agriculture.

There ls no question that technological advances and the entrepreneurial Instinct were of primary Importance In developing the "bigger but fewer" farms syndrome. But pub­llc pollcy surely played a critical role, and, In mv judi:rment. does so to this day.

What deeply concerns me and many others who work In or depend upon agriculture ts that the trends deliberately set in motion or encouraged by publlc pollcv makers then and now may be shanlng a food and airrtcul­ture structure that ts not tn the best Inter­ests of farmers, of the rural community, or of the nation as a whole.

I look at the growing concentration of ownership and control of farm production, farm marketing, and farm supply and I fear the coming of a ttme when comnetltion in all three areas ts reduced to a mintmum­to everyone's disadvantage except t.hose few who hold control. I fear the coming of a time when rural communities that are now surrounded and sustained by fammes op­era ting diversified (even part-time) farms will be surrounded, instead, by empty acres, absentee owned and worked by computer­ized machines.

That time, thank goodness, has not yet come. But the time has come to decide whether this is what we want in the future structure of American agriculture.

The trends are there for anyone to see. In 1950. we had more than 5 millton·

farms. Today we have fewer than S rnllllon. Thoue-h It has slowed. the decline in num­berR contlnuefl. So too does the trend toward concentrated ownership and tenant farm­ing. Todav 40 percent of the land being farmed ts rented land.

As farms dwindled in number, many grew in size. As thev grew in si'7e, the bti;re:est came to dominate nro"luctlon. Todav onlv 1'00.ono of our 2 .7 mUlton !armR produce about 80 percent of our food and fiber.

At the same time. control of the marlrets where the farmflr buvs his machtnel"v and sunnl1es and RelJs his nroducts has become more and more concentrated.

There wac; a t.lme when fannel"s were al­most self-sufficient. Today they have to buy

70 percent of what they need to produce. Who sells it to them?

Four companies sell three out of every four tractors sold in America. Four com­panies sell four out of every five combines. Only two firms sell 79 percent of all cotton pesticides. Half the corn herbicides are sold by just two companies.

There was a time when all farm products were traded on the open market, where buy­ers and sellers competed vigorously in their negotiations. No more. Now we have the total "vertical integration" of the broiler industry, for example. Vertical integration means that the production, processing, and marketing of broilers are all under a single company's control, with no price existing at intermediate stages of production. Pork production is swiftly following the broiler pattern. Today egg prices are determined by formula, because no central market exists. Fruit and vegetable producticm and market­ing is becoming vertically integrated at an accelerating pace. And while grain markets are stlll largely traditional, contracting, hedging, and pure speculation are on the increase.

There are those who see these trends as not only inevitable and unstoppable-but desirable. They argue that maximum effi­ciency in the structure of agriculture has not yet been achieved and that to slow the trends toward concentration of ownership and con­trol would frustrate the attainment of that goal and would penalize the consumer in the process.

Some of the "bigger but fewer" advocates ridicule concern that small, medium, and part-time family farm operations will in time go the way of marginal farms. They point out that the American public did not object when Morn and Pop stores were put out of business by supermarkets, that the public voices little concern that less than 3 per cent of U.S. firms now control more than 80 per cent of all industrial assets.

Still others raise the family bogey that any effort, however well-meaning, to slow the trend toward concentrated ownership and control of agricultural resources will lead inevitably to the mandatory breaking up of big farms and big agricultural supply firms.

I sense, with some degree of assurance, that they are wrong on all three counts. There is persuasive evidence that little ad­ditional savings In production cost would be gained by further expansion of farm size and further concentration of farm ownership anrI control. Indeed, there ls rno11ntlng in!ii­cation that even part-time farmers. using the right mix of methods and equipment, can be as cost efficient as some of the biggest operators.

What is more, Inflation and the energy crisis could make those smaller operators even more efficient than some of their. big competitors. For one thing, 'their smaller size finds them often lo"'ated close to local markets-thus savings transportation costs. For another, their si:re makes them less energy and canltal Intensive.

Secondly. the spokesmen for "bigness" in the farm sector are wrong tn my view. when they say the public regards the growing con­centration of farrnl~nr.l owne!'ship with t.he same S3.n<ni.ine acce".'ltancP. w!th which they view mer~ers and the forrn'l.tlon of con~Iorn­erates In the commercial and industrial sectors.

For whatever reason. most Americans. how­ever urban, have a proprietary Interest in the land and an almost mvsttcal reve .. ence for the 1ntr1ns1c values they attach to It. In my jud3'ment. this ls whv opinion s3.mnlin~s show widespre:.:id appreciation of "the family farm" and widesnread re!"entment ouer the use of tax dollal"s to subsidize the income of big farm ope.,.at.lons.

Third, It does not follow that efforts to preserve smaller family farms must Include

the breaking up of big farms . I surely see no justlficaiton for that. In the first place, "big" is a relative term in discussing farm size, because what is a big farm of one type in one location may be considered a small farm of one type in another. In the second place, all but 2 percent of our farms are "family farms," regardless of how big they are, and in many instances, their size determines their success. And lastly, I happen to believe that the broadest possible competitive mix or farms-and that Includes large as well as small-is ln the best interests of everyone from farmer to town dweller to urban con­sumer.

The key word here is "mix." My concern ls that we are losing that mix, that farms are growing fewer and larger with little further gain in production efficiency and little fur­ther benefit to the public interest.

What could this trend toward bigness sig­nal for the future o! the rural community? Thanks to development efforts, many rural communities now have a modest industrial base that provides jobs for town dwellers and part-time farmers. But what happens when the farm population shrinks under ownership consolidation to the point where It no longer helps sustain the retail stores, banks, and other small businesses that remain the eco­nomic backbone of small towns and cities? I saw what happened in Roseau during the Soll Bank years. Farmers put their land Into the Soll Bank and moved out. And before long, store after store on Main Street closed down and boarded up their windows and went out of business.

What troubles me today ls the suspicion that public policy is encouraging the trend by helping most those farmers who need help the least, while helping least those farmers who need help the most.

Take the matter of commodity programs. We know that program payments, which are based ou volume of production and amounted to $2.03 billion in 1978, provided much great­er benefits to the big producers. Ten percent of the farms participating in the programs got nearly half the total payments. They were the largest farms. The smallest farms, those making up half the total, got only 10 percent of the payments.

I see evidence, too, that tax laws, credit programs, government regulations, farm marketing arrangements, yes, even agricul­tural research, are skewed to favor the big fa.rm over the small and medium sized farm.

What ls more, I suspect that the combi­nation of policies that encourage expansion of farm size and further concentration of control and ownership are impeding free­dom of choice-an American ideal I cherish above nearly all others.

Federal commodity programs that sta­bilized farm prices and protected against dis­aster made it easier for aggressive farmers to borrow money to buy land and adopt cost-reducing technologies. As their hold­ings increased, and as land values soared, they found It easier to obtain even more credit. So they borrowed, expanded, boosted production, borrowed again, bought out their neighbors, and expanded still more. In time, rising land values and tax advantages be<?:an to attract land speculators who took their profit from the sale of the land-not from the products it produced. This. ln turn, drove farm land prices even higher. Since 1967 thos~ prices have trebled, rising 14 per cent last vear alone.

This situation erodes freedom of choice for rnanv already In farming. and many others who want to i?et Into farminq. The agi;rres.,tve farmer who borrowed to exoand and b11y out his nei!?hbor may find himself trapped in a C1ttch 22 sltuRtion. If he has pass,.d t.he point of most. efficient st~e. his profit mar!"in per unit of nroduction levels off an'1 he. c-an then onlv lnr .. eai;;e hl~ tot.al profit bv tncreastn~ volume. To do this. he must contln\1e to exnqnd. Jfis only other choice is to sell out and retire.

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 29339 At the same time, young people who want

to !arm often can afford neither the price of the land nor the cost of the money they must borrow to pay for it. They, to, ha\e lost their freedom of choice, for they can neither work at what they want nor live where they wish. Yet it need not be this way.

I still own my 600-acre farm in Roseau County. My o:dest son, Steve, and my daugh­ter Linda and her husband chose not to farm. But they did choo~e to live near the village of Roseau and work in town. They had this choice because rural development programs helped bring industry and jobs to that community. My daughter Diane and her husband, Steve Dall, want to farm. But with today's prices, they can't afford to buy their own, so they are farming my land. Grain farming there is not a full-time oc­cupation, however, so Steve also holds down a full-time job in town.

Most important in terms of the issue of farm structure, that job makes it possible for him to keep on farming. He may not be able to afford his own land now, but he is doing what he wants to do, where he wants to do it. He believes this is in his best interests. I believe it is in the best interests of his community, the best interests of agriculture, and the best interests of the nation.

I hope that the review, the research, and the public discussion of farm structure that I have launched this year will show us how agriculture should be shaped, where it should be headed, how to get there, and-above all else-how to save and expand freedom of choice in rural America. Jf it does, we can look to a time when the farmer caught in the cycle of borrowing to expand, and ex­. panding to survive, can get off the treadmill without getting out of farming-and young farm"'rs--like my son-in-law-will be able to own the land they farm.e

REPORTING DEADLINE FOR THE NATIONAL ALCOHOL FUELS COM­MISSION

e Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my supoort for an important provision of H.R. 4249, which extends the reporting deadline for the National Alcohol Fuels Commission.

As a member of the Commission, rep­resenting the Senate Agriculture Com­mittee, it has been a oleasure to work with the Commission Chairman, Senator BIRCH BAYH to develop an a1?:gressive al­cohol fuels policy for our Nation.

Mr. President, the Senate has spent a great deal of time over the last several years considering our energy problems and possible solutions. We are increas­ingly cognizant of the need to reduce America's dependence on foreign fuels. The long gasoline lines of this summer and skyrocketing fuel prices have given us a further mandate from the public to not only develop long-term strategies, but to also develop mechanisms which will prevent shortages in the near future.

No single program will provide the an­swer to our energy problems. Our Na­tion's energy future will be dependent upon a variety of energy sources and conservation strategies. We owe it to our citizens to investigate every option pos­sible. Many of my colleagues and I are convinced that renewable energy re­sources are one option that h:I; not re­ceived adequate attention.

Although alcohol fuels, and particu­larly ethanol from farm products, have

received increasing popularity, technical regulatory and economic barriers to widespread production continue to be prevalent.

A major goal of the National Alcohol Fuels Commission is to assist in the elim­ination of these barriers and create an environment in which the rapid com­mercialization of alcohol fuels can occur. The Commission has already initiated a number of public hearings across the country for the purpose of identifying these barriers and to obtain as much input as possible regarding the removal of these problems and to document the incentives required to create a favorable alcohol fuels production environment.

Yet considerable work remains to be accomplished. Although most of the hearings will be completed within the original timeframe of the Commission, I believe the extension of the reporting deadline is essential to assure that com­prehensive policy plans and program ini­tiatives are completed. I urge my col­leagues to support this bill.•

ADDRESS BY SENATOR MATHIAS DELIVERED AT BRETHREN SERV­ICE CENTER CELEBRATION

•Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, an outstanding speech by my good friend, Senator MATHIAS, has come to my atten­tion. His compelling remarks were de­livered on the occasion of the 35th an­niversary celebration at the Brethren Service Center in New Windsor, Md., on October 14, 1979.

Senator MATHIAS is appealing for an enlarging of the constituency aware of our "common humanity as children of God," a constituency that speaks for service and self-sacrifice. He invokes Pope John Paul in his appeal for be­lieving people to practice social justice. I wholeheartedly concur in the Senator's appeal to take the message of the Pope, the biblical message of restraint, sacri­fice, and sharing, to heart so that we can build up the core of our Nation's ability to be a servant people in a broken world. It becomes increasingly apparent that we need not fear destruction from without by armed might nearly so much as we must face destruction from w.i.thin because of our greed, self-centeredness and lack of spiritual and moral fiber.

Mother Teresa, honored with the Nobel Peace Prize, although small in physical stature, stands as an intensely brilliant light in her witness to faithful and fruitful service. Social work is not what she practices but rather a deep personal love for each individual who crosses her path. She has said poignantly that the worst disease in the world is "feeling unwanted, uncared for and deserted."

It is my hope that we might be in­spired as a body to commit ourselves anew to the selfless philosophy pur­ported by Senator MATHIAS in both our national ltfe and foreign relat;.onshios. Mr. President, I request that Senator MATHIAS' speech entitled "Great Respon­sibilities For a Great Nation" be printed in the RECORD.

The address follows:

GREAT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR A GREAT NATION

Thank you for inviting me to share in your celebration of the 35th Anniversary of the Brethren Service Center. I am very happy to be here among those who, like our Lord, keep their eyes on the sparrow.

For the past 35 years, while so many of the citizens of this great republic have been busy "getting and spending", to use Wordsworth's phrase, you here at New Windsor have been reaching out to comfort the hungry, and the homeless, and the hurting people of the world.

There ls no greater work than that, and I am proud to be a witness to your achieve­ments.

Exactly a week ago today at just about this time of day, I stood on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base to say goodbye to Pope John Paul II, that remarkable human being who dominated our consciousness and our news media from the moment he set foot on American soil.

But, as the plane door closed behind the Pope concealing his dynamic figure from sight, I wondered for a moment just how long his message would remain with us once he himself had left our shores.

As a nation, we have developed a very short, a dangerously short, attention span. We turn eargerly from one media event to the next. We seek entertainment, not en­lightenment. We seem unable to concentrate on the abiding question of what our human­ity requires of each of us.

Yet it is precisely this question that Pope John Paul II has asked us to examine. He reminded us of our common humanity as children of God. He spoke of our traditional attachment to human values and ethical concerns. He praised us for past goodness and generosity in providing for the hungry of the world. He challenged us to contribute to a world order that will create a more just relationship between the nations of the

world. And he warned us that: · "Since people are suffering under interna­

tional inequality, there can be no question of giving up the pursuit of international solidarity, even if it involves a notable change in attitudes and life styles o! those blessed with a larger share of the world's goods.''

America has taken the Pope to its heart. But will America take that mesage to heart? A message that C!l.lls for restraint and sacri­fice and sharing.

Thirty-five years ago, when this Center was founded, there was a consensus among Americans that we had a responsib111ty to help rebuild a war-ravaged world. We freely offered our help to friend and foe alike then. We agreed that it was the right thing to do.

Today no such consensus exists in America. The constituency that speaks for service and self-sacrifice is small. So, if we are to do the great deeds in the world that our humanity and our good fortune require of us, we must build a new consensus in America-a con­sensus that favors looking beyond ourselves and our parochial problems to the wider world whose future is so intimately, so in­escapably entangled with our own.

When I was invited to sl:'eak today, I was urged to "challenge you to the future, to the nee<ls that I see that you might antici­pate and to the unexpected." Although I didn't admit it when I accepted the invita­tion, I wouldn't think of trying to tell this group, with its extraordinary record of antic­ipating human needs, how it should deal with the challenges of the future. You are already fine-tuned to the future. Your pro­grams prove it.

But I would like to add anothe·r burden to your load. I would like to ask the Brethen Service Center as a unit and each one of you as individuals to help build a. new con• sensus in America that would support deal­ing aggressively with the truly enormous

29340 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 24, 1979 problems that fester just beyond our door­step on this very small, vulnerable planet.

When President Carter took office, he promised us a new foreign policy that would concentrate on the large issues of our times. He promised the Soviet-American relation­ship, that so long has dominated our think­ing about foreign affairs, would be placed within a broader global perspective. He promised to turn America's attention to the imbalances between the developed and un­derdeveloped nations-to the world popula­tion explosion and to the problems it spawns-hunger, poverty, unemployment, mass migrations. In short, he promised to redefine our national interest in broad in­ternational terms.

I looked forward to supporting that new foreign policy and I have been disappointed that it has never gotten beyond the talking stage. But I do not blame President Carter entirely.

No one persoilr-not President Carter, not the Pope, not any one of our clutch of presi­dential hopefuls-can accomplish miracles. People have to be willing to follow. And frankly I see no will in this country to think in broad international terms. That wlll must be rekindled. And that is the burden I hope you will take up.

There is a selfish motive behind my re­quest. I sit on the Foreign Operations Sub­committee of the Senate A~propriatlons Committee and I find it very hard to watch our most Important foreign aid programs cut year after year because the votes aren't there. This fall almost every request for funding for bilateral humanitarian programs has been cut either In Committee or on the fioor. Mlllions of dollars were lopped off AID re­quests for population control, health, agri­culture, fOOd and science and technology­all programs designed to deal with the prob­lems of the underdeveloped world.

I don't claim that no cuts would have been made if people had spoken out against cutting these programs. There probably would have been some cutting anyway be­cause Congress 1s very conscious of the need to bring the federal budget into balance. But I guarantee you that the cuts would not have been as deep as they were, if members of Congress believed the American people really supported foreign aid programs.

Throughout the entire debate on the For­eign Aid B111, I don't think I got more than two or three letters backing those programs. In the same period, I received hundreds of letters urging me to support the highest peacetime m111tary budget 1n our history.

I don't think we have to trade off the mili­tary budget against foreign aid programs. But I do think we have to broaden our con­cept of what national security is.

Right now, Mexico, our neighbor to the south, has a population of a.bout 65 mlllion. That population is expected to double by the year 2000. Today, according to Kathleen Newland of Worldwatch Institute, the adult Mexican labor force a.mounts to only 28 per­cent of the population and of these only half are fully employed.

Who can say what the future employment picture will be when the Mexican population doubles? What we can s!l.y for sure 1s that it will bring us problems we wm never again be able to ignore.

I have been appointed to the Select Com­mission on Immigration and Refugee Policy which has been asked to take a comprehen­sive look at the immigration and refugee situation in the United States and to report its findings to the President by next year. I will chair the first of 12 regional hearings in Baltimore two weeks from tomorrow--on October 29th. We will be looking into the effect refugees and immigrants-legal and 1llega.l-ha.ve on the U.S. economy, on the labor force, on the unemployment rate. And will be trying to develop a. policy suited to

. the realities of the 21st Century. This is

another area. where I would like to tap your wisdom.

One of the somber reallties of the 20th Cen­tury with which you are all very fa.mmar is the successive waves of refugees that have fied various forms of political and rellgious persecution. This has been a tragic fact of global life since the earliest days of our cen­tury, when pogroms in Russia fo-rced the first large Jewish immigration to the West. As long a.s man's inhumanity to man per­sists, the problem wm persist and there wm be refugees who must find welcome among us.

As you know, the large numbers of Indo­chinese refugees being admitted to the United States have strained our capacity to resettle them. Your work with these refugees has been tremendous, but the resettlement process in this country has been haphazard a.t best. The fragmented nature of the exist­ing system has created confusion, uncer­tainty, and antagonism, and has impeded re­settlement despite valiant efforts by volun­tary agencies.

I'm happy to say that in this area, at least, the Senate has taken some very positive ac­tion. This summer, in Title III of the Refugee Act of 1979, we addressed the problems of resettlement and reworked the entire pro­gram. It now provides for payments to pub­lic and private voluntary agencies for place­ment, resettlement and ca.re of refugees; funding for projects to increase self-reliance of refugees (language and vocational train­ing); support for special education; and cash and medical assistance during an 1n1t1a.l period. I sponsored an amendment which pro­vides for two studies which I think wm con­cern you: one to be undertaken by the Gen­eral Accounting Office to assess the efficiency of the resettlement programs; and one by the Department of Health, Education and Wel­fare to examine how refugees adapt to Ufe 1n the United States.

According to the House Select Committee on Population, at present growth rates, there will be 8 billion people on earth In the year 2018; there will be 16 b1111on 1n 2058; and 32 b1111on in 2098. There ls a real question whether the earth's biological systems­already strained by 4 bllllon people-can sus­tain that kind of growth. There is even more question about whether we can feed that many people.

Worldwatch Institute warns that we al­ready have more than enough evidence that excessive demands are being placed on our biological systems. Global double-digit lnfia­tlon ls the most obvious sign that the sup­ply of many of our world's basic resources has been outstripped by the demand for them. And , there are other problems, even more serious.

For Instance, we will need about one billion new jobs by the year 2000 to give work to all the new entrants into the job market. And consider this: the Census Bureau tells us that by the year 2000 more than 12 percent of all Americans will be over 65 and by 2025 that figure will top 17 percent.

These demographic changes have serious implications for the future of our society. If we don't face those implications now, we won't be able to do anything about them when the future comes. That ls why we are here today.

I think it ls significant that the character in Chinese for crisis means both "danger" and "opportunity". We are in a period of crisis now. No one doubts it. But, we can move from the "danger" phase of crisis to the "opportunity" phase, I think, if we get together on this now and work together on 1 t from now on.

Several years ago, at a meeting of the Con­gressional Clearinghouse of the Future, Her­man Kahn, Director of the Hudson Tnstitute, spoke in glowing terms about what lies ahead of us. He said:

"Two hundred years ago man was every-

where poor, everywhere scarce, everywhere at the mercy of nature. Two hundred years from now man (barring bad management and/or bad luck) will be everywhere rich, every­where numerous, and everywhere in control of the forces of nature. We are in the middle of the most exciting 400 year period in human history."

I share Mr. Kahn's enthusiasm although the road ahead will not be easy for any of us. There are many uncertainties. But I am absolutely certain of one thing. If we can spread the spirit that animates your work here across our land, we can transform crisis to opportunity. In your work here, you epitomize Robert Louis Stevenson's wonder­ful observation that: To travel hopefully ls better than to arrive.

Let us travel hopefully together then. That way we will surely arrive at the solutions we need for a future that already crowds us.e

COAL MINING CAN BE SAFE • Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, the October 29, 1979, issue of Business Week magazine contains a thoughtful article entitled "Why Mine Fatalities Are Going Down." The article details the efforts which are being made by the coal mining industry and the unions which repre­sent coal miners to reduce the incidence of deaths in the Nation's coal mines.

There has been, indeed, a stunning re­duction in the number of deaths asso­ciated with coal mining, and the fre­quency of deaths expressed in terms of million man hours worked. It is gratify­ing to me that the article quotes many industry and union leaders as agreeing that much of this progress is the result of the 1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act and the 1977 Federal Mine Safety and Health Act.

As the Business Week article points out, it was not until enactment of those laws, and the subsequent strong enforce­ment that most major coal operators set up safety departments, and started to make concerted efforts to train miners and supervisory pers<mnel. The fre­quency of fatalities started to drop thereafter.

But more important, Mr. President, follow'ing the enactment of these laws, attitudes toward death and injury in the mines started to change. While tragic accidents and death had always been considered an inevitable part of coal mining, we are starting to see that both union and management no longer accept this inevitab1lity. The substantial im­provements in recent years have spurred still greater efforts. "We do not have to accept 100 deaths a year" says Ralph W. Hatch, vice president for safety of Con­solidation Coal Co., a company which now spends $20 million each year in safety programs.

This is a remarkable change of at­titude in an industry which saw 2,719 deaths in 1911, 1,158 in 1947, and 311 deaths in 1968.

Mr. President, this progress is laud­able, and this attitude is constructive. I believe, as do the industry's leaders from both management and labor, that the Federal mine safety legislation has been instrumental in these very real improve­ments i\ inner safety in the coal industry.

In the same issue of Business Week, an editorial, entitled "Coal Mining Can Be·

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29341 Safe" echoes this belief. The editorial points out also the sign'iftcant improve­ment in reducing the number of mine fatalities, and says that "a primary f ac­tor in the improvement has been the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 • • • ." This law has encouraged the initiatives which the industry has undertaken, and Business Week points out something that I have long believed: That "better management and training techniques can <further) reduce the number of such accidents."

Data provided by the Mine Safety and Health Administration demonstrates just how dramatic the improvement in ~he coal mining industry has been. In 1911, the first year for which such data is provided, 2,719 miners died in mine accidents. Between 1911 and 1930, an average of 2,254 coal miners were killed each year. While there were some im­provements in succeeding years, as late as 1947, our Nation still saw more than 1,000 coal mine fatalities in a single year.

In 1968, the last year before enact­ment of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, 311 miners were killed on the job. Since enactment of that law, the num­ber of coal mine fatalities has dramat­ically dropped. In 1978, there were 104 coal mine fatalities, a more than 200 per­cent reduction.

We have indeed come a long way. But, there is still room for improve­

ment, and as Business Week points out, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act can provide the foundation upon which the industry can build a program of in­creased miner training and management awareness which can still further reduce the incidence of death in the coal mines.

Mr. President, there is, however, a dis­turbing trend in the data provided by MSHA. In 1911, 75.49 percent of the min­ing fatalities were in the coal industry and 24.51 percent were in the noncoal mining industry. On the average, for the period 1911-30, 79.24 percent of all mine fatalities were in the coal industry, and 20.76 percent of all fatalities were in the noncoal mining industry. In 1978, however, of the 240 mining fatalities, 104 <or 43.33 percent) were in the coal in­dustry, and 136 <or 56.67 percent) were in the noncoal mining industry.

It is obvious from these statistics that the noncoal mining industry has failed to make the same strides in improving workplace safety as the coal mining in­dustry. Fortunately, however, the new Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 adopts many of the statutory fea­tures which have been responsible for the dramatic improvements in the coal industry and makes them applicable to the noncoal industry as well. As this new law begins to take hold, I am con­fident that the noncoal mining indus­try will be able to implement the kinds of training and management programs which will result in significant improve­ments in the rate of mine fatalities.

I know that the entire mining indus­try is committed to improving workplace safety and health. And, I am as con­fident, as is Business Week, that the new mine safety and health laws will pro­vide a firm foundation upon which this vital American industry can resolve its

CXXV--1845-Part 22

safety and health problems, and tiuild for the future.

Mr. President, I ask that the data on mine fatalities for the years 1911 through 1978 provided by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. and the article and editorial from Business Week maga­zine be printed in the RECORD.

The material follows:

Mining fatalities 1911-78

Year Coal Metal Total

1911 --------------- 2, 719 1912 --------------- 2 , 360 1913 --------------- 2, 785 1914 --------------- 2, 454 1915 --------------- 2, 269 1916 --------------- 2 , 226 1917 --------------- 2, 696 1918 --------------- 2,580 1919 --------------- 2, 323 1920 --------------- 2, 272 1921 --------------- 1, 995 1922 --------------- 1, 984 1923 --------------- 2, 462 1924 --------------- 2,402 1925 --------------- 2, 234 1926 --------------- 2,518 1927 --------------- 2,231 1928 --------------- 2, 176 1929 --------------- 2,187 1930 --------------- 2,063 1931 --------------- 1, 463 1932 --------------- 1, 207 1933 --------------- 1,064 1934 --------------- 1,226 1935 --------------- l , 242 1936 --------------- 1,342 1937 --------------- 1, 413 1938 --------------- 1,105 1939 --------------- 1,078 1940 --------------- 1,388 1941 --------------- 1,266 1942 --------------- 1, 471 1943 --------------- 1,451 1944 --------------- 1, 298 1945 --------------- 1, 068 1946 --------------- 968 1947 --------------- 1,158 1948 --------------- 999 1949 --------------- 584 1950 --------------- 643 1951 --------------- 785 1952 --------------- 548 1953 --------------- 461 1954 --------------- 396 1955 --------------- 420 1956 --------------- 448 1957 --------------- 478 1958 --------------- 358 1959 --------------- 293 1960 --------------- 325 1961 --------------- 294 1962 --------------- 289 1963 --------------- 284 1964 --------------- 242 1965 --------------- 259 1966 --------------- 233 1967 --------------- 222 1968 --------------- 311 1969 --------------- 203 1970 --------------- 260 1971 --------------- 181 1972 --------------- 156 1973 --------------- 132 1974 --------------- 132 1975 --------------- 155 1976 --------------- 141 1977 --------------- 139 1978 --------------- 104

883 874 866 739 701 870 983 771 591 603 350 476 510 556 520 584 487 392 476 370 219 139 154 176 215 290 296 238 221 302 306 349 300 220 174 181 220 203 152 167 175 209 161 139 157 157 152 167 173 185 127 216 173 179 180 195 181 182 179 165 164 234 175 158 123 113 134 136

WHY MINE FATALITIES ARE DoWN

3,602 3,234 3,651 3,193 2,970 3, 096 3, 679 3, 351 2, 914 2,875 2,345 2,460 2,972 2,958 2,754 3, 102 2,718 2,568 2,663 2,433 1,682 1,346 1,218 1,402 1,457 1,632 1,709 1,343 1, 299 1, 690 1,572 11, 820 1,751 1, 518 1,242 1,149 1,378 1,202

736 810 960 757 622 535 577 605 630 525 465 510 421 505 457 421 439 428 403 493 382 425 345 390 307 290 278 254 273 240

For most o! this century, workers who donned a coal miner 's bard hat have had to accept the ta.ct that their chances o! being kllled on the job were greater than in any

other industry. This began to change with enactment or a. stm federal safety law 10 years ago, and now the coal industry has reached a watershed. The days of mine dis­asters are largely gone, and the industry's own belated safety efforts are cutting the ra.te at which miners die in individual acci­dents. This raises the prospect that coal man­agements and their employees may finally be developing ways to end mine deaths in the foreseeable future, although a. significant breakthrough in coal labor relations must stm be made before this can happen.

These developments are occurring at a. cru­cial time for coal companies, which are try­ing to drag both their management and their labor relations techniques "into the 20th century," as one industry omctal puts it. Safety problems have always been a source o! conflict between the industry and the United Mine Workers. As the industry tries to in­crease production by 30 percent or more dur­ing the next decade, its ab111ty to push mine deaths stm lower will have a strong bearing on how peacefully the two wlU get along­and whether the industry can raise its sag­ging productivity.

In recent years, labor flareups over sa.!ety have become less frequent, and statistics compiled by the Mine Safety & Health Ad­ministration show why. The number o! work­ers killed annually at mining operations dropped 47 percent-from 260 to 139-be­tween 1970 and 1977, the la.st full year with­out a. nationwide coal strike, even though coal production rose 15 percent during that period. The industry's death frequency rate, a. more accurate gauge because it expresses !a­ta.lltles in terms of the total hours worked in the industry each year, has declined even more sharply. It stood at 0.30 death per mil­lion work hours last year, down !rom one death per m1111on in 1970, and it could go even lower this year.

TIGHTER REGULATIONS

The question is whether these trends can continue. On the pcsitlve side, coal produc­tion is rapidly shifting to surface mining, which is much sa!er than underground min­ing, and increasing mechanization ls making deep mining ltsel! less labor intensive. Fed­eral oversight o! mine safety ls tighter than ever before, reflecting amendments made in 1977 to the Coal Mine Health & Sa!ety Act ot 1969. Since the mid-1970s, most major pro­ducers have established long-overdue sa!ety departments, and they are giving more than Up service to the goal or cutting fatalities. "We have as our goal zero accidents," says Ralph W. Hatch, vice-president o! sa!ety at Consolidation Coal Co., the industry's No. 2 producer. Consolidation claims to spend $20 mllllon a. year on its safety programs.

St1ll, the potential for future problems Ls great. As production jumps, the industry wm have to lower its death rate drastically to keep the actual number o! deaths !rom rising. This means stamping out individual fatalities that so far have proved impervious to safety laws; 109 miners have already died this year. This in turn wm require much closer cooperation between miners and their foremen, who traditionally have been tough, mistrustful adversaries. Says one UMW om­cial: "There has to be a. commitment on both sides."

Nearly everyone agrees that much o! the progress to date ls a. direct result o! the 1969 Mine Safety Act. Triggered by a. 1968 exolosion that k1lled 78 workers at a Con­solidation mine near Farmington, W. Va., the law for the first time set strict standards fer ventilating explosive mine gas and coal dust and for preventing root falls. Now every underground mine must be inspected at least four times a. year, and safety violators are fined. These procedures have drastically re­duced the number of mine disasters. (A disaster is defined as an accident that kllls at lea.st five workers.)

29342 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 24, 1979 "The 1969 act essentially marked the be­

ginning of the coal industry that America ls going to have and the end of the type of industry America had from 1920 to 1969," says Joseph P. Brennan, president of the Bituminous Coal Operators' Assn., the coal industry's bargaining arm.

NEW ATTITUDES

Although mine accidents had killed almost 100,000 miners since 1900, it was not until the law appeared that big companies such as Consolidation Coal Co. and Peabody Coal Co., the top producer, set up safety depart­ments. The law also strengthened efforts by the reform administration of UMW President Arnold Miller, who was elected in late 1972, to win contractual safety protections. The agreement the union negotiated in 1974 re­quired, for the first time, that new employees be trained before being sent into narrow mine passages where slight mistakes can result in workers being crushed by falling slate or electrocuted by the high-voltage cables that power big mining machines. And it gave individual miners the right to simply leave their posts if they feel they are in "imminent danger."

In varying degrees at different companies, these developments have been accompanied by significant changes in attitudes. In the past, coal executives-and even mlners­often saw deaths as simply a cost of pro­duction in an unavoidably dangerous in­dustry. But now, says Consolidation's Hatch, "we do not have to accept 100 deaths a year." Adds one UMW official: "There ls realization by everyone that safety ls here to stay." It ls this change in attitude that provides the best hope that mine deaths can be wiped out altogether.

This new outlook toward safety has led some companies to take steps beyond those required either by law or by the UMW con­tract. Most major companies, including Con­solidation and Peabody, now have at least one safety official stationed. at each mine. ~actlcally every big producer sponsors occa­sional sa..fety competitions for its hourly workers and gives awards to individuals who have the fewest accidents. Westmoreland Coal Co., among others, holds union-man­agement seminars to enhance communica­tions between miners and foremen. Several companies started safety training for fore­men after an influx of inexperienced miners and foremen into the industry in 1975 pushed deaths up temporarily. Foremen and workers at Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.'s Gateway mine in western Pennsylvania have jointly written a booklet explaining how to do each job in the mine safely.

Partly as a result of those programs, and partly because the MSHA's 985 inspectors and legions of state inspectors patrol the coal­fields constantly, the death frequency rate of most major producers in this decade has fallen below the average for the industry, and in most cases the rates continue to drop. For instance, the average frequency rate for the entire industry" during the four years beginning in 1975 was 0.36 death per m1111on work hours. Over that s:ime period, the aver­age rate for some of the nation's lar~est pro­ducers was as follows: Peabody, 0.29; Con­sol, 0.21; AMAX (which has large surface mine production) , 0.07; Island Creek, 0.30; U.S. Steel, 0.14; Bethlehem Steel, 0.30; North American Coal, 0.18; and Eastern Associated Coal, 0.26.

LATE START

One glaring exception to this pattern ls Pittston Co. , the seventh-large.st producer. Every year but one since 1972, Pittston's death rate has exceeded 0.4 per million, and since 1975 its average rate has been 0.46, according to MSHA statistics. Pittston offi­cials say that m1ny of their minee are old, and the company has few surface mines, which help lower the overall rate for many producers. Still, it was not until April, 1978,

that the company established a safety divi­sion, even though it has huge reserves of c1sh that it earned during the profitable coal markets of the m1d-1970s. Pittston bas hired Jack Crawford, a former MSHA official, to direct its safety department, and he ls im­plementing a plan such as other companies already have.

Despite the safety progress made since 1970, the industry has had limited success in eliminating less-publicized causes of the 100 or more mining deaths that still occur each year. On average, nearly half of these happen when a chunk of mine roof, usually slate, falls and crushes a miner. Another 30 percent to 40 percent of them occur when workers are either electrocuted or crushed by the huge equipment that just barely fits into underground mines. The MSHA does not usu­ally assign blame in fatal accidents, but a study of last year's 33 roof-fall deaths iden­tifies reasons such as failure to examine or properly analyze the condition of the mine roof, or failure to use enough roof support or to comply with a preset roof-support plan.

UMW officials point to such accidents-plus occasional disasters-as evidence that pro­duction, not safety, ls still the highest pri­ority at many companies. Last June, for in­stance, a federal grand jury handed down a criminal indictment against Blue Diamond Coal Co. charging that it "willfully" violated federal ventilation rules in connection with methane explosions on Mar. 9 and 11, 1976, that kllled 26 men at the company's Scotia mine in Letcher County, Ky. Moreover, sev­eral companies, using a provision they nego­tla ted last year, have persuaded their UMW lccals to accept incentive plans that pay miners bonuses for higher production even if a mine's safety record deteriorates in the process.

"AWARENESS"

Whatever part production pressures may play, industry officials contend that most in­dividual fatalities occur because of careless­ness by either miners or foremen and that the solution to this problem lies in better labor-relations techniques rather than in more rules and regulations. "Awareness ls the key to the whole safety issue," says John L. Schroder, Jr., U.S. Steel's vice president for coal. Adds Latham G. Gray, general man­ager of coal at Bethlehem: "Safety is an atti­tude or philosophy."

One way to improve attitudes ls with more and better training. Bethlehem, which along with U. S. Steel had an effective safety pro­gram long before most other companies, says it gives its miners twice as many hours of training as state and federal laws require. In addition to state tests, each new Bethlehem foreman must take a 20-day company course that has a "strenuous emphasis on safety," Gray says. Moreover, the company punishes both miners and foremen whose mistakes cause accidents. Gray adds: "Safety ls a man­agement responsibility, from the first level all the way up. The first-line foreman has to carry that commitment to the workers. If not, you can't get to first base."

UNION PARTICIPATION

There ls general agreement, also, that too much of the training that new miners cur­rently get ls what Pittston's Crawford calls "proforma." David Moe, a local union presi­dent at the Laurel Run mine opera.ted by Eastern Associated in eastern Pennsylvania, recalls his own week of instruction two years ago. "They showed us some old Bureau of Mines film, asked if we had any questions, and that was it."

Another prerequisite for reducing fatalities below current levels is stronger efforts by the UMW to make its members more safety conscious and to challenge employers who are lax on safety. In the mid-1970s, the union's lobbying and negotiating produced important safety gains for miners. But dur­ing the past two years, staff reductions

brought on by internal political problems have impaired the UMW's efforts Only two members of its six-member legal staff are assigned to combattlng the dozens of apueals that companies regularly file after federal inspectors cite them for safety violations. The union no longer has a research depart­ment to study safety trends. And the most powerful official in its safety department is a former bodyguard of UMW President M1ller who has little experience in safety matters

Despite the progress made so far, the coal industry a.nd the UMW wm have to spend increasing amounts of time and money on safety efforts if the trend of the past few years ls to be sustained and improved upon. The alternative is a continuation of senseless accidents such as the one last August that accounted for Pittston's third fatality in 1979. Two miners were riding in an electri­cally-powered locomotive along a mine pas­sageway, one sitting up on the edge of the machine. As they passed a ramp used to load coal on cars that would take it to the surface, part of the ramp that extended slightly over the tracks struck the nearest miner in the head and kllled him. A flag or other signal might have prevented this death, and Pittston's Crawford intends to devise such a system. But in this case the dead miner should have realized better than anyone the danger that existed: He had helped install the ramp himself.

COAL MINING CAN BE SAFE For at lea.st a century and a half, coal Inin­

lng has borne the reputation of being the most dangerous industry in the U.S. Within the past few years, it has become a classic example of what industry can do to improve safety when it really takes the assignment seriously. Although more than 100 workers a year stm die in mine accidents-a figure the industry knows it must reduce-this rep­resents a major change by comparison with the 1,250-a-year average since 1900.

A primary factor in the improvement has been the Coal Mine Health & Safety Act of 1959, which imposed tough safety standards on the mining process. But companies have taken initiatives on th~r own. Most major producers now have at least one manage­ment emuloyee stationed at each mine whose primary job is to make sure that safe work practices are followed. Some companies, Bethlehem Steel Corp., for instance, provide more training than state and federal law requires.

The campaign to end coal mine deaths completely ls now entering its most difficult phase. Most mine fatalities now are the re­sult of individual carelessness-on the part of either workers or management. Only bet­ter management and training techniques can reduce the number of such accidents. More laws would be useless.

Moreover, as production rises in the coal industry, more workers will be exposed to the hazards of mining. The death rate must con­tinue to drop rapidly 1f the industry ls to avoid a rise in total number.

The industry's best hope of achieving its goals ls that there bas been a marked change in attitudes toward safety among managers and workers alike. Traditionally, coal miners and their families have regarded des.th as an unavoidable co<;t of bringing c·oal up from below ground. Today. they see no reason why mining cannot be safe.e

TRIAL OF CHARTER 77 GROUP IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

• Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, following the arrest in Czechoslovakia, op l'yiay 29, 1979 of 10 members Of Charter 77, 6 of thos~ arrested went on trial on Octo­ber 22 on subversion charges. On Octo­ber 23, sentences were handed out, rang-

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 29343 ing from 4% years in prison for play­wright Vaclav Havel, to 5 years for economist Peter Uhl. A former spokes­man for the Charter 77 group, Vaclav Benda, was sentenced to 4 years, former television commentator Jiri Dienstbier and Otta Bednarova, a journalist, re­ceived 3 year sentences. Dana Nemcova, a Roman Catholic dissident and mother of 7 children, had her 2 year sentence suspended. The other four members of the group arrested in May remain in­carcerated, while awaiting a trial date.

Originally founded as a monitoring group of the Helsinki Accord, Charter 77 became increasingly diversified in re­cent years. Last year, it established a committee for "the defense of the un­justly persecuted". Its self-appointed task was to investigate alleged injustice in individual cases and abuse of power by the State.

The May arrests followed the group's publication of a study comparing eco­nomic conditions in Western Europe with those in Czechoslovakia, and charg­ing government corruption. The publica­tion of such a document was clearly in keeping with basket III of the Helsinki agreement dealing with the free flow of information, as well as with the language of the accord which stipulates that participating States will first, "make it their aim to facilitate the freer and wider dissemination of information of all kinds", and second, "will promote the publication and dissemination of eco­nomic and commercial information at regular intervals and as quickly as pos­sible, in particular: statistics concern­ing production, national income, budget, consumption and productivity".

The charges of subversion bear no relationship to the "crime" of the de­fendants. The sentences that were meted are simply unjustifiable.

The Czech Government's reaction to criticism leaves no doubt that the line of demarcation between communism and fascism is thin indeed. The common denominator of totalitarianism compels rulers to treat dissention as a threat to their total power. It is only through the suppression of individualist thinkers that control of the masses can be maintained.

The nations who participated in Helsinki conference viewed the suppres­sion of ideas and of the flow of informa­tion across borders as a threat to world peace. It is ironical to note that Czechoslovakia was a signatory of the accords that were concluded in August 1975. The timing of the trial by the Czech Government, simultaneous with the continuing debate on SALT and the Soviet government's expectations of its outcome, can only provoke serious thought and puzzled speculation.

The overall issue of universal peace may transcend humanitarian concerns it can never diminish it. I should like u; voice my strong protest at the manner in which the trial of six members of Charter 77 was conducted free from journalistic scrutiny, as weli as my out­rage at the sentences that were so un­justly meted to the defenders.

Far from decreasing in size, dissident movements in Czechoslovakia and else­where have been growing. Their strength

and the tenacity of their adherents are a testimony to men's inate craving for the principle of freed om, as well as their unflagging faith that it can triumph. As a free nation, we can do no less but lend them our continuing support.•

DAffiY FA;RMERS: LOSERS IN THE 1979 TRADE ACT

e Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I am a supporter of the trade bill and voted for it earlier this year. By and large it represents a positive step forward that will increase our export potential. As Ambassador Strauss told the Agriculture Committee when he testified on June 27th, the Tokyo Round was particularly successful in removing barriers which restrict our ability to penetrate foreign agricultural markets.

As we begin to more fully appreciate the impact of the act however, it appears to me that dairy farmers may be the biggest losers in the 1979 Trade Act.

The Trade Act permits a 34 million pound increase in U.S. cheese imports over 1978 imports, for a total of 276 mil­lion pounds annually. This represents a 14-percent increase in milk equivalent, or 350 million pounds. The 350 million pound increase in milk equivalent im­ports will cost each producer 6% cents per hundredweight or $2,496 annually.

The attached paper by Truman Graf of the University of Wisconsin elabo­rates on the economic impact of the Trade Act to the dairy industry and I ask that it be printed in the RECORD.

The paper follows: IMPACT OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1979 ON THE

DAmY INDUSTRY International trade negotiations, con­

cluded in Geneva, Switzerland on April 12, 1979, are one of the most important current factors affecting the dairy industry. I view my assignment then a.s analyzing the impact of these trade negotiations on fa.rm milk prices and income. To do this I will also ex­amine the impact of the negotiations on im­port quotas, countervailing duties, proof of injury, and related measures designed to help protect domestic farm milk prices from subsidized imports.

BACKGROUND One-sixth of everything that is grown or

manufactured in the world is traded inter­nationally, currently totaling $1.3 trillion an­nually. Countries throughout the world are therefore interested in expanding interna­tional trade as a way of increasing economic development, income, and the standard of living for society generally. In an effort to accomplish this goal, gradual modification of international trade re-;:tr1ct1ons have oc­curred. For example, in the past century and one-half, the U.S. has enacted 17 separate tariff and trade acts, gradually reducing tariffs on foreign imports from a. high of about 60 percent of the value of imported products in 1833 legislation, to only about 6 percent under legislation in effect in 1978. U.S. tariffs are being reduced another 33 percent over the next eight years as a result of the Geneva international trade negotia­tions.

The Geneva. international trade negotia­tions had, as their objective, an expansion in international trade. They date back over 30 years--to 1947, following a world wide de­pression and war, when 23 nations, including the U.S. met to negotiate and sign General Agreements on Ta.riffs and Trade (GATT). In the next twenty years, six GATT trade "rounds" were held, concluding with the DU-

lion and Kennedy rounds in the early and mid 1960's. These GATT tr·ade rounds re­duced ta.riffs on thousands of products traded by member countries. By ·the early 1970's, however, many new barriers of a. non­tariff nature such as import quotas had de­veloped, and threatened expanded world trade. GATT rules were becoming less able to deal with these new barriers. The U.S. and other interested countries therefore initiated the seventh or "Tokyo Round" of multilat­eral trade negotiations (MTN) a.t a minis­terial trade conference in Toyko, Japan, in September of 1973. Actual negotiations began in February 1975 in Geneva., Switzerland, fol­lowing enactment of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974, which authorized our participation in the Tokyo round of MTN. Ninety-nine coun­tries participated in the MTN, including the U.S., EEC countries, Canada, Japan, and other countries, which together a.ccount for the bulk of world trade volume.

Agrtcultur·al exports a.re critical to not only U.S. agriculture, but to the entire U.S. econ­omy. More than one-fifth of U.S. fa.rm in­come com~s from exports, and production of nearly one of every three harvested acres is exported. Last year, U.S. agricultural exports totaled $29.4 b1llion, resulting in a. $14.6 bil­lion agr1cu1tural trade surplus-which is ex­pected to increase to $16.6 billion this year beoause of an increase in agricultural exports to $32.4 billion. This agricultural trade sur­plus is critical to the entire economy as a way of offsetting the non-agricultural trade deficit of approximately $40 b1111on annually, largely brought on by oil imports. Thus, the agricultural trade surplus helps ease the downward pressure on the dollar, and in the battle against infia.tion.

Agricultural trade was therefore of great concern to the U.S. a.t the Tokyo Round MTN, and we emphasized reducing barriers affect­ing agricultural trade, such a.s import quotas, export subsidies, and ta.riffs. We requested trade concessions on $4.7 b1111on annually in agricultural exports, and were granted con­cessions on a.bout $4 billion. Agricultural ex­ports are expected to increase a.bout a. half billion dollars annually as a. result of these concessions. These trade concessions are on 480 items, including items valued a.t $1.5 bil­lion going to Japan, and items valued a.t $700 million going to the EEC. In exchange we offered annual trade concessions on a.bout $2.6 billion of agricultural imports. Our a.gri• cultural import concessions included cutting agricultural tariffs bv more than 50 percent

We reduced dairy tariffs on butter, butter products, and Swiss, Cheddar, and Ita.Ua.n style cheeses. However, these duty reductions are not exoected to have an impact on U.S. imports of these products, since a.11 have imoort quotas. It will, therefore, be quotas, not tariffs, which wm determine the level of imports of these products. The tariff on casein mixtures was reduced 1.3 cents per pound, to .2 cents per pound. Since casein currently has no import quota, this duty reduction ts estimated by the Administration to increase imports a.bout $200.000 annually. In addition, we granted Australia a. 4.5 mil­lion pound import quota on chocolate crumb, a. butterfat product used in candy-making and as an ice cream mix. However, these were relatively minor adjustments and did not generate much opposition in the U.S. dairy industry.

We also increased import quotas on che~e. permitting a. 15 percent increase in cheese imoorts over 1978 levels. This ts the change which the U.S. dairy industry feels w111 hurt 1t most. It was primarily done in response to EEC requests, reflecting their 15 % dairy surplus, which cost them about $6 bllllon annually. This ls in sharp contrast to our milk surolus o! only 2.4% last year, which cost USDA only $240 m1111on.

Even the Administration conceded there will be losses to the U.S. da.try industry as a result of tar11f and non-tar11f agreements

29344 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 24, 1979 reached at Geneva, because of increases in cheese imports. Net dairy trade concessions granted exceed $'.'00 mHiion annually. 1.hese losses to the dairy industry contracts to gains from MTN for almost all other sectors of U.S. agriculture, as well as U.S. industry. This helps explain why the dairy industry stands almost alone in questioning the agree­ments reached in the Tokyo Round of MTN.

The Geneva trade pa.ct of April 12, 1979, was formally submitted by the President to the Congress for legislative action in mid­June. By law, Congress had 90 working days to a.pprO\:e or reiect the bill. Also under rules spelled out in the 1974 U.S. Trade Act, the blll could not be a.mended by Congress-it had to be either voted up, or down, as submitted.

Congressional action was not needed on tariff reductions. Authority to cut them up to 60 % was granted to the President, in the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. However, Congres­sional approval was required for measures to curb non-ta.riff barriers such a.s import quotas, government subsidized exports, restrictions on foreign bidding for govern­ment procurement contracts, customs valua­tion methods that keep foreign goods out, and standards that discriminate against for­eign products. Congressional approval was also needed for changes in procedures for enforcing rules dealing with alleged unfair trade methods, such as subsidization of exports by foreign countries.

The U.S. House of Representatives ap­proved the Trade Bill by an overwhelming margin of 395 to 7 on July 11, 1979. The U.S. Senate followed suit on July 23, 1979, over­whelmingly approving the blll 90-4. President Carter signed the b111 on July 26, 1979, thus enacting it into law. The U.S. dairy industry therefore has lost in its attempt to remove or modify the increase in U.S. cheese import quotas, agreed to in the Geneva negotiations, and included in the new U.S. Trade La.w­the Trade Act of 1979.

NEW DAIRY IMPORT REGULATIONS

The U.S. Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (Section 22) provides that import quotas may be imposed whenever imports interfere with the price support program for a.n agricultural commodity. U.S. dairy import quotas were first introduced in 1951, and are now used to regulate imports of cheese, butter, nonfat dry milk, ice cream, and most other dairy products. In 1978, quota imports totaled 1.3 billion pounds of milk equiva­lent-slightly over 1 percent of U.S. milk pro­duction, and applied to 57 percent of U.S. dairy imports.

Import quotas are considered the most ef­fective device for regulating dairy imports. Yet, dairy import quotas a.re being increased in the new Trade Act-which explains U.S. dairy industry opposition to it.

The 1979 Trade Act permits a 34 mllllon pound increase in U.S. cheese imports over 1978 imports, for a total of 276 million pounds annually. The Act increases annual cheese import quotas 117 m11lion pounds, to a new level of 245 mtllion pounds.

Sheep and goats milk cheeses, cheeses such as Bryndza, Gammelost, and Goya, and soft cured cheese such as Camembert and Brie are exempt from import quotas. Imports of these cheeses are expected to total about 31 milUon pounds annually, which, with the new 245 million pound quota. for other cheeses, results in the new level of cheese imports of 276 mlllion pounds. Swiss type "prlcebreak" cheeses previously exempt from import quotas 1f priced 7 cents or more per pound above the support level for American cheese, are brought under the new increased quota.

The new Act also amends the previous countervalllng duty statute which prevented damage to the cheese and other industries from subsidized imports by mandatory lmpo-

sition of countervailing duties of the same magnitude as the export subsidies. Under the new Act, foreign nations would be allowed to subsidize their exports as long as the result­ing prices did not undercut prices of do­mestically produced cheese. The domestic cheese industry and other U.S. industries would therefore be required to prove price undercutting before "counterva.111ng" action could be ta.ken.

Thus, domestic "injury" will have occurred before remedial action can take place. The Act does contain a "speed up" procedure in dealing with price undercutting com­plaints, allowing the Secretary of Agric•J.1-ture no more than 65 days to make a de­cision on whether "price cutting" is taking place-almost five months faster than in the past. If the Secretary found a price cutting violation, the exporting country would be required to end its 11legal practices or have its cheese exports banned from the U.S.

IMPACT OF NEW DAIRY IMPORT REGULATIONS

In my opinion, dairy farmers will be losers in the 1979 Trade Act. The agreement's pro­ponents say the loss will be "no big deal," for the increase in cheese imports to 276 million pounds under the agreement wm be only 34 million pounds over last yea.r's imports of 242 million pounds. However, the increase amounts to a 14 percent increase in milk equiva.lent--350 million pounds.

You may say "so what," that it ls better to produce for the Class I fiuid market any­way, than for the Class III cheese market. However, since cheese factory pay prices comprise about 75 percent of the Minnesota.­Wisconsin manufacturing milk price (M-W), a fall in cheese prices because of added cheese imports will also result in a substan­tial fall in the M-W price. Since the M-W price is the base price for Class I, II, and III prices in most state and federal milk orders, a fall in the M-W price will also result in a decrease in Grade A blend prices to farmers. Manufacturing milk prices all over the U.S. will also drop, since cheese prices are its main determinant. Canadian cheese and farm milk prices will also be affected, since they are infiuenced by U.S. cheei:e prices. Thus, an increase in cheese imports would impact ad­versely on dairy farmers-and in turn on ag­riculture generallv, since farm milk sales last year totaled $i2.7 billion-12 percent of U.S. fa.rm income.

How much? Every 500 million pounds of milk equivalent imports results in a 9 cents per hundredweight (cwt.) loss for each dairy producer, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture calculations. ("The Impact of Dairy Imports on the U.S. Dairy Industry," USDA Agricultural Economic Report 278, January 1975.) Therefore, the 350 million pound increase in milk equivalent imports will cost U.S. producers $76 million annu!lolly, and wUl cost each producer 6~ cents per cwt., or about $378 annually (with average midwest volume).

Additionally, each dairy farmer lost S5 cents per cwt., or $2,118, because last year's milk equivalent imports exceeded exports by 1.94 blllion pounds. This is $427 million an­nually to U.S. dairy farmers.

Total cost for ea.ch dairyman; $2,496 annually.

Proponents of the trade package say da.iry losses will be only short term because in­creases in imports of quota-exempt Swiss type price break cheese have been occurring steadily and regularly, and would probably result in tot&! oheese imports reaching the 276 m111'1on pounds permitted in the new Trade Act, by 1980 or 1981, anyway. Price break cheese imports increased 25 million po~nds, to 108 million pounds, in 1978-45 percent of total cheese imports.

I don't think short term comparisons o! cheese imports tell the whole story a.bout the impact of quota increases. Farmers need import protection when farm milk prices a.re

low. The argument tha.t the new Trade Act affords as much dairy import protection as existed before, is based on the assumption of continued high prices for cheese Blttract­ing cheese imports at 7 cents over price sup­port prices, continued increase in per capita consumption of cheeses tha.t have been occurring, and a high level of economic activity. These developments a.re by no means certain, but without them, the new Trade Act offers less import protection than existed before it became law.

Under last yea.r's import quota., a maxi­mum of 128 million pounds of quota cheese could be imported. But under the new agreement, cheese import quot.as a.re raised to 245 million pounds--117 million more pounds than could come in under quot&s last yea.r.

The administraition says the agreement "caps the price break," because price break cheese imports will no longer be allowed. The result really ls that quota. imports of 1.18 billion more pounds of milk equivalent will be permitted-an increase of 91 percent in cheese import quotas. To ea.ch farmer, tha.t represents an import. quota protection loss of 21 cents per cwt., or $1,271 annually.

Another con~ion made by U.S. negotla.­tors will make it harder to control imports causing ha.rm to U.S. dairymen. Our nego­tiators have agreed that "price undercut­ting" would have to be shown before export subsidies could be banned. To "prove in­jury," dairymen would have to go through long proceedings of up to 65 days, even under the improved features of the new Trade Act. Thus, at the minimum, d.atrymen would have to absorb 65 da.ys of price injury before re­medial action could occur. Even then they might not be successful in eliminating the price cutting. Besides, the harm would a.lrea.dy be done.

History illustrates what a combination of export subSlidies by other countries and in­creased U.S. import quotas can mean to U.S. dairy farmers. In 1973, when EEC export subsidies were a.bout 8% cents per pound on nonfa.t dry milk (71 cents per cwt. of milk), and 15 cents to 32 cents per pound on cheese ($1.52 to $3.23 per cwt. of milk), U.S. import quotas as a percent of U.S. production were increased from .1 percent to 9 percent for butter, from .2 percent to 28 percent for nonfat dry milk, and from 7 percent to 9 percent for American cheese. As a result, heavily subsidized dairy imports jumped to 6% times exports-and M-W fa.rm milk prices fell $1.86 per cwt.-23 percent in just four months (from $8.15 to $6.29 between March and July 1974).

This bit of history indicates what in­creased subsidized imports and lack of countervailing duties can mean to farm milk prices.

Farm milk prices rest on a very narrow fulcrum. Very small changes up or down in supply result in big changes in farm milk prices. For example, 1978 farm milk prices rose 83 cents per cwt. (8.5 percent), with a .8 percent decrease in production of about 1 billion pounds. Imagine what fa.rm milk prices would have been if foreign im9orts had only offset the .8 percent dro? in pro­duction. Farmers would have probably lost much of the $.83 per cwt. increase tn farm milk prices-which was sorely needed to cover increased production costs as refiected in an increase of $1.90 per cwt. in the parity price for milk last year. The latest reported U.S. farm milk prices (June 1979) still aver­age only 75 percent of parity.

Administration proponents of the agree­ment also say that only about 3 percent of the permitted additional cheese imports will be cheddar, so resulting competition from increased import quotas to our major cheese industry will be mlntma.1.

The problem with that argument ls that displacement of dairy products caused by imports means that surplus milk will largely

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29345 go into cheddar cheese, and wm therefore adversely affect the entire U.S. cheese and dairy industry anyway. Indirectly this wm also affect Canada-and milk control agen­cies in both countries.

The U.S. already has less import protec­tion than do countries to which we attempt to sell agricultural and other products. Our duties average only about 3 percent of the value of total U.S. agricultural imports. Over one-half of our agricultural imports are duty-free. Meanwhile, two-thirds of U.S. agricultural exports are subject to some kind of trade restriction by other nations. The proportion of agricultural production pro­tected by non-tariff import barriers ls more than twice as large in countries we attempt to sell in, than it is in the U.S. Easing im­port controls on dairy products as a way of maintaining or increasing other exports into countries that already have far more strin­gent import restrictions than we do, puts the full burden of increased exports on the U.S. dairy Industry. This ls something the U.S. dairy farmer feels he can 1ll afford.

If subsidized dairy imports can't be dumped on the U.S., and if quality standards on foreign dairy imports are as rigid as on our own, the U.S. dairy industry can com­pete with dairy imports from other countries. However, if an increase in U.S. cheese import quotas ls not tied in with a procedure that prevents subsidized imports from under­cutting domestic prices, or reimburses farm­ers for losses they incurred because of the subsidized imports, U.S. dairy farmers feel a minimum price support level enabling them to survive will be needed.

In summary, increased cheese imports re­sulting from the increased import quota in the new Trade Act will adversely affect farm milk prices. Thus, the Trade Act wlll result in downward pressure on farm milk prices.

On an overall basis, the 1979 Trade Act benefits the United States. Administration projections are that it wm create 100,000 new U.S. Jobs, strengthen the dollar, and open up new opportunities for U.S. exports of both farm and industrial products.

However, the results for the dairy industry are negative. In effect, the dairy industry be­came the bargaining tool to get trade con­cessions for other products. Increased cheese imports resulting from the increased import quota in the new Trade Act wlll result in downward pressure on farm milk prices. It is a fact of life you, and others in the dairy industry, wJll have to live with.e

ADDRESS BY SENATOR MATHIAS BEFORE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION

• Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on Octo­ber 15, 1979, Senator MATHIAS spoke be­fore an American Planning Association meeting of the National Planning Con­ference. In his remarks Senator MATHIAS describes the path the planning profes­sion should take into the eighties. He de­fines a role which would lend valuable assistance to the development of policy at all levels of government. Senator MATHIAS' remarks are an important con­tribution to the ever-changing philos­ophy of planning in America and I ask that they be printed in the RECORD.

The remarks follow: WANTED: PLANS TO STIR THE BLOOD

I am delighted to be here to take part in the National Pla.nning Conference of the American Planning Association and I com­mend you on your choice of meeting places. You have come to the best urban laboratory in the nation to see a working city that really works. I've reviewed a copy of your hefty con­ference agenda and I know that, if you sur­vive, you're going to leave here impressed.

I'm not a betting man but I'd give sizable odds that Mayor Schaefer and his adminis­tration; the Baltimore business community, the Baltimore neighborhoods, and the people of Baltimore-all will impress you as you've never been impressed before. There ls an en­thusia.Em and pride in this city that ls in­fectious. And it ls the underlying reason Baltimore works so amazingly well.

It is a. real plea.sure to welcome you to Baltimore and to Maryland bees.use we are proud of what we have to show you. I know your hosts here wm dazzle you with their success stories. So I will leave that to them.

Instead I would like to talk with you today a.bout your profession, a.bout its role in na­tiona.l policy-ma.king and a.bout the Con­gressional perspective on planning and plan­ning issues.

La.st December Harper's magazine carried a. rather disturbing essay entitled "The Urban Crisis Leaves Town". That piece stirred up a. lively debate in Congress and among urban specialists a.cross the country. Its central thesis was that the Great Society programs of the Sixties had come too late; that much of the urban decay and dlslnves-tment in the city was already turning around-through private market forces and nonprogramma.tlc federal spending-by the time those pro­grams came along.

The article went on to suggec:st that vir­tually any program conceived at the national level comes too late, because national policy­makers do not see far enough down the road; do not clearly identify trends leading to problems; and therefore, respond only when a problem has assumed emergency propor­tions.

[ don't agree with the author's central thesis that the urban crisis ls now safely behind us and the fiscal health of our na­tion's cities ls just hunky-dory. But he does raise some valid ques-tlons about our ab111ty, at all levels of government, to forecast and predict. And that, it seems to me, presents a challenge to the planning profession.

The era of the Sixties ls clearly over. Jn another two months, in fact, the Seventies will be behind us. But the contrast between those two decades in terms of our economy and the national mood ls striking and has left a residue of tension that will be with us even in the Eighties.

The Sixties were a. decade of optimism, of faith in government and of thinking big. Planning emerged as an important part of the process of government and declslon­ma.klng.

The decade of the Seventies, on the other hand, has been l;)lagued with tough economic and social problems-unemoloyment, infla­tion, a declining confidence in the ability of government to deliver. The rising exoec­ta.tlons engendered in the booming Sixties have been disappointed and a. general malaise seems to have set in.

This situation ls frustrating for public officials. Decision-making ls not easy in an Era of Llmits. We are hamstrung by a!)par­ent tax revolts at all levels, by growing paoerwork and regulations and competing demands on a.11 our resources.

Cities a.re cliallenged to grow smaller gracefully, to tighten their belts. to imorove workers' productivity and service delivery. The most obvious examole of thls--the New York City fiscal debacl~reached such crisis proportions it finally commanded the atten­tion of the President and the Congress.

Now, whlle New York ls working ha.rd to get ·its financial house in order, otl>er emerging crises loom on the horizon. For every Cleveland and every Chrysler Corpo­ration that ls highly visible, many other less public, but equally disturbing financial crises wait in the wings in towns and cities, and companies across our land.

It ts in those situations, which have yet to attain national prominence, where plan­ners have such an important role to play. And that role is to insure that festering

problems do not reach crisis proportions; that they are dealt with, managed, and that hard decisions are ma.de which will enable local governments and companies to main­tain an even keel.

To do this, I need not tell you, is no small challenge.

As Harvey Perloff noted in an article in your Planning magazine in July:

". . . planning ln municipal government (must) become cost-conscious and manage­ment oriented, (lt must) become part of the municipal team concerned with the delicate balancing act between tax reduction and maintenance of public services and environ­mental protection as well as the development and redevelopment of the urban physical plant.

"For almost three quarters of a century, planning has been one of the claimants on the public budget, as planners have pro­posed projects and activities that would serve the master plan but have done so without concern for the financing aspects. Only in rare instances has the planning operation encompassed capital programming and capital budgeting . . . much less . • . been involved with balancing public outlays and revenues overall."

Your profession must rise to the occasion, or it will be seriously threatened by other specialities which are increasingly filllng the traditional planning role. I'm referring, of course, to the economists; MBAs; engineers; accountants; systems analysts; transporta­tion, energy and environmental engineers. I'm not alone in sounding this ala.rm. Melvin R. Levin, Director of the Community Plan­ning Program at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, ls more than a. little appre­hensive a.bout the legal profession moving onto the planners• turf. He calls it the "Invasion of the Lawyers".

One way to forestall these competitions ls to sharpen the image of your profession. If you tell a member of Congress that you are a planner, you're apt to get an "Oh, really?" and a sort of perplexed vacant stare. If the conversation doesn't end right there, you may be asked 1f you do much drafting or de­sign drawing, because a. lot of people seem to connect planning with architecture.

The fuzziness of the planning profession's image can be directly correlated with the decline in federal support !or planning. Just look a;t what has happened to the appropri­ations for the 701 Program. They dropped from a. $100 mi111on level in 1975, to this year's $42.5 milllon level. That's a pretty steep decline even in a time of Congressional penny-pinching.

[!you can't explain who you are, what you do, and, as I told Walt Scheiber during this year's 701 debate, how you're going to save us money, then how can you expect the fed­eral government to fund your activities? The first thing you ought to do to sharpen your image is find the guy who's promoting those tee-shirts that say, "Planners Eschew Obfus­cation". I suspect he's the same fellow who defines a planner as: ( 1) a person who plans, or (2) a person who cannot leave bad enough alone. Those thlnE!'s may get la.ughs but they do nothing for your image.

And it's not as 1f there aren't plenty of planning success stories around. You a.re in a. city of planning success stories. A short drive down the road to Washington will bring you to Columbla., Maryland: a New Town brought into being by one of the most enternrlsln~. creative businessmen in Amer­lc~a.mes Rouse.

Mr. Rouse ls an optimist who has been a driving force in the revitalization o! down­town Baltimore as well as in the successful creation of shoooing malls, the restoration of Boston's Fa.neull Hall Marketplace a.nd Philadelphia's Gallery Ma.rket East.

His advice to planners ls instructive: "The worst thing planners can do ls to

29346 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979 have a. shortsighted vision of the possible. Planners-particularly the planners in city government&-ha.ve been bu1l'eted so much, they have seen rational proposals unful­filled so often, thait they get a. limited view of the possible and often tend to be the peo­ple who suffoca.te the big idea. before it can be born. And they have the ability to suffo­oa.te it, because if they say it can't happen, the business and civic communities can get discouraged."

Doesn't that sound like the reincarnation of Daniel Burnham and his unforgettable precept "Make no little plans: they have no magic to stir men's blood."

It seems to me the planning profession must ma.lnta.ln the enthusiasm, inventive­ness, and spirited optimism which its founders had. That positive attitude is the most important ingredient in approaching problems, sorting them out, and reaching decisions.

We, in the Congress, need your expertise in formula.ting national policy. The urgent issues of our times-inflation, unemploy­ment, energy resources, environmental pro­tection, over-regulation of the private sec­tor, transportation, health and social wel­fare programs-at times seem almost un­manageable.

The kind of clear-headed thinking the pla.n1ning process provides ls what we most need to deal with these complex problems. Many of these issues a.re interrelated and cannot be addressed in a. planning vacuum. Nor can we afford to l!?nore one because another has a. high priority.

For example, one of the national trends which ls attracting more and more Con­gressional attention is the shift of people and jobs from the so-called Frostbelt to the so-called Sunbelt. A Congressional a.Illa.nee has been formed in both the Pouse and Senate called the Northeast-Midwest Ooa.lition. Its purpose ts to look at pend­ing legislation with a critical eye as to w'hat its impact will be on broad geographic regions of our nation.

I have been concerned for some time about the unplanned impact federal spending, lo­cational decisions, lea.sing and contracting have on our nation's cities, regions, and on the overall stab111ty of our national economy.

Federal &!?enctes such as the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, Federal Hic,rhway Administration P.nd many others, daily pump millions of dollars into the national economy. They at-en and close bases, soa.ce centers. navy yards, and move people around without giving much thought to the employment and economic base of numerous cities and regions of our na­tion.

If we are really serious a.bout having a. national urban policy, we've got to put our money where a.re mouths a.re by devis­ing federal spending practices to bolster that policy.

I am trying to do that and have re­cently lntroducect legislation which would Provide the sort of "big picture" look at the Impact of federal spending that we need so badlv. It calls for a Cabinet-level forum for guiding non-programmatic federal spend­inC?, leasing, contracting and locational de­olstons.

In short, the Growth Management Councll called for In my b111 is a planning tool, pure and simple. But it ts not aimed at instituting national economic planning with five year goals, as ls done in several Western European countries. If we started talking about a five­yea.r economic plan in the United States, the screams from buc;iness would be louder than we could bear.

Plannlne; is a scare word In American pol­itics and has been for some time. Bus'nesses project over much longer periods than 12 mqnths, but traditionally the U.S. govern­ment only looks forward 12 months. That's

why many of our government programs col­lide with each other. Their effects haven't been projected over a. long enough period.

Despite the enormous historic suspicion of planning by government, we must find a. way to identify those areas in our national life · that require some real look into the future.

I see the Growth Management Council as a way to do that. It can serve as a. forum for beginning a. necessary dialogue about our economy, about how and where it ls growing, a.bout what role we each play in it, and about how we can play our roles better. The Council wlll not promulgate new, complex federal regulations, for ours ts basically a. free econ­omy. Rather, it will monitor the directions of the publ1c sector of our economy and co­ordinate the government's role in promoting ordered growth.

Since planning ts such a scare word, we probably should talk In terms of planning alternatives, of highlighting choices. But we have somehow got to see that we. as a nation, don't get into the position the auto in­dustry was in 20 years ago. They could have read the Paley Report, which warned of an impending energy crunch, and they could have started making smaller cars then. But Detroit didn't choose to listen.

I hope we are all wiser now. We, in the Congress, need your advice on

many legislative issues. I hope that I per· sonally will be seeing much more of the A.P.A. My door is open to you. And I hope now that the American Institute of Plan­ners and the American Society of Planning Officials have come together to form the American Planning Association, your impact on the Congress will be broadly felt in the critical decade ahead.e

EDISON'S INVENTION A CENTURY LATER

• Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, last Sun­day in Cleveland, Ohio, the General Electric Co. hosted an event marking one of history's greatest ~nventions.

It was 100 years ago-October 21, 1879-when Thomas Edison and his bril­liant inventive team perfected the world's ftrst practical incandes"ent elec­tric light. Within 3 years from that occa­sion in Menlo Park, N.J., Edison had developed the technology that would make commercial indoor lighting possi­ble.

"I have accomplished all that I prom­ised," Edison wrote in 1882 when the switch was thrown on his Pear street power statlon in New York City. Signifi­cant as that event was, it really was merel:v a stat;on along a path of genius that literally lit the world.

During Edison's lifetime, this great in­ventor patented 1.093 inventions, aver­aging a patent every other week during his peak productive phase. No American has ever come close to that record.

We in Ohio take particular pride in Edison. He was born in our State. and Ms birtholace, in Milan-on the Huron and Erie County line-is a major tourist a.t1traction. It is located near the Ohio Turnpike and has served to educate many thousands each year about this great American's achievements.

Cleveland was a perfect site for the ceremony last Sunday, because that city has the distinction of having been the first whose streets were illuminated by electricity. Also, General Electric main­tains an outstanding research facility at Nela Park, in east Cleveland, that car-

ries on the Edison tradition proudly. Products designed and tested at Nela Park are used around the world to make life more pleasant, safe, and productive.

Sunday's ceremony at Severance Hall included an outstanding concert by the world-renowned Cleveland Orchestra and a reenactment by closed circuit television of the successful experiment 100 years ago in Menlo Park. The actual reenactment took place simultaneously at Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Mich., where Edison's historic workshop was moved and restored earlier this century.

The audience at Cleveland was treated to a film showing the 50th anniversary ceremony in 1929 where Thomas Edison was joined by President Hoover and Henry Ford in recalling what happened that fateful day in 1879 and in noting the impact of electric lighting on the world.

Edison was to die 2 years later, leaving a legacy that will span the ages.

The centennial this week affords us all an opportunity, I believe, to reflect on his achievements and also to look ahead to America's research potential.

If Thomas Edison were here today, I am not altogether sure he would be pleased by the state of America's inven­tive and research environment.

Some European and Asian countries are actually outspending us in terms of percentage of gross national product de­voted to research, and we are experienc­ing the dangerous phenomenon of Amer­ican industry actually buying technology, basic research, from other lands.

Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber, the French author, wrote a book in 1968 that brought this point home to me. Servan­Schreiber was writing for Europeans and extolling American achievement. Yet, his message ironically underscores American weakness today and is worth our con­sideration.

Servan-Schreiber theorized that the reason the United States had outcom­peted the rest of the world was the unique American respect for and encour­agement of basic research, of inventive­ness, of search into the unknown. That trait, exemplified by individuals like Edi­son, had provided the springboard for American free enterprise, for capitalism, to develop industries that quickly became the envy of the world. Our high standard of living was a direct product of this marriage of research and industry.

Today, however, we have seen the past pattern reversed. In the decade since Servan-Schreiber's book, American spending for research as a percentage of our gross national product has declined about 25 percent, while nations like Japan simultaneously have increased their real spending for research by 40 to 50 percent.

The results are already showing. Ma­jor American firms are more and more coming to depend on foreign research for significant portions of their basic re­search and plant modernization. Tech­nology, once a proud American export, now is an import item in incr~ing ~d dangerous amount.s.

Another decade of such a trend would be ruinous. American industry has turned to foreign lands not because our scien­tists and technicians lack the ability to

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29347 .. produce. Quite to the contrary, I main­tain my faith in the competence and po­tential of America's technical might.

What we have done, however, is drain the profit incentive from basic research. Because so much of research does not result in success, companies have become increasingly reluctant in the present tax environment to invest risk capital in such basic research efforts. In short, we as a nation have not maintained the proper incentives for U.S. business to invest in basic research and development. R. & D. is beginning to atrophy in this country. Our best minds are not being used to maximum benefit.

Congress next year is likely to review the entire tax structure of the United States, and already we have witnessed some very far-reaching proposals for change. I plan to study each such legis­lative initiative closely, of course, and want to take this opportunity to urge that my colleagues keep in mind that en­couraging research and develooment should be a major goal of any revisions of the tax code that are made in the near future.

Edison did not have to worry about such things, and perhaos his freedom to achieve was related to the environment of his day. an environment that encour­aged creativity and development of uniquely American genius.

.As we honor F.dfson on the centennial of his remarkable feat I t.htnk it a.ffords us all the oonortunity, and resnonsibility, to ponder the future as well as the past.•

MANDATOR.Y BF.VF.JMGE CONTAINER DEPOSITS

• Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President. as most Senators know. I have been attemoting to educate Congress to the benefits of mandatory beverage container det><lSits for the last 7 years. In the course of that effort. I have been continually baffled by the ability of the beverage container manufacturing industry and other oppo-

nents of beverage container deposits, to publish misleading information based on statistics taken out of context. Recently, reports began to appear in the Nation's newspapers which purported to show that deposit legislation had harmed the ability of Oregon's recycling industry to survive by depriving it of essential high quality trash. After reading these "facts" we are supposed to conclude that deposit legis­lation will harm our efforts to stop foul­ing our own nest, and that no respectable environmentalist should touch it.

Mr. President, stung by this nonsense and the potential damaging effect it might have on other States which might be considering the "deposit/return" al­ternative, the manager of the Oregon De­partment of Environmental Quality's Recycling Switchboard, Nancie Szabo, wrote to any publication which would give her space. I ask that her letter be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, together with the attached tables, com­piled by the DEQ.

The letter and tables follow: DEPARTMENT OF

ENvlRONMENTAL QUALITY, Portland, Oreg., Oct. 3, 1979.

DEAR EDITOR: Many newspapers are print­ing information indlca.tlng that recycllng in Oregon ls shrinking as a result of the Bottle Blll.

Recycling in Oregon ts alive and growing, and If you believe otherwise you are being misled .

As manager of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quallty's Recycling Switch­board, I am ln dally contact with recyclers throughout the state a.nd with people want­ing to recycle a.t their depots. It ls important to note that the volume of recycled material ts stea.dlly increasing, rather than decreasing.

Oregon lea.ds the nation in recycllng; we have more household recyollne: per caolta and more partlclpatlon In recycling. The Port­land Recvcllng Team, only one of Orep:on's ma.ny recycllng systems, ls the largest drop­off recycling system in the country. Fl~s for the month of Aurust in the last three years indicate continuing- growth In recycling (August '77: 773 tons: August '78: 780 tons; August '79: 868 tons). Owens Illinois• Port-

1978 OREGON RECYCLING SURVEY

1978 averare Percent unit product of sites value'

land glass recycling plant recycles 30,000 ton8 a year, or close to 6-00 tons a month. These figures are well above the 12,000 tons a year recycled at Northwestern Glass in Seattle, which serves twice the population base. Oregonians recycle more tin cans than resi­dents of other states. Our sta.tewlde alumi­num recovery rate ls the highest in the na­tion. In the last year, a.side from the normal growth in recycllng, Oregon establlshed 500 new on recycllng depots.

Oregon's recycling progra.m has been well establlshed for ten years. Individual depots will a.dd or drop depending on economic con­dlltlons and personal interests. Some of the Oregon recyclers a.re youth groups and com­munity organizations which set a recycllng goal, reach it, and move on to new a.ctlvltles. One recycler recently dropped from the scene after fi!ty yea.rs of service-he felt he de­served a rest. The larger full-llne recycling depots continue year after year. They not only take gla.ss and newspapers, bUJt tin cans, aluminum, cardboard and many times scrap paper, magazines, ledger paper, plastic, and motor oll.

Oregon recyclers handle material worth ten times that recycled as a result of the Bottle Blll. The Bottle Blll has not adversely af­fected their status. Most of them started after the Bottle Blll was in effect, and It has helped their efforts. Feedback from recyclers indicate that the Bottle Blll ha.s raised the con.sclou~ness for recycllng. Tt gets the publlc into the recycling habit. ("J! you can return a beer bottle, why not recycle a pickle Jar too?")

Claims that the Bottle Blll has put re­cyclers out of business are "wlld". As one recycler said about these "wild stories", "That's llke saying If a hot dog stand on a downtown corner goes out of business, we have to a.ssume that the whole restaurant business ls in trouble."

Well, the restaura.nts and the recyclers are stlll open in Oregon. Tf you have any ques­tions or a.re having trouble choosing between the hundreds of recycllng depots in towns throughout Oregon, 1ust call the Reeycllng Switchboard. We have been answertn~ ques­tions about recycllng in Oregon for the last yea.rs and we don'·t have any plans for clos­ing.

Sincerely, NANDU: SZABO,

BecycUng Switchboarfl. Mana11er. Solid Waste Dtvf.rlon..

Dis Posa I EnerrY Enern Material rePortin21 Volume (tons) (per ton) Product value savinpJ savinrs• value•

Glass cullet •• ______ ---- _____ • ______________________________ •• __ • 76.8 30, 747 $30 $922, 410 $189, 709 620, 410 $421, 687

~T~;1iiu·,n-(::::::: :::::::::: :: : : : : :: : ::: : : :: : : :: : : : : : : : : :: :: ::: 71.9 989 30 211, 670 6, 102 91, 784 6t;,649 70.2 ~. 653 480 1, 7!i1, 1<17 22, 518 5, 7?5, 549 4, 007, 884

Paper.·-------------------------------------------------------- 68.0 80, 1!!4 30 2,4M, 7?0 4!l4, ~fi5 7, 5~!i, 172 5, ?74, fi!!l Bard __ ___________ • _____________________________________________ 91. 9 166, ?17 35 5, 817, 511'i l,O~!'i. !i!'i9 8, }Q1, fi12 5, 73!'i, 5!!8

Grade Paoer ______ ----------- ____________ ------ ----------- ______ 75.6 20, R18 66 1, 37!i, 308 1?8, !i70 2,f\Rt, 504 1, R77, 053 Scrap paper ____ ·---- __ ------------ ___ ------------ _____ --------- 711.2 10, 713 7 74, Qlll 615,099 1, 007, 492 7115, ?45 Ferrnus metals ___________ ---- __ ---- ________ ---------- __ --------- 67.0 36, R!iO 50 1, R4?, !iOO 227, ~64 3, 4fi5, 517 2, 425, 862 Nonferrous metals• __ ·----------------- __ ----- __ -------- ----- ___ 88. 7 18, 452 240 4, 4?R, 480 111, R49 19, 1?4, 4?8 13, 387, 100 Used motor oil ___ ---------------- __ ----- __ ---------------------- 799.9 • 4, 276, 193 •0.03 128, 286 105, 512 4, 120, 695 2, 884, 487

Total._ •• ··--------- ___ --------------------------_------- 68.5 385, 683 49. 7 19, 154, 540 2, 379, 664 52, 550, 163 36, 785, 114

t This Is the percentage of the sites that are represented in the responses to the questionnaire out of a total number of sites accepting the particular category of material. This has no correlation whatsoever with the percentage of actual volume that the volume fi11ures represent. No attempt has bee11 made t~ estimate ~he percental{e of actual volume that the survey figures represent.

s Taken to be 70 cents per eallon. •Aluminum catevorv consists primarilv of cans, foil, and travs. Plonferrous caterory includes

all other types of aluminum scrap as well as r.ooper, brass. nickel. lead, zinc, bronze, etc. There may be a ~mall amount of scrap in the aluminum category and vice versa, but the categories represent different sit-. results. 2 A11 averasie pnce for a unrt (ton or 11allon) In 1978 as o~id bv Oregon markets.

'Fil{ured at $6.17 per ton, calculated from "Disposal Siting Alternatives," Metropolitan Service District. September 1978, p. S-7 table.

4 Units are in gallons of gasoline equivalent. Energy savings figures are taken from Resource Conservation Consultants Paper C, "Energy Savings from Recycling."

1 Data taken from 1979 used oil program final report to the Department of Energy by the DEQ. •Gallons.

BO'l'TLE B?LL DolPACT

The Bottle Blll tn 1978 was responsible for 10.6 per~ent of the recycled materials in Oreeon. The table below list.s the primary enerzy savln2's and does not account for the benefits of reduced Utter and landfill space saved.

It ls Important to note that the flgurea

•Per gallon.

for beer are calculated from 1978 OLCC flirures uslnE? an e"'timated rate of return of 90 percent for bottle!! and 80 percent for can~. These comnutatlons agree with 1978 unclaimed deposit figures.

Soft drink sales are not maintained on a state wide basis so the following statistics are estimated with the national ratio of soft

drink containers to beer containers (19/33.5) and a:osHme" the same ratio of bottles to can as in beer (81 oercent/19 nercentl. The soft drink return rate ls comnuted at 95 percent for bottles and 80 percent for cans.

It has further been assumed that all soft drink bottles are refillable whereas beer bot­tles are 82.6 percent refillable.

29348 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979 VALUE OF THE BOTTLE BILL IN OREGON RECYCLING

Item Volume (1978) Product value Energy savings Disposal savinas

i? Fe~~~if 'iea:::: :: : : ::::: :: :: :::::: :: : : : : : : :: : ::: : ~mm~ ~=~=~-~~~~--==:: : ::: : ::: : is:s4f.47i-(6·5-cenis i>er-case>:: :: : : :-2~ i9s.s4ciaai <3;o4·5· ;.;-efuC:: :: ::: :: :: : : :----- -$567: 947 Alu~inum tr ______ d·------------------- --------- ---- ~0.094 tons ___ ______ ___ ____ ______ _ f602,812 (S30 per ton) _____________ 393,685 ,al (2.5 M Btu>----------- -- ------ - 123, 978 ~ Soft drink ecovere ---- ------ ---------- ----- -------- 1l2~5to2s·---- - - - - - - - --- -- ---- - -- $1,013,182 (~480 per ton) ___________ 3,432.855 gal (200 M Btu>------------------ 10, 419 Bottles re~i1e<i : :::::: : ::::::: : :::::::: : : : :::: :: : :::: 9,S~8.8~2 6c~:::~ sold. - - ------ ---- --$19-off 664 _________ --- -- ------ ----2·a4·5·390·· -,-- ---- --- ----- ------ ---- -- -- -------- -------Glass cullet (from nonrefillable and shrinkage) ____ __ ____ 3 688 tons (shrinkage):--· -::· -- --- snb 610 ---------------- ------- 12 257 ga ------------------------------ 735· 682

Aluminum recovered ____ -- ------- --- -------- ---- ----- 978 tons ______________ :::: __ ::: : :: $469:230: :: : ::::::::::::::::::::: l,S32,9i5° gaC::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: 2~: m EMPLOYMENT t A ~ase has 24 containers in it and when empty weighs 14 lb for beer (average) and 25 lb for:

soft drinks (average): Totals:

Bottles refilled___________________ 22,688,787 cases. The following figures indicate the extent of the work force in 1978 accordina to the responses of

47 percent of the recyclers polled: EMPLOYMENT Product value________________ $27,625,135.

Energy savings_______________ 5,042,030 gal of gas equivalent. Disposal savings______________ $1,303,629.

Glass cullet.__ ___ ____ ____________ 23,782 tons. Employm~nt figures (responses from 47.4 percent of sites):

§~~~ i~~~~jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj :: m Product value________________ $713,452. Energy savings_______________ 465,942 gal of gas equivalent. Disposal savings______________ $146,733.

Aluminum recovered______________ 2,701 tons. Product value________________ $1,482,412. Energy savings_____ __________ 4,965,770 gal of 1as equivalent. Disposed savings_____________ $16,453.

Total product value___________________ $29,820,999. Total energy savings__________________ 10,473,742 gal of gas equivalent. Total disposal savings_________________ $1,466,815.

Note: Total "value" of bottle bill if gas equivalent was valued at 70 cents per gallon $38,619,433.

MOTHER TERESA AWARDED PEACE PRIZE FOR 1979

•Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, in honor­ing Mother Teresa of Calcutta with the peace prize for 1979, the Nobel Commit­tee has spoken for all in the world who acknowledge the humanity and wants of men and women living without hope, and too often, without society's compassion. But in Mother Teresa's eyes, the Nobel Committee has done the work of provi­dence. On learning of her selection, she thanked God for "this gift to the poor." To those who know of her work among the poor and dying on the streets of Cal­cutta, this was a characteristic expres­sion of her humility and faith. In re­sponse to praise in the past, she would say, "God's work, not mine."

Whether we reflect on her work, or on God's, we may derive instruction, not only for ourselves, but for our society's attempt to serve the poor, elderly, and sick. After visiting Mother Teresa in Cal­cu~ta, Malcolm Muggeridge, the British philosopher, wrote that she "is fond of saying that welfare is for a purpose • • • whereas Christian love is for a person."

Perhaps in the United States we ask that institutions do the work of indi­viduals, believing that they, too, can ex­press compassion to those we hope to aid. In reality, only individuals can act upon their compassion, not governments. Our loss is that of love, while in many instances we still fail to achieve our pur­pose, to lend dignity and fellowship to lives without them.

Our programs cannot be measured in terms of Mother Teresa's love, just as the results <>f her love cannot be meas­~re~ by the statistics that testify to the llm1ted success of our social work. our ~nds, however, must be the same, even if our means must be different. Mother Teresa says of her work-

It is not social work. I can give my whole heart to that person for that moment dn an exchange of love. It involves emotional in­volvement, making people feel they a.re wanted.

We must at least try to give an op­portunity, through our programs, to en­able such an exchange.

Mother Teresa began her work in Cal­cutta's slums in 1948, 20 years after tak­ing her first vows as a Catholic sister of mercy. She encountered disease and despair among the slum dwellers, India's "poorest of the poor." Others might have abandoned her self-assigned task, to comfort those who appeared to be be­yond comfort, to give heed to those others ignored, and to take into her hos­pital others abandoned to the city's nar­row lanes.

She began by giving the dying a place to die, lepers a place to rest and chil­dren a place to learn and to escape hun­ger. Today the order she founded, Mis­sionaries of Charity, has 158 branches, 1,800 nuns and 120,000 coworkers in Africa, Asia, and the United States. Some may be surprised to learn that one of Mother Teresa's m;ssions has reached into the South Bronx, where our insti­tutions have yet to reach successfully. There, 16 nuns visit shut-~ns, !eed the hungry, and attend to the sick.

The greatest tribute to her life, greater even than the Peace Prize, is the wide array of her adm~rers in India, stretch­ing across religions and castes. Although her beliefs may be strange to the people of her adopted country, and theirs to her, Mother Teresa's actions have overcome the obstacles of culture and custom. Be­cause she is the recipient of the Peace Prize this year, her message will be heard by millions more people, not simply the poor and sick she has touched in Cal­cutta. She would want us to understand that her message is not simply to be heard, but to be acted upon.•

MEDIGAP INSURANCE-LET US EDUCATE-NOT LEGISLATE

• Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, on June 7, 1979, Senators BAUCUS and CULVER in­troduced legislation to place some State and Federal controls on companies who

•

sell supplemental health insurance to medicare. The Senior Citizens Health Insurance Reform Act of 1979 estab­lishes a voluntary program of certifica­tion for those companies selling "medi­gap" policies, requires the Department of HEW to develop minimum standards for these policies, and forbids the sale through the mail of medigap policies that are not approved by the State in­surance commission.

Although the intentions of this legisla­tion are commendable, I cannot support S. 1295. It is my feeling that the problem surrounding this issue is one which can be solved merely by education of the consumer. Mr. BAucus pointed out sev­eral times in his floor statement on S. 1295 that there is widespread confusion over supplemental policies and that he has received requests from senior citi­zens needing accurate, reliable informa­tion on how to shop for medicare sup­plemental policies.

Although I strongly support private advocacy groups for consumers, I do not feel it is the Federal Government's place to create further Federal controls on the insurance industry. State regulators must be held accountable for their ac­tions. More importantly, if the same re­sults can be achieved in this area by educating our senior citizens, then there is no need to pass another so-called protection law which may have the in­advertent affect of pricing legitimate "gap" policies beyond the reach of those who need the coverage most.

Because I am concerned with the need for accurate information on the subject of medigap policies for medicare recipi­ents, I have done some homework on the subject. In the course of my reading I encountered a two-part series of articles on this particular subject published in View magazine. View is printed in con­junction with the Group Health Co­operative of Puget Sound, and in this two-part series it proposes a shopping list of do's and don'ts for senior citizens to use in purchasing supplemental policies

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29349 to medicare insurance. Some of the ad­vice is as complicated as recognizing in­terchangable terms for "custodial care" or as simple as knowing that you never make a check payable to an insurance agent for payment on your premium.

I applaud the efforts of the Puget Sound Group Health Cooperative in doing their part to educate the senior citizens on the purchase of medigap in­surance. I ask, Mr. President, that the text of the following two articles be printed in the RECORD. WHY Is THAT NrcE YouNG MAN SMILING?

(By Nick Gallo) Anyone who has ever opened the door to

purveyors of insurance must forever !eel a sense of deja vu about that voice, that sales pitch, those sheaves of facts and figures ... just let me quote you a few statistics ... there always seems to be facts piled on top of figures, and sometimes the arithmetic hits home; but often as not it is a moment of panic, a thought that triggers a bad associa­tion, something akin to last-second pocket­ing of fiigh t insurance at a vending machine in an airport. For the elderly it's word like Cancer or Nursing Home or Infiation. Then the mind goes whirring !or cover, closes off terrible realities that the agent at the door agrees are indeed terrible but whose job it is to detail them in great length ... and in the end, buying health insurance seems not so much an issue of risk vs. protection-who there is an actuarial scientist? who can de­cipher exclusions and restrictions and hedg­ing clauses? In the end lt comes down to a certain rightness about the agent at the door, so often young, polite, grandson-like, not to be denied; and after all, the sales rap goes, there ls no sense in being pennywlse when it comes to protection; a few dollars here, a few more there . . . full coverage, sir . . . ah, to sleep easy, to rest assured, to bolt the door to disaster and ruin. . . .

Except, of course, there never is full cover­age. Unfortunately there often is very little coverage at all. The U.S. House Select Com­mittee on Aging estimates that the elderly spend about $1 b11lion annually on worthless or unnecossa.ry insurance, aimed for the most part at plugging gaps in Medicare cover­age. The result is a new industry in the last decade that Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) has called, "a colossal racket. Many unscrupu­lous agents have been preying on the fears of the elderly and selllng them three, four, five, sometimes as many as 30 different health insurance policies (which are) duplicative and largely worthless .... "

And yet Medicare, the federal government's health insurance program for the elderly, paid only 38 percent of the elderly's health care expenses ln 1976. No wonder that three out of five elderly persons have some type of Medicare supplemental policy.

At Group Health Cooperative, more than 18,000 Medicare subscribers-the overwhelm­ing majority with the Hi-Option Plan-have purchased a comprehensive medical package. With lt, GHC/Medicare consumers should have little need for additional insurance marketed as Medicare Supplemental policies. However, neither Medicare nor GHC nor vir­tually any private insurance company cover what has become a significant expense to the elderly: custodial care at nursing homes.

Consumers may not be aware that they must pay for custodial care out of pocket­or get help from Medicaid, a federal program for people with low incomes.

"During the past year I've noticed an in­creasing number of members who have insur­ance policies which they believe cover nurs­ing home insurance," observes Patti Krein, a GHC administrator who assists consumers with nursing home placement. "But when

I've talked to them about these policies I've found out they don't understand what is covered and what isn't."

Such was the case with Eula and James Hamlin, two GHC consumers. When 78-year­old Eula Hamlin dug into the family safe deposit box this year to examine several nursing home policies, she was not thinking much about policy provisions; in fact, she was not aware at the time of the crucial dif­ference between skilled and custodial care at a nursing home. Her husband had just su!­fere~ a slight stroke on Mother's Day-his sixth in the past few years-raising the pos­sibility that he might need nursing home care when he was released from the hospital. Such an eventuality clearly upset Eula Hamlin.

"I would hate to do that you know. I would hate to put him in a nursing home because it's something terrible to do to old people,'' she told Krein. "But what else am I going to do if he gets worse. I'm getting up there in age myself. I don't want to burden my chil­dren-they have enough responsibilities of their own."

James Hamlin is an 82-yea.r-old retired Seattle City Light range man. Two years ago a health insurance agent came to his door. When the agent left the Hamlins had four nursing home policies totaling over $600 a year in premiums. The Hamlin's monthly income is roughly $600. Eula Hamlin re­members being in the kitchen when her husband chose the policies, so she doesn't know what was promised, what was mis­understood, what was never explained fully. She remembers, however, the phrase, "full coverage."

To the Hamlins, full coverage meant that insurance benefits would pay for all reason­able nursing home expenses. They didn't know, however, that nursing home care is divided into two types. The first is sk11led care, which is performed by medical persons. It includes such things as intra.venous feed­ing, rehab111tative care, and any acute com­plications that require observation and evaluation. GHC's 30-bed Progressive Care Facmty (PCF) is a sk1lled nursing !acmty eligible to Medicare patients. The second type of care is custodial, involving more or­dinary services that are essential to the eld­erly, but do not need to be performed by medical professionals. Aid in walking, dress­ing, bathing, and feeding are examples of custodial care. It is this type of care that the elderly most often need. The mafority of America's nursing homes are primarily custodial facilities.

The problem is, consumers like the Ham­lins may think they are purchasing policies that will pay for ordinary nursing homes, when ln fact those policies cover skilled nursing care only. What is worse, those policies are likely to be unnecessary. With a GHC /Medicare Plan, a consumer is covered for up to 100 days per benefits period 1! they require care at a skilled nursing faclllty, such as Central's 30-bed PCF.

The lure of some Meddlgap policies ls that they often offer coverage for a longer stay, sometimes up to 730 days.

"That sounds good, but do you know what the average stay ln the PCF is right now?" asks Krein.

According to 1978 statistics, the average length of stay was 18.3 days.

"People are covered for 100 days at Group Health Coopemtive," she continues. "Out of 500 admissions yearly to the PCF only one or two stay longer than 100 days."

Therefore, such nursing home insurance policies a.re of doubtful value simply because the cost of the premiums outweighs the chances of ever using the benefits.

Obviously, it pays to be fa.milla.r with terms used in a.ny oontra.ct, 1ncludlng phrases like

"custodial care" that -appear ln nursing home policies. But sometimes wording can batfie the most savvy of observers. For in­stance, Dorothy Stragier recently came to GHC with her mother's Skilled Nursing Home Indemnity Polley. After she reviewed the first page of the contract, which adver­tised in great, glossy lettering-"Guaranteed lssue--for everyone . . . pays up to $600 a month . . . in cash, Stralger turned to a phrase on the second page that she hadn't previously examined closely. Under "ex­clusions" there was a curious entry-"rest cure."

"I had no idea what 'rest cure' meant," says Straiger. "I still don't really know."

It almost sounds as 1f it's a Viennese treat­ment for 19th-century hysterics. Instead Dorothy Straiger's mother who ls 78 years old, living on social security money, a.nd likely to enter a nursing home soon, ls sink­ing $EOO a year into a. policy that may never return her a dime because "rest cure," of course, is a devious way of saying "custodial care." And custodial care isn't covered by the insurance company.

To determine a nursing home policy's cov­erage, a consumer should ask his or her agent outright: does the policy cover custodial care? That's how Dorothy W., a. 70-year-old GHC consumer discovered her policy was use­less, although her questions sparked a re­sponse she hadn't ·&nticlpated.

"For two yea.rs I pa.id premiums on a nurs­ing home policy I don't need," she notes. "My agent admitted that much t.o me But then," says Dorothy in dlsblief, "he tried to sell me more of the same kind o! insurance. He called it a supplement."

For the elderly the answer isn't to avoid all Medigap policies. The same Sen. Pepper who ca.Us the Medicap industry a "colossal racket" also adds that he thinks the majority of America's insurance companies are repu­table. The truth is Medicare coverage often needs supplementation (GHC has several plans for Medicare enrollees). Unfortunately, the market offers so many different kinds of policies that "the lack of standardization and the complexity of the coverage available makes comparison shopping almost impossi­ble," reports a 1978 FTC staff policy paper.

The problem dates to 1945 when Congress enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act which prohibited federal regulation of the insur­ance industry. Consequently, states were left to concoct a bewildering variety of ap­proaches to guard against illegal practices. In the past few years the Washington State Insurance Commission has moved to force insurance companies to disclose more and more information about policies to con­sumers.

Such efforts are welcome, say consumer specialists ln Seattle, especially by the elder­ly, who are so susceptible to fraud.

"You have to realize that older people can be intimidated for the simple reason that they don't get all the coverage they need from Medicare," notes Herman Leder, head of an elderly fraud project with Seattle's Department of Licenses and Consumer Af­fairs. "Inflation ls driving up hospital costs and medical prices and older people genera.Uy don't have the opportunity to increase their income. SO they make pretty good targets !or high-pressure salesmen."

Next month, VIEW will detail some of the tactics used by unscrupulous insurance agents. In addition, we will provide you with a pull-out form that lists essential GHC/ Medicare coverage. It wm include a column for Medigap insurance agents to write down precisely how their policies will improve a consumer's protection. Enough of misunder­standings. And "full coverage."

For people who want to lodge complaints about insurance agents or companies, contact the Insurance commission.

29350 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 24, 1979 CUT OFF AT MEDI-GAP

(By Nick Gallo) For the elderly the question often isn't

whether to supplement Medicare, but how to fill ever-widening gaps in the federal health insurance program. Medicare pays only 38 percent of the elderly's health care costs, according to 1976 figures , compared to 50 percent a decade earlier. For instance, Medicare pays almost nothing for nursing home care and outpatient drugs, togathf!r which account for nearly two-fifths of a.n older person's health bill. Thus, the elderly, in predictable fashion, have beaten a. path to private health insurance companies for supplemental protection, or more accurately, they have been driven into the arms of a $4-billion-a.-year business known a.s "Medi­gap." But, ironically, this newest of health insurance industries, designed to support the elderly when Medicare fails them, is being labeled by some consumer specialists as a great betrayal.

After six months of investigations and hearings la.st year, the U.S. House Select Committee on Aging concluded that the elderly spend as much a.s $1 billion on worth­less or unnecessary Mediga.p insurance. The industry is so riddled with abuse that an angry Sen. Claude Pepper, D-Fla.., called it, "a. colossal ra.cket . . . preying on the fears of the elderly."

At the heart of the matter is the com­plexity of Mediga.p insurance coverages. Con­tracts with 150-word sentences list so many exclusions, limitations, and special condi­tions, so many riders, waivers, a.nd waiting periods, that there ls no easy way to compare, s.:i.y, one $200 deductible policy against another as it is possible to do with auto insurance for example.

The result is chaos. Never certain whether they have adequate coverage, some of the elderly buy a.nd buy a.nd buy; worse, even those with several policies may find them­selves footing big health bills because of fa.ulty covera~s.

Several years ago, Consumer Reports­smelling a scandal-researched a.nd com­pared more than a dozen Mediga.p policies. None satisfied the magazine's investigators. who instead recommended that the best hea.lth-insurance choice is a. Health Ma.inte­nance Organization (HMO) plan with a broad range of long-term services.

Some people reason that an HMO's prepay­ment philosophy is better suited to paying for day-to-day health care costs than are insurance principles. Dr. W1lliam A. Mac Coll, active in Group Health Cooperative since its founding more tha.n 30 years ago puts it, "Insurance principles rest on the idea that you can predict the probab111ty of an event, such as an ocea.n liner sinking every so many years, but when you try to apply that con­cept to daily medical care the basic prin­ciples don't work."

Dave Walker, a deputy insurance commis­sioner with the Washington State Insurance Commission notes, "HMO's have the highest rate of return for the premium dollar. The Blues (Blue Cross and Blue Shield) come next (often returning as much as 90 percent of the premium dollar), but we have some companies that don't meet even our mini­mum standards . . . Our rule of thumb is that a. company should be returning at lea.st 55 percent of the premiums they take in through benefits. Some don't do that."

Why then are they permitted to continue business?

The lack of a soph1st1cated computerized system to analyze insurance company returns inhibits the Conunisslon from tackling the Medlgap industry as it should, says Wa.lker. There are 26,000 agents licensed to sell vari­ous kinds of insurance in Washington, ac­cording to Wa.lker, and only 16 deputy com-

missioners to keep them honest. Shortstaffed and underfunded, the Commission for the most part focuses on educating the elderly to protect themselves by ma.king wise pur­chases.

"There's almost one-half million seniors in this state," notes Walker. "It's a natural market for the blue-sueders (the slick sales agents) . I'd guess that 125 a.gents probably specialize in Medigap policies and about 40 or 50 are bad agents. When it comes to deal­ing with seniors some of 'em just rip, rape, burn, and pillage," he says in blistering, if somewhat exaggerated, language.

To show some examples of the scams, rip­offs, and fraud in this industry that some are calling, "Medi-scare", VIEW interviewed several consumer watchdogs in Seattle.

Following are their observations: PILING ON CLEAN-SHEETING

At Seattle's Department of Licenses and Consumer Affairs downtown, Herman Leder is talking on the phone ln a low-key voice. He ls an Investigator-head of the Fraud and the Elderly Project. Leder is in his 60s, warm­hearted and welcoming, all uncle, all smiles-­a figure certainly worlds away from the ha.rd-boiled manners of a Marlow or a Sam Spade. But on this particular day, Herman Leder suddenly abandons his thick smiles and sing-song voice. Over the phone, a mer­chant accused of deceptive advertising ls getting tough with him.

"Whaddya. mean who wants to know?" the investigator reacts. "I want to know, that's who. You llsten a minute ... Hey ... "

Moments later he sllps the phone into its cradle; a grimness settles. A consumer has been ripped off and it doesn't sit well with Leder. He turns to see me waiting, then motions to join him. A tile on Mediga.p fraud, thick enough to serve as a bookend, domi­nates his desk.

"We've got cases here that I can show you as long a.s you don't use any of the vic­tims' names," he stipulates. That agreed, he softens his voice, "I don't think anyone act­ually knows how big the Medigap problem ls. No one likes to admit they've been vic­timized. Older people equate that kind of situation with beng senile, so they don't want to report this stuff. But my feeling ls that there a.re a lot of unscrupulous agents out there, a lot of white-collar crime."

Leder's first piece of advice ls for con­sumers not to "pile-on," or "over-stack" poll­cies a.s it is called in the trade, which ls to purchase too much insurance. Testimony be­fore one congressional committee revealed an 87-year-old Wisconsin woman who paid $4,000 to nine insurance companies for 19 policies that were largely worthless because of the duplicate coverage. Insurance com­panies often coordinate benefits; only one company will pay.

The State Insurance Commission recom­mends, "As a general rule purchasing the most complete Medicare supplement pollcy that you can afford is much better than purchasing several incomplete policies."

"A person can be insurance-poor," explains Leder. "You can buy cancer policies, nursing home pollcies, hospitalization policies, you can buy so many different kinds of supple­mental insUI'6nce that you have no money left for anything else."

Limited policies, in general, bear close scrutiny, he says. "A lot of it ls scare stuff. Cancer policies often cover hospitalization only. But the big costs in cancer treatment a.re outpatient ca.re, like chemotherapy. Medicare will pay a lot of cancer costs.

"Then you get these a.gents that tell a. Mrs. Jones a.bout a hosplta.llzation policy tha.t covers up to 300 days," he continues. "But the average stay in a Washington hospital ls a little more than seven days. Most people don't need 300 days."

Limited policies recently came under sharp attack from a consumer agency-backed study in New York that claimed they were "hlgh­priced in relation to their value." (New York ls one of three states that has banned single­disease policies, such as cancer insurance.)

But limited policies are growing increas­ingly popular, say industry observers. "Think of the thing the elderly fear the most: 111-ness," says one Medicare administrator. "And going into debt. Or going on welfare. Then you get this advertising that shows plcturea of bedridden elderly or mentions the gory de­ta.1ls of John Wayne's bout with cancer and you can see how easy it is to intimidate the elderly, especially some who can't read or hear all that well."

No only must older persons be on guard, they sometimes are called upon to act u bar-room bouncers of a sort. "I had one woman In here, a retired teacher and not the helpless type," recalls a Seattle senior rights advocate, "who finally had to scream at an agent, 'Get out, get out, leave me alone,' before he'd actually leave the house.''

"Here, let me show you some of the things that older people get ln the mail," says Leder. shaking his head. He pulls out what appears to be a policy, with a glossy gold seal in one corner and a 1:lowery scroll bordering antique · lettering.

"Looks Uke a certl1:lcate for tl00,000, huh?" It isn't a certl1:lcate. Neither ts it a policy.

"For $6.40 this sounds gOOd, but this is only a brochure. You have to pay to see the pol­icy ... the literature of man order policie:t ls glowing, but the policies often aren•i worth that much. It's also more d11ftcult to ftle and collect on a claim if the agent ls out-of-state somewhere.

"Also, never, never, make out a check to an agent," he implores. "In one case we had phony agents who weren't even licensed in this state. Usually by the time anyone can look into it, the agent is gone. Always make out the check to the company.

"Here's one more thing to watch out for," says Leder, thumbing again through his me. "Have you ever heard of 'clean-sheeting'?" That's where an agent tills in the medical history of an applicant himself. If Mrs. Smith had a heart attack in the past, a company might not accept her, so the agent, who ls worried about the commission doesn't 1111 in the medical information. But six years later the woman gets sick and flles a claim. Someone backtracks and finds out she never reported a. previous sickness. The company denies the claim."

The moral of the story 1s for an appli­cant to be as complete as possible regarding medical history on an insurance application; a shortfall of candor ls like counting cards at a Reno blackjack table where the decks a.re changed routinely.

WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING

Tucked away on the second 1:loor of the Lowman Building on 1st Ave. and Cherry St., an elderly woman 1s rattling off tips about Medlgap insurance faster than I can take notes. Ignore the scare advertising, she ls saying. Beware of celebrity-endorsed insur­ance policies. Don't be fooled by policies with words like "consumer" or "senior citi­zen" in their titles. Don't believe that be­cause a policy ls advertised in your favorite religious magazine or your employee news­letter that it's reliable.

Maxine Johnson takes a breath and sita back in the omce of Senior Rights Assistance (SRA), a. group tha.t otrers the elderly help with law-related concerns.

"I'm not saying that these pollcles aren't on the up-a.nd-up," a.nows Johnson, a coun­selor at SRA. "Just don't take any of these things for granted."

She then mentions "sucker Usts"-names of susceptible, sometimes senile, elderly per-

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 29351 sons that are traded back and forth by agents who prey on retirement homes.

"Sometimes agents get names by advertis­ing wlth free booklets that ask, 'Do you want to know more about Medicare?'" she says.

Or there is what is known as the "wolf in sheep's clothing" modus operandi.

"For awhile there was someone coming around with a red, white, and blue card that looked very official," she remembers. "They looked like they were government salesmen or from Medicare. Once they're inside the door ... " her voice trails off.

ROLLING THE CLIENTELE

Johnson lists one other trick: "This one is called 'roll1ng.' You see, an agent gets a higher commission for sell1ng a new policy. Some of them wm come around every year and get their clients to replace their old policies with new ones. But there are pre­existing conditions and waiting periods on those policies."

Often, insurance companies include a clause in a policy that precludes any benefits being paid until a certain length of time has elapsed after purchase, ostensibly so that the person who gets cancer, for instance, cannot rush out the next day and load up on cancer insurance. But some waiting peri­ods are for as long as two years. Further­more, in the case of hospltal1zatlon policies, beneficiaries often must be in the hospital for a certain number of days before benefits will start.

"several policies won't start paying until a person ls ln the hospital for eight days," notes Johnson. "The average stay in a hos­pital ls about seven days, though.''

As Maxine Johnson closes her looseleaf file, her voice drops almost to a whisper. "These things a.re unconscionable, you know. It's worse than sell1ng someone a bum car. What happens 1f you get sick and you think you were covered by insurance when you're not?"

The Medlgap industry, ls, thus, a free-for­all, full of more promise than delivery, a thicket of misinformation and misrepresen­tation. "A rotten system," says State Insur­ance Commission's Dave Walker. "We should go in with a sledgehammer and start all over again. What we need are simple comprehen­sive Medlgap policies, like they have in Wis­consin. Grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. No phony baloney. You want the deluxe baby you know what you're getting."

Right now, certain state regulations en­forced by the State Insurance Commission are introducing more responsibllty in the Medlgap industry. But the best protection, of course, ls to be well informed.

Complaints about questionable sales tac­tics used by agents should be directed to the State Insurance Commission, which also has compiled an excellent health insurance guide, available upon request.e

MOTHER TERESA RECEIVES NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

• Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I want to express my joy for Mother Teresa, the Missionaries of Charity, and for the thousands of people whom she has blessed with her love. My family and I had the opportunity to visit Calcutta in 1974 and we followed Mother Teresa on her daily rounds through the city. I saw her pick up the dying and take them to a shelter where she bathed them, fed them, and loved them so that they could die with dignity. I went with her to the leper area where the vultures sit up on the

bridge waiting for someone to die, people with no fingers, no hands, no nose, no feet. Mother Teresa moved among these people, taking them by the shoulder and steadying them, touching their arms, loving them. The babies that are left and abandoned she takes in to feed. As we drove down a street we saw the body of a person who had just died only a few minutes before, still lying there waiting to be removed like garbage; and we walked through rows of cots where the elderly were perspiring on the brow, soon maybe in an hour or two, to die. Mother Teresa said to me:

Before every single person dies we tell them about Jesus.

Mother Teresa told about a memorable time when she took rice to a family that had not eaten for 3 days. As she doled out the rice, Mother Teresa noticed the mother putting part of the rice into an­other container. Why? "The mother re­plied that there was a neighbor family which had not eaten for 3 days either. She wanted to share her rice with them. I could have given a double portion of rice," Mother Teresa told us, "but I did not want to deny this family the blessing of sharing.''

Several of us in the Senate had the opportunity of meeting with this mod­ern-day saint when she visited Washing­ton in 1975. We were struck then that Mother Teresa's work seemed out of step with a world that emphasizes power, suc­cess, and wealth. Her route toward ful­fillment is that of self-denial. She views her work not as professional social work but rather as an intimate, emotional in­volvement with a needy person; not as sympathy that becomes focused on wel­fare, but as a sustained commitment of Christian ministry.

It is typical of Mother Teresa's spirit that when she was notified of her Nobel Peace Prize, her response was that of "I am unworthy." Her response and sense of God's purpose in this world reminds us of Mary's prayer in Luke 1: 46-55 where:

Mary said: My soul praises the Lord and my spirit re­

joices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me-holy ls His name. His mercy extends to those who fear him, from gen­eration to generation. He has performed m1ghty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, even as he said to our fathers.

Mother Teresa's gifts of service to the poorest of the poor in India do not fit our conventional definitions of peace­making. Nor does it seem to fit with the geopolitical efforts to balance this power off against another. Mother Teresa's peace efforts start with and end with individual interaction with one another and with their God. In the end, this is the only kind of peace that will stand

the test of time. So, Mr. President, it was with great enthusiasm that I, along with many others, nominated Mother Teresa for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975 and again this year, and I wish to salute her efforts today in this great body.•

ORDER FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3434 TOMORROW

Mr. ROBERT c. BYRD. Mr. President, I have cleared this request with the dis­tinguished manager of the bill, Mr. LoNG, and the minority through Mr. BAKER. I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar Order No. 352, H.R. 3434, and that the pending busi­ness, Calendar Order No. 387, continue to be laid temporarily aside, and that a call for the regular order not bring back before the Senate Calendar Order No. 387 until such time as H.R. 3434 is dis­posed of.

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

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT APPRO­PRIATIONS, 1980--CONFERENCE REPORT Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I sub­

mit a further report of the committee of conference on H.R. 4394 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re­port will be stated.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The comm1ttee of further conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the b111 (H.R. 4394) making appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Develop­ment, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and of­fices for the fiscal year ending 8eptember 30, 1980, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have a.greed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by all of the conferees.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report.

<The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the RECORD of October 23, 1979.)

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the report before us today is simply a report on two items contained in the HUD-In­dependent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1980 which the House and Senate were unable to agree upon the first time around. A thorough explana­tion of that first conference agreement 1s set forth in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of September 28, with an accompanying table, at pages Sl3652 through 813664. I will not go over that ground a.gain but I do intend to insert a modified table in the

29352 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 24, 1979

RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks today.

As I say, Mr. President, this is a very abbreviated conference report, because it simply relates to two items contained in the HUD-independent offices appro­priation bill which were not agreed to the first time around. One item relates to NASA; we provide an additional $8 mil­lion to NASA for two programs. The other relates to livable cities, which was deleted, and the conferees agreed to the deletion.

The two items that were still at issue after we completed action on the first conference report were the livable cities program and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's research and development program. The Senate con­ferees reluctantly agreed to recede to the House and drop the $3 million contained in the Senate version of H.R. 4394 to initiate a livable cities program.

The House conferees, in return. agreed to Senate action to add $3 million to NASA's request for research and devel­opment funding for a variable cycle en­gine and to boost rotorcraft research by an additional $5 million. As a conse­quence NASA's variable cycle engine pro­gram will be funded at the $8 million level in fiscal year 1980 while the rotor­craft program will total $15 million in the current fiscal year. As a re.suit of these actions $3.807.500,000 would be made availilble in fii;:cal year 1980 for NASA's research and development efforts.

The House also a~eed to delete their language setting aside a $23 million re­serve for the Space $huttle as well as a orovision reouiring the aporoval of the House and Senate Aoprooriations Com­mittees before NASA could proceed to purchase hardware for a split Galileo Ju­piter orbit.er probe mission. These issues a-re also discu!':s~d jn some detail in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of Seotember 28.

I might say that the distin­guished Senator from Connecticut <Mr. WE1CK'€R) m$\.de a ver:v powerfu1 fight for the neighborhood pro~rl'l,ms. and de­serves great crPdit for ftghtiPg for the Senate's position. but there was no way we could sett1.e this wit-hout giving that up. The vote in the House was 2% to 1, by a roll"'all vote. against the neighbor­hood or livable cities program, and we had to let that one go. · • Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President. the ad­ditional conference held yesterday on H.R. 4394, the HUD and Independent Agenc;es Appropriations Act of 1980, resulted in an agreement to drop the language added by the House wh~ch provided for a one-House veto of the Galileo project. That language was as fol.lows:

Provided, That no funds may be obllgated for development of separate orbiter and probe missions in Project Gallleo, without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations • • •"

This matter was not a subject of the original conference but added by the House subsequent to that conference to an amendment in disagreement. The

Senate, by a vote of 49-20, deleted this language. In taking this action, how­ever, we are nonetheless cognizant of the need for congressional review of a separate launch for the orbiter and probe missions of Galileo. I was, there­fore, pleased when NASA informed us that it wouJ.d be sending up a notifica­tion of its intentions with respect to the Galileo program under section 4, para­graph 3 of the authorizing legislation. This notification procedure will allow Congress the necessary input and over­sight into the Galileo project without the threat of a one-House, one-commit­tee veto over the project. Thus, while we have eliminated the House language providing for a veto over the Galileo project, we will have more than adequate input as was discussed by the distin­guished chairman of the Authorizing Committee, Senator CANNON, and myself on the floor of the Senate on September 28, when we originally considered the conference report on this matter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that a copy of the NASA letter to­gether with a copy of section 4 of Public Law 96-48 be printed in the RECORD.

The material follows: NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., October 16, 1979.

Hon. WILLIAM PROXMmE, Chai rman, Subcommittee on HUD-Inde­

pendent Agencies, Committee on Appro­priati ons, U.S. Senate, Washington, D .C .

DEAR MR. CHAmMAN: This letter will con­firm our commitment that, immediately upon enactment of the Fiscal Year 1980 Appropriations Act for HUD-Independent Agencies, I will forward to the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, to you and to tlle Chairmen of the appropriate authorizing committees, a formal notice prepared in accordance with Section 4 (3) of the National Aeronautics and Soace Ad­ministration Authorization Act , 1980 (Public Law 96-58), with respect to the revised plans for the Ga111eo program.

This notice will detail the revisions that we plan to make and associated programmat­ic and budgetary imp·a.cts. We would not proceed with revised elements of the Galileo program until the expiration of the 30-::lay statutory period following submission of the section 4 notification.

Sincerely, A. M. LOVELACE,

Deputy Administrator.

PuBLIC LA w 96-48 SEc. 4. Notwithstanding any other provi­

sion of this Act-( 1) no amount appropriated pursuant to

this Act may be used for any program de­leted by the Congress from requests as orig­inally made to either the House Committee on Science arid Technology or the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Tra.nsporta ti on,

(2) no amount appropriated pursuant to this Act may be used for any program in ex­cess of the amount actually authorized for that particular program by subsections 1 (a) and 1 ( c) , and

(3) no amount appropriated pursuant to this Act may be used for any program which has not been presented to or requested of either such committee, unless (A) a period of 30 days has passed after the receipt by the Speaker of the

House of Representatives and the President of the Senate and each such committee of notice given by the Administrator or his designee containing a full and complete statement of the action proposed to be taken and the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of such proposed action, or (B) each such committee before the expiration of such period has transmitted to the Ad­ministrator written notice to the effect that such committee has no objection to the pro­posed action.

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, the con­ference report also provides $8 million for NASA R. & D. above the amount pro­posed by the House. These funds are spe­cifically earmarked for two projects. $3 million is for the variable cycle engine program. This is in addition to the $5 million already provided in the fiscal year 1980 budget for VCE. The addi­tional $3 million would permit NASA to undertake additional fundamental acoustical work to reduce jet noise. The conference committee has also included $5 million for advanced rotorcraft tech­nology. As many of my colleagues know, the need for increased R. & D. in the hel­icopter area is becoming more and more evident as foreign concerns begin to capture a larger share of the foreign and domestic market. The $5 million will provide for research on advanced all­weather IFR systems, for the develop­ment of a methodology to predict rotor­craft performance and noise, for the prediction of helicopter airframe dy­namics, for propulsion technology, for large rotorcraft development R. & D., and for augmented research in the area of high speed rotorcraf t.

On amendment No. 12, Livable Cities, the House insisted upon its position and the Senate receded. My colleague, the Senator from Connecticut <Mr. WEICKER), made a valiant effort to ob­tain funding for this program but could not prevail in the face of the House po­sition and the fact that the administra­tion had withdrawn its support from the program. I personally believe that a pro­gram such as Livable Cities has consid­erable merit in that it can provide a community with artistic and cultural experiences.

In conclusion, I would like to compli­ment, once again, our distinguished chairman <Mr. PROXMIRE) for the enor­mous amount of time and effort he in­vested in the HUD and independent agencies bill. I would also like the rec­ord to reflect the fact that the other members of this subcommittee have been extremely active and extremely helpful in concluding the business at hand and that they all individually should be commended for their work on this bill.•

Mr. PROXMffiE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a revised tabu­lation of the amounts contained in the HUD-Independent Agencies appropria­tion bill as recommended by the con-ferees be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

as follows:

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 29353 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY

[Fiscal years)

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING PROGRAMS

Annual contributions for assisted

New budget authority

Enacted 1979 Estimates 1980 House, 1980

Conference compared with-

Senate, 1980 Conference, 1980 1979 enacted 1980 estimate House bill Senate bill

housing (contract authority) ____ ~24, 395, 848, 000 ~ 26, 680, 127, 750 ~26, 680, 128, 000 ~ 26, 680, 128, 000 ~ 26, 680, 128, 000 +t2, 284, 280, 000 +~250 ---- -- -- ------ -- -- ---- ---- -- --Increased limitation for an-

nual contract authority ____ (1, 322, 297, 000) (1, 140, 661, 275) (1, 160, 474, 000) (1, VO, 661, 000) (1, ltO, 661, 000) (-181, 636, 000) (-275) (-'19, 813, 000)-------- -- ----Rent supplement____ ____________ ________________ -200, 000, 000 ---------------- -200, 000, 000 -200, 000, 000 -200, 000, 000 ---------------- -200, 000, 000 --------------Housing payments (appropriation

to liquidate contract authority) __ (4, 460, 000, 000) (5, 529, 000, 000) (5, 529, 000, 000) (5, 529, 000, 000) (5, 529, 000, 000) (+1, 069, 000, 000)---------------------------------------------­Housing for the elderly or handi-

capped fund (authority to bor-row)______ __ _________________ 800, 000, 000 800, 000, 000 800, 000, 000 860, 000, 000

10, 000, 000 830, 000, 000 +30, 000, 000 +30, 000, 000 +30, 000, 000 -$30, 000, 000

10, 000, 000 ------------------ +10, 000, 000 ------------------------------Congregates services program _____ 10, 000, 000 ---------------- 10, 000, 000 Payments for operation of low-

i ncome housing projects________ 727, 000, 000 741, 500, 000 741, 500, 000

77, 000, 000

741, 500, 000 741, 500, 000 +14, 500, 000 ----------------------------------------------Troubled projects operating

subsidy______________________ 74, 000, 000 Federal Housing Administration

82, 000, 000 82, 000, 000

194, 850, 000

79, 500, ooo +5, 500, ooo -2, 500, ooo +2, 500, ooo -2, 500, ooo fund ___________________ ------ 352, 290, 000 194, 850, 000 194, 850, 000 194, 850, 000 -157, 440, 000 ----------------------------------------------

Government National Mortgaee Association

Emergency mortgage purchase assistance: Recapture of repay-ments __________ -------------- (1, 000, 000, 000) .. -------------------------------------------------------------- (-1, 000, 000, 000)----------------------------------------------

Special assistance functions fund: Authority to borrow__________ 500, 000, 000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- -500, 000, 000 ----------------------------------------------Recapture of repayments _____ (1, 500, 000, 000) (2, 000, 000, 000) (2, 000, 000, 000) (2, 000, 000, 000) (2, 000, 000, 000) (+500, 000, 000)----------------------------------------------

Payment of participation sales insufficiencies_________________ 20, 477, 000 16, 971, 000 16, 971, 000 16, 971, 000 16, 971, 000 -3, 506, 000 ----------------------------------------------

Total, Government National Mortgage Association____ 520, 477, 000 16, 971, 000 16, 971, 000 16, 971, 000 16, 971, 000 -503, 506, 000 ----------------------------------------------

================================================================================================= Total, housing programs____ 26, 879, 615, 000 28, 315, 441!, 750 21!, 520, 419, CCO 2P, 3£5, 419, CCO 21!, 352, £(£, CCO

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Community development grants___ 3, 750, 000, 000 3, 900, 000, 000 3, 900, 000, 000 3, 900, 000, 000 3, 900, 000, 000 Urban development action grants__ 400, 000, 000 675, 000, 000 400, 000, 000 675, 000, 000 675, 000, 000 Comprehensive planning grants_ _ 53, 000, 000 tO, COO, OCO 35, CCO, CCO rn, CCO, CCO ~2, f((l, CCO Rehabilitation loan fund---------- 230, 000, 000 130, 000, 000 140, 000, 000 13, 000, 000 135, 000, 000 Urban homesteading_------ ------ 20, 000, 000 ---- ---- ---------------------------------- ----------------------

Total, Community Planning and Development__ __ _ __ 4, 453, 000, 000 4, 745, 000, 000 4, 475, coo, cco 4, 755, cco, OCO 4, 752, ~CO, COO

NEIGHBORHOODS, VOLUNTA l?Y ASSOCIATIONS AND

CONSUMER PROTECTION

+1, 473, 334, 000 +37, 500, 250 -167, 500, 000 -3, 500, 000

+150, 000, 000 ----------------------------------------------+275, 000, 000 ---------------- +275, 000, 000 -------- -------10, fOO, ooo +2, mo, ooo +1, soo, ooo -7, 500, ooo -95, ooo, ooo +5, ooo, ooo -5, ooo, ooo +5, ooo, ooo -20, 000, 000 ----------------------------------------------

+ 2S9, fCO, CCO + 7, fCO, CCO + 277, fCO, CCO -2, 500, 000

Housing counseling assistance_____ 9, 000, 000 9, 000, 000 9, 000, 000 9, oco, 000 9, 000, 000 -- - -- -- -- -- --- - -- -- - - - - - - -- -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- - - -- - -- - ---- -- - - -- - - -Neighborhood self-help develop-

ment program____ __________ ___ 5, 000, 000 Livable cities program ________________ ______ ____ _

Total, neighborhoods, vol-u nta ry associations and consumer protection _____

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Research and technology _________

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

14, 000, 000

57, 500, 000

Fair housing assistance ___ ------------------- ___ _

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

15, 000, 000 10, 000, 000 5, 000, 000 - ---------------

29, 000, 000 19, 000, 000

53, 000, 000 49, 000, 000

3, 700, 000 3, 700, 000

10, ooo, coo 10, oco, ooo +5, ooo, coo -5, ooo, ooo ------------------------------3, 000, 000 ----------- ----------------------- -5, 000, 000 --------------- - -3, 000, 000

22, 000, 000 19, 000, 000 +5, ooo, ooo -10, 000, 000 - -- -- ------- - --- -3, 000, 000

50, 300, 000 49, 650, 000 -7, 850, 000 -3, 350, 000 +650, ooo -650, 000

3, 700, 000 3, 700, 000 +3, 700, 000 ----------------------------------------------

Salaries and expenses ____ _ ------- 269, 458, 000 296, 002, 000 288, 377, 000 281, 002, 000 284, 189, 000 +14, 731, ooo -11, 813, ooo -4, 188, ooo +3, 187, ooo By transfer, FHA funds_______ (250, 255, 000) (255, 118, 000) (255, 118, 000) (255, 118, 000) (255, ll8, 000) ( +4, 863, 000) _ - - -- -- - - - - - - -- -- ---- ------------ - - - - -- - - -- - --

Total, title I, Department of Hous-ing and Urban Development:

New budget (obligational) authority ________ --------_ 31, 673, 573, 000 33, 442, 150, 750 33, 355, 5£6, 000 33, 497, 451, 000 33, 461, 988, 000 +1, 788, 415, 000 +19, 837, 250 +106, 462, 000 -35, 463, 000

Appropriations ._________ 5, 977, 725, 000 6, 162, 023, 000 5, 875, 398, 000 6, 157, 323, 000 6, 151, EGO, 000 +174, 135, 000 -10, 163, 000 +276, 462, 000 -5, 463, 000 Contract authority _______ 24, 395, 848, 000 26, 4SO, 127, 750 26, 6£0, 128, 000 26, 4f0, 128, 000 26, 4EO, 128, 000 +2, 084, 2EO, 000 +250 -200, 000, 000 --------------Authority to borrow______ l, 300, 000, 000 EOO, 000, 000 EOO, 000, COO £6:>, 000, 000 830, 000, 000 -470, 000, 000 +30, 000, 000 +30, 000, 000 -30, 000, 000

Appropriation to liquidate contract authority _________ (4, 460, 000, 000) (5, 529, 000, 000) (5, 529, 000, 000) (5, 529, 000, 000) (5, 529, 000, 000) (+l, 069, 000, OOO>- ------- --------------------------------------

lncreased limitation for an-nual contract authority _____ (1, 322, 297, 000) (1, 140, 661, 275) (1, 160, 474, 000) (1, 140, 661, 000) (1, 140, 661, 000) (-181, 636, 000) (-275) (-19, 813, 000) ___________ _

Limitation on corporate funds to be expended_ __ ________ (250, 255, 000) (255, 118, 000) (255, 118, 000) (255, ll8, 000) (?.55, 118, 000) ( +4, 863, 000) _______ ------ _____ ----------- _ ----- _ --- ___ ----

TITLE II

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION

Salaries and expenses ___________ _ 7, 425. 000 7, 603, 000 8, 186, 000 7, 603, 000 7, 603, 000 +178, 000 ---------------- -583, 000 --------------

29354

TITLE II-Continued INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHO~llY-Continued

[Fiscal years]

New budget authority

October 24, 1979

Conference compared with-

Enacted 1979 Estimates 1980 House, 1980 Senate, 1980 Conference, 1980 1979 enacted 1980 estimate House bill Senate bill

Salaries and expenses............ $42, 940, 000 w, 776,000 $41, 250, 000 HO, 600, 000 i 4o, 600, ooo -$2, 340, 000 -$1, 176, 000 - $650, 000 ········-····· DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-

CIVl L

Cemeterial Expenses, Army

Salaries and expenses ___________ _ 5, 100, 000 7, 943. 000 8, 326, 000 7, 611, 000 8, 326, 000 +3, 226, 000 +383, ooo --· · --- --------- +ms. ooo ENVIRONMENTAi PROTECTION ==========================================

AGENCY

Salaries and expenses ___ ____ ____ 457, 419, 000 520, 319, 000 506, 748, 000 515, 319, 000 513, 319, 000 +55, 900, ooo -7, ooo, ooo +6, 571, ooo -2, 000, 000 Research and devel"pment_ ______ 218, 819, 000 239, 568, 000 233, 568, 000 232, 568, 000 233, 568, 000 +14, 749, 000 -6, 000, 000 - -- - --- -- ---- --- +1. 000, 000 Abatement, control, and compl i-

ance ___ ____ __ __ _____ __ ----- - - 524, 145, 000 540, 6118, 000 475, 809, 000 515, 592, 000 508, 892, 000 -15, 253, 000 -31, 796, 000 +33, 796, 000 -6, 700, 000 Buildings and facilities _____ ______ 1, 063, 000 1, 425, 000 1, 425, 000 1, 425, 000 1, 425, 000 +362, 000 ------------ - ------ ---------------------------Construction grants:

Appropriation ____ - - --- - - - ___ 4, 200, 000, 000 3, 800, 000, 000 3, 400, 000, 000 3, 400, 000, 000 3, 400, 000, 000 -800, 000, 000 -400, 000, 000 - -- --------- - - - ---------------Appropriation to liquidate

contract authority_ _____ ___ (1, 400, 000, 000) (1, 500, 000, 000) (1, 500, 000, 000) (1, 500, 000, 000) Scientific activities overseas

(1, 500, 000, 000) ( +100, 000, 000) _ ---------------- ---- - ----- -- ---- ---- -------- -

(special foreign currency pro-2, 000, 000 --- - ---- ------ - -- - - -- - -- -- ------

izram). __ ________ ______ ___ ___ _ 2, 500, 000 4, 000, 000 -2, 500, 000 -4, 000, 000 -2, 000, 000 --------------United States Regulatory Counci'--- -------- - -- --- - 3, 238, 000 2, 238, 000 3, 238, 000 3, 038, 000 +3, 038, 000 -200, 000 +800, ooo -200, 000

Total, Environmental Pro-tection Agency __ ___ ___ __ 5. 403, 946, 000 5, 109, 238, 000 4, 621, 788, 000 4, 668, 142, 000 4, 660, 242, 000 -743, 704, 000 -448, 996, 000 +38, 454, 000 -7, 900, 0()(1

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Council on Environmental Qu3lity and Office of Environmental Quality ____ ------ __ ___ __ ----- · 3, 026, 000 3, 126, 000 3, 026, 000 3, 126, 000 3, 126, 000 +100, 000 ·---·---·----·-- +100, 000 --·-------·- ··

Office of Science and Technology Policy __ ___ ---· ______ --- - - ---_ 2, 496, 000 2, 900, 000 2, 725, 000 2, 625, 000 2, 625, 000 +129, 000 -275, 000 -100, 000 ·-------- --- -

Total, Executive Office of the President__ • • _____ . _ 5, 522, 000 6, 026, 000 5, 751, 000 5, 751, 000 5, 751 , 000 +229, 000 -275, 000 - - - ---------- --·----- -- -- ---··

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Disaster relief, funds appropriated to the President__ __ _____ ______ 386, 105, 000 193, 600, 000 193, 600, 000 193, 600, 000 193, 600, 000 -192, 505, 000 -·--------------------··---·---··-------··----

Emergency planniniz, prepared-ness and mobilization _______ ___ 129, 348, 000 139, 121, 000 131, 121, 000 129, 621, 000 129, 621, 000 +273, 000 -9, 500, 000 -1, 500, 000 ------- ------ ·

Hazard mitigation and disaster assistance •• ______ _________ ___ 132, 517, 000 125, 709, 000 119, 109, 000 118, 709, 000 118, 709, 000 -13, 808, 000 -7, 000, 000 -400, 000 -------·----

Total, Federal Emergency Management Agency ___ __ 647, 970, 000 458, 430, 000 443, 830, 000 441, 930, 000 441, 930, 000 -206, 040, 000 -16, 500, 000 -1, 900, 000 ----------··

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINIS· TRATION

Consumer Information Center _____ 1, 162, 000 1, 364, 000 1, 315, 000 1, 315, 000 1, 315, 000 +153,000 -49, 000 · ····················-·····--·· DEPARTMENT OF HEAL TH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Office of Consumer Affairs ________ 1, 732, 000 1, 861, 000 1, 861, 000 1, 861, 000 1, 861, 000 +129, 000 - ---- -------- ---- ------ - - ---- ------------ -----

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Research and development_ __ ____ 3, 477, 200, 000 3, 822, 500, 000 3, 799, 500, 000 3, 822, 500, 000 3, 807, 500, 000 +330, 300, 000 -15, 000, 000 +8, ooo, ooo -15, ooo, ooo Construction of facilities -· - - - ---- 147, 500, 000 157, 600, 000 156, 100, 000 156, 100, 000 156, 100, 000 -8, 600, 000 -1, 500, 000 ---- - --- - ---- - -- --------- · -- · Research and program man-

agement. ... - ------- •.•••• • •.• 936, 469, 000 964, 900, 000 954, 900, 000 964, 900, 000 959, 900, 000 +23, 431, 000 -5, 000, 000 +5, ooo, ooo -5, ooo, oor

Total, National Aeronautics and Space Ad minis· !ration. _____ .. ••. .•. ••• 4, 561, 169, 000 4, 945, 000, 000 4, 910, 500, 000 4, 943, 500, 000 4, 923, 500, 000 +362, 331, 000 -21, 500, 000 +13, 000, 000 -20, 000, OOll

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON AIR QUALITY

Salaries and expenses •...• ••••• • •• 2, 000, 000 6, 000, 000 5, 000, 000 5, 500, 000 5, 500, 000 +3, 500, 000 -500, 000 +500, ooo ------------- ·· NATIONAL CONSUMER COOPERATIVE BANK

Salaries and expenses . ___ __ _____ _ 1, 500, 000 8, 900, 000 7, 000, 000 8, 900, 000 7, 950, 000 +6, 450, ooo -950, 000 +950, 000 -950, 000 Self·help development_ ___ ___ ___ _ 1, 000, 000 20, 000, 000 17, 000, 000 17, 000, 000 17, 000, 000 +16, 000, 000 -3, 000, 000 ------- ----------------- ------

Total, National Consumer Cooperative Bank __ ____ _ 2, 500, 000 28, 900, 000 24, 000, 000 25, 900, 000 24, 950, 000 +22, 450, 000 -3, 950, 000 +950, 000 -950, 000

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

Central liQuidity facility (authority to borrow>----------------------- ------------ 500, 000, 000 300, 000, 000 -------------------------------------------------- -500, 000, 000 -30, 000, 000 --------------

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SCIENCES

Salaries and expenses •••• ·-- - ·-- 750, 000 750, 000 718, 000 750, 000 750, 000 --------------------------------- +32, 000 ·----------··-

•

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 29355 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY-Continued

[Fiscal years)

TITLE I I-Continued

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Research and related activities ____ Science education activities ___ ____ Scientific activities overseas

(special foreign currency pro-gram) _______ -- ---- -------- --

Total, National Science Foundation _____________

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Enacted 1979

~827, 000, 000 80, 000, 000

4, 000, 000

911, 000, 000

Salaries and expenses ______________ ___ ----------

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

Salaries and expenses _________ _ 7, 830, 000

New budget authority

Estimates 1980 House, 1980

~915, 300, 000 84, 700, 000

m6,8oo, ooo 84, 700, 000

6, 000, 000 5, 500, 000

1, 006, 000, 000 987, 000, 000

9, 500, 000 9, 500, 000

9, 825, 000 7, 830, 000

Conference compared with-

Senate, 1980 Conference, 1980 1979 enacted 1980 estimate House bill Senate bill

t 915, 300, 000 ~906, 050, 000 84, 700, 000 84, 700, 000

+H9, 050, 000 - $9, 250, 000 +t9, 250, 000 -~9. 250, 000 +4, 700, 000 ----------------------------------------------

5, 500, 000 5, 500, 000 +1. 500, 000 -500, 000 ---- -- -- -------- -- -- -- -- ---- --1, 005, 500, 000 996, 250, 000 +85, 250, 000 -9, 750, 000 +9, 250, 000 -9, 250, 000

12, 000, 000 12, 000, 000 + 12, 000, 000 +2. 500, 000 +2, 500, 000 --------·····-

7, 830, 000 7, 830, 000 <-----------·-> -1, 995, 000 <----------> <- -·- --------> ================================================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Payments to State and local gov­ernment fiscal assistance trust fund ________________________ _ 6, 854, 924, 000

7, 200, 000

6, 854, 924, 000

6, 337, 000

6, 854, 924, 000

6, 237, 000

6, 854, 924, 000

6, 237, 000

6, 854, 924, 000 ------------------------------------------------------------··--Office of Revenue Sharing, salaries

and expenses _______ _________ _ New York City loan guarantee

program, administrative ex· penses. ________ --- _ ----- -- __ _

Investment in National Consumer Cooperative Bank ____________ _

1, 050, 000

1, 000, 000

1, 034, 000

60, 000, 000

1, 034, 000

50, 000, 000

1, 022, 000

48, 100, 000

6, 237, 000

1, 022, 000

49, 050, 000

Total, Department of the Treasury_______________ 6, 864, 174, 000 6, 922, 295, 000 6, 912, 195, 000 6, 910, 283, 000 6, 911, 233, 000

VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION

Compensation and pensions. ____ 10, 706, 700, 000 11, 201, 800, 000 Readjustment benefits__________ 2, 445, 700, 000 2, 278, 535, 000 Veterans insurance and indem-

nities ________________________ 5, 750, 0'.)J 5, 40J, 0'.>l Medical care ___ ----------------- 5, 374, 374, 000 5, 659, 117, 000 Medical and prosthetic research ___ 122, 8H, 000 122, 847, 000 Medical administration and mis-

cellaneous operating expenses •• General operatinR expenses ______ _ Construction, major projects _____ _ Construction, minor proiects •• ___ _ Grants for construction of State

extended care facilities ________ _ Grants for construction of State

47, 058, 000 631, 675, 000 365, 560, 000

86, 345, 000

10, 000, 000

veterans cemeteries. ______ ----·-···-----------Assistance for health manpower

48, 024, 000 592, 790, 000 317, 292, 000

73, 072, 000

5, 000, 000

5, 000, 000

11, 201, 800, 000 11, 201, 800, 000 11, 201, 800, 000 2, 278, 535, 000 2, 278, 535, 000 2, 278, 535, 000

5, 40'.>, Q'.)0 5, 671, 119, 000

127, 847, 000

47, 606, 000 584, 967, 000 317, 292, 000

72, 633, 000

5, 000, 000

5, 000, 000

5, 400, OO:J 5, 696, 215, 000

122, 847, 000

47, 606, 000 588, 392, 000 317, 292, 000

72, 633, 000

10, 000, 000

5, 000, 000

5, 400, 000 5, 683, 700, 000

122, 8~7. 000

47, 606, 000 587' 392, 000 317, 292, 000

72, 633, 000

7, 500, 000

5, 000, 000

training institutions ___________ _ Grants to the Republic of the

104, 905, 000 ·- -- -- ·- -- ·- ···- -- ·-·- -- -- -- -- -- --·-···- -- -- ---- -- -- ---- -- -- -- --Philippines. _________________ _ 500, 000 1, 700, 000 1, 700, 000 1, 000, 000 1, 350, 000

Total, Veterans Adminis-tration.-·---------- - --- 19, 901, 414, 000 20, 310, 577, 000 20, 318, 899, 000 20, 346, 720, 000 20, 331, 055, 000

Total, title II, Independent Agencies:

-963, 000 -100, 000 ·-----------------------------

-28, 000 -12, 000 -12, 000 -------------·

+48, 050, 000 -10, 950, 000 -950, 000 +950, 000

+47, 059, 000 -11, 062, 000 -962, 000 +950, 000

+495, 100, 000 -----------------------------------------------167, 165, 000 - --------------------------------------- ------

-350, 000 ------- -- --- - - - -- -- -- -- - - - - -- - -- - -- -- --- - - - - --+309, 326, 000 +24, 583, cco +12, 581, coo -12, 515, oco

--- - -- - - - -- -- -- -- - - ----- ----- --- -- -5, 000, 000 - -- -- - - - - --- --

+548, 000 -418, 000 -------------------------------44, 283, 000 -5, 398, 000 +2, 425, 000 -1, 000, 000 -48, 268, 000 --------------------------------------------·· -13, 712, 000 -439, 000 ------------------------------

-2, 500, 000 +2, 500, 000 +2, 500, 000 -2, 500, 000

+5, ooo, ooo ---------------··-·-·--------·-·--·-------·--·

-104, 905, 000 -------------------------------------------··

+850, ooo -350, 000 -350, 000 +350, 000

+429, 641, 000 +20, 478, 000 +12, 156, 000 -15, 665, 000

New budget (obligational) authority. ________________ 38, 366, 634, 000 39, 373, 088, 000 38, 607, 949, 000 38, 432, 796, 000 38, 380, 696, 000 +14, 062, 000 -992, 392, 000 -227, 253, 000 -52, 100, 000

Appropriation to liquidate contract authority _________ (1, 400, 000, 000) (1, 500, 000, 000) (1, 500, 000, 000) (1, 500, 000, 000) (1, 500, 000, 000) ( +100, 000, 000) ________________ ------ ______ -----·-·-- __ --·- __

TITLE Ill

CORPORATIONS

Federal Home Loan Bank Board: Limitation on administrative expenses. _______________ _ Federal Savings an:! Loan In­

surance Corporation (limi-tation on administrative

(17, 650, 000) (18, 984, 000) (18, 359, 000) (18, 359, 000) (18, 359, 000) ( +709, 000) (-625, 000) --- -- - -- -- --------- - -- ------ --

expenses)._______ __ ______ (31, 928, 000) (33, 566, 000) (33, 466, 000) (33, 466, 000) (33, 466, 000) ( +1, 538, 000) (-100, 000)_ ________________ --------- ___ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

Tot a I, title 111, Corporations _ (49, 578, 000) (52, 550, 000) (51, 825, 000) (51, 825, 000) (51, 825, 000) - (+2, 247, 000) (-725, 000) _________ _ ----------- ________ _

Grand total, titles I, II, and Ill: New budget (obligational)

authority _________________ 70, 040, 207, 000 Appropriations . _____ ____ 44, 344, 359, 000 Contract authority _______ 24, 395, 848, 000 Authority to borrow_ _ _ _ _ 1, 300, 000, 000

Appropriations to liquidate contract authority _____ ____ (5, 860, 000, 000)

Increased limitation for an-nual contract authority _____ (1, 322, 297, 000)

Limitation on corporate funds to be expended ___________ (299, 833, 000)

72, 815, 238, 750 45, 035, 111, 000 26, 480, 127, 750

1, 300, 000, 000

(7, 029, 000, 000)

71, 963, 475, 000 71, 930, 247, 000 71, 842, 684, 000 44, 183, 347, 000 44, 5£0, 119, 000 44, 532, 556, 000 26, 680, 128, 000 26, 480, 1 ?8, 000 26, 480, 128, 000

1, 100, 000, 000 860, 000, 000 830, 000, 000

(7, 029, 000, 000) (7, 029, 000, 000) (7, 029, 000, 000)

(1, 140, 661, 275) (1, 160, 474, 000) (1, 140, 661, 000) (1, 140, 661, 000)

(307, 668, 000) (306, 943, 000) (305, 943, 000) (306, 943, 000)

+1. 802, 477, 000 -972, 554, 750 -120, 791, 000 -87, 563, 000 +188, 197, 000 -502, 555, 000 +349, 203, 000 -57, 563, 000

+2, 034, 280. 000 +250 -200, 000, 000 ---------------470, 000, 000 -470, 000, 000 -270, 000, 000 -30, 000, 000

( +1. 169, 000, 000) ___________________ -- ------------ -- ------ -----

( -181, 636, 000)

<+7, 110, 000)

(-275) (-19, 813, 000) _____________ _

( -725, 000) ----- - - - - - - - --- - - ------ - - -- - --

29356 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 24, 1979

e Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, to­day after long and arduous negotiations with the House, the Senate, hopefully, will settle the amendments in disagree­ment on the HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1980. One of the is­sues in disagreement was the NASA research and development appropria­tion. As I understand it, the conference committee accepted the language of the House report on this bill <H.R. 4394); however, according to a colloquy between the chairman of the House Appropria­tions Subcommittee <Mr. BOLAND) and the chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee <Mr. FUQUA) on September 27 (page H8264 of the CON­GRESSIONAL RECORD No. 127), the lan­guage of the House report is not meant to stop efforts on Space Shuttle thrust augmentation, and indeed NASA can continue to use funds for design work already in progress in this area. Accord­ing to the colloquy, NASA is required only to touch base with the committee on the use of 1980 funds for this purpose in view of the fact that the House cut the full $15 million for thrust augmentation from the fiscal year 1980 appropriation.

The conference agreement on the NASA research and development appro­priation for fiscal year 1980 also rids the bill of the House language which would have permitted a committee veto of the Galileo program and rids the bill of the $23 million set-aside for the Space Shut­tle, some of which was not authorized. Further, I understand that the confer­ence agreement on the fiscal year 1980 appropriation for NASA research and de­velopment provides $5 million for a pro­gram on advanced rotorcraft technol­ogy-a most important program-and $3 million for additional work on the vari­able cycle engine.

In dollars the conference, therefore, agreed to a total of $3,807,500,000 for NASA's research and development pro­gram for fiscal year 1980; this is $15 mil­lion less than requested by the adminis­tration.

This result, Mr. President, is one that the National Aeronautics and Space Ad­ministration can live with.

The Appropriations Committee is to be commended for its tenacity in this matter. In particular, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee <Mr. PROXMIRE) and the ranking minority Member of the Subcommittee <Mr. MATHIAS) for their diligence in support­ing the Senate's position and bringing this fine result to the Senate.•

Mr. PROXMIRE. I move the adoption of the conference report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques­tion is on agreeing to the conference report.

The report was agreed to.

CONTINUATION OF ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I un­derstand 1lhat the conference report has been agreed to and that business has been comoleted. Th~ PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­

ator is correct.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I also understand that the Chair closed morn­ing business a few moments ago. I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak as if in morning business for not to exceed 6 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objeCtion? Without objection, it is so ordered.

FED'S FIGHT FOR LOWER INTEREST RATES

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, one of the most persistent myths in the country is that the Federal Reserve is deter­mined, for one reason or another, to push up interest rates. Many people, including some distinguished Members of this body, have said that before the Senate.

The fact is that no one on the Board of the Federal Reserve wants high in­terest rates. They are a sign of the fail­ure of our monetary policy. They are a source of concern and loss to the bank­ers, not of gain, as well as loss to the farmers and the small business people and others who have to pay those high interest rates.

Interest rates are not high because that is the objective of the Federal Re­serve Board. The Board wants urgently to get them down. But the Board recog­nizes that the only way to get them down is to turn inflation around.

To understand the truth of that prop­osition consider a simple mathematical proposition. Suppose you have an infla­tion rate of 15 percent, and the public expects that 15 percent rate to continue. Now let us suppose that one way or an­other you get interest rates down to 10 percent and keep them there. What hap­pens? Answer: The speculators have a field day with other people's money. You cannot stop them. How can they resist? Here is why: A speculator can borrow $1 million at 10 percent and invest it for a ye11.r. Cost of the money: $100,000. He invests the money, real estate, com­modities, almost anything that is rising at the average inflation rate. With a 15-percent inflation, he enjoys a $150,000 profit. The full cost of his money was $100,000, so using the lender's money he has made himself a nice fat $50,000 profit. ·

Do you see why an interest rate lower than the perceived inflation rate is bound to push up inflation, is bound to push up prices, is bound to be inflationary? It will do so through the sheer force of speculation when the investors perceive a sure thing, a cannot lose bargain.

In the real world, of course, it does not work that way, and the distinguished oc­cupant of the chair knows why it does not.

That is why the 8- or 10- or 12-per­cent usury laws are such a disaster. After all you cannot count on the lender being a comulete idiot. And just as the borrower in the examole makes a tidy $50,000 profit, the lender suffers a $50,000 loss. He lends $1 million at 10 percent interest, so at the end of a year he gets $1 ,100,000 back, but that is worth $50,000 less than his original million dollars in real terms-thanks to inflation.

So what does the lender do? He says "Nix. I won't lend. I'll take my millio~ dollars and I'll put it into commodities and real estate so that I won't take an inflation beating."

Now if you think this is all theory, just consider what has happened in Ar­lrnnsas and is happening in every other State that has usury statutes that are 12 percent or less. The lenders will not lend, so the small businessman, the farm­er, the home buyer who depends on cred­it, cannot get any credit, not any. He is out of business. He is in worse shape. At least, if interest rates are high, the bor­rower has the option of paying the higher rate or refusing to take the loan. With the limit on interest rates below the in­flation rate, he has no option at all. In a credit economy, he is out of business.

Here is why the inflation situation has become so overwhelmingly serious and why it has become so quinessential for the Federal Reserve Board to follow the tough limitation of credit policy they are pursuing.

This policy is going to cause pain. Anybody who says we can do it without

more unemployment or more recession is just either deceiving you, Mr. Presi­dent, or is deceiving himself, because there is no way you can do it without more unemployment, without some busi­ness failures you would not otherwise have, without serious farm losses and, for millions of Americans who will be affected by it, as Paul Volcker has said, who has been attacked for it but he is speaking the truth, a lower standard of living.

Mr. President, the first step in stopping the rise in prices is to recognize that there are only a few actions we can take that will help, and that whatever we do that will work will be painful, will require sacrifice and will require more sacrifice from some than from others.

If there is a better policy to stem infla­tion by all means let us pursue it.

This policy has been attacked by many, but nobody offers a different course. I wish there were a different course. If there were, we should follow it immediately.

As I say, this is a bad policy from the standpoint of sacrifice and it hurts many, many Americans, hundreds of thousands, millions of them. But we ought to either come up with an alter­native or say that we are not interested, really, sincerely in fighting inflation and paying the tough price we have to pay, or we should support this policy and recognize and speak out on it, pointing out why it is needed. ·

There are other things we can do to make this policy work more effectively. We know them here in the Senate. We can hold down Government spending. We can encourage wage restraint. We have to do all we can with taxation policy and research to encourage pro­ductivity improvement.

We can eliminate our present statu­tory restrictions on interest paid to savers, to reward thrifty people who are fiillting .inflation bv holding down con­sumption and putting their money in the bank.

We have a bill before us that is going

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 29357

to enable us to make a record on that in the next few days.

Above all, we must persist through thick and thin, through recession and unemployment, until we succeed in re­ducing the rate of infiation.

A CONSTANT STRUGGLE Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, yes­

terday was the scheduled opening of a long overdue trial in Cologne, West Ger­many. Accused are three men, charged with aiding and abetting in the crime of murder. Their alleged victims were 75,000 French Jews, all deported to the Auschwitz concentration camp during the Second World War.

The three men were all SS officers, stationed in Paris, who took part in the roundup and loading of Jews onto sealed boxcars bound for Poland. There is docmented evidence proving this, there are witnesses who will testify to it, and the defendants themselves freely admit that it is the truth. They do maintain their innocence, though.

They claim that they were not aware of why they were herding men, women, and children into cattle cars. They say that they were just fallowing orders.

As depressingly familiar as this scenario is, it once again shows us that the issue of genocide can never be relegated to the past. It is something we must face and combat again and again if we are to able to be free from it. Moreover, the hollow echo of the defense in this case is a reminder that we are all responsible for our actions. Regardless of the circumstances, our conscience must be the ultimate guide for our decisions.

Closer to home, there is another ex­ample of how we must constantly pledge ourselves to the sanctity of human rights. Unfortunately, it is an example of how we are failing to do so. I am speaking of the Convention for the Pre­vention and Punishment of Genocide. This fundamental human rights treaty has been ratified by 83 nations, and yet the United States has neglected it for 30 years. We must finally live up to our responsibility. I urge the Senate to ratify the Genocide Convention.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro­ceeded to call the roll.

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

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

RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 15 minutes.

There being no objection, the Senate, at 3:59 p.m., recessed until 4:14 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer <Mr. LEAHY).

CXXV--1846-Part 22

ORDER FOR RECESS UNTIL TOMORROW

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 12 noon tomorrow.

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

ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SEN­ATOR PROXMIRE TOMORROW Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that after the two leaders are recognized under the standing order tomorrow, Mr. PROXMIRE be recognized for not to exceed 15 min­utes.

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

ORDER REDUCING TIME OF THE TWO LEADERS ON TOMORROW Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that the time of the two leaders be reduced to 5 min­utes each on tomorrow.

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

QUORUM CALL Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will call the roll. The second assistant legislative clerk

proceeded to call the roll. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask

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

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

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS, 1980-CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on S. 428 and ask for its immediate con­sideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re­port will be stated.

The legislative clerk read as fallows: The committee of further conference on

the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the blll (S. 428) to authorize appropriations for fis­cal year 1980 for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels. tracked combat ve­hicles, torpedoes. and other weauons and for research, develoument, test, and evaluation for the Armed Forces, to presoribe the au­thorized personnel strength for each active duty component and the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of the Armed Forces and for civilian personnel of the De­partment of Defense. to authorize the mili­tary training student loads. to authorize appropriations for civil defense, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their re.!:pective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report.

<The conference report will be printed in the proceedings of the House of Rep­resentatives.)

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the last action on the fioor with respect to this measure was yesterday. Due to a ft.aw with respect to a technical point in the measure, we asked that it be referred by the Senate back to the conference, which was done.

I will take up first the short confer­ence we had yesterday afternoon.

I see that the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Virginia are in the Chamber, so I will proceed with the entire report at this time.

Mr. President, this conference report is signed by a majority of the Senate conf erees--in fact, all except two, whose real objection, as I understand, was limited to one matter, involving a small amount of money, but it involved weaponry of a certain kind. Two mem­bers did not sign for that reason. Other than that, it was signed by all our con­ferees and I believe by all the conferees for the House of Representatives, with respect to the final report we made.

The approval of this conference report will bring to a close a long and arduous process in both Houses of Congress. Started officially in January but ante­dated that time in preparation by a year or two or more.

The Armed Services Committee ex­amined the President's defense budget minutely this year, holding more than 31 committee hearings on all aspects of our defense posture. S. 428 passed the Senate on June 13; and after some de­lay in the other body, we began our conference on September 21.

Without any criticism, I pause to ex­press regret that the situation was not such that we could get this bill moving in its customary way and have it finished and reported back in final agreement to this body very near July 1. It is neces­sary and needed greatly by the services and the Congress, for the administra­tion of related matters including con­sideration by the Appropriations Com­mittee and others.

But this has been a highly unusual year in many ways. It was preceded by a rather long but important supple­mental bill for fiscal 1979, that con­tributed somewhat to the delay.

After the House bill was passed, the conferees met for six sessions, during more than a month, to work out the dif­ferences between the Senate and the House versions. These things are passed by readily sometimes; but there are well over 1,000 line items in this bill as as­sorted language items-far too many. Many times we had 200 or more dif!er­ences in conference that had to be ironed out.

I express the hope-and I believe it ~s the hope of all the other Members-that we can reduce the number of these amendments in some way. That applies with even more insistence with respect to appropriations items which carry out this program, because they really are out of order unless properly framed in a lim­ited way. It is mighty easy to try to use that in the form of legislation.

29358 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 24, 1979

When this conference report was pre­sented yesterday, it was necessary to re­commit it, as I have said. We met the technicality there by merely adding two words. That was with reference to Zim­babwe-Rhodesia, which relates to the matter of chrome. I am sure that our rules now are complied with, under this added language.

Mr. President, we believe that this is an excellent conference report when aimed at the mission it is supposed to serve. It authorizes a new Nimit.z-class carrier and two nuclear attack sub­marines which will make an important contribution to improving the capability of our Navy. These are the most modern and powerful weapons of their kind that monev can buy. There is no other weapon in their field that can come up to it.

It includes authorization of 705 new aircraft, missiles for all the services, and a. total of 416 new tanks.

The bill also covers a number of im­portant research and development pro­grams, including $670 million for full­scale development of the crucial MX strategic program.

The conferees agreed on end strengths for our active duty forces and for the Reserve and the National Guard. They also agreed to a number of measures re­lating to active and Reserve manpower problems.

The total authorized are $27 .8 billion for procurement, $13.5 billion for re­search and development, and $107 mil­lion for civil defense-for a total of $41.4 billion.

I wish to say a special word of thanks to all members of the committee who worked so diligently on this bill and par­ticularly to the chairman and ranking minority members of our subcommit­tees who bear much of the load during the long process of analyzing each pro­posed program: The chairman of our Subcommittee on General Procurement «Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.) and the rank­ing minority member of that subcom­mittee <Mr. GOLDWATER), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Mam:ower and Personnel <Mr. NUNN) and the ranking minority member of that subcommittee <Mr. JEPSEN), and the chairman of our Sub-ommittee on Research and Develop­ment <Mr. CULVER) and the ranking minority member of that subcommittee (Mr. WARNER).

Mr. President, I say a special word of th~nks for the dedication, attention, and assistance of the new members of our committee. This is not an easy commit­tee to g~t the full swing of and to get into a workmg position with reference to much of the subject matter. As a matter of fact, it takes years to get into the merits of a great deal of it.

_This year vacancies came in our com­mittee. They were filled with men of real outstanding caliber and capabilities who were willing to work and apply themselve~. whic~ they did diligently and ?ontnbuted m a very fine way in workmg out these problems. Some are in­ternational policies related to almost everything under the Sun. They have done an unusual amount of work in these fields.

We had one bill that I know was very difficult to handle concerning the im­plementation of the Panama Canal Treaty. It was a very difficult situation which has been approved finally over strong objection. But more than one of the new members worked on that bill with great diligence. I requested the Senator from Michigan <Mr. LEVIN) to give it extra special time, which he did with outstanding ability and his usual perseverence and ability. He made a real contribution.

But in every field these so-called new men represent a great deal in this field of military service and military administra­tion. A former Secretary of the Navy is included in the group, as an illustration. They really worked and contributed to the measure here that will bear fruit f w many, many years.

I am especially proud of the fine con­tribution of our committee staff director, Frank Sullivan and am grateful to him and the other staff members for their faithful and effective assistance. They are of untold value to the committee at every turn.

I have a great deal of faith in those in responsible positions in our military services. Also most of the members in the units of our Reserves and National Guard units are of a very high type and their work is very important indeed.

While I thank people I wish to thank especially the Senator from Texas <Mr. TOWER) , the ranking minority member of our committee. He is a member of our committee well versed in mllitary affairs. He has been an active participant for years on the committee, well versed in world affairs and related subjects and policies. He has his preferences, of course, and he has a spirit of persever­ance, I will call it, but determination, also. He is worth a lot to the committee, and he is always easy and pleasant to deal with.

I do want to mention one thing. The total budget for the military is much more than that covered by this bill. This is what we call the hardware bill and deals with a lot of the policy matters.

The appropriation bill that we are go;ng to meet on in the morning is e-oing to have $130-odd billion. The spending of that money. the procurement, the con­tracts, the day-to-day administration of that money and its expenditures is an outstanding example where the Govern­ment is going- to have to adopt a more frugal attitude and record of simply making a dollar go as far as possible.

It is an art that has been partlv lost. It has not been practiced with insistence as in former days of our great Nation. And we c::in theorize and talk about balancing the budget, trying to kill off inflation, or stop L.'1ftation, all we wish to, but I do not think anvthing permanent, lasting, and effective is going to be done until we also go back and relearn the wav to spend the money that the Government spends with frugality and with an application to the hi.gh standards of competence that should apply. Until we do that, a great numbe-r of the people and their affairs are not goinis to have a p":Lttern of fru­galit.y in related matters. When the Gov-ernment does do it, then a great number

of people will be willing to and will fallow that pattern

So, the question naturally comes to mind. Why do you not do something about it and do more about it? The com­mittee does try, and a lot of these men in the services try. Not all maybe, but many do. The civilian appointees try, but they have a very difficult job. It is very difficult to be a Secretary of the services or one of the many Assistant Secretaries of the Department of De­fense and of the services. By the nature of the matter they do not serve for very long periods of time; I do not mean they are discharged, but by the nature of it and the way our Government operates they do not stay in place too long, and that leaves them less effective. But we have to try harder. I think the adminis­tration, all administrations are making some effort along that line. The very fine highly competent people that come here to serve deserve a great deal of credit for the contribution they make.

I am thinking there in terms of letting these contracts and following them up and seeing that the money that is paid out under them is earned and good busi­ness practices are followed.

There is another thing. When we turn these bills in, I am one that firmly be­lieves that the weak part refers to the manpower. That does not relate to all the individuals, nor to all of the units by any means. We have some that are very fine. We have many men and women that are highly superior. Con­ditions are grave within our services, some more than others, because of the growing inability of being able to find enough competent people who have the talent, know-how, dedication. and will­ingness to work to make effective mili­tary units. You just do not have an A-1 military unit unless members thereof have been trained to know what disci­pline is, to accept discipline as part of their day·~ work. and to automatically fallow in those courses.

I am not trying to lecture anyone, but I am highly conscious of a failure in this field. I do not read it in books; I do not read it in papers. I see it. I am told these things by people who are in the services.

We are now makin~ some headway in Cong-ress. We are trying to get this mes­sage over to the people. We are trying to not just go to a dogmatic Selective Service Act. We at'e trying to get condi­tions where we will have a fa;r and prop­erly administered Selecti.ve Service Act that will insure that the service<5 have the needed personnel who are properly trained.

There I want to mention again-and I will not take any more time after that-that we have a great number of highly tra;ned, talented men and women in our services. in our Reserves, and in the Nat;onal Guard. Many of these peo­ple have rendered services for 1 year or 2 years or 3 years or 4 years, and even during wartime. Then have come back to their home communities and have some liking for the mUitarv and have a talent in that field. They do not see fit to make it a career, so here are these service units at the local level and led by local people, with talent, competence,

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENA TE 29359

and experience. They are actually mak­ing better records now than the Regular services are in many fields, and that :s an encouraging situation.

If it was left to me, I would assign them more duties and provide them more money and make corresponding reduc­tion than in the Regular services. Let us try that a while, not in the extreme de­gree. I believe that will be one of the general directions we will develop over the years, that being a more active, bet­ter trained, better supported, better equipped Reserve unit, and I commend these people. They serve at a consider­able sacrifice, a lot of them, and we are failing to get these units filled up with new members which are so important.

So, Mr. President, I will not take any more time of the Senate. I hope the Sen­ator from Texas and other members of our committee who can be on the floor will seek recognition here.

Mr. TOWER addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­

ator from Texas. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, there is

very little I can add to the very fine and comprehensive presentation made by the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I think he has de­scribed what the Congress has done, and has described its salient points as well as can be.

I would simply say that I believe the product of the conference has been one of the best authorization bills that we have produced in recent years, one that takes into consideration what our re­quirements are going to be over the next several years, and one that takes into consideration the deficiencies in our ca­pability, of which we are growing more painfully aware each day.

It is a fact that the United States is inferior to the Soviet Union in terms of conventional capability, in terms of the­ater nuclear or Euro-strategic capabil­ity; that we cling to a rough equivalence in terms of strategic capability, and that we are likely to lose a tenuous margin of naval superiority in the next 5 to 10 years if we do not modernize our Navy at a more accelerated pace than is now the case.

We have taken some steps, some small steps, in this bill toward meeting these problems that confront us in our efforts to maintain an adequate posture of pre­paredness

It would be remiss of me if I failed to thank, with great profusion, my dis­tinguished colleague from Mississippi for all the generous things he has said about me, which I can hardly believe are mer­ited.

But I must say things about him that certainly are merited, and one of those is that it is a pleasure to work for a: with a gentleman of his talent, a man of great conviction and dedication and r. man who always pursues a cours~ of ac­tion he conceives to be right regardless of what the consequences may be to him­self.

It has been a pleasure to work witr. Senator STENNIS over the years, and it has been a pleasure to share the work o f the committee with him.

I would also like to second what he has to say about the new members of our committee. There are new members on both sides of the aisle. We do have two distinguished new Democrats on the committee who serve very well and who have taken on responsibilities beyond their years in the Senate.

I am particularly proud, however, of the four Republican freshmen who serve on the committee. Indeed, the majority cf the Republican side of the aisle on the Committee on Armed Services is made up of freshmen Senators who serve with great distinction, who do their home­work well, who are zealously attendant upon the meetings and the affairs of the committee, and who have discharged themselves like veterans. I am, therefore, delighted to have an opportunity to rec­ognize the :fine work they have done.

Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the conference report. There is more than many of us would like to have done, but I think that, as a practical matter, we have done all we could in the two bills, the one of the House and the one of the Sen~,te.

We have labored long and hard at this. If I mi~ht say, I thinl:c th\s year's confer­ence was characterized by a great desire on the part of both the Members of the Senate and the House to come uo with a bill that is best calculated to meet our needs over the next few years, and I think there wa.c:: a minimum of partisan bickering and there was a minimum of self-serving activity in the conference this year, and I hone this has set an example for future conferences.

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR., addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from Virginia.

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD. JR. Mr. Presi­dent, I want to say that I think the Com­mittee on Armed Services is very fortu­nate in the leadership that it has, the leadership of the Senator from Missis­sippi <Mr. STENNir-:) as chairman of the committee, and the leadership of the ranking Republican member of the com­mittee, the Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER).

The committee is fortunate. too. in having an excP.llent prof£>ssional staff.

This conference report is a very im­portant one. It provides for a new nu­clear aircraft carrier; it provides for two attack submarines: it provides for 705 aircraft. new aircraft; and, of course, many missiles. tanks, and conventional arms of many types.

In regard to a new aircraft carrier. last year Congress approved such a carrier, and the President vetoed the legisla­tion. and his veto was sustained in the House of Reoresentatives.

Many of us felt that was a mistake. the veto that carried. Tht.c; :vear the MU which thP. Senate is considering now con­tains a new nuclear carrier. That is a part of the conference report. It has re­ceived strong support in the House of Representatives and strong support in the Senate.

There was no question as to what the conferees would do in regard to this mat­ter. And I think it is fair to say that the

conferees, while not unanimous, were pretty close to being unanimous on the question of the new nuclear carrier.

I am hopeful that President Carter will this year realize the importance and the wisdom of going ahead with this new carrier program, and will approve the legislation which will be submitted to him very shortly.

Mr. President, this bill contains au­thorizations for approximately $41 bil­lion for both procurement and for re­search and development.

To put that in perspective, the new obligational authority which will be ap­proved this year for our defense purposes will total, in round figures, $142 billion. So that means, this bill being $41 billion, that less than 30 cents of each dollar will go for the combined purpose of research and development and the procurement of weapons systems. That is one of the great weaknesses, as I see it, of our de­fense program, that such a high percent­age of the total funds will go for per­sonnel costs and for maintenance and operational costs and such a relatively small percentage is available for new weapons systems and for research and development.

Before dealing with another phase of the conference report, I want to say, as a Virginian, that I am very pleased that my eolleague for Virginia (Mr. WARNER) is a member of the Armed Services Com­mittee. Senator WARNER took a very ac­tive and persuasive role in having in­cluded in this legislation a new Nimitz nuclear aircraft carrier and two new at­tack submarines. As h1s colleague rep­resenting the same State, I am very pleased that we are serving side-by-side on this committee.

Mr. President, another phase of the conference report deals with the ques­tion of sanctions against Rhodesia. That is section 818 of the conference report. Many of us felt that Congress should mandate the lifting of sanctions against Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Others felt that this was not the bill on which the Pres­ident should be mandated to lift the sanctions.

What has been worked out is, I think, of considerable significance, so I want to read section 818. The way it was final­ly drafted by the conferees in the sec­ond conference is this:

It ls the sense of <the Congress that the United States should have unlimited access to strategic and critical materials which are vital to the defense and security of the ·United States and that every effort should be made to remove artificial impediments against the importation of such materials in­to the United States from Zimbabwe-Rho­desia.

The first conference report did not in­clude those last three words. As a re­sult of the perseverance of the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. HELMS), the first conference report was sent back to the committee of conference. A con­ference was then held a second time yesterday afternoon and it was in that conference that the conferees agreed to add the three additional words at the

29360 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE October 24, 1979 end of that section: "from Zimbabwe­Rhodesia."

I think that has signttlcance because it says clearly to the American people that the Congress feels that the Pres­ident should lift economic sanctions against Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. I hope that the President will act quickly to do this.

I realize that there are certain individ­uals, whom I believe to be extremists, in the State Department, who seem de­termined to force upon the new govern­ment in Rhodesia the Marxist-terrorist guerrillas who have caused such disrup­tion in that country over a long period of time. Hopefully something worthwhile will be worked out in England at an early date. But if it is not, I think and hope that the President will accept the views of Congress and will lift the sanctions which were imposed unilaterally by President Johnson many years ago.

This section, which is now a part of the conference report which will be voted on today, clearly states it to be the sense of Congress that the President should act because Rhodesia contains many critical materials, especially chrome, that are important to the defense of the United States.

Incidentally, in regard to chrome, there are only three areas in the world where there is any appreciable or signif­icant supply of chrome, and they are Rhodesia, south Africa, and the Soviet Union. Not having access to Rhodesia makes the United States more depend­ent, then, on Russia for this vital war material.

Mr. President, I support this confer­ence report. I think it is a good confer­ence report. I think the provisions that it has for weapons systems are good pro­visions, and I am particularly pleased that the aircraft carrier has been in­cluded. I think it is of significance that the conferees yesterday added the words "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" to make clear that the Congress feels that these sanc­tions should be removed at the earliest possible time from that country.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from South Carolina.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, first of all I want to pay my respects to the distin­guished members of the Armed Services Committee. As a former member of that great committee, I am particularly grati­fied with many aspects of the results of their work. I particularly extend my gratitude to the chairman, my· former boss, Senator STENNIS, of Mississippi, who has been so patient with me with regard to the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia mat­ter; and to my friend from Texas, the ranking Republican <Mr. TowER) , as well.

I certainly agree with the statements which have been made about the mem­bers of the committee, particularly the freshmen, such as Mr. WARNER, from Vir­ginia, and others.

Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina is exceedingly gratified to read in the revised conference report section 818, that the conferees have taken note of the critical need of the United States to regain access to the strategic and crit-

ical materials which exist in Zimbabwe­Rhodesia.

This is a subject to which the distin­guished Senator from Virginia <Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.) has devoted his energies and his considerable talents for many, many years, long prior to my ar­rival in the Senate. He has done an out­standing job. Since I have come to Wash­ington and to the Senate it has been my privilege to work with him.

With respect to this conference report, section 818, by adding the words "from Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" the conference has made it impossible to overlook the crucial point, namely, that Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is the only country in the world where artificial restrictions are preventing the United States from obtaining a dependa­ble supply of materials which are so crit­ical to our national defense.

Mr. President, the approval of this report will make the third time that Con­gress as a whole has gone on record in support of the removal of sanctions against Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.

First, there was the Case-Javits amendment. Then came the Helms amendment. And now the Byrd amend­ment.

There are some spokesmen in the House who claim that the House of Rep­resentatives does not support the re­moval of sanctions, but they have been proved wrong two times and, with the approval of this conference report, they will have been proved wrong the third time.

Mr. President, I think it is also impor­tant to note the timing of this action. It comes at a critical moment in the Lon­don talks when the Government of Zim­babwe-Rhodesia has made important concessions.

As I discussed on this fioor yesterday, Mrs. Thatcher has written to me that she wants to lift sanctions, "as soon as possible."

And yesterday, Lord Carrington an­nounced plans to ease currency restric­tions.

Mr. President, this action today by Congress will greatly assist a successful resolution of the London conference by sending the Muzorewa government a signal that the Congress of the United States has not forgotten efforts to achieve peace and security for the na­tion of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and, in par­ticular, this should be a gratifying de­velopment for Bishop Muzorewa, the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, a fine man whom I was proud to host in this country earlier this year.

It need hardly be pointed out, Mr. President, that the survival of the Mu­zorewa government at th'.s crucial time is a matter of essential security to the United States.

Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is not just some abstract piece of geography on the other side of the world. It is important to this Nation in terms of our national defense. If Zimbabwe-Rhodesia should collapse into chaos, then the line for the defense of freedom would move back from the Zambezi River to the Limpopo. South Africa itself would be open to subver­sion and to Soviet pressures. As my col-leagues well understand, Zimbabwe and

South Africa are the sources of an as­tounding array of critical and strategic materials that are essential to our eco­nomic and military survival.

I would also remind Senators that as a result of the amendment I sponsored, and which was approved when the Sen­ate passed the State Department au­tharization bill, the President of tihe United States must make a decision on November 15 as to whether or not to ex­tend sanctions. He must do it.

As I have already pointed out, Congress has repeatedly gone on record in favor of lifting sanctions.

So here we are today, about 3 weeks be­fore that decision, and Congress is once more saying to the President of the United States, "Every effort should be made to remove artificial impediments against the importation of such mate­rials into the United States from Zim­babwe-Rhodesia."

The least that Congress can do, is to expect the President to "make every effort." For if he does not lift sanctions, then Congress, under the expedited pro­cedures set by the Helms amendment, is required within 30 days to decide wheth­er or not to rescind the President's deci­sion.

I do not know what the President will decide. There are at least three options that would be helpful. He could lift sanc­tions on strategic materials only. He could lift sanctions completely. He could extend recognition to Zimbabwe-Rho­desia.

However, whatever he decides to do, he now knows that Congress is maintaining its interest in this issue and will be watching very closely to see what he does.

Again, Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished chairman and the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Com­mittee and the able members of that committee. In particular, I want to thank my dear friend from the State of Vir­~inia, Senator HARRY F. BYRD, JR., for the great work he has done in this cause. I support the conference report.

Mr. President, today's Washington Star carries an article entitled "Con­ferees Back Lifting of Rhodesia Sanc­tions," which gives a good account of the action leading up to our debate here today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that this article be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

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

CONFEREES BACK LIFTING OF RHODESIA SANCTIONS

(By La.nee Gay) House and Senate conferees yesterday

agreed to new language on a. non-binding "sense of Congress" resolution asking the C.uter administration to lift economic sanc­tions against Zimbabwe Rhodesia..

The language was a.greed to in a.n hour­long closed-door session of the House and Senate armed services committees.

The Carter a.dmlnistration, which had fought any move to turn the resolution into a binding law, said it could Uve with the proposal as it is now written.

Yesterday's skirmish came over language attached to m111tary appropriations Iegisla-

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29361 tion that contains funding for a new Nimitz­class nuclear carrier and a vast array of sub­marines, missiles, t3.nks and other weapons.

The Senate earlier this year voted to end sanctions against Rhodesia, but the House refrained from attaching any specific pro­vision to the m111tary bl11.

Earlier this month, the conferees hl\d agreed to include non-specific language on the Rhodesia issue in the measure, thu~ skirting the problem. But they were forced to include the specific language in the meo.c;;­ure yesterday after Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., threatened to raise a p3.rllamentary point and launch a fioor fight to get a binding amendment attached to the measure.

Helms said the legal government of Zim­babwe Rhodesia has made major concession "to rebel forces" in the current London peace conference and the continuation of 1:1anc­tlons against the importation of Rhodesian chromium and other materials makes no sense.

"It's time to get this over with and let Zimbabwe Rhodesia resolve it themselves.'' Helms said. "Why should we wait? Salisbury needs a signal that they can proceed to rebuild their economy and get this over with ... This ls tampering and meddling with another country's future."

Sen. Paul Tsongas, D-Mass., s3.id a move by the United States to lift sanctions now would send the wrong signal to the parties at the London conference and stymie British efforts to encourage a peace agreement be­tween the government, headed by Bishop Abel Muzorewa, and the Patriotic Front.

The State Department opposed Helms at­tempt to get a tough amendment out of the Armed Services committees. J. Brian Atwood, assistant secretary of state for congressional relations, told committee members in a letter yesterday that the administration oppose:> "any further congressional action which would restrict its position with respect to sanctions against Rhodesia."

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in sup Port of the fiscal year 1980 defense authorization conference report, which in my judgment, is one of the stronger defense bills to be considered by the Sen­ate in recent years.

This bill authorizes expenditures of $41.3 billion, $1.2 billion above that rec­ommended by President Carter. It con­tains a nuclear aircraft carrier, an addi­tional submarine, and additional tactical aircraft, all long overdue and essential to our defense posture. Although it is an improvement over previous defense bills, I still feel it is inedaquate to meet the Soviet threat.

NO VETO EXPECTED

The Senate may recall that last year we added the nuclear aircraft carrier, only to see the bill vetoed by the Presi­dent. It is our understanding that the President will not veto the nuclear car­rier again.

In my judgment, the earlier Senate position to build a 20-year-old Kennedy­class oil-fired carrier was a mistake. The Nimitz-class nuclear carrier has much greater operational capability, and its re­actors can propel the ship for 13 years without refueling. Furthermore, the Na­tion would save about 620 million gallons of oil which the Kennedy-class carrier would have required.

SECOND ATTACK SUB

In addition, the conference accepted the House position of two nuclear attack submarines, instead of the one requested by the administration. We must begin

building 2 to 3 attack submarines an­nually if we are to maintain our mini­mum force level of 90 attack submarines. I urge that the administration increase this procurement level in the fiscal year 1981 budget, which the Senate has sup­ported, by endorsing a level of 5-percent real growth increase over this year.

The Soviets have been outbuilding the United States by 3 to 1 in submarines for the past few years, and if we are to con­trol the sealanes over which so many vital materials travel, we must increase this building rate.

INCREASED PLANE BUY

In the aircraft account the conference insisted on procurement of a number of needed aircraft which were not included in the administration budget. These in­cluded 12· A-7K aircraft, which are two­seat trainers for the Air National Guard; 6 Navy A-6E aircraft, which are our only all-night, all-weather attack planes; C-130 transport aircraft and AH-lS heli­copters for the Guard and C-12A trans­port planes for the Army. In addition, we increased the buy of the Navy's F-18 and F-14 fighters. These increased rates of procurement are necessary to our force structure, and will enable us to buy the aircraft at a lower cost.

Another major add-on by the confer­ence was the decision to continue pro­curement of the MARK-48 torpedo. My amendment to add $75 million to buy 144 MARK-48's in fiscal year 1980 was ac­cepted by the conference, and will enable us to maintain a needed quantity of these weapons further out into the 1980's.

TANK AND MISSILE PROGRAMS

The conference also approved procure­ment of 351 XM-1 tanks, the new battle tank, as well as 64 of the new model of M-60 tanks. In this area we provided $14.2 million for an advanced diesel tank engine, to assure against failure of the turbine engine. Procurement was also al­lowed on the Roland low-level air defense missile system, and the Patriot high-level air defense system.

STRATEGIC PROGRAMS

Of great importance, Mr. President, the conference allowed the full funding requested for the cruise missile and MX missile programs. I feel these programs have not been expedited enough in past years, but hopefully the administration is getting the message that Congress is determined to modernize our strategic forces rapidly.

This bill also contains $13.5 billion for research, development, test and evalu­ation. In this account we have the unique situation where the conference approved testing and evaluation of a low-cost close air support plane developed by private industry. I have reference to the En­forcer aircraft, which is a small, heavily armored plane with a turbo-prop jet en­gine. It can operate off forward fields, perform at speeds slower and faster than the A-10 and carry the same payload from these forward fields. If this con­cept tests out favorably, we could greatly expand our support of ground troops in NATO at one-sixth the cost we are now paying.

Mr. President, this bill obviously con-

tains many other programs. It is a com­promise bill on which the House and the Senate worked out strong differences. Al­though there were some decisions in the conference with which I did not agree, on balance I believe it is one of the stronger bills we have fashioned in a number of years, and I urge it be ap­proved by the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GLENN). The Senator from Virginia.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. President, let me extend my appreciation to the committee for the action taken yesterday in the conference. It is clear that the commit­tee is sensitive to what has happened in London and sensitive to the progress be­ing made today. However, there are not too many people here to acknowledge what has taken place. I would submit, however, that the conference, and its willingness to adopt language that gives peace a chance, as they say, will be re­membered as one of the most significant things we have done in terms of the world order.

I have just one comment. That is that noted earlier was the success of the Mozurewa government in Zimbabwe­Rhodesia to American national inter­ests. I would suggest that is not the case. What is in our national interest is a peaceful revolution in Zimbabwe-Rho­desia that includes all the parties, that does not end in violence and bloodshed, and that does not provide entry to the Soviets who at this point are waiting in the wings.

I will read from the letter of Mrs. Thatcher sent to the Senator from North Carolina in which she says:

What Rhodesians need above all ls a settle­ment which will bring them international acceptance. They are looking to the Con­ference to achieve this.

That is exactly what our language does. It looks to the London conference to achieve that equilibrium.

She goes on to say: But we are determined to bring about a

solution which will bring Rhodesia to legal independence and enable us and others to lift sanctions with the widest possible in­ternational acceptance. I am confident that we are making progress in that direction.

I endorse those sentiments and I con­gratulate the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Texas on their leadership in this proposal.

I yield back the remainder of my time. · Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I

ask my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts if he will insert Mrs. Thatcher's letter in its entirety into the RECORD? I think it is important that that be done.

Mr. TSONGAS. I say to the Senator that the letter is in yesterday's CoNGREs­SION AL RECORD. Otherwise, I would have done that.

Mr. WARNER. Perhaps it would be wise-it is a short letter-in view of the fact that two excerpts were quoted toda7, that it be included.

Mr. TSONGAS. Fine, I shall do tha'­I ask unanimous consent that that

letter be printed in the RECORD.

29362 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979

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

THE PRIME MINISTER, 10 Downing Street.

DEAR SENATOR HELMS: I was grateful for your letter of 12 September a.bout Rhodesia.. I em sorry not to have replied earlier, but I thought that before doing so it would be best to wait to judge the progress ma.de in the Constltutlona.l Conference.

As you know, I want to see sanctions against Rhodesia. lifted as soon as possible. I am now confident that the Conference in which we a.re engaged Will help us to achieve this a.lm. We regard adequate safeguards for the white minority as an essential pa.rt of the independence Constitution. We have pro­vided for this in the constltutlona.l proposals we have put forward. (I enclose a. copy.) As you Will know, Bishop Muzorewa. has an­nounced his acceptance in principle of our constitutional proposals.

What Rhodesians need above all is a. set­tlement which Will bring them tnterna.tlona.l acceptance. They are looking to the Confer­ence to achieve this: it would provide the strongest encouragement to them to remain ln the country. We shall not allow anyone to exercise a. veto over a. settlement we be­lieve to be fair and reasonable. But we a.re determined to bring a.bout a. solution which w111 bring Rhodesia. to legal independence and enable us and others to lift sanctions With the Widest possible international ac­ceptance. I am confident that we a.re ma.king progress in that direction.

Warm regards. MARGARET THATCHER.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in behalf of the freshmen members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services to express our profound appreciation to the distinguished chairman from Mississippi and the ranking minority member from Texas. I think-I know-the freshmen have been treated with total equality and have had every opportunity to con­tribute to the work of this committee. I urge the Senate to accept this confer­ence report.

I also want to take special note of the contributions by the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia <Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.> and the distinguished sena­tor from North Carolina <Mr. HELMS) and the manner in which they exercised statesmanship and restraint yesterday on a subject that was very important to them; nevertheless, they recognized that the paramount importance was that the Senate proceed at the earliest possibility to the consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, I close my remarks with the observation that, in the coming fiscal year, one of the paramount re­sponsibilities of the Armed Services Committee will be to examine the All­Volunteer Force and, indeed, the overall personnel programs of our military. We learned with considerable distress just recently that all the services failed this year to recruit the numbers of young men and women needed to fill their au­thorized strengths. Those of us who have the opportunity to serve on the Subcom­mittee for Manpower under the able leadership of Senator NUNN of Georgia will shortly be having hearings on this subject.

In my own personal opinion, four things are necessary to bring about a solution to our recruiting shortfalls. We have a responsibility to keep our Armed

Forces up to strength, but we also have a responsibility to those men and women who serve our Nation on active duty. We are losing, right today, far too many well-trained, middle-career individuals, both enlisted and officers. They cannot be expected to continue to deprive their families and their lifestyles of the basics which they deserve and which their abilities would enable them to provide their families in the civilian economy. If we do not meet these minimum re­quirements, competition from free enter­prise is such that they will be lured away from the services in ever increas­ing numbers.

Mr. President, I am, therefore, going to recommend, in the coming fiscal year, an across-the-board pay raise for all persons on active duty; secondly, that we increase the educational benefits for those young men and women who com­plete a term of enlistment in an honor­able way; and, third, that we improve health care for all individuals on active duty and, indeed, those in the retired category as well. We cannot expect per­sons to consider the military as a career if, in fact, at the end of that career, they do not receive those entitlements that were promised as a part of the contract they undertook in good faith with the United States of America.

Last, Mr. President, I urge every single American in his or her own way to stop and pause and congratulate those who do honorably serve in the uniform of our country. A little word of encouragement very often is worth a great deal more than added pay and perquisites. Our service men and women deserve our re­spect and admiration-we should give it to them.

I thank the Chair. I yield back the tloor to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, Mr. President.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President I did want to get the tloor for just a few addi­tional minutes. One reason was to thank with even more em11hasis the Senator from Virginia <Mr. WARNER) for his ac­tive and willing service to our commit­tee. He has an inexhaustible supply of energy. He works hard and knows the subject matter. He has been former Sec­retary of the Navy as I said, but he knew a lot about it before then. We thank him for his service.

Also, I heard part of what he said here about our personnel matters.. Certainly, there is not a graver matter resting be­fore the American people than this mat­ter of what we are going to do about get­ting enough of the quality type people to make our military units effective. Our committee has been on it. I am not just bragging about them, but they do have an interest in a broad field of activity. These bills every year cover it.

We shall have the appropriation bill before the full Committee on Appropria­tions tomorrow, bottomed on this bill that we are passing. I am sure that we shall have it ready early next week to come to the ft.oar. There will be good debate on that. I hope we can be prepared to take part in it, too.

We did not ask for a rollcall on this conference report. It is late in the after-

noon. It has been so thoroughly debated here in the course of the year, and an o;>portunity is going to come on the ap­propriations bill, anyway. if anybody wants to challenge any of these matters.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield? Mr. STENNIS. Yes, I yield. Mr. WARNER. First, I want to thank

the Senator for his thoughtful remarks on my behalf, but I say that, among the freshmen, the first prize for the year would go to Senator LEVIN, who took on that impossible task the chairman gave him on the Panama Canal legislation.

Mr. STENNIS. Surely that is true for what he gave, too, in doing that midnight work.

Mr. President, we shall not ask for a rollcall for the reasons I said. I see the Senator from Arizona over there. He is a valuable member of our committee. • Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, pas­sage of the 1979 defense authorization bill as reported will bring us one step closer to the much-despised military draft. While this old idea is dressed in a new package, it still retlects the invol­untary servitude mentality that this body has suffered since we instituted the All­Volunteer Force in 1973.

I am referring, of course, to section 811 of the bill that requires the President to prepare and send to Congress a plan for fair and equitable reform of l:aw provid­ing for registration and induction into the Armed Forces. Mr. President, I can­not understand the necessity of such ac­tion, especially since the President al­ready has the authority to reactivate the Selective Service System and launch a mass registration of our young people. A simple announcement from the President and some additional funding are all it takes to bring back registration. Further­more, the President, the Secretary of De­fense, and the Secretary of the Army have all stated publicly that they are satisfied with the progress of the volun­teer system and oppose registration.

Nevertheless, Congress continues to force the President's hand by insisting that he conduct yet another study that usurps current manpower mobilization procedures.

In addition to the fact that this new study is unnecessary, the possibility of compiling a comprehensive report on our military manpower by January 15, 1980, is highly unlikely at best.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose this move on the part of the House and the armed services conferees to prolong the issue of registration and undermine the reputatfon of the All-Volunteer Force and I ask unanimous consent that an ar­ticle I recently prepared on this subject entitled "The Case Against Peaeetime Registration," be included in the RECORD.

There being no objection, ·the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE CASE AGAINST PEACETIME REGISTRATION

The calls for a. return to peacetime regis­tra. tion, the cornerstone of the draft, reflect the sa.ber rattling of the Cold War era. and have little relationship to our true defense requirements. Such action ls expensive, ln­eftlcient, unnecessary and unfair. If the United States ls not at war, there 1s abso­lutely no justlfl.ca.tlon for a. return to military conscrlptlon.

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE 29363 The same people who fought against end­

ing the draft and opposed the All Volunteer Force are now trying to focus our attention on such Issues as manpower for our active duty forces, the quallty of person entering the armed forces, racial mix, our reserve strength, medical fac111ties and personnel, and the lack of infantry, armor and chemical warfare speclallsts. All of these are slgnlfl.­cant issues. However, they fall to address tremendous difilculties which would follow a return to peacetime registration, difilculties that In the Vietnam era threatened to tear apart the social fabric of the country.

Registration, classlfl.catlon and drafting are all totally alien to our American principles of freedom. The late Senator Robert Taft said: "M111tary conscription ls far more typi­cal of totalltarlan nations than of democratic nations. It is absolutely opposed to the principles of lndlvldual llberty, which have always been considered part of American Democracy." It seems to me that the prin­ciples of which Senator Taft spoke are not only part of our democracy, but its very foundation.

And yet, looking over the record of criti­cism of those bent on returning to a com­pulsory draft, I find very few statements dealing with the basic assumptions of a peacetime mmtary draft, its domestic and foreign impllcatlons, and, most Importantly, its impllcations for the individual men and women In our society.

As a peace-professing country, we should consider the likelihood for domestic turmoll as well as the milltary aspects. Anyone who favors a return to registration and the draft should give careful thought to the kind of Presidential power such a system grants. A pool of eligible young people registered for the purpose of military service gives the Con­gres3 and the president of the United States unl!mited and automatic person power. One need only to look back to the bloody years of Vietnam to be reminded of this horrible sit­uation. If John F. Kennedy, Lyndon John­son or Richard Nixon had employed their Vietnam War pollcy without the assistance of a draft, we could not have continued so long and lost so many Americans in the quicksand of Southeast Asia. With a huge manpower pool of potential conscripts it would be just as easy to slip into m111tary action In Africa, Latin America, or the Per­sian Gulf. We should therefore avoid a situ­ation that would encourage a "presidential war" or force our young people Into making difilcult decisions Involving conscience, fam­fly respons1b111t1es, and patriotism.

I am surprised a.t the refusal of so many draft proponents to address the issue of women a.nd their probable role. Current Congressional activity in both Houses com­pletely ignores the question. If your son ls required to register for the dra.ft, should your daughter have to register as well? If she should choose an Armed Forces oa.reer, should she have the same cha.nee a.s men for the com!bat assignments which lead to promotion--or to being kllled in action? The answers to these questions are difficult at best, but they must at least be con­fronted and dealt with. Ignoring or eliminat­ing women from the registration require­ment will undoubtedly result in constitu­tlona.l challenges and court battles.

Alleged threats of manpower shortages are combined with assertions that the all-volun­teer army isn't working.

The fact is the all-volunteer army ls a success. A Pentagon report commissioned by Congress and released last December con­cludes:

"Since the end of the draft, the active forces have remained within 1.5 % of Con­gressionally authorized levels. More impor­tantly, the quality of those serving on active duty, as measured by the education levels of active duty personnel, and the average

test scores of new recruits, has not decllned as popularly believed but has markedly and steadlly improved since the end of the draft."

Furtlhermore, compared to the Department of Defense's current requirement of the first inductions within 30 days after mob111za­tion, a November, 1978, Congressional Budget Office study concludes that with a credible, effective post-mobillzation plan, the Selec­tive Service System could have the first inductee within 25 days of mobillzatlon. This ls wholly adequate to projected manpower needs. The Department of Defense has found no need for inductees until 30 days after mob111zat1on.

The President and the Secretary of De­fense, as well a.s the Secretary of the Army, have all rejected out of hand the prospect of a return to peacetime registration. This ls particularly slgnlfl.cant since the President has the power to reinstate registration at a.ny time without the Congress forcing his hand.

Put Into hlstorloo.l context, we survived and prospered for about 160 years of our 200 year life with a voluntary mmtary sys­tem. When a genuine crisis of national se­curity presents itself, the American people wm respond as they did in the Revolution of 1776 or the attack on Pearl Harbor. In the two months following the outbreak of World War II, 300,000 Americans voluntarily enlisted. It is interesting that current de­fense manpower proJectlons do not even in­clude emergency volunteer response as a factor. This ls an appalling oversight.

One of the war games the Pentagon plays, and often cites to substantiate its increas­ing manpower needs, ls called "Nifty Nug­get." In this projected exercise, conducted last fall , a surprise Soviet-backed "blltz­krleg" attack was assumed to take place in Europe which, in turn, touched off a conventional Warsaw Pact-NATO war. The Pentagon claims that this demonstrates the need for peacetime registration and that without it a draft could not be cranked up fast enough.

Before a scenario such as this can be taken for granted, however, it is essential to reallze that it was engineered solely by the m111tary establishment. In "Nifty Nugget," for example, 500,000 U.S. soldiers are kllled or wounded in just six weeks of hypothetical combat. This massive death toll far surpasses the total of 55,000 dead and 300,000 wounded U.S. soldiers during the entire course of the Vietnam War.

Pro-draft forces have the audacity to ad­vance the notion that a return to registra­tion will somehow make nuclear war in Eu­rope less likely by strengthening conven­tional forces. This ls a dangerous exercise in self-del uslon.

By the Department of Defense's own dan­gerous design, our war-fighting strategy in Europe envisions the possible use of thou­sands of tactical nuclear weapons as soon as the tide of battle turns against the allies. This would happen in days-not in the three months it would take to get the first regis­trant to Europe. The neutron bomb, for ex­ample, has been specifically designed to be used against Warsaw Pact conventional tank invasion early in the assault. Component production of that weapon continues. To again force involuntary servitude on the American public based principally on a drawn-out conventional confl.lct in Western Europe, flies directly in the face of our plans for defending the NATO a.mes.

The American people, the Congress and the military community should all have grave concerns about a return to peacetime registration. It is a practice that encourages involvement in regional confl.lcts and reflects a nation constantly braced for war.

Recruitment goals are being met and our Armed Forces increasingly constitute a rep-

resenta.tlve cross-section of our society. Ris­ing manpower costs, that can be controlled by better management and appropriate re­forms, are no excuse for a new peacetime draft. A voluntary program of service ls characteristic of the free and democratic republic that we enjoy and are striving to protect.

Those who serve in mllitary organizations a.re certainly performing a duty to our coun­try. But those who are teaching in our schools, building our cities and highways, providing medical services and farming our land a.re also providing equally vital con­tributions to our nation. By respecting the roles of Americans in and out of the service, and allowing them to operate in an atmos­phere of freedom, we a.re twice armed against our enemles.e

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques­tion is on agreeing to the conference report.

The conference report was agreed to. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move

to reconsider the vote by which the con­ference report was adopted.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND Offi SHALE RESERVES

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to hy before the Senate a mes­sage from the House of Representatives on H.R. 3354.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. GLENN) laid before the Senate a mes­sage from the House of Representatives announcing its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the bill <H.R. 3354) to authorize appropriations for ft.seal year 1980 for conservation, ex­ploration, development, and use of naval petroleum reserves and naval oil shale reserves, and for other purposes, and requesting a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, this is a relatively small bill regarding certain naval oil resources.

I move that the Senate insist upon its amendment, agree to the request of the House for a conference, and that the Chair appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer <Mr. GLENN) appointed Mr. HART, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. CANNON, Mr. THURMOND and Mr. TOWER conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS DE­REGULATION ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair now lays before the Senate the pending business, which the clerk will state.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Calendar No. 387, H.R. 4986, an act to ame"1d the Federal Reserve Act to authorize the automatic transfer of funds, and so forth, and for other purposes.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.

29364 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979 NAVA.JO AND HOPI INDIANS RE­

LOCATION AMENDMENTS ACT OP 1979 Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that the Sen­ate proceed to the consideration of Cal­endar Order No. 392 for the rest of this calendar day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill will be stated by title.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Calendar Order No. 392 (S. 751), a bill re­lating to the relocation of the Navajo Indians and the Hopi Indians, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported from the Select Committee on Indian Affairs with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: That this Act may be cited as the "Navajo and Hopi Indians Relocation Amendments Act of 1979".

SEC. 2. Paragraph (4) of section 5(a) of the Act of December 22, 1974 (88 Stat. 1714), is repealed.

SEC. 3. Section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1974, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:

"(c) The Secretary of the Interior shall take such action as may be necessary in order to assure the protection, until relocation, of the rights and property of individuals sub­ject to relocation pursuant to this Act, or any judgment of partition pursuant thereto, including any individual authorized to reside on land covered by a life estate conferred pursuant to subsection (d) of section 14 of this Act.

"(d) With respect to any individual sub­ject to relocation, the Secretary of the Inte­rior shall take such action as may be neces­sary to assure that such individuals are not deprived of benefits or services by reason of their status as an individual subject to relocation.

" ( e) During the pendency of litigation in the United States District Court for the Dis­trict of Arizona brought pursuant to section 8 of this Act, including the case of Seka­quaptewa against MacDonald (74-842-P.C.T .­W.P.C.), any new use or development of the lands contained within those lands lying west of the Executive Order Reservation of Decem­ber 16, 1882, and bounded on the north and south by westerly extensions to the reserva­tion line of the northern and southern boundaries of said 1882 Executive Order Reservation a.nd on the west by the Colorado and Little Coloraclo Rivers, shall be carried out only upon the written consent of the two tribes or upon the written approval of the Secretary: Provided, That if the Secre­tary approves such use or develoument over the objection of one of the tribes, that tribe mav petition the district court having juriscllctlon over the litigation for an order or orders prohibiting such use or devel­opment, lncludlng an order staying any such use untll such matter ls finally resolved by the court. In reaching a final decision regard­ing such petition the court sh9.ll consider the matter de novo to determine whether 'the proposed use or development would adversely affect the ultimate legal right of either tribe to partition based on use of land.".

SEC. 4. Section 11 of the Act of December 22, 1974, is amended by striking out all of subsection (b) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsections:

"(b) The Navajo-Hopi Relocation Commis­sion ls authorized to purchase or otherwise a.c(luire, except by eminent domain, not to

exceed two hundred thousand acres of land contiguous to, or adjacent and within six mlles of, the Navajo Reservation for the benefit of the Navajo Tribe to facilltate relo­cation. Such lands shall be taken by the United States in trust for the Navajo Tribe and shall be a part of the Navajo Reservation.

"(c) The Commission shall have the authority to enter into negotiations with the Navajo and Hopi Tribes with a view to arranging and carrying out land exchanges or leases, or both, between such tribes, and lands which may be acquired by the Com­mission under subsection (b) of this section may, with Commission approval, be included in any land exchanges between the tribes authorized under section 8 ( c) or section 23 of this Act.".

SEC. 5. Section 12 of the Act of December 22, 1974, is amended by-

(1) inserting, in paragraph (1) of subsec­tion (g), the phrase "an independent legal counsel," after the phrase "Executive Director,";

(2) amending subsection (h) to read as follows:

"(h) The Commission ls authorized to provide for its own administrative, fiscal and housekeeping services."; and

(3) redesignating subsection (i) as sub­section (j) and inserting new subsection (1) as follows:

"(i) (1) The Commission ls authorized to call upon any department or agency of the United States to assist the Commission in implementing its relocation plan and com­pleting relocation within the time required by law, except that the control over and responsiblllty for completing relocation shall remain in the Commission. In any case in which the Commii:slon calls upon any such department or agency for assistance under this section, such department or agency shall provide any reasonable assistance so requested.

"(2) On failure of any agency to provide reasonable assistance as required under paragraph ( 1) of this subsection, the Com­mission shall report such failure to the Congress.

SEC. 6. Clause (5) of section 13(c) of the Act of December 22, 1974, is amended by striking the word "thirty" and inserting ln lieu thereof the word "ninety".

SEc. 7. (a) Section 14(b) (1) of the Act of December 22, 1974 (88 Stat. 1712, 1718), is amended by deleting "$5,000" and inserting ln lieu thereof "$10,000".

(b) Section 14(b) (2) of such Act ls amended by deleting "$4,000" and inserting ln lieu thereof "$8,000".

(c) Section 14(b) (3) of such Act is a.mended by deleting "$3,000" and inserting ln lieu thereof "$6,000".

(d) Section 14(b) (4) of such Act is amended by deleting "$2,000" and inserting in lleu thereof "$4,000".

(e) Subsection (b) of section 14 is further amended by adding paragraph (5) at the end thereof as follows:

"(5) The amendment made to para.graph (1) of this subsection on the date of enact­ment of the NavaJo and Hopi Indians Re­location Amendments Act of 1979 shall be a.ppllcable with re~pect to any head of a household who would have been entitled to the $10,000 payment under section 14(b) (1) of this Act but for the fact that such head relocated prior to the date of the enactment of the Navajo and Ho!>i Indians Relocation Amendments Act of 1979.".

SEc. 8. Section 14 of the Act of December 22, 1974, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

" (d) (1) Notwlthstandlng any other pro­vision of this Act, the Commission shall make available to an eligible applicant, on timely application as set forth in paragraph (3) of this subsection, a limited tenure of such land as the Commission determines

necessary ln order to avoid the necessity of relocating such applicant, and his or her spouse and dependents, lf residing with such applicant. The Commission shall grant up to one hundred and sixty llfe estates and shall give first priority to disabled applicants. Second priority shall be awarded on the basis of age with the oldest applicants given preference over younger applicants and among such older applicants, first priority shall be given to those residing in the Blg Mountain area. Such tenure shall consist of the right of use and occupancy of one hundred and fifty acres of land in order to enable such appllcant to raise livestock not to exceed twenty-five sheep units per year or equivalent livestock. The Commission upon the issuance of a life estate shall fence the boundaries of lands assigned for use by the recipient of such life estates. The life estate tenure shall end by voluntary re­linquishment, or at the death of the ap­plicant or the death of the spouse of the applicant, whichever last occurs: Provfded, That such survivorship rights shall apply only to those persons who were married on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection. Nothing in this Act or any other law shall preclude such applicant from making improvements within the area cov­ered by such tenure.

"(2) As used in this subsection, the term­.. (A) 'eligible applicant' means, wi'th re­

spect to a Navajo or Hopi individual, an individual-

.. (i) who on December 22, 1974, and con­tinuously thereafter has maintained a place of abode, and has been actually domiciled therein, in an area from which such ap­plicant, but for this subsection, would be required to relocate; and

"(11) who on or before the date of enact­ment of this subsection was at least forty­five years of age, or who ls found by the Commission to be mentally or physically disabled.

"(B) 'dependent' means-"(i) those members of the applicant's

household who derive more than one-half of their support from the applicant; or

"(11) those relatives, members of the im­mediate family, or other persons who are necessarily and customarily present to pro­vide for the care of the life estate applicant.

"(3) In any case ln which a Navajo or Hopi individual believes that he or she can aualify as an eligible applicant (as defined by paragraph (2) of this subsection), such individual is authorized to file an applica­tion with the Commission requesting that he or she be granted a life estate in lands in accordance with this section. Such ap­plication shall be submitted in such manner, and contain such information as the Com­mission shall prescribe by regulation, such regulation to be promulgated by the Commis­sion within ninety days of the enactment of this subsection. Such application must be filed on or before January 1, 1981: Provfded, That in exceptional cases the Commission may accept later applications where neces­sary to avoid inequity or hardship.

"(4) Within ninety days following the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Sec­retary, in consultation with the Commission, shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to assure that in the case of a life estate granted pursuant to this subsection, no person may reside on the land covered by such life estate other than the applicant, his or her spouse, and the appllcant's de­pendents, except that such regulations shall provide that in case of illness or disab111ty persons n~sary to attend upon and care for such applicant, spouse, or dependent may reside on such lands during such lllnees or disab111ty. Such regulations shall further provide for the right of all resident.a and visitors to the lands covered by such life ea-

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 29365

ta.te to have access thereto by use of all es­tablished roads or ways leading thereto.

" ( 5) The Secretary shall make available to applicants receiving a life estate under this subsection such assistance, during that tenure, as may be necessary to enable such applicant to feed and maintain that ap­plicant's livestock at an adequate nutritional level. Within ninety days of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall promul­gate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this subsection.

"(6) Any eligible applicant, and his or her spouse and dependents, so living on the Navajo Reservation shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Navajo Tribe, and any such eligible applicant, and his or her spouse and dependents, so living on the Hopi Res­ervation shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Hopi Tribe, except that the land laws of the Navajo Tribe shall not be applicable to any tenure granted to a member of the Hopi Tribe, and the land laws of the Hopi Tribe shall not be applicable to any tenure granted to a member of the Navajo Tribe.

"(7) Nothing ln this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any such applicant who receives a life estate under this subsec­tion from relinquishing, prior to its termi­nation, such estate at any time and volun­tarlly relocating. Upon voluntary relinquish­ment of such estate, by such means or in­strument as the Secretary of the Interior shall prescribe, such applicant shall be en­titled to relocation benefits from the Secre­tary comparable to those provided by section 15 of this Act. For life estates terminated by the death of the life tenant or his or her sur­viving spouse, compensation shall be paid to the estate of the deceased life tenant based on the fair market value of the habi­tation and improvements at the time of the expiration of such tenure and not before. Such payment shall be in lieu of any other payment pursuant to subsection (a) of sec­tion 15 of this Act. Assistance simllar to sec­tion 15(b) of ths Act shall be paid to the estate of such life tenant by the Secretary. Such compensation and assistance shall be paid and distributed in accordance with the la.st will and testament of the life tenant, or in the event no valid last will and testa­ment is left, compensation shall be paid and distributed to his or her heirs in accordance with the laws of the tribe of which such life tenant is a member. Upon the termination of a life estate by whatever means, the de­pendents residing with the individuals hav­ing such life estate so terminated shall have ninety days following such termination within which to relocate.".

SEC. 9. Section 15 of the Act of December 22, 1974, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new subsection (f) as follows:

"(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the Commission shall on a preferential basis provide relocation as­sistance and relocation housing under sub­sections (b) , (c) , and (d ) of this section to the head of each household of members of the Navajo Tribe who were evicted from dis­trict numbered 6 of the Hopi Indian Reserva­tion in 1972: Provided, That such heads of households have not already received equiv­alent assistance from Federal agencies.".

SEc. 10. Section 16 of the Act of December 22, 1974, ls amended by adding the following new subsections:

"(c) The Secretary is authorized and di­rected to receive, consider, and pay any claim received by him from the Nava.to Tribe or Hopi Tribe for compensation for ·the reason­able rental value. losses or other exnenses in­curred by the tribe by reason of s11ch life es­tates conferred by the Commission pursu­ant to section 14(d) of this Act. Such claims shall be submitted at such time, in such manner, and contain such information, as

the Secretary may prescribe. Any payment made pursuant to a claim filed under this subsection shall be in lieu of rental payments from the tribes under subsections (a) and (b) of this section with respect to lands covered by such claim.

"(d) (1) In lieu of rental payments under the provisions of subsection (a) , (b) or (c) of this section, the tribe upon whose reserva­tion a life estate has been cre3.ted may elect to accept compensation in lieu of lands out of the lands acquired by the Commission under section 11 (b) of this Act. In any case in which a Navajo individual receives a life estate under this Act in lan1s of the Hopi Tribe, the Commission shall make available to the Hool Tribe land of equivalent eco­nomic value out of the lands acquired for the Navajo under section 11 (b) and shall permit the use of such land by the Hopi Tribe for a period ending upon the expira­tion of the ninety-day period followln~ the termination of such life estate. Uoon the expiration of such ninety-day period, the United Shtes shall hold such land in trnst for the benefit and use of the Navafo 'l'rlbe.

"<2) In the event a tribe elects to accent oomnensation in lieu of lands under this sub<-ecti<'n. the Commission sball make d111-gent effort.c; to maJf'e such compenooa+.orv land available in consolidated parcels which will provide the g!"eatest economic return." .

SEC. 11. Section 19 of the Act of Decem­ber 22. 1974. ls amended by adding a new subsection < c) as follows :

"(c) (1) Conservation practices. includin~ gra071ng ocntrol and range restoration activi­ties in the joint use area as rea11lred by sub­section (a) of this section. shall be coordi­nated a.nd executed with the concurrenre of the tribe to whom the particular lands in question have been partitioned, and a.ll such grazing and range restoratkn matters on Nava.to Reservation lands shall be adminis­tered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Area Office. and on Hopi Reservation lands shall be a.dminlstered by the Bnreau of In­dian Affairs. Phoenix Area Office, under ap­plicable law.c:; and regulations.

"(2) Survevlng, mont1mentin~. and fenc­ing aC\ rea11lred by subsection (b) of this sec­tion shall be comnleted within twel1re mont hs a.fter the date of enactment r-f this subsec­tion with respect to land'! part.itloned pursu­ant tn section 4 of this Ar.t and within twelve months after a final order of partition with respect to any landc:; partitioned pursuant to section R of this Act.

"(3) The livestock reduction program re­quired under ~ubsection (a) of this section shall be completed within eighteen months after the date of enactment of this subsection." . ·

SEc. 12. Section 23 of the Act of Decem­ber 22, 1974. ls amended by adding the fol­lowing sentence at the end thereof: "Tn the event that the tribes sho"ld negotiate and agree on an exchan~e of la..nds pursuant to authority granted herein, the Commission shalll make available 125 oer centum of the relocatkn benefits provided ln sections 14 and 15 of thic:: Act to members of either tribe living on land to be exchancred to other than his or her own tribe. except that such bene­fits shall be available only lf, within ninety days of the agreement. a majority of the adult members of the tribe who would be eligible to relocate from exchanged lands sign a contract with the Commis'!ion to re­locate within twelve months of the a-gree­ment or such later time as determined by trie Commission and such addltlonaJ benefits shall only be paid to those who actually re­locate within such period.

SEC. 13. (a) Section 25(a) (4) of the Act of December 22, 1974, ls amended to read as follows:

"(4) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of section 14(b) for the period

prior to October 1, 1980, there ls authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $5,500,000. For the purposes of carrying out such pro­visions for the period commencing October 1, 1980, there is authorized to be appropriated an additional a.mount of not to exceed $10,500,000."

(b) Section 25(a.) (5) of the Act of Decem­ber 22, 1974, as amended by the Act of July 30, 1979 (Publlc Law 9640), ls further amended by striking the figure $1,000,000" and inserting, in lieu thereof, the figure "$5,000,000": Provided, That no new budget authority for fiscal year 1980 ls authorized to be appropriated.

(c) Section 25(a) of the Act of December 22, 1974, ls further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:

"(7) For the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1980, and for each of the two next follow­ing fiscal years, there ls authorized to be ap­propriated such sum, not to exceed $1 ,000,000, as may be necessary to carry out the provi­sions of subsection (c) of section 16 of this Act.

"(8) For the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1980, there ls authorized to be appropri­ated such sum, not; to exceed $350,000, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of subsection (d) (5) of section 14 of this Act. For tlhe fiscal year beginning October 1, 1981, and the next following fiscal year, there ls authorized to be appropriated for each such fiscal year such sum, not to exceed $600,000, as may be necessary to carry out such pro­visions.

"(9) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of subsection (b) of section 11 of this Act, there are authorized to be appropri­ated, for the period beginning October l, 1980, such sums not to exceed, in the aggre­gate, $31 ,250.000, as may be necessary.".

SEc. 14. The Act of December 22, 1974, ls amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sections:

"SEc. 27. (a) In any litigation or court ac­tion between or among the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Tribe, and the United States or any of its officials, departments, agencies, or in­strumentalities, arising out of the interpre­tation or implementation of this Act, as amended, the Secretary shall pay, subject to the availab111ty of appropriations, attorney's fees, costs, and expenses as determined by the Secretary to be reasonable. For each tribe, there ls hereby authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $120,000 ln fiscal year 1981, $130,000 in fiscal year 1982, $140,000 in fiscal year 1983, $150,000 in fiscal year 1984, and $160,000 in fiscal year 1985.

"(b) Upon the entry of a final judgment in any such litigation or court action, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses to the party, other than the United States or its officials, departments, agencies, or instrumentalities, which prevails or substantially prevails, where lt finds that any opposing party has unreasonably 1n1-tiated or contested such litigation. Any party to whom such an award has been made shall reimburse the United States out of such award to the extent that it has received pay­ments pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.

"(c) To the extent that any award made to a party against the United States pursuant to subsection (b) of this section exceeds the amount paid to such party by the United States pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, such difference shall be treated as if it were a final judgment of the Court of Claims under section 2517 of title 28, United States Code.

"(d) This section shall apply to any lltlga­tion or court a.ntlon pending upon the date of enactment of this section in which a final order, decree , or jndgment has not been entered, but shall not applv to any action authorized by section 8 or 18(a) of this Act.

29366 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE October 24, 1979 "SJ:c. 28. The Secretary of the Interior and

the secretary of Health, Education, and Wel­fare, as appropriate, shall assign the highest priority, in the next fiscal year a!ter the date o! enactment o! this subsection, to the fund­ing and construction of the Hopi high school and a Hopi medical center consistent with any plans already completed and approved by appropriate agencies of the respective de­partments.".

Mr. MELCHER addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­

a.tor from Montana. Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, S. 751

is a bill to provide needed amendments for the Navajo and Hopi Land Settle­ment and Relocation Act which was passed in a previous Congress.

We have dealt in this country for many decades, almost 100 years, with the question of the proper assignment of the reservation for the Hopi Indians. In fact, it was in 1882 that President Chester A. Arthur set aside, through an Executive order, a reservation for the Hopi Indians where they had lived for several centuries, but he included in that Executive order the language:

"Such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see flt to settle thereon" in lands lying west of the then existing Navajo Reservation in northeast Arizona. Over the years the population of the Navajo expanded and their traditional lifestyle of grazing sheep caused their migration to most parts of the 1882 Hopi Reservation and surround­ing areas.

In 1943, the entire 1882 Hopi Reservation was surrounded by the present Navajo Res­ervation. The Department of the Interior set aside grazing district No. 6 lying entirely within the 1882 reservation for the exclu­sive use of the Hopi Tribe. Title to the sur­rounding land up to the borders of the 1882 Executive Order Reservation was left un­certain. In 1962, in the case of Healing v. Jones, the U.S. District Court determined that this land was held Jointly and equally by the two tribes.

In its decision, the court determined that even though the Government did not have and omcially settled Navajos on the 1882 reservation, a 1931 Department of the In­terior Internal communication had this ef­fect. Thus, the court found that while the Department of the Interior had not directly and omcially settled Navajos on the 1882 lands, it had done so by implication, in­direction and neglect.

This eventually led to a very strained situation between the two tribes. The Navajo were much greater in numbers and the Hopi were very much the minority.

Finally, Congress sought to rectify this strained situation by passing the act of December 22, 1974. Among other things, the act set up the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission.

Since 1974, the efforts of the Commis­sion have not been entirely successful in drawing the boundaries between where the Navajos could live and the Hopis could reside.

It is because of this that we are faced today here in Congress with amend­ments to that act of 1974. While it has become apparent to us in the last few days that the administration oppooes the key sections in the bill before us, S . 751, it should be noted by all Members of the Senate that we are doing this to resolve problems. We are seeking compromises

between the two tribes. The Relocation Commission has sought these types of compromises. The fact that the admin­istration opposes the key parts of S. 751 should not in any way delay the passage of this bill. It is sorely needed.

We recognize that when we ask Navajo families to move off land they have, in many cases, resided on for several gen­erations, it, indeed, does impose hard­ships. The families have to have land on which they can relocate.

The Commission found itself in a posi­tion where it could not adequately han­dle the relocation of Navajo families. The amendments we have placed in the bill will correct that situation. They will provide more incentives for the Navajo families to move and will provide lands to be acquired by the Commission for those families to live on.

I think it is fair to say that these amendments to the Relocation Act of 1974 which are embodied in S. 751 do not completely satisfy either tribe. Within the spirit of compromise, we have arrived at what we think is the most equitable settlement under all the conditions that were presented to us.

We hope the Senate will agree to S. 751 and that final decision in the conference will be agreed to by both the House and the Senate. The House is working on a companion bill with several differences, and we hope we can resolve those dif­ferences in conference and that, when presented to the President, the bill will receive his signature so that it can be­come law.

Without these agreements, these com­promises, we will have continual strife between the two tribes. These are equita­ble settlements, so far as the commit­tee can tell, and I recommend them to the Senate.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank Senator MELCHER for his outstanding work on this prob­lem, which has involved two Indian tribes in my State for a hundred years.

I have lived intimately close with this problem. I was a Navajo Indian trader, and I have lived among the Hopi Indians. I sided with the Hopi in this case because they are a much smaller tribe. The Nav­ajo Tribe is the largest tribe in the Unit­ed States, constituting about 20 percent of all the Indians we have in the conti­nental United States.

The Hopi have lived on their mesas and in their villages more than 2,500 years, in northern Arizona; and while the Navajo are latecomers, judging time in that frame, having arrived about 450 years ago, they did have treaty lands created by the United States in 1868 which were a few miles to the east of the land we are talking about.

The 1882 lands set aside for the use of the Hopi Indians contained this language:

For the use o! the Hopi Indians and other tribes.

That is where we got into trouble. Why that language is there, none of us knows, and we never will know, but it is there.

As the Navajo Tribe began to grow and grow and grow from 1868, when it was down to about 6,000 people, to today­they comprise a tribe of about 160,000

people, living mostly in Arizona. as well as Utah, a little in Colorado, and New Mexico-they had to branch out.

That reservation, which originally was 1,500 acres in size, is now 16 million acres. It is larger than many States east of the Mississippi.

Mr. President, the problem that really brought this to a head was that in 1974, when the bill was on the floor and it was obvious that it was going to pass, an amendment nobody knew about was sud­denly brought up on the floor. It involved what we call the Moenkopi Indians of the Navajo Tribe. These are the people who live on what we call Big Mountain. These Navajos have lived there, as an entity, probably longer than the Navajos have lived in any other one place. I would say there might be 200 of them, if we could count them all. They are mostly older people. It is on Hopi tribal land.

To show how well the Hopis have accepted them, the Indian trading post that supplies the Navajo, located on the Hopi reservation, is licensed by the Na­vajo Tribe, approved by the Hopi Tribe. These are the Indians who were going to suffer because of an amendment that was submitted at the last minute, about which we knew nothing. Former Sena­tor Fannin and I argued that this was a wrong amendment, that it involved people who were entitled to live where they were living, and that we did not want to see anything happen to it.

As a result of that, the Relocation Commission got into a terrific argument with the chief of the Hopis and the head of the Navajo Tribal Council, and once again it went to court; and once again, as four times before, the court ruled in favor of the Hopi, but the Navajo did not pay any attention to the ruling.

So this bill, written with the great help of my junior colleague, Senator DECON­C".:NI, whose knowledge of the Indian problem there is as great as mine, is a bill which. although it is not completely ac­ceptable to everybody involved, as Sena­tor MELCHER has said, at least will end this 100-year-old argument and will give the Commission and the Government some guidelines and some roads down which to travel in order to bring this squabble to an end.

Mr. President, I do not care to com­ment any further on this matter, except to say thank God we now have a vehicle to climb on which will take us to the end of an argument that is causing great concern among both people-one tribe, a very old, very sedate, very conservative group of people who literally live in the past, who retain their same dress, their same religious customs, and everything about them is as it was thousands of years ago. They speak a very, very dtm­cul t language and do not particularly care for the company of the white .man, but they do get along with their brother Indians.

The Navajo, on the other hand, are a very. very progressive tribe. They have excellent leadership, even though the leadership and I have disagreed rather vehemently in politics. They do have a good tribal government, good law, are well policed. Their young people are go­ing to school in increasing numbers. I

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 29367

think I can say now that we have more than 1,000 graduates in the two tribes with master's degrees and probably close to 50 with their doctorate degrees.

So we are dealing with two tribes, one of which is perfectly happy living as they have for 3,000 years, and the other tribe anxious to get going. I think that with their leadership and with the industry that is coming to their part of the reser­vation, we will see that.

So I urge that we accept this bill. Again, I thank my junior colleague from Arizona, Senator DECONCINI, and Sena­tor MELCHER for the great work they have done on this matter. They have actually given us something that none of us thought we would ever see.

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, I ex­tend my compliments to my distin­guished colleague from Arizona. He has been involved in this much longer than I.

I assure my senior colleague that in the course of venturing into this effort when I came to this body, it never was the intent to cast any criticism on the fine work accomplished by the senior Senator from Arizona and by our mutual good friend, former Senator Fa;nnin. During the almost 3 years I have been in the Senate, I have come to realize what a struggle this problem has been.

Indeed, Senator MELCHER has ap­proached it in that way of taking a seri­ous look at trying to find equities and to try to do what is least harmful to the least amount of people.

I thank the Senator from Arizona for his cooperation and his staff for continu­ously working on it.

I might add that this bill is no panacea. It has been considerably compromised since I first introduced it as S. 1714 in the 95th Congress. Hopefully it will help to reduce the anxiety and other adverse impacts that have been thrust upon some of the people in this particular area.

It is of interest to me to know the his­tory that I have learned from my senior colleague and also from my own research and visit in the area that we are talking about in northern Arizona.

I hope that with enactment of this bill we can demonstrate to our brothers liv­ing in the particular area, the joint-use area, that our efforts here are not to dic­tate and to mandate things that are un­reasonable, but that we are only human beings and that we struggle with good intentions to find solutions to problems that have lasted for hundreds of years. In doing so man indeed is fallible. We do make mistakes.

I think the purpose of S. 751 is a cor­rective measure, fine-tuning, if you like to use that word, to try to bring a little bit or more equity to the particular Pub­lic Law 93-531.

Mr. President, this bill, S. 751, will modify Public Law 93-531, the Navajo­Hopi Settlement Act, which was de­signed to resolve the Navajo-Hopi joint­use land dispute.

The intent of the law, Public Law 93-531, to resolve a century-old land dis­pute is admirable. However, since enact­ment, problems have arisen that could thwart implementation of this law. The dilemma is that the Federal agency re­sponsible for relocating those Navajo

and Hopi Indians who must move has not been able to identify suitable sites for relocation. Quite a few voluntary relocatees have been moved to urban areas, such as Gallop and Flagstaff-a significant number of these relocatees have experienced difficulties in their new environment. Further, those poten­tial relocatees presently living on the Hopi side of the partition are the most traditional of all the Navajos-many have no skills that would allow them to become productive members of an urban population-to move them to such an environment would be disastrous.

The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, in its report which accompanied H.R. 10337, as amended, now Public Law 93-531, recognized the serious impact relocation would have if not handled properly:

The Committee believes it vitally impor­tant, that the plan take into account all social, economic, cultural and other adverse impacts o! relocation on persons involved in the relocation and be developed to avoid or minimize, to the extent possible, such impacts. The plan must also identify the sites to which such households are to be relocated and assure that housing and related community facilities are available at the re!ocatlcn sites. The Committee be­lieves this requirement ts particularly im­portant in effecting the purpose o! minimiz­ing the adverse impacts o! relocation.

In view of the fact that proper sites have not been found for most of the relooatees, the committee's intent of "minimizing the adverse impacts of re­location" will not be fulfilled unless the law is amended. I would go one step further and say that if the law is not amended, relocation will, in all probabil­ity, not take place.

The Navajos residing on the former jolnt-use area, awaiting relocation, have lived there for decades. Their ancestors are buried on the land that the relocatees know as their only home. I have visited the former joint-use area and talked with many of those who will be required to relocate. This personal contact has further convinced me that the Congress has no choice but to help these people.

This bill is no panacea-it has been considerably compromised since I first introduced it as S. 1714 in the 95th Con­gress-but hopefully it will help to reduce the anxiety and other adverse impacts that have been thrust upon these Navajo people. The bill contains two major pro­visions to accomplish these goals. First, it will provide life estates for 160 fami­lies with older heads of households­thus, those most adversely affected by relocation will not have to move. Second, it provides the Navajo-Hopi Indian Re­location Commission with the authority to purchase up to 200,000 acres of private land for relocation purposes-thus, those having to relocate will know where their new home will be and will be able, to some extent, to continue their tradi­tional life style.

Mr. President, S. 751 will provide for a more humane relocation than is called for in present law. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I join with my senior colleague in thanking the chairman of the Select Committee on Indian Affairs for his will-

ingness to sit through several days of hearings, for his willingness to sit through several days of markup, to work with Senator GoLDWATER and myself and members of the respective tribes and the people to put this together.

I also thank the staff of the select committee for the many hours, includ­ing John Mulkey, assigned to me for this purpose, the many, many hours of work that has been put into this. People will consider this an inconsequential piece of legislation, of no real impor­tance, but when you look into the peo­ple's eyes that have to live with laws that we pass some 2,200 miles away, and they indicate that there are problems with the laws, and there may be prob­lems even with this, you realize that it takes a lot of time to learn a subject and try to do what is in the best interest.

I urge the adoption of the legislation and again thanks to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, I point out to the Senate that the bill was in· troduced several months ago. The bill whose number we are retaining is Sena· tor DECONCINI's bill, s. 751. A similar bill, S. 1077, introduced by Senator GOLD· WATER in May of this year, was consid· ered along with S. 751, and we reconciled the two bills.

In reporting out the bill by unanimous vote, on September 26, we felt that any objections that the administration might have would be timely received and would be incorporated in the report. However, when we filed the report on October 17 we had not received any communication from the administration. On October 19 a letter from the Department of the In­terior was received by the committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that this letter, dated October 19, 1979, from the Department of the In­terior to me be printed in the RECORD.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D.C., October 19, 1979.

Hon. JOHN MELCHER, Ch.airman, Select Committee on Indian

Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAmMAN: This provides our

views o.n S. 751, the "Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Amendments Act o! 1979" as amended and ordered reported by your Com­mittee on September 26, 1979. The following comments are in line with and supplement our more detailed August 3 report on S. 751 as introduced.

The Administration is strongly opposed to: ( 1) The 200,000 acre land purchase by

the Relocation Commisslo.n authorized by the amendment in Section 4 o! the blll and for which $31,250,000 ls authorized to be appropriated by the a.n amendment in Sec­tion 13;

(2) The independent "legal counsel" and "administrative fiscal and housekeeping services" newly authorized !or the Reloca­tion Commission in Section 5 o! the blll, and !or which $5,000,000 (an increase o! $4,-000.000) ls authorized to be appropriated annually by an amendment ln Section 13, because it ls not fiscally or administratively prudent to establish such separate staffs !or a temporary agency;

(3) The amendment in Section 8 of the blll authorizing fenced 150 acre ll!e estate areas !or persons who may be as young as 45 years o! a.ge (and !or the lives o! their sur-

29368 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE October 24, 1979 vtving spouses) and who apparently need not be a head of household;

(4) requirement that the Secretary of the Interior provide each life tenant ( a.nd their successor spouses) with feed and water for their livestock during the term of the life estates as provided by an amendment in Section 8 of the blll for which Section 13 would authorize approprlatio.n of $350,000 in FY 1981 and $600,000 in each of FY 1982 and FY 1983;

(5) The requirement in Section 10 of the blll that the Secretary of the InterlOl" pay rent and other compensation to the Tribe whose land is subjected to the life estates mentioned above and for which $1 million is authorized to be appropriated in each of Fiscal Years 1981, 1982, and 1983;

(6) The requirement in Section 14 of the blll that the Secretary of the Interior pay "attorney's fees, costs, and expenses" for the Hopi and Navajo Tribes for which $700,000 ls authorized to be appropriated during the five year period of Fiscal Years 1981-1985; and

(7) The provision in Section 14 which requires the assigning of the "highest priority" to certain construction projects for the Hopi Tribe without rega.rd to the needs of other tribes.

We note also that we may provide you with additional views on the aopllcab111ty of the Federal Land Polley and Management Act (FLPMA) of October 26, 1976 (90 Stat. 2744; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

The Otnce of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to ~he presentation of this report from the stand­point of the Administration's program, and that the enactment of S. 751 would not be tn accord wttll the program of the President.

Sincerely, LARRY E . MElEROTTO,

Assistant Secretary.

Mr. MELCHER. The Department of the Interior opposes the key provisions 1n the bill.

I might point out that if there had not been an original error in the Execu­tive order of 1882, we would not have been led to the situation that has since followed.

If the Department had had complete success under the act of December 22, 1974, relating to the Relocation Com­mission for the two tribes, it would not be necessary to have these amendments.

S. 751 is a compromise thg.t contains amendments to alleviate the problems that exist. When the Department of the Interior criticizes, as they do in their letter of October 19. the 200,000 acre land purchase by the Relocittion Commisc:;ion authorized in S. 751, they do not offer us a solution to the problem. It is just plain criticism.

When crttfcism is leveled at the provi­sion in the bill that would permit inde­pendent legal counsel and administra­tive, fiscal, and housekeeping services, and authorizes funds for those purposes, as is provided in the bill in section 13, there is no alternative recommended by the adm~nistration.

Sectton 8 of the bill authorizes 150-acre life estates for persons who may be 45 years of age or older who are going to be relocated. In opposing that particu­lar section, whi.ch is a key section of the bill, the administration is in effect shrugging off the problem. WhUe they mtght prefer that the life estate be a very small acreage of, say, 10 acres, and that the age of anyone eligible for a life es-

tate would be 65 or older, they fall to recognize the true circumstances that exist and the compassion that the com­mittee has chosen to follow. I think it is only ordinary human compassion to al­low up to 150 acres for a life estate and to recognize that a head of a household at 45 years of age can be considered for such life estate.

S. 751 is only recognizing the problems that exist for the Navajo families that are involved and would have to be relo­cated. It imposes strenuous, tough condi­tions as to when a life estate should be allowed for certain iamil'es. This is a compromise that the committee finds equitable.

We do recognize that the Navajo or Hopi fam ;lies, who may qualify for life estates should not be confined to a very small acreage. They should have the op­portunity to continue their lifestyles as they have done traditionally, not just for generations but for centuries. They should have the opportunity to have some livestock, probably sheep, on their own life estate of 150 acres, that requires something else that the administration and the Department of Interior object to. That is, that S. 751 provides for adequate nutrition for those sheep or other live­stock that might be permitted on the 150-acre life estate.

I suggest that if we do not provide the iunds for livestock feeding, it would be inhumane in the most gross manner.

However, in S. 751, the livestock that will be allowed on the life estate will be restricted to no more than 25 sheep un!ts or comparable units of other livestock if the family with a life estate chooses other than sheep.

In summary, I think the Department of the Interior's objections are not very timely. All of those points were very thoroughly discussed and considered within the committee prior to our enact­ment and reporting out of S. 751 from the committee.

I believe we have done as good a job as could be done under the circum­stances, and I look forward to acceptance of the bill as presented by the committee and by the Senate. I hope a conference committee can work out the differences between the House version and the Sen­ate version rather quickly.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any­one seek recognition?

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, I. re­quest a third reading.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques­tion first is on agreeing to the committee amendment.

The committee amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques­tion is on the engroosment and third reading of the bill.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques­tion is, Shall the bill pass? <Putting the question.)

The bill cs. 751). as amended, was passed as follows:

s. 751 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

may be cited as the "Navajo and Hopi In­dians Relocation Amendments Act of 1979".

SEC. 2. Pa.ragra.ph (4) of section 5(a) of the Act of December 22, 1974 (88 Stat. 1714), ta repealed.

SEc. 3. Section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1974, is a.mended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:

" ( c) The Secretary of the Interior shall take such aotion as may be necessary in or­der to assure the protection, untll relocation, of the rights and property of individuals sub­ject to relocation pursuant to this Act, or any judgment of partl:tion pursuant thereto, including a.ny individual authorized. to reside on land covered by a life estate conferred pursuant to subsection (d) of section 14 ot this Act.

"(d) With respect to any individua.t sub­ject to relocation, the Secretary of the In­terior sha.11 take such action as may be nec­essary to assure that such indlvtdua.ts are not deprived. of benefits or services by reason of their status as an individual subject to relocation.

"(e) During the pendency of litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona brought pursuant to section 8 of this Act, including the case of Sekaqua.ptewa against MacDonald (74-842-P.C.T.-W.P.C.), any new use or development of the lands contained within those lands lying west of the Executive Order Reservation of December 16, 1882, and bounded . on the north and south by westerly extensions to the reserva tlon line of the northern and southern boundaries of said 1882 Executive Order Reservation and on the west by the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers, shall be carried out only upon the written consent of the two tribes or upon the written approval of the Secretary: Provided, That if the Sec­retary approves such use or development over the objection of one of the tribes, that tribe may petition the district court having jurisdiction over the litigation for an order or orders prohibiting such use or develop­ment, including an order staying any such ·use until such matter ls finally resolved by the court. In reaching a final decision regard­ing such petition the court shall consider the matter de novo to determine whether the proposed use or development would ad­versely affect the ultimate legal right of either tribe to partition based on use of land.".

SEC. 4. Section 11 ot the Act of December 22, 1974, is amended by striking out all of subsection (b) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsections:

"(b) The Navajo-Hopi Relocation Commis­sion ls authorized to purchase or otherwise acquire, except by eminent domain, not to ex­ceed two hundred thousand acres of land contiguous to, or adjacent and within six miles of, the Navajo Reservation for the benefit of the Navajo Tribe to facmta.te re­location. Such lands shall be taken by the United States in trust for the Navajo Tribe and shall be a part ot the Navajo Reserva-tion. ·

"(c) The Commission shall have the au­thority to enter into negotiations with the Nava1o and Hopi Tribes with a view to ar­ranging and carrying out land exchanges or leases, or both, between such tribes, .and lands which may be acquired by the Com­mission under subsection (b) of this section may, with Commission approval, be included in any land exchanges between the tribes authorized under section 8(c) or section 23 of this Act.".

SEC. 5. Section 12 of the Act of December 22, 1974, ts amended by-

( 1) inserting, in paragraph ( 1) of subsec­tion. ·(g), the phrase "an independent legal counsel," after the phrase "Executive Direc­tor.0:

Representatives o/ the Untted States o/ (2) amending subsection (h) to read aa America ~n Congress assembled, That this Act follows:

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 29369 "(h) The Commission is authorized to pro­

vide for its own administrative, fiscal and housekeeping services."; and

(3) redesignating subsection (i) as subsec­tion (J) and inserting new subsection (i) as follows:

"(i) (1) The Commission is authorized to call upon any department or agency of the United States to assist the Commission in implementing its relocation plan and com­pleting relocation within the time required by law, except that the control over and responsib111ty for completing relocation shall remain in the Commission. In any case in which the Commission calls upon any such department or agency for assistance under this section, such department or agency shall provide any reasonable assistance so re­quested.

"(2) On failure of any agency to provide reasonable assistance as required unde'r paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Com­mission shall report such failure to the Con­gress.

SEC. 6. Clause (5) of section 13(c) of the Act of December 22, 1974, is amended by striking the word "thirty" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "ninety".

SEc. 7. (a) Section 14(b) (1) of the Act of December 22, 1974 (88 Stat. 1712, 1718). 1s amended by deleting "$5,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$10,000".

(b) Section 14(b) (2) of such Act ls am.ended by deleting "$4,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$8,000".

(c) Section 14(b) (3) of such Act ls amended by deleting "$3,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$6,000".

(d) Section 14(b) (4) of such Act 1s am.ended by deleting "$2,000" and inserting

· in lieu thereof "$4,000". (e) Subsection (b) of section 14 1s further

amended by adding paragraph (5) at the end thereof as follows:

"(5) The amendment made to paragraph (1) of this subsection on the date o! enact­ment o! the Navajo and Hopi Indians Relo­cation Amendments Act o! 1979 shall be applicable with respect to any head o! a household who would have been entitled to the $10,000 payment under section 14(b) (1) of this Act but for the fact that such head relocated prior to the date o! the enactment o! the Navajo and Hopi Indians Relocation Amendments Act o! 1979.".

SEC. 8. Section 14 of the Act o! December 22, 1974, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(d) (1) Notwithstanding a.ny other provi­sion o! this Act, the Commission shall make available to an eligible applicant, on timely application as set forth in paragraph (3) o! this subsection, a limited tenure of such land as the Commission determines necessary in order to avoid the necessity of relocating such applicant, and his or her spouse and de­pendents, 1! residing with such applicant. The Commission shall grant up to one hun­dred and sixty life estates and shall give first priority to disabled applicants. Second pri­ority shall be awarded on the basis o! age with the oldest applicants given preference over younger applicants and among such older appllca.nts, first priority shall be given to those residing in the Big Mountain area. Such tenure shall consist o! the right o! use and occupancy o! one hundred and fifty acres o! land in order to enable such appllcant to raise livestock not to exceed twenty-five sheep units per year or equivalent livestock. The Commission upon the lss11ance o! a life estate shall fence the boundaries o! lands assigned !or use bv the recipient o! such life estates. The life ecitate tenure shall end by voluntary relinquishment, or at the death o! the aoplicant or the death of the spouse of the applicant, whichever last occurs: Pro­vided, That such survivorship rights shall apply only to those oersons who were married on or before the date of the enactment of

this subsection. Nothing in this Act or any other law shall preclude such applicant from making improvements within the area cov­ered by such tenure.

"(2) As used in this subsection, the term­"(A) 'eligible applicant' means, with re­

spect to a Navajo or Hopi individual, an individual-

.. (i) who on December 22, 1974, and con­tinuously thereafter has maintained a place of abode, and has been actually domiciled therein, in a.n area from which such appli­cant, but for this subsection, would be re­quired to relocate; and

"(11) who on or before the date o! enact­ment of this subsection was at least forty­five years of age, or who ts found by the Commission to be mentally or physically dis­abled.

"(B) 'dependent' means--"(i) those members o! the applicant's

household who derive more than one-half of their support from the applicant; or

"(11) those relatives, members of the im­mediate family, or other persons who are necessarlly and customarlly present to pro­vide for the care of the life estate applicant.

"(3) Jn any case in which a Nava1o or Hopi individual believes that he or she can qualify as an ellgible appllcant (as defined by para­graph (2) of this subo:;ection), such individ­ual ls authorized to file an appllcatlon with the Commission requesting that he or she be granted a life estate in lands in accordance with this section. Such application shall be submitted in such manner. and contain such information as the Commission shall pre­scribe by regulation, such regulation to be promulgated by the Commission within ninety days of the enactment of this subsec­tion. Such aopllcation must be filed on c-r before January 1, 1981: Provided, That in exceptional cases the Commission may ac­cept later apollcations where necessary to avoid inequity or hardship.

"(4) Within ninety days followin~ the date of the enactment o! this ,!;Ubsection, the Sec­retary, in consultation with the Commission, shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to assure that in the case of a life estate granted pursuant to this subsection, no person may rec:ide on the land covered by such life estate other than the applicant. his or her spouse, and the applicant's depend­ents, except that such regulations shall pro­vide that in case o! mness or d1&.l.b1Uty per­sons necessary to attend upon and care !or such applicant, spouse. or deoendent may re­side on such lands during such illness or dis­ablli ty. Such regulations shall further pro­vide !or the right o! all residents and visitors to the lands covered by such life estate to have access thereto by use o! all established roads or ways leading thereto.

"(5} The Secretary shall make avallable to apolicants receiving a life estate under this subsection such assistance, during that ten­ure, as may be necessary to enable such ap­plicant to feed and maintain that aopll­cant's livestock at an adequate nutritional level. Within ninety days of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall promul­gate such rules and requ!ations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this subsection.

"(6} Anv eligible applicant. and his or her spouse and dependentci, so Uvln~ on the Nav­a1o Reservation shall be sub'ect to the 1uris­dlctlon o! the Nava10 Tribe, and any such eligible a'(>pllcant, and his or her spouse and dependents, so living on the Hopi Reserva­tion shall be sub'ect to the 1urisd1ction ot the Hopi Tribe. except that the land laws of the Navajo Tribe shall not be applicable to any tenure granted to a member of the Hop! Tribe, and the land laws of the Hopi Tribe shall not be applicable to anv tenure granted to a member of the Nava1o Tribe.

"(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any such applicant who receives a life estate under this subsec-

tlon from relinquishing, prior to its termi­nation, such estate at any time and voluntar­lly relocating. Upon voluntary relinquish­ment of such estate, by such means or instru­ment as the Secretary of the Interior shall prescribe, such applicant shall be entitled to relocation benefits from the Secretary com­parable to those provided by section 15 of this Act. For life estates terminated by the death of the life tenant or his or her surviv­ing spouse, compensation shall be paid to the estate o! the deceased life tenant based on the fair market value of the habitation and improvements at the time of the ex­piration of such tenure and not before. Such payment shall be in lieu of any other pay­ment pursuant to subsection (a) of section 15 of this Act. Assistance similar to section 15(b) of this Act shall be paid to the estate of such life tenant by the Secretary. Such compensation and assistance shall be paid and distributed in accordance with the last wlll and testament of the life tenant, or in the event no valid last wlll and testament is left, compensation shall be paid and dis­tributed to his or her heirs in accordance with the laws of the tribe of which such life tenant is a member. Upon the termination of a life estate by whatever means, the de­pendents residing with the individuals hav­ing such life estate so terminated shall have ninety days following such termination with­in which to relocate.".

SEC. 9. Section 15 of the Act of Decem­ber 22, 1974, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new subsection (f) as follows:

"(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the Commission shall on a preferential basis provide relocation as­sistance and relocation housing under sub­sections (b), (c), and (d) of this section to the head of each household of members o! the Navajo Tribe who were evicted from dis­trict numbered 6 of the Hopi Indian Reser­vation in 1972: Provided, That such heads of households have not already received equiv­alent assistance from Federal agencies.".

SEC. 10. Section 16 o! the Act o! Decem­ber 22, 1974, ls amended by adding the fol­lowing new subsections:

"(c) The Secretary 1s authorized and di­rected to receive, consider, and pay any claim received by him from the Navajo Tribe or Hopi Tribe for compensation for the rea­sonable rental value, losses or other expenses incurred by the tribe by reason o! such life estates conferred by the Commission pur­suant to section 14(d) of this Act. Such claims shall be submitted at such time, in such manner, and contain such information, as the Secretary may prescribe. Any payment made pursuant to a claim filed under this subsection shall be in lieu of rental payments from the tribes under subsections (a) and (b) of this section with respect to lands covered by such claim.

" ( d) ( 1) In lieu of rental payments under the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, the tribe upon whose reser­vation a life estate has been created may elect to accept compensation in lieu of lands out of the lands acquired by the Commission under section 11 (b) of this Act. In any case in which a Navajo individual receives a life estate under this Act in lands of the Hopi Tribe, the Commission shall make avallable to the Hopi Tribe land of equivalent eco­nomic value out of the lands acquired !or the Navajo under section 11 (b) and shall · permit the use of such land by the Hopi Tribe for a period ending upon the expira­tion of the ninety-day period following the termination of such life estate. Upon the ex­piration of such ninety-day period, the United States shall hold such land in trust !or the benefit and use of the Navajo Tribe.

"(2) In the event a tribe elects to accept compensation in lieu o! lands under this subsection, the Commission shall make d111-gent e1forts to make such compensatory land

29370 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 24, 1979 available ln consolidated parcels which wm provide the greatest economic return.".

SEc. 11. Section 19 o! the Act of Decem­ber 22, 1974, ls amended by adding a new sub­section (c) as follows:

"(c) (1) Conservation practices, including grazing control and range restoration activi­ties in the joint use area as required by sub­section (a) o! this section, shall be coordi­nated and executed with the concurrence o! the tribe to whom the particular lands in question have been partitioned, and all such grazing and range restoration matters on Navajo Reservation lands shall be adminis­tered by the Bureau o! Indian Affairs, Navajo Area. omce, and on Hopi Reservation lands shall be administered by the Bureau o! In­dian Affairs, Phoenix Area Otnce, under ap­plicable laws and regulations.

"(2) Surveying, monumenting, and fenc­ing as required by subsection (b) o! this section shall be completed within twelve months a!ter the date o! enactment o! thls subsection with respect to lands par­titioned pursuant to section 4 o! thls Act and with twelve months a!ter a final order o! partition with respect to any lands partitioned pursuant to section 8 o! this Act.

"(3) The llvestock reduction program re­quired under subsection (a) o! this section shall be completed within eighteen months a!ter the date o! enactment o! this subsec­tion.".

SEc. 12. Section 23 of the Act of Decem­ber 22, 1974, ls amended by adding the fol­lowing sentence at the end thereof: "In the event that the tribes should negotiate and agree on an exchange of lands pursuant to authority granted herein, the Commission shall make available 125 per centum o! the relocation benefits provided ln sections 14 and 15 o! this Act to members o! either tribe llving on land to be exchanged to other than his or her own tribe, except that such bene­fits shall be available only lf, within ninety days of the agreement, a ma fority o! the adult members of the tribe who would be eligible to relocate !rom exchanged lands sign a contract with the Commission to relocate within twelve months o! the agreement or such later time as determined by the Com­mission and such additional benefits shall only be paid to those who actually relocate within such period.

SEC. 13. (a) Section 25(a) (4) o! the Act of December 22, 1974, is amended to read as follows:

" ( 4) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of section 14(b) for the period prior to October 1, 1980, there is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $5,500,000. For the purposes o! carrying out such pro­visions !or the period commencing October 1, 1980, there ls authorized to be appropriated an additional amount o! not to exceed $10,500,000."

(b) Section 25(a) (5) of the Act of De­cember 22, 1974, as amended by the Act of July 30, 1979 (Publlc Law 96-40), is further amended by striking the figure "$1,000,000" and inserting, in lieu thereof, the figure "$5,000,000": Provided, That no new budget authority for fiscal year 1980 ls authorized to be appropriated.

(c) Section 25(a) of the Act of December 22 , 1974, is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sub­sections:

"(7) For the fiscal year beginning Oc­tober 1, 1980, and for each of the two next following fiscal years, there is authorized to be appropriated such sum, not to exceed $1,000,000, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of subsection (c) of section 16 of this Act.

"(8) For the fiscal year beginning Oc­tober 1, 1980, there is authorized to be ap­propriated such sum, not to exceed $350,000, as may be necessary to carry out the provi­sions o! subsection (d) (5) of section 14 of this Act. For the fiscal year beginning Oc-

tober 1, 1981 , and the next following fiscal year, there is authorized to be appropriated for each such fiscal year such sum, not to exceed $600 ,000, as may be necessary to carry out such provisions.

"(9) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of subsection (b) of section 11 of this Act, there are authorized to be appro­priated, for the period beginning October 1, 1980, such sums not to exceed, in the aggre­gate, $31 ,250,000, as may be ne::essary.''.

SEC. 14. The Act of December 22, 1974, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sections:

"SEC. 27. (a) In any lltigation or court Mtion between or among the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Tribe, and the United States or any of its omcials, departments, agencies, or instrumentallties, a.rising out of the tn­terpreta tion or implementation of this Act, as amended, the Secretary shall pay, sub­ject to the avallablllty of appropriations, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses as de­termined by the Secretary to be reasonable. For each tribe, there 1s hereby d.Uthorized to be appropriated not to exceed $120,000 in fiscal year 1981, $130,000 in fiscal year 1982, $140,000 in fiscal year 1983, $150,­ooo in fiscal year 1984, and $160,000 in fiscal year 1985.

"(b) Upon the entry of ·a final judgment in any such lltigation or court action, tho court shall a.ward reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to the party, other than the United States or its omcia.ls, de­•partment s, agencies, or instlrumentallties, which prevails or substantially prevails, where it finds that any opposing party has unreasonably initiated or contested such litigation. Any party to whom such an award has been made shall reimburse the United States out of such award to the extent that it has received payments pur­suant to subsection (a) of this section.

"(c) To the extent that any awa.rd ma.de to a party against the United States pur­suant to subsection (b) of this section exceeds the amount paid to such party by the United States pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, such difference shall be treated as i! it were a final judgment of the Court o! Claims under section 2517 of title 28, United States Code.

"(d) This section shall apply to any litigation or court action pending upon the date of enactment of this section in which a final order, decree, or judgment has not been entered, but shall not apply to any action authorized by section 8 or 18(a) of this Act.

"SEc. 28. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, as appropriate, shall assign the highest priority, in the next fiscal year after the date of enactment of this subsection, to the funding and construction of the Hopi high school and a Hopi medical center con­sistent with any plans already completed and approved by appropriate agencies or the respective departments.".

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro­ceeded to call the roll.

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

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

REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE MEETINGS

COMMITI'EE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Com­mittee on Foreign Relations be author­ized to meet during the sessions of the Senate today and Thursday, October 25, 1979 beginning at 2 p.m. to hold markup sessions on the SALT II treaty.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. BAKER. I object, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection

is heard. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that the Com­mittee on Foreign Relations be author­ized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 25, 1979, beginning at 2 p.m. to hold a markup session on the SALT n treaty.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection

is heard.

THE ANGUISH OF CENTRAL BANKING

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, day by day it becomes more evident that the No. 1 problem afflicting our economy is inflation. The stubborn persistence with which inflation has gripped this Nation has led us all to search for solu­tions to eliminate this phenomenon which saps our strength in terms of growth and productivity. As we look for the roots of this economic disease in order to deal with it at its source, it be­comes frustratingly apparent that the causes of inflation are structurally im­bedded in our economy. Over time, it becomes clear that our way out of this inflationary spiral will not be any magi­cal, quick-fix formula. Rather, what ls required is a reassessment of the funda­mental precepts regarding restraint in Government spending and regulation, private factor economic programs and expectations, and the action of national monetary authorities to control infla­tion through the use of traditional mone­tary tools.

As the Nation debates the wisdom of pursuing monetary policies which re­sult in restrictive money supplies and sky-high interest rates we would do well to consider the dilemma that central bank authorities around the world con­front as a result of the unrelenting forces of inflation.

The active participation of central bank authorities is critical to any co­ordinated anti-inflation plan. In our case, the ability of the Federal Reserve to consistently apply anti-inflationary monetary policies has been weakened by the country's seeming lack of resolve to take the requisite long-term steps to deal with the underlying structural problems of domestic productivity and job training, protectionist trade and ag­ricultural laws, some inhibiting govern­mental regulations, and international uncompetitiveness of some U.S. prod­ucts, without which we cannot hope to arrest inflation.

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29371 This is in part what has led Chairman

Volcker to seize the reins of monetary policy so forcefully. In one sense, these dramatic actions have given the econ­omy and especially the administration some breathing space with which to address the infiation:ary problems before us. Yet, more importantly, through these actions, the Federal Reserve is attempt­ing to establish the first leg of a three­way partnership among the White House and Congress, whereby a frontal assault on infiation may be devised.

Clearly the latest actions by the Fed cannot succeed alone. They must be sup­ported and complemented by the admin­istration and the Congress with anti­infiationary initiatives in the areas of energy, private sector performance, un­necessary regulation, and Federal fiscal and monetary policies among others.

I commend to my colleagues the words of one of America's most eminent cen­tral bankers, Arthur Bums, who de­livered the 1979 Per Jacobsson Lecture on this subject. Entitled "The Anguish of Central Bankers," Dr. Burns' remarks delivered last month in Belgrade, address not only the root causes of infia­tion and the tools available to govern­ment to abate it, but also why the U.S. Federal Reserve System and central bankers generally have failed effectively to combat infiation. Dr. Burns points out, one of the distinguishing features of inflation today, and one of the most alarming, is its self-sustaining momentum.

It is a momentum that feeds on infia­tionary expectations bred by the experi­ence of infiation witnessed throughout the course of the business cycle. Dr. Bums' perception is that there ls a strong inflationary bias built in to the U.S. economy that will be di:ftlcult to break, given our "gradualist" approach to addressing infiation.

Among the proposals that Dr. Burns advances are a ''binding endorsement" of anti-infiationary monetary policies which would allow the Fed to implement a consist.~mt long-term strategy. Also, Dr. Bums recommends a series of busi­ness tax reductions to boost produotivity and thus hold down prices. I disagree with the former Federal Reserve Board chairman on some points but overall his remarks are an incisive comment on this greatest of dangers-inflation-facing our economy and our way of life. I ask unanimous consent that Arthur Bums' remarks appear in their entirety in the RECORD.

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

THE ANGUISH OF CENTRAL BANKING

(By Arthur F. Burns) When I was invited several months ago to

deliver this yea.r's Per Ja.cobsson Lecture, I found it easy to give my consent. Per Jacobs.­son was a fin.a.n.cial statesman whose efforts in behalf o! world economic order deserve to be remembered by this distinguished. audi­ence. I !eel I can honor his memory best by preseDJti.ng on this occasion some straight­forward thoughts on central banking.

The international monetary system, which has been in almost constant turmoil during this decade, has benefited. recently !·rom sev-

eral developments. Under the amended Articles o! Agreement, the IIllternational Monetary Fund oa.n exercise firm surveil­lance over 'the exchange rate policies o! its members, and is therefore now in a position to move the nations o! the world toward a rule o! la.win international monetary affairs. Another promising development is the es­tablishment o! the European Monetary Sys­tem with 11he a.1m o! maintaining relatively stable exchange rates within the common Market.

A third positive development is recogni­tion by the United Stat.es that the persisting deficits in its international current account must be eliminated, and that in the mean­time decisive intervention to protect the ex­tern.a.l value o! the dollar may well be needed. The conventional theory that a de­preciating currency is beneficial to a nation's foreign trade and to its over-all economic activity has lost its appeal within the American government. The officials con­cerned. with economic policy ha.ve learned that whaitever merit may in some circum­stances attach to this theory, it is a danger­ous guide !or a country whose currency is still the centerpiece o! the international monetary system. "Benign neglect" of the external value o! the dollar ca.me to an end dramatically, and I would hope irrevocably, last November.

This and other constructive developments suggested earlier this year tha.t a closer ap­proach to international equ111brium was under way and ca.Im returned !or a while to foreign exchange markets. But uneasiness about the monetary system, particularly a.bout the future o! the dollar, has continued. and in !act intensified this summer. There have been ample reasons !or concern--a.mong them, the political convulsions in Iran, the enormous new increases in oil prices by OPEC, the narrowing a.t times of interest• rate dltferentia.ls between New York and for­eign money-market centers, and the limited progress in developing an effective energy policy in the United States. While all these !actors contributed. to nervousness, wha.t has been most disturbing to foreign exchange markets m recent months is the rea.ccelera­tion o! inflation in the United States and in much of the rest o! the world. Even Ger­many and Switzerland no longer qualify as islands of stability.

This unhappy development is one more indication, 1! any were needed, that the current instability in international finance is largely a consequence of the chronic infla­tion o! our times and that stab111ty will not return to the international monetary sys­tem until reasonably good control over in­flationary forces has been achieved in the major industrial nations-and especially in the United States. This critical consideration at once raises serious questions: Why is the worldwide disease o! inflation proving so stubborn? Why is it not yielding to the various efforts o! the affected nations, in­cluding some determined efforts, to bring it to an end? Why, in particular, have central bankers, whose ma.in business one might suppose is to fight inflation, been so ineffec­tive in deallng with this world-wide problem?

To me, as a former central banker, the la.st o! these questions is especially in­triguing. One o! the time-honored !unctions o! a central bank ts to protect the integrity o! its nation's currency, both domestically and internationally. In monetary policy cen­tral bankers have a potent means !or foster­ing stab111ty o! the general price level. By training, if not also by temperament, they are inclined to lay great stress on price stability, and their abhorrence o! inflation ls continually reinforced by contacts with one another and with like-minded members o! the private financial community. And yet, despite their antipathy to infl.ation and the

powerful weapons they could wield against It, central bankers have !ailed so utterly in this mission in recent years. In this para­dox lies the anguish of central banking.

My aim today is to consider the causes o! this paradox and its implications !or the fu­ture.

Much o! what I say will inevitably reflect lessons that I learned during my service as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board over an eight-year period that ended about eighteen months ago. This may be a good time to reflect on that experience; a year ago I was probably too close to it to have the nec­essary perspective, and a year from now the sharpness of my impressions may have be­gun to !ade.

I shall focus mainly, although not ex­clusively, on the United States. That is the area that I know best, and I also believe the American experience--despite some unique aspects-is fairly representative o! that of other industrial countries. The developing nations have their own characteristic sources and patterns o! inflation. Nevertheless, in our interdependent world, economic condi­tions in the United States and other indus­trial countries are bound to have a signif­icant bearing on the fortunes o! develop­ing countries.

By way o! introduction, I might note that during much o! the period since the end of World War II, over-all economic develop­ments were, in the main, satisfactory. By prewar standards, recessions were brief and mild through the mid-1960's, both in the United States and in other industrial coun­tries; world trade expanded rapidly under a beneficent regime o! stable exchange rates; and living standards rose impressively throughout the developed world. In most industrial countries inflationary pressures were troublesome from time to time-as in the immediate postwar years, during the Korean host111ties, and !or a couple o! years after the mld-1950's. These pressures were more substantial in some countries than in the United States, but in none did infla­tion appear to be out o! control.

From 1958 through 1964, the United States enjoyed a remarkable degree o! price stabllity. During that stretch o! six years, the wholesale price index remained virtually unchanged and the consumer price index rose at an annual rate o! only a Uttle more than one percent. And then the inflation that has ever since been plaguing the American economy got under way. Average wholesale prices rose at an annual rate o! 2 percent from 1964 to 1968, 4 percent !rom 1968 to 1972, and 10 percent from 1972 to 1978. Thls pattern o! accelerating price increases 1s found in other countries also, although rates o! increase have varied widely, and in most industrial nations the acceleration began later-typically in 1969 or 1970.

Analyses o! the in1lation that -the United States has experienced over the pa.st fifteen years frequently proceed in three stages. First are considered the !actors that launched inflation in the mid-1960'8, par­ticularly the governmental fine tuning inspired by the New Economics and the loose financing o! the war in Vietnam. Next are considered the !actors that led to sub­sequent strengthening o! inflationary forces, including further policy errors, the devalua­tions o! the dollar in 1971 and 1973, the world-wide economic boom o! 1972-73, the crop failures and resulting surge in world food prices in 1973-74, the extraordinary increases in on prices that became effective in 1974, and the sharp deceleration of pro­ductivity growth !rom the late 1960's onward. Finally, attention is turned to the process whereby protracted experience with infla­tion has led to wide-spread expectations that

29372 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE October 24, 1979 lt wm continue in the future , so that infia­tion has acquired a momentum of its own.

I have no quarrel with analyses of this type. They are distinctly helpful in explain­ing the American infiation and, with changes here and there, that in other nations also. At the same time, I believe that such analyses overlook a more fundamental factor: the persistent infiatlonary bias that has emerged from the philosophic and political currents that have been trans­forming economic life in the United States and elsewhere since the 1930's. The essence of the unique infiation of our times and the reason central bankers have been ineffective tn dealing with it can be understood only in terms of those currents of thought and the political environment they have created.

Historically, Americans have had deep faith in the concept of progress-in the idea that it was realistic to expect to better one's own lot and that of one's family in the course of a lifetime. During the greater part of America's history, government interven­tion in economic life was only peripheral. Personal progress was generally viewed as a reward for personal effort--assisted, per­haps, by good fortune. Provision for bad times or other contingencies of life was deemed prudent, but that was a private resl)onsib111ty. The American's way through life lay along the road of self-reliance; only in extremity did he look to government or his neighbors for economic assistance.

This tradition of individualism was shat­tered by the cataclysmic events of the 1930's and 1940's. The breakdown of economic order during the Great Depression was unprece­dented in its sea.le and scoue, and it strained the precept of self-reliance beyond the breaking point. With one-quarter of the la­bor force unemployed, persona.I courage and moral stamina. could guarantee neither a job nor a. livelihood. Succor finally came through a political idea. that was novel to a majority of the American people but com­pelllng nonetheless-namely, that the Fed­eral government had a. far larger responsi­b111ty in the economic sphere than it had hitherto assumed.

Under the New Deal the Federal govern­ment undertook extensive projects of public construction and offered work relief as well. It gave direct relief to the needy-a function previously performed only by local author­ities or private charity. It established un­employment insurance and old-age pensions. It took steps to raise wages and prices with a view to fostering economic recovery. And beyond these innovative actions, the Fed­eral government greatly extended the range of its regulatory activities. It intervened massively in the securities market, in bank­ing, In the public ut111ties industry, in the housing market, and In the fa.rm sector; and It gave labor unions broad new rights and powers. Together, these and other New Deal measures la.id the foundations of an activist government-a. government respon­sible not only for relieving suffering and in­suring against economic adversity, but also for limiting "harmful" competition, sub­sidizing "worthwhile" activities. and redress­ing unequal balances of market power. rn less than a. decade the government became a lea.ding actor on the economic stage.

Just as Americans were persuaded during the depression that the Federal government should help the unemployed, so they were taught by the experience of World War II to look to government to prevent unemploy­ment in the first place. Under the compul­sions of war, the government had demon­strated that It could assure gainful employ­ment for every willing hand. It therefore seemed reasonable, and not only to the fol­lowers of Keynes, to expect government to do the same in a time of peace. In 1944, when President Roosevelt set forth the basts of his postwar domestic program In an

"Economic Bill of Rights", he put "the right to a. useful and remunerative job" at the head of t he list. With the war ended, the Employment Act of 1946 explicitly pro­claimed the Federal government's respons1-b111ty to promote "maximum employment", and this came to mean "full employment" as a matter of law as well as popular usage.

Armed with the Employment Act, the gov­ernment sought to demonstrate that it could combat unemployment with preventive as well as curative measures. In fact, the period from World War II to the mid-1960's was marked not only by a dampening of the busi­ness cycle but also by persistent increases in the prosperity of American families. On the one side, rising incomes, refiecting substan­tial gains in labor productivity, made pos­sible rising consumption, greater leisure, and better provision for retirement. On the other side, a steady stream of new and often im­proved consumer goods tended to sustain the growth of aggregate demand. The ex­tensive development of consumer credit in­stitutions made it easier for people to ac­quire automoblles, household appliances, and other goods and services, the desire for which was continually being whetted by alluring advertisements and the mustrations of po­tential life styles broadcast by television and the movies. The seemingly inexorable rise in living standards for the bulk of the popu­lation was refiected in upward trends in the proportion of families that owned their own home, that owned a summer home, that pos­sessed one, two and even three automoblles, that had telephones, that owned television sets, clothes washers, and food freezers; also in the proportion of the population that had graduated from high school and from col­lege, that traveled a.broad, that owned cor­porate stock, that carried Ute Insurance, and so on.

This experience of economic progress strengthened the pubUc's expectations of progress. What had once been a quiet per­sonal feeling that the long future would be better than the past, particularly for one's chlldren, was transformed during the post­war yea.rs into an articulate and widespread expectation of steady improvement in living standards-indeed, to a feeling of entitle­ment to annual increases in real income.

But the rapid rise in national affluence did not create a. mood of contentment. On the contrary, the 1960's were years of social tur­moll in the United States, as they were in other industrial democracies. In part, the unrest refiected discontent by blacks and other minorities with preva111ng conditions of social discrimination and economic de­privation-a discontent that erupted during the "hot summers" of the middle 1960's in burning and looting. In part, the social unrest reflected growing feelings of infustfoe by or on behalf of other groups-the po6r, the aged, the physically handicapped, eth­nics, farmers, blue collar workers, women, and so forth. In part, the unrest refiected a growing rejection by middleclass youth of preva111ng institutions and cultural values. In part, it reflected the more or less sudden reco~ition by broad seyment.s of the no..,u­lation that the economic reforms of the New Deal and the more recent rise in naticna.l af­fiuence had left untouched problems in vari­ous areas of American llfe--social, polltica.t. e'Jon~mic, and environmental. And intera~t­ing with all these sources of social disturb­ance were the heightening tensions asso­ciated with the Vietnam War.

Jn the innocence of the day, many Ameri­cans ca.me to belleve that all of the new or newly discovered ills of society should be addressed promptly by the Federal govern­ment. And in the innocence of the day, the administration in office at tempted to respond to the growing demands for social and eco­ncmic reform while wai:ring war in Vietnam on a. rt.,ing scale. Under the rubric of the New Economics, a more activist pollcy was adopted

for the purpose of increasing the rate of eco­nomic growth and reducing the level of un­employment. Under the rubrics of the New Frontier and the Great Society, broad-scale efforts were made to stitch up open seam.sin the fabric of affluence-inadequate or un­equal education, housing, medical care, nu­trition. Under the rubrics of civil rights and citizen participation, minorities and other disadvantaged groups were given political weapons to maintain, consollda.te, and extend their gains.

The interplay of governmental action and private demands had an internal dynamic that led to their concurrent escalation. When the government undertook in the mid-1960's to address such "unfinished tasks" as reduc­ing frictional unemployment, ellmina.ting poverty, widening the benefits of prosperity, and improving the quaUty of life, it awalt­ened new ranges of expectation and demand. Once it was established that the key func­tion of government was to solve problems and relieve hardships-not only for society at large but also for troubled industries, re­gions, occupations, or social groups-a great and growing body of problems and hardships became candidates for governmental solu­tion. New techniques for bringing pressure on Congress-and also on the State legisla­tures and other elected officials-were de­veloped, refined, and exploited. Congress re­sponded by pouring out a broad stream of measur~ that involved government spend­ing, special tax rellef, or regulations mandat­ing private spending. Every demonstration of a. successful tactic in securing rights, estab­lishing entitlements, or extracting other benefits from government led to new appllca­tions of that tactic. Various groups found a powerful ally in the Federail courts, which repeatedly struck down legislative or admin­istrative llmitaitions on aiccess to government benefits. Even government employees, par­ticularly at the state and municipal levels, discovered the pecuniary rewards of shed­ding genteel notions of publlc service and pressing economic demands with a strident militancy.

IM.a.ny results of this interaction of gov­ernment aud citizen activism proved whole­some. Their cumulative effect, however, was to impart a. strong infiationary bias to the American economy. The proliferation of government programs led to progressively higher tax burdens on both irdlvidua.ls and corporations. Even so, the w1llingnei:s of gov­ernment to levy taxes fell distinctively short of its propensity to spend. Since 1950 the Federal budget has been in balance in only five years. Since 1970 a deficit has occurred in every year. Not only that, but the deficits have been mounting in size. Budget deficits have thus become a chronic condition of Fed­eral finance; they have been incurred when business conditions werP poor and also when business was booming. But when the gov­ernment runs a. budget deficit, it pumps more money into the ooc'ketboolrs of people than it withdraws from their pocketbooks; the demand for goods and services therefore tends to increase all around. That ls the way the infia.tion that has been raging since the mid-1960's first got started and later kept being nourished.

The pursuit of costly social reforms often went haud in hand with the pursuit of full employment. In fact, much of the ex­panding range of government spenrJing was prompted by the commitment to full em­ployment. Infia.tion ca.me to be widely viewed as a temporary phenomenon--or, provided it remained mild, as an acceptable condi­tion. "Maximum" or "full" employment, after all , had become the nation's major ec"o­nomic goal-not stab111ty of the price level. That infia.tion ultimately brings on r&ces­sion and otherwise nullifies many of the benefits sought through social legislation was largely ignored. Even conservative pol1t1~1ans and businessmen began echoing Keynesian

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29373 teachings. It therefore seemed only natural to Federal officials charged with economic responsib111ties to respond quickly to any slackening of economic activity-at times, in fact , as in the early days of 1977, to sheer musions of such slackening-but to proceed very slowly and cautiously in responding to evidence of increasing pressure on the na­tion's resources of labor and capital. Fear of immediate unemployment-rather than fear of current or eventual inflation-thus came to dominate economic policy making.

This weighing of the scales of government policy inevitably gave an inflationary twist to the economy, and so too did the expand­ing role of government regulation. Tradi­tional ways of protecting particular groups against competition-such as raising fa.rm price supports, increasing minimum wages, and imposing import quotas-did not lose their appeal as inflation kept soaring. On the contrary, all these devices of raising costs and prices were liberally employed even in the face of accelerating inflation during 1977 and 1978. Also troublesome were the newer social regulations--those concerned with health, safety, and the environment­that kept multiplying during the 1970's. However, laudable in purpose, much of this regulatory apparatus was conceived in haste and with little regard to the costs being imposed on producers. Substantial amounts of ca.pita.I that might have gone into pro­ductivity-enhancing investments by private industry were thus diverted into uses man­dated by the regulators. Improvements in productivity were also slowed by the dis­couragement of business investment that resulted from the increasing burden of in­come and ca.pita.I-gains taxes. Progress in equipping the work force with new plant and equipment proceeded much less ra.pidly during the 1970's than during the 1950's or 1960's, and this shortfall contributed to the productivity slump and thus to the escala­tion of costs and prices.

Addition.a.I forces on the side of supply contributed to the inflationary bias. As the income maintenance programs established by government were liberalized, incentives to work tended to diminish. Some individ­uals, both young and old, found it agreeable to live much of the time off unemployment insurance, food stamps, and welfare checks-­perhaps su"!)olemented by intermittent jobs in an expanding underground economy. Even enterprising and ambitious individuals who sought permanent jobs could be more lei­surely or more discriminating in their search when the government, besides pursuing a full employment policy, provided a protec­tive income umbrella during jobless periods. In such an environment, employed workers could demand and often achieve longer vaoo.tions with pay and more frequent holi­days and sick le!l.ve, besides enjoying coffee breaks and other social rites on the job. In such an environment, they could afford to reject a pay cut or a small wage increase when their employer pleaded serious finan­cial difficulties. Thus the number of individ­uals counted as unemployed could rise even at times when job vacancies, wages, and the consumer price level were rising.

The philosophic and political currents that transformed economic life and brought on secular inflation in the United States have run strong also in other industrial countries. Rising economic expectations of people, wider citizen participation in the political arena, governmental commitments to full employ­ment, liberal income maintenance programs, expanding governmental regulations, and in­creasingly pressing demands on government for the solution of economic and social prob­lems-all these became common features of the industrial democracies. And just as the rapid expansion of government activities in the United States was accompanied by per­sistent budget deficits and inftat1on, that too

CXXV--1847-Part 22

happened in other industrial countries. In­deed, other countries have often pra.cticed loose governmental finance and in.fiation on a more intensive scale than has the United States.

And so I finally come to the role of central bankers in the inflationary process. The world-wide philosophic and poUtical trends on which I have been dwelling inevitably affected their attitudes and actions.

In most countries, the central bank is an instrumentality of the executive branch of government-carrying out monetary policy according to the wishes of the head of gov­ernment or the ministry of fin3.nce. Some in­dustrial democracies, to be sure, have sub­stantially independent central banks and that is certainly the case in the United States. Viewed in the atstract, the Federal Reserve System had the power to abort the inflation at its incipient stage fifteen years ago or at any later point, and it has the power to end it today. At any time within that period, it could have restricted the money supply and created sufficient strains in financial and industrial markets to ter­minate inflation with little delay. It did not do so because the Federal Reserve was itself caught up in the philosophic and political currents that were transforming American life and culture.

The Employment Act prescribes that "it is the continuing policy and responsibility of the Federal government to . .. utiliz-e all its plans, functions, and resources . . . to promote maximum employment." The Fed­eral Reserve is subject to this provision of law, and that has limited its practical scope for restrictive actions--quite apart from the fact that some members of the Federal Re­serve family had themselves been touched by the allurements of the New Economics. Every time the government moved to enlarge the flow of benefits to the population at large, or to this or that group, the assump­tion was implicit that monetary policy would somehow accommodate the action. A similar tacit assumption was embodied in every pric­ing decision or wage bargain arranged by private parties or the government. The fact that such actions could in combination be wholly incompatible with moderate rates of monetary expansion was seldom considered by those who initiated them, despite the frequent warnings by the Federal Reserve that new fires of inflation were being ignited. If the Federal Reserve then sought to create a monetary environment that fell seriously short of accommodating the upward pres­sures on prices that were being released or reinforced by governmental action, severe difficulties could be quickly produced in the economy. Not only that, the Federal Reserve would be frustrating the will of Congress to which it was responsible--a Congress that was intent on providing additional services to the electorate and on assuring that jobs and incomes were maintained, particularly in the short run.

Facing theEe political realities, the Fed­eral Reserve was still willing to step hard on the monetary brake at times-as in 1966, 1969, and 1974-but its restrictive stance was not maintained long enough to end inflation. By and large, monetary policy came to be governed by the principle of undernourish­ing the inflationary process while still ac­commodating a good part of the pressures in the marketplace. The central banks of other industrial countries, functioning as they did in a basically similar political environment, appear to have behaved in much the same fashion.

In describtng as I just have the anguish of central banking in a modern democracy, I do not mean to suggest that central bankers are free from responsibillty for the inflation that is our common inheritance. After all, every central bank has some room for discretion, and the range 1s considerable in the more in-

dependent central banks. As the Federal Re­serve, for example, kept testing and probing the limits of its freedom to undernournish the inflation, it repeatedly evoked violent criticism from both the Executive establish­ment and the Congress and therefore had to devote much of its energy to warding off leg­islation that could destroy any hope of end­ing inflation. This testing process necessarily involved political judgments, and the Fed­eral Reserve may at times have overestimated the risks attaching to additional monetary restraint.

Any such errors of political judgment are extremely hard to identify; but I believe, in any event, that errors of economic or finan­cial judgment have in practice been far more significant. In a rapidly changing world the opportunities for making mistakes are legion. Even facts about current conditions are often subject to misinterpretation. Statistics on unemployment in the United States provide a good example. Even before World War II ended, some economists were trying to deter­mine how much frictional and structural un­employment would exist when the demand for labor and the supply of labor were in balance; in other words, the rate of unem­ployment that would reflect a state of full employment. Before long, a broad consensus developed that an unemployment rate of about 4 percent corresponded to a practical condition of full employment, and that figure became enshrined in economic writing and policy making. Conditions in labor markets, however, did not stand stm. A huge influx of women and young people into the labor force, the liberalization of unemployment in­surance, the spread of welfare programs, the progressive lifting of statutory minimum wages, the increasing proportion of families having more than one worker, and the In­crease of national affluence itself-all these changes in the economic and social environ­ment served to render the conventional 4 per­cent figure obsolete. The unemployment rate corresponding to full employment is now widely believed to be about 5¥2 or 6 percent, and this year's report of the Council of Eco­nomic Advisers appears to concur in that judgment. But governmental policy makers, while generally aware of what was happen­ing in the labor market, were !!low to recog­nize the changing meaning of unemploy­ment statistics, whether viewed as a measure of e conomic performance or as a measure of hardship. The Federal Reserve did not escape this lag of recognition and, once again, I be­lieve that other central banks at times have made similar mistalres.

While misinterpretations of unemployment statistics or other current information have consequences for all public policy making, there are other problems of interoretation to which the central banker's calling is pecu­liarly subject. Monetary theory is a contro­versial area. It does not provide central bank­ers with decision rules that are at once firm and dependable. To be sure, every central banker has learned from the world's experi­ence that an expanding economy requires expanding supplies of money and credit, that excessive creation of money will over the longer riin cause or validate inflation, and that declining interest rates wm tend to stimulate economic expansion while rising interest rates wm tend to restrict it: but this lr"nowledge stops short of mathematical pre­cision.

Partlv as a result of the chronic inflation of our times, central bankers have been !?iV­ing closer attention to the monev supply than did their predecessors: but they con­tinue to be seriously concerned with the behavior of interest rates. They face dif­ficult questions about the relative weight to be given to measures of money and interest rates in the short run a.nd long run; about the concept or concepts of money that are

29374: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE October 24, 1979 most signlflcant for policy purposes; about the interpretation of such developments as the growth of Eurocurrency deposits and credits; about the length and regularity of the lags with which changes in monetary growth rates influence business activity and prices; about the likely changes in monetary velocity as a consequence of institutional innovations and business-cycle develop­ments; and so on and on-as any student of central banking and monetary theory well knows. And there are more fundamental problems about potential conflicts between domestic and international objectives, about the appropriate response to exceptional events not encompassed by theory, and about the precise relevance of any theory based on past experience to a world where behavioral patterns are continually evolving.

It is clear, therefore, that central bankers can make errors-or encounter surprises­at practically every stage of the process of making monetary policy. In some respects, their capacity to err has become larger in our age of inflation. They are accustomed, as are students of finance generally, to think of high and rising market interest rates as a restraining force on economic expansion. That rule of experience, however, tends to break down once expectations of inflation become widespread in a country. At such a time, lenders expect .to be paid back in cheaper currency, and they are therefore apt to demand higher interest rates. Since bor­rowers have similar expectations, they are willing to comply. An "inflation premium" thus gets built into nominal interest rates. In principle, no matter how high the nomi­nal interest rate may be, as long as it stays below or only slightly above the inflation rate, it very likely will have perverse effects on the economy; that ts, it will run up costs of doing business but do little or nothing to restrain overall spending. In practice, since inflationary expectations, and therefore the real interest rates implied by any given nom­inal rate, vary among individuals, central bankers cannot be sure of the magnitude of the inflation premium that is built into nominal rates. In many countries, however, these rates have at times in recent years been so clearly below the ongoing inflation rate that one can hardly escape the impres­sion that, however high or outrageous the nominal rates may appear to observers ac­customed to judging them by a historical yardstick, they have utterly failed to accom­plish the restraint that central bankers sought to achieve. Jn other words, inflation has often taken the sting out of interest rates-especially, as in the United States, where interest payments can be deducted for income tax purposes.

In addition to these direct efforts cf in­flation, there are other effects that raise doubts about the me ::i ntng of particular growth rates of the monetary agirregates. I have in mind changes in financial practices that evolved in the United States during the 19~0's-particularly during the bouts with tight money in 1966 and 1969-and that cul­minated in an exolosion of financial inno­vations in the 1970's.

Many of these changes were fac11itated bv regulatory actions or the development of new computer technology. But the drivinP." force behind them was the incentive th~t sharply rising market interest rates gave to financial institutions and their customers to change their ways of doing business. Com­mercial banks responded to rising rates by economizing on non-interest-bearing re­serves, and their customers responded by economizing on non-interest-bearing de­mand depcsits. Both banks and large corpo­rations developed new sources of funds in the Euro-dollar market and t he domestic commercial paper market. Banks developed new techniques of liab1lity management by exploiting these sources as well as the vas"t

potential of the Federal funds market and the market for negotiable certificates of de­p ::sit. Other financial institution~includ­

ing savings banks, savings and loan associa­tions, credit unions, and money market mutual funds-developed new transactiom; services in connection with customer ac­counts on which they paid interest. Bank:> fought this competition for transactions bl.lances by offering large depositors special services that reduced the average level of balances they had to carry and by employing various ingenious means to pay interest on balances that were held in large part for transactions purposes.

Developments of these kinds have had pro­found consequences for the environment in which American monetary policy operates. Not long ago, the thrust of monetary re­straint was conveyed more by reductions ln the availabillty of credit--particularly resi­dential mortgage credit-than by rising in­terest rates; at present, rising interest rates are the primary channel of restraint. This means that a higher level of interest rates is required to achieve any given degree of restraint--quite apart from the effects of inflation premiums that I discussed earlier. But how much higher is not clear; only time will tell. Not long ago, changes in M-1, the fa.mtllar monetary aggregate confined to cur­rency and demand deposits, reflected reason­ably well changes in the aggregate volume of transactions balances; at present, with new alternatives to bank demand deposits emerg­ing all the time, a lower rate of growth in M-1 ts required to achieve any given degrees of restraint. But how much lower ls not clear; only time will tell. Nor is it clear what other monetary aggregate, if any, would be more serviceable than the traditional M-1 as a monetary indicator. As a result of these ef­fects of inflation, central banking has not only lost its moorings in interest rates; that has happened to a large extent also in the case of the monetary aggregates--certainly in the United States and perhaps in other countries as well.

There ls no need to expand further on the opportunities for misjudgment that in recent years have surrounded policy making at cen­tral banks. Some uncertainty, of course, has always characterized monetary policy, just as it has charar.terlzed policy decisions gen­erally, whether in public or private ll!e. It should be noted, however, that lags in rec­ognizing some of the developments I have been discussing-with respect to unemploy­ment rates, interest rates, and growth rates of the monetary aggregates-would tend to bias policy toward monetary ease. Moreover, the emergence of an inflationary psychology in industrial countries has imparted an asymmetry to the consequences of monetary errors, even 1f the errors themselves occurred as often in one direction as the other.

There is a profound difference between the effects of mistaken judgments by a central bank in our age of inflation and the effects of such judgments a generation or two ago. In earlier times, when a central bank per­mitted excessive creation of money and credit in times of prosperity, the price level would indeed tend to rise. But the resulting inflation was confined to the expansion phase of the business cycle; it did not persist or gather force beyond that phase. Therefore, people generally took it for granted that the advance of prices would be followed by a decline once a business recession got under way. That is no longer the case.

Nowadays, businessmen, farmers, bankers, trade union leaders, factory workers, and housewives generally proceed on the expecta­tion that inflation wlll continue in the fu­ture, whether economic activity ts booming or receding. Once such a psychology has be­come dominant in a country, the influence of a central bank error th.it intensifies in­fiation may stretch out over years, even after a business recession has set in. For tn our

modern environment, any rise ln the general price level tends to develop a momentum of its own. It stimulates higher wage demands which are accommodated by employers who feel they can recover the additional costs through higher prices; it results in labor agreements in key industries that call for substantial wage increases ln later years without regard to the state of business then; and through the use of indexing formulas, it leads to automatic increases ln other wages as well as ln social security payments, vari­ous other pensions, welfare benefits, also in rents on many properties and 1n the prices of many commodities acquired under long­term contracts. On the other hand, un­intended central bank effects of a restrictive type do not ramify ln similar fashion.

To develop any significant momentum in unwinding inflation, they would need to be both large and repetitive-a combination that can hardly occur under prevail1ng con­ditions ln the industrial democracies.

If my analysis of central banking tn the modern environment ls anywhere near the mark, two conclusions immediately follow. First, central banks have indeed been par­ticipants in the inflationary proce~:; in which the industrial countries have been enmeshed, but their role has been subsidiary. Second, while the making of monetary pollcy re­quires continuing scrutiny and can stand considerable improvement, it ls vain to look to technical reforms as a way of elimlnatlng the inflationary bias of industrial countries. What ts unique about our lnfiation ls its stubborn persistence, not the behavior of central bankers. This persistence reflects the fundamental forces on which I dwelt earlier in this address-namely, the pbllosophic and political currents of thought t~at have im­pinged on economic llfe since the Great Depression and particularly since the mtd-1960's.

My conclusion that tt ts 1llusory to expect central banks to put an end to the lntlatlon that now a.fillets the industrial democracies does not mean that central banks are in­capable of stabil1z1ng actions; it simply means that their practical capacity for curb­ing an inflation that ts continually driven by political forces ls very limited. Historic­ally, central banks have helped to slow down the pace of economic activity at certain times and to stimulate economic activity at other times. They have also contributed to

· economic stab111ty by serving as lenders of last resort or even going beyond that tra­ditional function. During this decade alone the Federal Reserve moved on at least tw~ occasions to prevent financial crises that otherwise could easlly have occurred. I have 1n mind particularly the !allure of the Penn Central Transportation Companv in June 1970 and the failure of the Franklln National Bank ln October 1974. In the former case the lnabiUty of Penn Central to refinance Its outstanding commercial paper caused conr,;ternation among holders of commercial paper generally. To prevent a financial panic the Federal Reserve put aside its monetary targets for a whlle, opened the discount win­dow wide, and changed its regulations so the. t commercial banks could raise funds ln the open market to finance firms unable to renew thelr maturing commercial paper .. In the Franklin National case, the Federal Re­serve loaned to that troubled international bank almost 2 bUJion dollars; and while these advances were outstanding it was pos­sible to arrange a takeover by another bank that protected the interests of Franklin's depositors and customers. These actions were influenced by a feellng of responsibllity for the financial system as a whole-interna­tional as well as domestic. The central banks of some other countries, notably the Bank of England, have likewise discharged construc­tively the function of serving as lenders of last resort , and the entire concept of cen­tral bank responsiblUty has been both widened and clarified through discussions in

October 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29375

recent years at the Bank for International Settlements.

IA.II this and much more deserves to be noted a.bout central banks-especially their tireless etrorts to a.waken the citizens of their respective countries to the economic a.nd social dangers posed by infia.tion. But what­ever the virtues or shortcomings of central banks may be, the fact remains that they alone wlll be able to cope only marginally with the lnfiation of our times. The persist­ent lnfiation that plagues the industrial democracies will not be V'a.nqulshed--or even substantially curbed-until new currents of thought create a political environment in which the difficult adjustments required to end infiatlon can be undertaken.

There are some signs, as yet tenuous and inconclusive, that such a change in the in­tellectual and political climate of the de­mocr.a.cles is getting under way. One of the characteristic features of a democracy ls that it encourages learning from experience. Re­cent disturbing trends in economic and so­cial life, particularly the persistence and ac­celeration of lnfiatlon, have led to much soul-searching by leaders of thoughts end opinion. Among economists, the Keynesian school hM lost much of its erstwhile vigor, self-oonfidenoe, and influence. Economists are no longer focusing so exclusively on un­employment a.nd governmental management of aggregate demand. They .are paying more attention to the management of aggregate supply-to the need to strengthen incentives to work and innovate, to ways of stimulating saving and investment, to the tm'Oortance of eliminating barriers to competition, to ways of reducing the regulatory burdens imposed on industry, and to other means of bolster­ing business confidence. Many economists now recognize that much of reported unem­ployment ls voluntary, that curbing infiation ·and reducing involuntary unemployment are complementary rather than competitive goals, that persistent governmental deficits and excessive creation of money tend to feed the fires of inflation, that the high savings rate that usually prevails in the early stages of inflation is eventually succeeded by mini­mal savings, and that when this stage ls reached it becomes very much harder to bring infiatton under control.

The intellectual ferment in the world's democracies is having its infiueI11Ce not only on businessmen and investors, but also on politician~, trade union leaders, and even housewives; for all of them have been learn­ing from experience and from. one another. In the United States, for example, people have come to feel in increasing numbers that much of the government spending sanctioned by their compassion and altruism was falling short of its objectives; that urban blight was continuing, that the quality of public schools was deteriorating, that crime and violence were increasing, that welfare cheating was stm widespread, that collecting unemploy­ment insura.D1Ce was becoming a way of life for far too many-in short, that the relent­less increases of government spending were not producing the social benefits expected from them and yet were adding to the taxes of hard-working people and to the already high prices they had to pay at the grocery store and everywhere else. In my judgment, such feelings of resentment and frustration are largely responsible for the conservative political trend that has developed of late in the United States. And I gather from the results of recent elections elsewhere that concern about inflation and di"'enchantment with socialist solutions are increasing also in other industrial countries. Fighting inflation is therefore being accorded a higher priority by policy makers in Europe and in much of the rest of the world.

In the United States a great majority of the public now regard inflation as the Num­ber One problem !acing the country, and this Judgment is accepted by both the Congress and the Executive establishment. Some steps

have therefore been taken within the pa.st year to check the rapid rise of Federal spend­ing, to lower certain taxes in the interest of encouraging business investment, and yet bring d:own the still large budget deficit. Pressures to augment the privileges of trade unions have been resisted by the Congress. Some government regulations-as in the case of airlines and crude oll-have been eased. And even restrictive moves by the Federal Reserve, which not long ago would have stirred anger and anxiety in government circles, have been accepted with equanimity. Symbolic of the changed political atmos­phere was tihe announcement of an increase in the Federal Reserve discount rate on the very day this July when a sizable decline of the nation's over-all production was being reported for the spring quarter.

The present widespread concern about in­fiation in the United States is an encourag­ing development, but no one can yet be sure how far it will go or how lasting it wlll prove. The changes that have thus far occurred in fiscal, monetary, and structural policies have been marginal adjustments. American pollcy makers tend to see merit in a gradualist ap­proach because it promises a return to gen­eral price stab111ty-perhaps with a delay of five or more years but without requiring significant sacrifices on the pa.rt of workers or their employers. But the very caution that leads politically to a policy of gradualism may well lead also to its premature suspen­sion or abandonment in actual practice. Eco­nomic life ls subject to all sort of surprises and disturbances-business recessions, labor unrest, foreign troubles, monopollstic shocks, elections, and governmental upsets. One or another such development, especially a. busi­ness recession, could readily overwhelm and topple a gradualist timetable for curblrg tn­fiatlon. That has happened in the past and it may happen again.

If the United States and other industrial countries a.re to make real headway in the fight against lnfiatlon it wlll first be neces­sary to rout lnfiatlonary psychology-that is, to make people feel that inflation can be, and probably wlll be, brought under control. Such a change in national psychology is not likely to be accomplished by marginal adjustments of publlc policy. In view of the strong and widespread expectations of lnfiation that prevall a.t present, I have therefore reluc­tantly come to believe that fairly drastic therapy wm be needed to turn lnfiationary psychology around.

The precise therapy that can serve a nation best is not easy to identify, and what w111 work well in one country may work poorly in another. In the case of the American in­flation, which has become a. major threat to the well-being of much of the world as well as of the American people, it would seem wise to me at this juncture of history for the government to adopt a basic program consisting of four parts. The first of these would be a legislative revision of the Fed­eral budgetary process that would make it more difficult to run budget deficits and that would serve as the initial step toward a con­stitutional amendment directed to the same end.

The second part would be a commitment to a comprehensive plan for dismantling regu­lations that have been impeding the com­petitive process and for modifying others that have been running up costs and prices unnecessarily. The third part would be a binding endorsement of restrictive mone­tary policies until the rate of inflation has become substantially lower. And the fourth part would consist of legislation scheduling reductions of business taxes in each of the next five years--the reduction to be quite small in the first two years but to become substantial in later years. This sort of tax legislation would release powerful forces to improve the nation's productivity a.net thereby exert downward pressure on prices;

and 1 t would also help in the more immediate future to ease the difficult adjustments forced on many businesses and their employees by the adoption of the first three parts of the suggested program.

I wish I could close this long address by expressing confidence that a program along the lines I have just sketched, or any other constructive and forceful program for deal­ing with inflation, will be undertaken in the near future in the United States or else­where. That I cannot do today. I am not even sure that many of the central bankers of the world, having by now become immured to gradualism, would be wllling to risk the painful economic adjustments that I fear are ultimately unavoidable. I would therefore not be surprised if the return to re:isonable price stability in the industrial democracies and thereby to an orderly international monetary system ls postponed by more false starts. But if political patience in individual countries is severely tested as that happens, the learning process will also be speeded. The conservative trend that now ap!Jears to be under way in many of the industrial democ­racies wlll then gather strength; and un­less political leadership falls into irrespon­sible hands, the inflationary bias that has been sa.!)ping the economic and moral vital­ity of the democracies can finally be routed.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, we have an eminent central banker's view of infla­tion, our No. 1 problem, in the shape of this speech delivered by Mr. Burns in Belgrade some days ago, September 30 to be exact.

While I do not agree with some of the points in the speech, his overall remarks are so incisive on this greatest of all dangers facing us economically that I urge my colleagues to read his statement.

I yield the floor. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the

Eenator yield to me for a moment? Mr. JAVITS. Of course, I yield. Mr. BAKER. I only take a brief mo­

ment to commend the Senator from New York for hi.s remarks about the speech in Belgrade by the former chair­man of the Federal Reserve, Dr. Burns.

I have read that speech, and I think it is extraordinary in its breadth and in its detail. As the Senator from New York says, while everyone will not agree with every proposal made by Dr. Burns in that speech, I think it is a significant contribution to the literature on eco­nomic policy in the United States.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, if the Sen­ator will allow me to say just one other word, you know, it is amazing to me that we take these great minds like that of Arthur Burns, and when they are out of office it is like a pebble dropped in an ocean. You would think they never ex­isted, and it is ridiculous. Here is a man who is brilliant, as I say, and I do not agree with a number of the things he said. So what? The fact is that he is one of the best minds we have, and I think that more and more we ought to learn in . the Senate to treasure these great na­tional treasures, whether they are in of­fice or out, and that is the reason why I am doing what I am doing about this speech.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I entirely agree, and I once again commend the Senator from New York for bringing this to our attention today.

29376 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE October 24, 1979

ORDER FOR THE CONSIDERATION convene at 12:30 p.m. instead of 12 noon There may be other matters, confer-OF H.R. 3434 TO COMMENCE AT 1 tomorrow. ence reports, and so forth, if such are P.M. TOMORROW The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without cleared for action. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that the time for starting consideration of H.R. 3434 tomorrow be moved from 12:30 p.m. to 1 p.m.

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

ORDER FOR CONVENING OF SENATE AT 12:30 P.M. TOMORROW

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate

objection, it is so ordered.

PROGRAM Mr. ROBERT c. BYRD. Now, Mr.

President, on tomorrow the Senate will have before it H.R. 3434, the child wel­fare and social services bill. The Senate will proceed to the consideration of that bill at 1 p.m. There is a time agreement on the bill. There will be, I would think, some rollcall votes in relation to the bill a.nd amendments and/or motions in re­gard thereto tomorrow.

RECESS UNTil.. 12:30 P.M. TOMORROW

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, if there be no further business now to come before the Senate, I move, in ac­cordance with the order previously en­tered, that the Senate stand in recess until 12:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The motion was agreed to; and at 5: 59 p.m., the Senate recessed until Thursday, OCtober 25, 1979, at 12: 30 p.m.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Wednesday, October 24, 1979 The House met at 10 a.m. Rabbi Melvin L. Goldstine, the Temple

Aliyah, Woodland Hills, Calif., offered the fallowing prayer:

Our God and God of our fathers, Creator of Heaven and Earth, Inspirer of the human being, Author of liberty: to Thee do we turn our hearts in reverence and hwnillty.

Prayer points in two directions. It is a reaching outward and a searching in­ward at one and the same time. It is a questing and a questioning.

We seek the wisdom to fathom and to help resolve the complex problems that beset our Nation and the world; we seek the strength to reject unjust solutions; and we seek the courage to stand always for the right.

We continually search our souls to de­termine whether we represent the people of this great country with integrity and compassion.

Bless these, Thy chosen servants, dear God, as they exercise their awesome re­sponsibillties.

Grant America and all mankind the blessings of mutual understanding and peace. Amen.

THE JOURNAL The SPEAKER. The Chair has ex­

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

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

Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, pur­suant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the J oumal.

The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes ap­peared to have it.

Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I ob­ject to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the paint of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab­sent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic de­vice, and there were--yeas 354, nays 19, answered "present" 1, not voting 59, as follows:

[Roll No. 592] YEAS-354

Abd.nor Coleman FuqUJ8. Addabbo Colltns, Ill. Garcia. Akak.a. Colllns. Tex. G1almo Albosta Conable Gibbons A?lPerson, Conte Gt.ngrlah

Calif. Conyers Giml Andrews, Corman Gllckman

N. Da.k. Ootter Goldwater Anmn.mzlo Courter Ganzalez Anitbony Cl°ane, DMl:lel Gore Archer Crane, Pblllp Gra.dlson Ashbrook D' Amours Gramm Ashley Da.nlel, Da.n Grassley Atkllnson De.niel, R . W. Gray Bad.ham Danielson Green Ba.falls Da.nnemeyer Grisham Balley Daschle Gua.rtnl Baldus De. vis, Mich. Gudger Barne.rd Davis, S.C. Guyer Barnes Decka.l'd HagedPrn Bauman Derrick Hall, Tex. Bea.rd, Tenn. Devine Hamllton Bedell Dickil.nson Hammer-Belle:nson Dicks schmidt Benjamin Dingell Ha.nee Bennett Donm.elly Hanley BetbUil!e Dornan HE.nsen Bevill Downey Harris Blagg! Drlnan Hawk.ins Bingham Dunoa.n, Oreg. Heckler Blanch.a.rd Duncan, Tenn. Hightower Boland Early Rlllts Boner Edgar Holland Bonior Edwards, Ala. Hollen.beck Bouquard Edwards, Calif. Holt Bowen Edwards, Okla.. Hopk.tns Bm.demas Emery Horton Brlnk'ley English Howard Brod.head Erdahl Hubbard Broomfield Erl en born Huckaby Brown, Ohio Eritel Hughes Broyhill EV&llS, Del. Hutto Buchl8.nan Evans, Ind. Hyde Burgener Fary I chord Burlison Fa.seen Ireland Burton, Phlllip Fazio Jeffords Butler Fenwick Jeffries Byrani Ferraro J enk.lns Qunpbell Findley Jenrette Oa.rney Fish Johnson, Caltf. Ce.rr Fisher Johnson, Oolo. Oa.Ner Fithian JoilleS, Okla. Oe.vanaugh Fl4PPo Jones. Tenn. Chappell Florio RAl.stenmeier Cheney Foley Kazen Clall.lsen Ford, Mich. Kelly Clay Ford, Tenn. Kemp Cleveland Fowler Kil dee Clinge.r Frenzel KlruineM

Ooelho Frost Kogovsek

Kostmayer Kramer La.Falce Lagomarsino Latte. Leach, Iowa Leath, Tex. Lederer Lee Lehman Leland Lent Levitas LeWls Livingston Loe mer Long, La. Long, Md. 'Lujan Luken Lund.ine Lungren MoCJory MoCloskey McOorma.ck McDa.de Mc.Kay McKinney Maguire Markey Marks M.arlenee Ma.rrtott Ma.rt.in Ma.tsu4 MaJt;tox M.a.vroules Ma.zzoll Mica Michel Mikulski Mlller, Call!. Miller, Ohio MJ.neta Mitchell, N.Y. Moakley Moffett Mollohan Moore M.oorhea.d,

Oa.Uf. Moorhead, Pa. Mottl Murphy, Ill. Murphy, N.Y. Murphy, Pa. Murtha Myers, Ind. Myers, Pa. Natcher

Aspm AuColn Bereuter Burton, John Coughlin Derwtnskt Goodling

Ned2ll Simon Nelson. Sla.clt Nichols Smith, \Iowa Nola.n. Smith, Nebr. Nowak Snowe O'Brien Snyder Oakar Solarz Obersta.r Solomon Obey Spellman Ott1ngier Spence Pla.netta St Germain Pashaye.n Stack Patten Staggers Peltterson Stangel and Paul Sta.nlton. Pease sta.rk Pepper Steed Perk.ins Stenholm Petri SteWIS.rt Peyser Stokes Pickle stra.tton Preyer Stud.els Prioe Stump Pr! tdhard Symms Pursell Syn.ar Qulllen Te.uk.e Rahall Taylor Ralls back Thomas Rangel Trible Ratchford Udall Regula Van Deerltn Reuss Vantk Rhodes Vento Richmond Volknler Rinaldo Walgren ru.tter Wampler Roberts Watkins Robinson Weaver Rod.loo Weiss Roe Whtl.te Riosenthal Whl.itehurst Rostenkowski Whitley Rloth Wh:l.tta.ker Rousselot Whdtten Roybal Williams, Mont. Royer Wllltams, Ohio Rudd Wirth Russo WoUt Sabo Wolpe Santini Wrlgbt Satterfield Wydler Sawyel" Wylie Schulze Yates SebeLlus Yatron Sensenbrenner Young, Fla. Sbia.nnon Young, Mo. Sharp Zablocki Shelby Zeferettl Shumway Shuster

NAYS-19 Hall, Ohio H<M'k.in Jacobs Lloyd Lott Lowry Miad.1.ga.n

Mitchell, Md. Quayle Schroeder Traxler Walker

D This symbol represents the rime of day during the House Proceedings, e.g., D 1407 is 2:07 p.m.

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