Skip to main content

Full text of "Congressional Record October 09-14, 1986: Vol 132"

See other formats


OF AMERICA 


PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 99” CONGRESS 
SECOND SESSION 


VOLUME 132—PART 21 


OCTOBER 9, 1986 TO OCTOBER 14, 1986 
(PAGES 29851 TO 31238) 


UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1986 


AUTHENTICATED 
U.S. GOVERNMENT 
INFORMATION 


GPO 








For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 





United States 
of America 


Congressional Record 


PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 99% CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 


SENATE—Thursday, October 9, 1986 


The Senate met at 9 a.m., on the ex- 
piration of the recess, and was called 
to order by the President pro tempore 
(Mr. THURMOND]. 


PRAYER 


The Chaplain, the Reverend Rich- 
ard C. Halverson, D.D., offered the fol- 
lowing prayer: 

Let us pray. 

Father in heaven, what is said and 
done in this place affects numberless 
peoples. Millions view the actions 
which take place in this Chamber and 
the destiny of those millions rides on 
decisions made here. Make Your pres- 
ence felt during these extra duty days. 
Infuse hearts with Your wisdom. Your 
patience, Your peace, Your love. In- 
spire great thoughts, sound debate, 
and relevant decisions. Save from 
trivia—from inconsequential hours— 
from waste of energy, time, and effort. 
Let these hours be filled with meaning 
and significance. 

Grant, dear God, that everything 
about these final days of the 99th 
Congress will be to the glory of God, 
the satisfaction of people, and worthy 
of the most powerful deliberative body 
in the world. In the name of Him 
Who's the way, the truth, and the life. 
Amen. 


RECOGNITION OF THE 
MAJORITY LEADER 


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 
able and_ distinguished majority 
leader, Senator Rogserrt Dote, of 
Kansas, is now recognized. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank 
the distinguished Presiding Officer, 
the President pro tempore, Senator 
THURMOND. 


SCHEDULE 


Mr. DOLE. Under the _ standing 
order, the leaders will have 10 minutes 
each, followed by a period until 10 
a.m., for Senators to make statements 
concerning our retiring colleagues. 


(Legislative day of Monday, October 6, 1986) 


At 10 a.m., the Senate will resume 
the impeachment proceedings. Under 
a previous unanimous-consent agree- 
ment, the time between 10 a.m. and 3 
p.m. will be equally divided. 

No earlier than 2 o'clock and no 
later than 3 o’clock the Senate will 
proceed to vote on each of the follow- 
ing questions and I understand they 
may not be altered. Senators need not 
vote on each article but we do have 
the question to each article: “How 
vote you, Senator, guilty or not 
guilty,” on articles 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

Following the impeachment proceed- 
ings, the Senate will turn hopefully to 
the drug bill or reconciliation. I 
assume we will be in rather late this 
evening and I had hoped we might not 
have a session tomorrow, but I am ad- 


vised that it may be necessary because 
there are a number of Senators who 
wish to be heard on the drug bill, par- 
ticularly one provision in the drug bill, 
which could necessitate filing cloture 
today and a few other things that can 
extend the session even longer than 
we had thought. 


SENATOR PAUL LAXALT OF 
NEVADA 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, being la- 
beled the “President's best friend” is 
pretty heady praise. But the man who 
wears that label—PauL LaxaLT—does 
so with modesty and an appreciation 
of just how important it is. 

Since he arrived in the Senate in 
1974, PauL Laxa.T has played a very 


NOTICE 


Another issue of the Congressional Record for the Ninety-ninth 
Congress, second session, will be printed 2 weeks after the last 
adjournment before the November elections. Members may submit 
manuscript for printing to the Official Reporters of Debate no later than 


14 days after adjournment. 


None of the material printed in the Congressional Record after 
adjournment may contain subject matter, or relate to any event, which 
occurred after the date Congress officially adjourned. 


No provision herein shall be construed to supersede the two-page 


limitation rule. 


All material must be signed by the Member and delivered to the 
respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debate, Room HT-60 or 
S-220 of the Capitol. These offices are open Monday through Friday, 
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. 

Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material sub- 
mitted for Record printing during the adjournment may do so through the 
Congressional Printing Management Division located at the Government 
Printing Office. That office may be reached by telephoning 275-2226 
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. daily. 


By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. 
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Chairman. 


@ This “bullet” symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by the Member on the floor. 





29852 


special and important role. It is a role 
that will be hard to fill when he re- 
tires in January. 

Not only has Senator LaxaLt been a 
conscientious representative for the 
people of Nevada, but he has success- 
fully acted as a mediator within the 
Republican ranks, across the aisle, and 
between Capitol Hill and the White 
House. 

Whether the subject was water user 
fees or the MX missile, anticrime legis- 
lation, or regulatory reform, Senator 
LaxAa.T has been a reasoned and effec- 
tive voice. He has that special ability 
to be an ardent party loyalist without 
being stridently partisan. 

Senator Laxatt credits his father’s 
fierce independence as the wellspring 
of his own open nature. If it is the 
“winds of the Nevada mountains” that 
carry this air of candor and accessibil- 
ity, I wish they would blow toward 
Washington. We could use a lot more 
of that kind of sensibility—Senator 
LaXALT’s kind. 


AMERICAN CAPTURED IN 
NICARAGUA 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Presi- 
dent leaves in just a few moments for 
Iceland. 

On Saturday, the President of the 
United States, and the leader of the 
Soviet Union, are going to sit down to- 
gether in Reykjavik, Iceland, for dis- 
cussions we all hope will bring us 
progress on arms control, human 


rights and regional conflicts—issues 


absolutely fundamental to American 
interests, and to the hopes of the 
world for peace and security. 

But if you watched last evening’s 
and the morning news broadcasts, you 
might have come away with the im- 
pression that the “most earth-shaking 
thing going on” in the world was hap- 
pening down in Managua, where an 
American civilian has been taken cap- 
tive by the Sandinistas after his plane, 
allegedly carrying arms and supplies 
to the Contras, crashed inside Nicara- 
gua, 

If you stick to the facts, it is not 
much of a story. We have known for a 
long time that some private Americans 
were actively helping the Contras. 
They have made no secret of it; the 
news media reported it, again and 
again. Now one of these “soldiers of 
fortune,’ apparently, has been cap- 
tured; three others have died, two of 
them Americans. All of that is tragic— 
but in any case, the facts just do not— 
or should not anyway—add up to 
banner headlines or lead stories. 

And so this one American, being pa- 
raded from “pillar to post” by some 
Sandinista goons just so the press can 
get a good camera angle, becomes the 
symbol of all kinds of imagined evil: 
“Administration lies and disinforma- 
tion; shattered credibility; a secret war 
in Nicaragua’”—those are the charges 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


floating around. That is the kind of 
silliness that passes for hot news 
around this town these days. 

There is important news in Nicara- 
gua which ought to be covered, and in 
headlines and lead stories on the 
nightly news. The Marxists in Nicara- 
gua are shutting down the free press, 
exiling Catholic bishops, and driving 
their own people into the hills, while 
Daniel Ortega makes his periodic visits 
to New York, dragging his doting 
media entourage around to cocktail 
parties, and appointments with his eye 
doctor. 

These, and events like the upcoming 
Reykjavik meetings, are the real news. 
And it is time they got the attention 
they deserve. 


ORDER OF PROCEDURE 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if I have 
any remaining time, I will yield it to 
the distinguished Senator from Colo- 
rado, who I understand needs about 20 
minutes, and I reserve the minority 
leader’s time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
DURENBERGER). Without objection, it is 
so ordered. 

The Senator from Colorado. 

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I thank 
the majority leader. 


0 0910 


THE PROMISE OF THE SENATE 


Mr. HART. Mr. President, 12 years 
ago, this Senator was moved to seek 
public office by several ideals. A sense 
of obligation and responsibility to con- 
tribute to the public life of his Nation. 
A desire to help restore integrity to 
public service. A belief that we must 
think anew and act anew in the face of 
an overwhelming array of new chal- 
lenges as the century closes. And, not 
least, a powerful need to contribute to 
the containment of the nuclear demon 
stalking the planet. 

In large part, that impulse to public 
service has been satisfied. And this 
Senator hopes he will be judged well 
on that most demanding scale of integ- 
rity and stewardship of the public 
trust, as well as in his effort to rede- 
fine the goals and methods of a society 
in vast transition. 

On the eve of departure from this 
Chamber hallowed by generations of 
patriots, I cannot help but feel the 
presence of the heroes and giants of 
my time: Mansfield, Hart of Michigan, 
Javits and Case, Muskie, Church, Ribi- 
coff, and Mathias, Symington, Hum- 
phrey, and others—equally larger than 
life. Each human, and therefore im- 
perfect. But each possessing a gravity, 
a size, a larger dimension—the touch 
of legend. 

What made them different? What 
made them achieve a stature that 
eludes most of us? Many traits. But 
one common quality. A sense of the 


October 9, 1986 


larger picture. A broader, more encom- 
passing view. A backdrop of history, 
and a stage upon which the future is 
played out. Above partisanship and 
ideology, an instinct for the national 
interest—and a view of America in the 
community of nations. 

They all were deeply committed to 
nuclear arms control. And I suspect, if 
all could be summoned back for a 
great debate, most—if not all—would 
list this central issue, this supreme 
challenge, as the great unfinished 
business of our time. 

For, there is about this issue a moral 
imperative. There is also a time imper- 
ative. 

In the 12 years I have served in the 
U.S. Senate, the arms race has acceler- 
ated according to its own inexorable 
calculus. The Soviet Union has added 
almost 5,000 warheads, by building 
large land-based missiles and adding 
multiple warheads to them—pursuing 
a technology we invented and a formu- 
la we protected. 

Both sides have perfected the sci- 
ence of cruise missiles and we have led 
the deployment of them. 

Sea-based nuclear missiles have 
become larger and their warheads 
more powerful and more accurate. 

What are usually called improve- 
ments in technology have produced 
more destructive and more accurate 
warheads, with increasingly sophisti- 
cated delivery systems more difficult 
to count and to verify. 

And while the nuclear giants con- 
test, a new set of nuclear gladiators 
has materialized on the horizon. Israel 
is thought to possess as many as 20 
nuclear weapons. India has detonated 
a nuclear device and is believed to 
have manufactured nuclear weapons. 
A decade ago South Africa began accu- 
mulating materials for at least 15 nu- 
clear devices. It is believed Pakistan 
has succeeded in developing nuclear 
explosives in this decade. And during 
that same period Argentina, Brazil, 
Iraq, and Libya have taken steps to ac- 
quire a nuclear weapons capability. 

And now we propose to let yet an- 
other—perhaps most ominous—genie 
out of its bottle. The President urges 
us to produce and deploy nuclear-pow- 
ered space weapons, including those 
capable of neutralizing the capacity of 
other nations to deter aggression. And, 
simultaneously, we and the Soviets 
rush forward to perfect the ability to 
blind the satellite eyes necessary to 
verify compliance with arms control 
agreements. 

There is today no comprehensive 
ban on nuclear weapons tests. And no 
serious effort is underway to negotiate 
one. We have repeatedly refused to 
join the Soviet Union in a moratorium 
pending an agreement to ban nuclear 
testing. The past six Presidents, 
among them, negotiated some 20 arms 
control agreements—11 by the last 2 





October 9, 1986 


Republican Presidents. In 6 years, the 
current President has not come close 
to completing negotiations on even a 
minor agreement. 

Thus, on the eve of his departure, 
this Senator’s frustration, and deep 
concern. 

I came here to help make the future 
safer for my children and future gen- 
erations. I fought hard for the SALT 
II Treaty, which this President fought 
against. That treaty was rejected by 
some as “not real arms reductions.” 
But those same critics resisted restric- 
tions on our own nuclear moderniza- 
tion programs—as if the Soviets would 
unilaterally stop their buildup with no 
concessions from us, 

Some hope for salvation through 
technology—mazgic space shields. Some 
say “build more weapons’ until we 
wear the Soviets out. Some say unilat- 
eral disarmament. Some say “‘give up. 
There is no solution.’”” Too many 
people just don’t want to be bothered. 

Well, we cannot give up. And we can- 
not accept ignorance and avoidance as 
an answer. There are solutions. Some 
steps we can take by ourselves and 
others must be taken in agreement 
with other nations. We must limit and 
reduce the numbers of weapons while 
we eliminate the possibility of their 
use. 

In his concluding remarks to the 
Senate, the Senator from Colorado 
would like to propose a comprehensive 
arms control program for the future. 
It is aimed not only at reducing the 
numbers of missiles and bombs, or at 
treaties designed to establish better re- 
lations. It is directed toward the pre- 
vention of any use of nuclear weapons. 

We must clearly understand the ur- 
gency of the challenge before us. 
There are almost no limits on the 
arms race between the superpowers, 
and nearly every arms control treaty 
in existence is threatened by new 
weapons deployments. 

Weapons are about to be deployed 
that could confound forever our abili- 
ty to put in place practical, verifiable 
limits. 

More than 15,000 nuclear warheads 
are poised on more than 3,000 long- 
range missiles—with minutes for flight 
and moments for decision. 

First-strike missiles could soon leave 
the fate of humanity to bloodless com- 
puters or desperate leaders trying in 
seconds to undo the errors of decades. 

And additional nations—perhaps 
even international outlaws or terror- 
ists—may soon possess the ultimate 
weapon or the ultimate terrorist 
threat. 

Three revolutions—now underway— 
are radically altering the nuclear envi- 
ronment we face, and it is imperative 
that we understand them: 

The first revolution is in weapons 
technology and its ability to outstrip 
the diplomatic, political, and even 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


technical barriers we erect to control 
nuclear weapons. 

This revolution is producing highly 
accurate, multiwarhead missiles. Soon 
both nations might be tempted to 
strike first in some future desperate 
crisis, to use their missiles before they 
lose their missiles. 

The revolution in technology is pro- 
ducing thousands of long-range cruise 
missiles that could be virtually impos- 
sible to count with present means. Nu- 
merical reductions of nuclear weapons 
may then be a thing of the past. 

The technology revolution is produc- 
ing a potentially new arms race in 
space with antisatellite weapons and 
star wars defenses. A new arms race— 
far more complex than the one we see 
today—will be in defensive weapons 
and in offensive weapons to conquer 
these defenses. 

As we see this revolution unfolding, 
we cannot help but think of the words 
of Gen. Omar Bradley, who command- 
ed America’s ground forces at the D- 
day landing in Normandy. Almost 30 
years ago, he issued this warning: 

... We have defiled our intellect by the 
creation of such scientific instruments of 
destruction that we are now in desperate 
danger of destroying ourselves . . . Missiles 
will bring anti-missiles; and anti-missiles will 
bring anti-anti-missiles. But inevitably this 
whole electronic house of cards will reach a 
point where it can be constructed no higher 
... When that time comes; there will be 
little we can do other than to settle down 
uneasily; smother our fears; and attempt to 
live in a thickening shadow of death. 


The day that General Bradley spoke 
of is nearly upon us. Yet we have only 
begun to consider its threat. 

There is a second revolution in the 


nuclear environment—the increasing 
likelihood that nuclear weapons actu- 
ally will be used. 

Nuclear warfighting capabilities— 
such as highly accurate ballistic mis- 
siles, cruise missiles, and the so-called 
neutron bomb—could tempt leaders in 
a crisis to use these weapons, on the 
impossible theory that the accuracy of 
these weapons limits their destructive- 
ness to military targets. 

Other technologies are blurring the 
distinction between nuclear war and 
conventional war—thus increasing the 
possibility that local battles could 
erupt to full-scale nuclear war. One 
example is found at sea where many 
warships carry nuclear and conven- 
tional weapons. Once a nuclear torpe- 
do is used to kill an enemy submarine, 
there is every temptation to use a nu- 
clear-armed cruise missile to sink an 
enemy flotilla. And this done, where 
can one draw the line of nuclear re- 
straint? 

Space defenses—such as lasers and 
particle beams—will put a heavy pre- 
mium on striking quickly and an 
equally heavy burden on the other 
side to knock the defenses out of the 
sky first. Their presence will not pro- 
vide the shield some would dream of, 


29853 


instead, they will create a new arena 
for nuclear war and new ways for such 
a war to start. 

Antisatellite weapons will put at risk 
early warning, observation, and com- 
munications satellites vital to the nu- 
clear deterrent of both the United 
States and the Soviet Union. These 
satellites are vital to treaty verifica- 
tion and nuclear stability. Few devel- 
opments would be worse than the 
sudden failure or destruction of a vital 
satellite in time of crisis. 


0 0920 


Finally, there is a third revolution. 
This revolution is the spread of nucle- 
ar weapons capability to more nations 
and perhaps to terrorist groups as 
well. 

No longer are there two or three na- 
tions that possess the power of ulti- 
mate destruction. Now there are at 
least six. In a decade, there could be 10 
or 20 or more. Consider how much 
more difficult it will be to prevent nu- 
clear war when nuclear survival is not 
merely a matter of deterrence, com- 
mand and control, and restrain in a 
crisis among a few nations, but must 
be found among 20 or 30. 

And what of terrorist groups now 
active in many nations? For these 
groups, the building blocks to achiev- 
ing nuclear status are not armies of 
scientists working on expensive, hard- 
to-assemble, complex technologies. 
They are a few individuals building a 
crude nuclear device with basic phys- 
ics and a small amount of plutonium. 

Today’s nuclear power and research 
reactors have produced over 140 tons 
of plutonium worldwide—enough to 
make more than 20,000 bombs the size 
of the one that destroyed Nagasaki in 
1945. So far, most of that plutonium is 
locked in spent nuclear reactor fuel. 
But the technology to unlock it exists, 
and several nations, including Libya, 
have been trying to obtain it. 

Yet the nuclear powers persist in the 
naive belief that they can promote the 
spread of nuclear materials around the 
globe and not one day see the Fifth 
Horseman of nuclear terrorism ride 
down upon some American or Europe- 
an city. And the superpowers persist in 
the arrogant belief that they can in- 
crease their own nuclear forces far 
beyond any rational level and still 
expect other nations to forgo these 
weapons themselves. ~ 

We behave as if nuclear weapons are 
the measure by which sovereignty and 
respect are judged—this on a planet 
where finite resources must provide 
for an ever-expanding population, 
where once-distant enemies are 
today’s neighbors, where the weapons 
one nation has today will be the weap- 
ons others have tomorrow. 

These three revolutions in the nucle- 
ar environment compound the difficul- 
ties we face already. But we must see 





29854 


them as a challenge to our determina- 
tion and our will to leave a world safer 
for our children and our children’s 
children. 

Regrettably, there is no magic for- 
mula to end the arms race and prevent 
the use of nuclear weapons. But there 
are dramatic steps to take, steps 
toward peace and security, steps to 
prevent the use of nuclear weapons. 

And these are steps which should be 
taken now—without delay. They 
strengthen the security of all sides 
even as difficult negotiations proceed. 

First, to stop the nuclear arms race, 
both superpowers and other nuclear 
powers, should establish negotiations 
to achieve a comprehensive nuclear 
test ban, a ban on all tests for all time. 
It is of utmost urgency that these ne- 
gotiations be included in the agenda 
for the next summit. 

The United States should take the 
lead and initiate mutual moratoria on 
the deployment of nuclear armed, sea- 
launched cruise missiles, and on the 
testing of nuclear weapons explosives. 
If these initiatives are to succeed, the 
Soviet Union must quickly respond 
with the equivalent restraint. The 
United States is strong enough to take 
the first step, but it is also realistic 
enough to continue only if the Soviet 
Union responds to our lead. 

These moratoria would give great 
impetus to United States-Soviet talks 
and improve chances for early 
progress. Relations between our coun- 
tries are such that decisive action is 
necessary. It is time to create an at- 
mosphere of confidence and hope. 

And it is time to find out who is seri- 
ous—and who is not serious—about 
stopping the arms race. 

The second reason for these morato- 
ria is to stop the arms race from con- 
tinually running ahead of our efforts 
to negotiate an end to it. In 1972, the 
United States and the Soviet Union 
failed to limit multiple warhead mis- 
siles—and while we both talked on, 
warheads grew by the thousands. We 
have also talked for years about limit- 
ing cruise missiles, and now they are 
appearing in the thousands. If we con- 
tinue with business as usual, there will 
be other new weapons to multiply by 
the thousands and outrun our ability 
to limit them. 

To break this pattern, we need a new 
instrument in the hands of the nego- 
tiators—and that instrument is time. 

Moratoria can work. They have 
before. In 1963, President Kennedy de- 
clared a moratorium on the testing of 
nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. 
The Soviet Union followed his lead— 
and a cycle of crisis and confrontation 
was broken. Within months, our two 
nations had signed the Limited Nucle- 
ar Test Ban Treaty. 

But all these measures would merely 
give us room to breathe, and prevent 
new weapons from overrunning all our 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


work to lessen the risk of war. There is 
much, much more to do. 

Second, both the United States and 
U.S.S.R. should undertake nuclear 
arms reductions which aim to cut the 
superpowers nuclear arsenals by 50 
percent or more. As a step toward this 
goal, we should seek an interim reduc- 
tion of 20 to 25 percent—and there is 
every indication that our two nations 
can achieve such reductions. The 
United States and the Soviet Union 
should consider this a major goal of 
negotiations. 

The principal substance of this goal 
must be to reduce and eventually 
eliminate highly accurate multiwar- 
head land-based missiles. Replacing 
them with fewer, single-warhead mis- 
siles would greatly reduce the danger 
of a nuclear first strike. And it would 
reestablish a survivable and therefore 
more stable nuclear deterrent includ- 
ing missile-carrying submarines— 
which is likely to provoke attack. 

Third, is improved verification. 
Talks with the Soviet Union should 
strengthen verification measures in 
our arms control agreements—to in- 
clude provision for onsite inspection 
where necessary. 

Apart from the talks we can also, on 
our own, continually strengthen and 
improve our own national verification 
capabilities—the satellites and other 
systems with which we monitor the 
Soviet Union. These systems are essen- 
tial to a stable nuclear world; they 
make arms control possible; and they 
can prevent nuclear war. 

Fourth, we should undertake a series 
of measures designed to reduce the 
risk of nuclear war through accident 
or miscalculation. 

This is not an abstract risk. 

In 1980, Senator GoLpwaTER and the 
Senator from Colorado conducted an 
investigation of the U.S. strategic 
warning system. We discovered during 
an 18-month period that this warning 
system registered 161 false alarms. 
One of these false alarms lasted 6 min- 
utes, or half the time it would take a 
Soviet submarine-launched ballistic 
missile to reach its target in the 
United States. There is every reason to 
believe that the Soviets have equal or 
greater problems with their strategic 
warning system. 

The United States and the Soviet 
Union should establish one or more 
joint crisis control centers in which 
senior civilian and military personnel 
from both countries could monitor nu- 
clear weapons activities. For example, 
multiple Soviet missile launches have 
caused us concern when detected by 
our warning systems. And the Soviets 
have been concerned in the past about 
our strategic bomber operations. 
These centers could lay the ground- 
work for future restraints on strategic 
operations and testing to increase sta- 
bility. They could prove essential 
should mistake or miscalculation lead 


October 9, 1986 


to confrontation. And they could make 
the difference between war and peace 
should some local crisis, third-party 
nuclear threat, or nuclear terrorism 
threaten to drag us each—however un- 
willing—toward a wider war. 

In addition to these control centers, 
United States and Soviet military rep- 
resentatives should meet regularly to 
improve understanding and reduce 
suspicion. 

The United States and the Soviet 
Union have begun in Stockholm to es- 
tablish codes of conduct and confi- 
dence-building measures in their rela- 
tions. But such a code should be ex- 
panded to account for incidents in 
space, and might, for example, state in 
advance appropriate responses if there 
were accidental interference with each 
other’s satellites. Now is the time to 
address these future problems, not 
later when they are upon us in a crisis. 

Each nation, on its own, should sub- 
stantially improve command and con- 
trol of its nuclear force—to avoid nu- 
clear accidents and to ensure a credi- 
ble deterrent. And both nations to- 
gether could work together on cooper- 
ative early warning measures, such as 
tamper-proof launch detectors in each 
nation’s missile fields. 

Our two nations should agree to a 
mutual pullback of nuclear weapons 
that are close to the East-West border 
in Europe. Today, nuclear weapons are 
located so that even a small advance 
by either side might push us both to 
the nuclear decision that nobody 
wants. Similarly, our nations, in con- 
cert if possible, should design weapons 
and forces that clearly separate, as 
much as we can, nuclear from nonnu- 
clear capabilities. 

Fifth, preventing the use of nuclear 
weapons also requires that the United 
States and the nations of NATO mod- 
ernize and reform their conventional 
defense forces, so that nuclear weap- 
ons are the last line of defense, not 
our only means of response. One of 
the most likely paths to nuclear con- 
flict would be nuclear escalation re- 
sulting from failure of the convention- 
al deterrent. 

But we could achieve every objective 
outlined here, and still the business of 
preventing nuclear war would be un- 
finished. For we would still face an ad- 
ditional grave danger—the spread of 
nuclear weapons, the horizontal nucle- 
ar arms race. 

Sixth, we must persuade additional 
countries to sign the Nuclear Nonpro- 
liferation Treaty, through which more 
than 110 nations have already fore- 
sworn nuclear weapons. We must 
strengthen international nuclear safe- 
guards and their enforcement against 
the clandestine diversion of nuclear 
materials for weapons purposes. We 
must—with other nuclear powers—set 
an example by restraining our own nu- 
clear forces. And most of all, we must 





October 9, 1986 


be willing to stop the international 
trade in dangerous nuclear materials 
and technology—particularly those as- 
sociated with plutonium. 

This will require an international 
plutonium freeze. Such a freeze would 
halt the production of separated plu- 
tonium—the nuclear material that can 
most easily be made into nuclear ex- 
plosives. It would prevent the export 
of technologies to produce plutonium. 
And it would reject the commercial 
use of separated plutonium as a nucle- 
ar power reactor fuel. 

Such an agreement would be verified 
by inspections by the International 
Atomic Energy Agency, the agency re- 
sponsible for administering the safe- 
guards applied to civilian nuclear ac- 
tivities around the world. 

This freeze would not restrain the 
legitimate use of nuclear power for 
energy purposes. But it would restrain 
plutonium, which there is no economic 
justification for using in the world’s 
nuclear power reactors. World urani- 
um reserves greatly exceed demand 
and will last well into the next ‘centu- 


ry. 

This plutonium freeze is vital. If sep- 
arated plutonium becomes an accepted 
fuel for nuclear power reactors, we 
will soon see tons of this dangerous 
material moving each year in interna- 
tional commerce. And with each trans- 
action, the risk of diversion or threat 
for weapons. building will grow. 


Indeed, we will have begun to traffic 
in global annihilation. And that must 


stop. 

Seventh, the finalstep in preventing 
nuclear war is, quite simply, greater 
cooperation. 

This must begin with improved rela- 
tions between the United States and 
the Soviet Union—not because we like 
each other’s system of government, 
but because we must live together or 
we will perish together. 

We should initiate immediately dis- 
cussions between the two sides on eco- 
nomic and political issues which can 
proceed on a regular basis. We can co- 
operate to address many of the world's 
problems and to develop much of the 
world’s potential. Preventing the 
spread of nuclear weapons is one ex- 
ample. Peaceful exploration of space is 
another. A joint United States-Soviet 
commitment to end world hunger—in 
this century—would be yet another. 

The developed nations can work to- 
gether to address the world’s unmet 
human needs—its needs for good, its 
needs for health, its needs for justice, 
its need for hope. Left unattended, 
these unmet human needs are, as well, 
the seeds of conflict. 

Today, the world spends hundreds of 
billions of dollars on weapons of war, 
while millions starve each year. 

Tomorrow, it may spend hundreds of 
billions of dollars more for weapons in 
space, turning frontier into fortress, 
hope into fear. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Both are perversions of the human 
spirit. Both will leave humanity not 
safer or happier, but forever—in the 
words of President Eisenhower— 
“hanging on a cross of iron.” 

We share a vision and a hope that 
one day we can lift the nuclear shadow 
that hovers as a constant presence 
every day of our lives. 

There is no magic technological solu- 
tion. The solution is truly in ourselves. 

We know what needs to be done. 
The real challenge is to our will. 

Perhaps the giants of the Senate— 
recent and past—have an answer here 
for us. Not only that controlling the 
nuclear .demon is. paramount. But 
that, properly focused and renewed, 
the Senate itself can shape and 
strengthen our national will. 

Perhaps the nuclear arms issue is 
the means by which the Senate can re- 
capture its greatness. And perhaps a 
great Senate offers hope for peace and 
security for ourselves and all mankind. 

The challenge before those whose 
honor it will be to serve in the greatest 
parliamentary body in history is to 
reduce ambition, partisanship, and ide- 
ology, and to raise up the national in- 
terest. And there is no greater nation- 
al interest than the survival of our so- 
ciety and mankind. 

Let a history yet to be written show 
that Senators rose above immediate 
political concerns—above themselves— 
to debate, and in the process educated 
the American people concerning, the 
mounting need for genuine arms re- 
duction and ways to achieve it. 

I sincerely believe the nuclear arms 
issue offers a challenge to our ingenui- 
ty, our imagination, indeed our patri- 
otism. But it also offers a way in 
which the Senate can achieve its true 
purpose—can become what it has been 
during its most courageous hours, the 
forum which shapes our national pur- 
pose and direction. 

If the Senate of tomorrow reaches 
that true destiny, future generations 
will say, with this departing Senator, 
God bless America, and God bless the 
U.S. Senate. 


0 0920 


Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, 
first I congratulate my good friend 
from Colorado, Senator Gary Hart, 
for a superb speech and a very, very 
relevant and vital speech. There is no 
more important issue that confronts 
this country than the nuclear threat, 
and Senator Hart has spoken out with 
characteristic eloquence and brilliance 
on this subject. 

He has been a marvelous Senator. 
We are going to miss him very much. I 
am sure if anyone has a good shot at 
higher office, the distinguished Sena- 
tor from Colorado certainly has, and 
he would make an outstanding Presi- 
dent of the United States. 

Mr. President, I am delighted that 
the Senator from Colorado has spoken 


29855 


at some length on this issue. I am 
going to speak very briefly on it. 


TIME FOR CONGRESS TO SPEAK 
OUT ON ARMS CONTROL 


Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the 
House and Senate conferees on the 
military authorization bill are now en- 
gaged in critical negotiations on the 
role of the Congress in arms control. 
This conference goes right to the 
heart of our No, 1 challenge. 

Can there be any more important 
issue than the survival of this great 
country we love as the free society it 
is? Of course, not. Does a nuclear war 
threaten that survival? It does, indeed. 
Most of us have seen films of the de- 
struction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 
by relatively small,; weak primitive 
atomic bombs, That was more than 40 
years ago. 

In the ensuing 40 years, both the 
Soviet Union and the United States 
have advanced the nuclear technology 
enormously. Both have perfected, de- 
ployed, and produced the hydrogen 
bomb. The hydrogen bomb dwarfs the 
atomic bomb in power and devasta- 
tion. Both superpowers have devel- 
oped intercontinental ballistic missiles 
that can carry their nuclear warheads 
thousands of miles from the heart of 
the Soviet Union or the United States 
to anywhere on Earth ‘including, of 
course, to any city in the adversary su- 
perpower country. Both have perfect- 
ed multi-independently targeted re- 
entry vehicles [MIRVS] that can carry 
10 or more warheads each. What does 
that mean? That means a single Soviet 
missile can strike 10 or more major, 
widely separated American cities, with 
an explosion ‘that can leave each of 
the 10 metropolitan areas a dead, in- 
cinerated hulk. That is one missile. 
Both superpowers have perfected de- 
livery systems from invisible subma- 
rines, swift high-flying bombers, and 
fast moving land-based mobile vehicles 
that are difficult or impossible to 
track. Both superpowers have de- 
ployed 10,000 strategic—that is inter- 
continental nuclear warheads 
throughout the world, ready to strike 
at the push of a button in Moscow or 
Washington. Next year, next month, 
tomorrow, or any time in the next 
hour the button could go down and 
with it the civilized world. 

This is the first 40 years. The worst 
is yet to come, unless we stop this mad 
technological arms race by agreeing to 
a mutual system of verification of 
compliance with a ban on all nuclear 
weapons testing that exceeds a single 
kiloton. 

Over the hill a few decades is an 
even worse nightmare: The antimatter 
bomb. This would step up the devas- 
tating nuclear potential a hundred- 
fold. But it is worse. It would make ex- 
plosives so powerful, so small, and so 





29856 


cheap that a single terrorist could 
carry concealed on his person enough 
explosive power to totally demolish 
New York City or Washington or any 
other city on Earth. 

Mr. President, all of this constitutes 
a great temptation for this technolo- 
gy-rich country. We have consistently 
“won” every arms race with the Soviet 
Union. Which country had the first 
atomic bomb? We did. Of course, a few 
years later the Russians had theirs. 
Who had the first hydrogen bomb? 
We did. A little later the Soviets had 
their own. Who had the first multi-in- 
dependently targeted missile [the 
MIRV]? Once again—the United 
States. A few years later the Soviets 
had their own. 

Mr. President, this same alternation 
of United States breakthrough and 
Soviet response has followed for war- 
head-carrying cruise missiles, fast- 
moving submarines loaded with nucle- 
ar warheads, bombers carrying every 
variety of nuclear weapon, and rapidly 
moving land-based mobile missiles. 

We pioneer the breakthrough. A few 
years later the same devastating 
weapon and delivery system turns up 
in the Soviet Union. We win, that is, 
come in first consistently with one nu- 
clear weapon after another. But who 
wins the arms race? No one. 

Both nations have heavily burdened 
their economies. Both nations have 
pulled their scientists away from tech- 
nologies that would enhance and pro- 
long healthy human life. Both nations 
are losers. And both nations are in- 
creasingly more threatened. 

And now we have the supreme diver- 
sion. For $1 trillion or more, this 
Nation is on its way to building a stra- 
tegic missile defense or star wars 
system to stop incoming missiles. As 
the New York Times’ Phil Boffey re- 
cently reported, even the adminstra- 
tion’s own SDI leadership now recog- 
nizes that SDI cannot work as the 
President has told the country it will 
work. The SDI directors know this 
system cannot protect our cities. 
There is an outside chance that SDI 
might help protect stationary missile 
sites. But, since three-quarters of U.S. 
missiles are deployed in submarines 
that move swiftly and invisibly under- 
water and bombers that cruise at the 
speed of sound through the vast enve- 
lope of the Earth, this mission of pro- 
tecting stationary land-based missile 
sites makes SDI a trillion-dollar fiasco. 
But it is much worse. Star wars or SDI 
virtually guarantees a feverish offen- 
sive, defensive nuclear arms race. 
What will be the Soviet response to 
this antiballistic missile system? That 
is easy. They will build, develop, and 
deploy offensive missiles that will pen- 
etrate, overwhelm, spoof, confuse, and 
underfly whatever star wars system we 
deploy, and they will achieve this for 
about one-tenth the cost of our star 
wars deployment. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Mr. President, what this country 
needs is not an intensified arms race 
that no one can win and that impover- 
ishes our Nation. What we need is a 
series of arms control agreements that 
will slow and stop this race to nuclear 
disaster. This is not a matter of trust. 
It is a matter of both sides recognizing 
where their interests lie. And where is 
that? It is in mutual, verifiable, con- 
stantly, and carefully monitored 
agreements to stop nuclear testing and 
to limit nuclear weapons on both sides 
to the most stable and least vulnerable 
deployment. This kind of arms control 
can enable us to take advantage of the 
priniciple of mutual deterrence that 
has kept the peace for the 40 years of 
the nuclear weapon age. 


0 0930 


THE MYTH OF THE DAY: MEDI- 
CARE BENEFICIARIES HAVE 
ACCESS TO NURSING HOME 
CARE 


Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the 
myth of the day is that Medicare 
beneficiaries have access to nursing 
home benefits when they need them. 

While the elderly are guaranteed up 
to 100 days of skilled nursing home 
care by the Medicare Program, the 
simple, tragic fact is that for many el- 
derly, these benefits are simply un- 
available. 

One of the major goals of the Medi- 
care Program has been to improve the 
access of the elderly to health care 
services. In a number of areas, this has 
been a spectacular success but in the 
area of skilled nursing home care the 
goal of access has only been achieved 
in a few States. 


FEW NURSING HOMES PARTICIPATE IN 
MEDICARE 

The reason is all too simple. Few 
nursing homes in this country partici- 
pate in the Medicare Program and 
that has undercut the value of the 
nursing home benefit to millions of 
our Nation's elderly. 

Consider these facts. A whopping 66 
percent of Medicare patient days in 
nursing homes across this country 
took place in only 10 States, according 
to a report released by the Depart- 
ment of Health and Human Services 
last year. 

The remaining 40 States, the Dis- 
trict of Columbia and Puerto Rico ac- 
counted for a mere 34 percent of the 
Medicare patient days in nursing 
homes. 

Mr. President, that distribution of 
nursing home patient days would not 
be surprising nor disturbing if those 10 
States accounted for 66 percent of our 
Nation's elderly. But neither demo- 
graphics nor patterns of illness ac- 
count for this high utilization of nurs- 
ing homes by the elderly in these 10 
States. 


October 9, 1986 


And what about the remaining 40 
States? The Health Department 
report found 17 States with fewer 
than 20 nursing homes accepting Med- 
icare patients. Five of those States had 
fewer than five nursing homes accept- 
ing Medicare patients. 

Mr. President, how valuable is a ben- 
efit if it cannot be exercised? It is clear 
that the nursing home benefit is fast 
becoming a myth for many of the el- 
derly in those States with few partici- 
pating nursing home. And it could not 
occur at a worse time. 


CONTINUITY OF CARE ISSUES ARE MORE CRUCIAL 
SINCE DRG’S 

While this problem has existed for a 
number of years, the adoption of the 
DRG system has exacerbated it. 

The incentives of the DRG system 
for prompt discharge have increased 
the need for both home health and 
skilled nuring facility care. And it has 
brought into bold reality the fact that 
this Medicare benefit is becoming all 
too mythical for our elderly just when 
they need it the most. 

The lesson in all of this is clear. 
Unless we find ways to increase nurs- 
ing home participation in the Medi- 
care program, such as reducing the 
cost report paperwork burden, the 
nursing home benefit will become a 
myth for even more of our Nation’s el- 
derly. 


H.R. 3614, A BILL TO RESTRICT 
THE USE OF FEDERAL VEHICLES 


Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I 
am delighted to join as a cosponsor of 
the pending substitute to H.R. 3614, 
legislation to restrict the use of feder- 
ally owned or leased vehicles from 
home-to-work transportation. 

The substitute we are offering today 
has been the result of long and hard 
bargaining on both sides of the aisle 
and by Members of both Houses. 

Even with this substitute, this bill is 
far from perfect. But on balance, this 
bill goes a long way toward clarifying a 
law which has been cavalierly ignored 
by Federal bureaucrats for far too 
long. 


A BRIEF HISTORY 

Mr. President, legislation has been 
on the books since 1946 prohibiting 
the use of federally owned or leased 
vehicles for home-to-work transporta- 
tion of Federal employees. 

While this legislation has often been 
referred to as “the limo law,” its cover- 
age is far broader than a mere prohibi- 
tion on the use of expensive limousine- 
type automobiles. It even goes beyond 
cases in which a Federal driver or 
chauffeur is employed. This law flatly 
prohibits the use of any federally 
owned vehicle or leased vehicle for 
home-to-work transportation, even 
where the employee drives himself or 
herself. 





October 9, 1986 


The only exceptions to that law are 
spelled out in the existing statute, re- 
cently recodified in section 1344 of 
title 31 of the United States Code. 

While the law has always been quite 
clear to Chairman Brooxs of the 
House Government Operations Com- 
mittee and myself, apparently there is 
not a bureaucrat in town who finds 
the statute clear. They have been par- 
ticularly adept at finding, or creating, 
loopholes large enough to accommo- 
date a Federal car. 

After all, home-to-work transporta- 
tion is the ultimate status symbol for a 
Federal bureaucrat. It sends a clear 
message to his friends and neighbors 
that here comes “Mr. Big’’ or “Ms. 
Big.” 

My surveys of all Federal agencies 
over the last decade have repeatedly 
found 140 to 200 Federal bureaucrats 
using this perk, far in excess of the 
number entitled under Federal law. 
Just last year a report by the General 
Accounting Office for Chairman 
Brooks of the House Government Op- 
erations Committee found similar re- 
sults. 

As a result, it has become clear that 
the best course of action is to re-write 
the 1946 statute and specify more 
clearly the individuals who are enti- 
tled to home-to-work transportation. 
In addition, because of a myriad of 
General Accounting Office opinions 
on related issues—some of which are 
contradictory as GAO's own views 
have evolved on this issue—this bill 


also addresses the rare circumstances 
under which exceptions can be consid- 
ered. 


THE PENDING SUBSTITUTE 

Mr. President, Chairman Brooks is 
to be congratulated for his commit- 
tee’s tremendous work in restructuring 
the home-to-work statute. If the nego- 
tiations over this substitute are any in- 
dication, the task which Chairman 
Brooks and his committee faced was 
clearly formidable. 

The pending substitute builds upon 
the tremendous work of the House 
Government Operations Committee. It 
makes a number of important changes 
in clarifying the applications of this 
revised statute. In light of the fact 
that this bill has been held at the desk 
and, therefore, there will be no com- 
mittee report, it is crucial that these 
changes be emphasized now for the 
purpose of future legislative history. 

COVERAGE OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH AND 
LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT AGENCIES 

The first key change is the substitu- 
tion of the word “Federal’’ agency for 
“Executive” agency and the reference 
in (f)(2) of the substitute to section 18 
of the act of August 2, 1946 (41 U.S.C. 
5a). 

The choice of terms and reference 
was done very carefully. After the 
House completed action on their bill, 
it was discovered that the choice of 
the term “Executive” agency in their 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


bill had the inadvertent effect of ex- 
empting the entire judicial branch as 
well as all of the legislative branch 
support agencies, such as the General 
Accounting Office, the Government 
Printing Office, the Congressional 
Budget Office, the Congressional Re- 
search Service, and so on. 

The change we are making in this 
substitute will restore the existing cov- 
erage of the judicial branch and the 
legislative support agencies. It is cru- 
cial that these principles be applied to 
all three branches of Government. 

MONITORING COMPLIANCE 

Mr. President, Federal agencies have 
repeatedly ignored rulings of the 
Comptroller General regarding the in- 
terpretation of the present statute, ar- 
guing that they were only bound by 
the ruling of their own agency’s gener- 
al counsel. 

The substitute language we are pro- 
posing today vests rulemaking author- 
ity for the entire Federal Government 
in the General Services Administra- 
tion [GSA] but provides that the GSA 
Administrator must consult with rep- 
resentatives of all three branches of 
Government before promulgating reg- 
ulations: for the executive branch, the 
Office of Management and Budget; for 
the legislative branch, the General Ac- 
counting Office; and, for the Judici- 
ary, the Director of the Administrative 
Office of the U.S. Courts. 

The significance of this change 
should not be overlooked: 

First, it reaffirms that all three 
branches of the Federal Government 
are subject to the restrictions of this 
title. 

Second, it establishes consistency in 
the application of governmentwide 
rules on home-to-work transportation. 
Individual agencies will no longer be in 
a position to substitute their own judg- 
ment on the applicability of the law. 

Third, it reflects our clear intent 
that these regulations will be promul- 
gated through the Federal Register 
and receive the public scrutiny and 
comment they require. 

APPROPRIATE RECORDKEEPING 

The third change draws on the expe- 
rience of the General Accounting 
Office. This change will require that 
every agency maintain logs or other 
records each time a Federal employee 
receives home-to-work transportation. 

Mr. President, this requirement is es- 
sential if the GAO is to effectively 
monitor compliance with this statute. 
In their efforts to assess compliance 
with the existing statute, the GAO 
was repeatedly stymied by the fact 
that many agencies simply did not 
maintain adequate records. 

This provision makes their responsi- 
bility crystal clear and all agency 
heads should take notice of it. 

PROXMIRE CONCERNS 

Mr. President, having discussed the 

positive aspects of this substitute, I 


29857 


would be remiss if I did not point out 
my areas of disagreement. 

First, the substitute and the House 
bill simply permit too many Federal 
officials to make use of home-to-work 
transportation. While the bill repre- 
sents a significant improvement over 
the current confused state of affairs, 
we should have pared away even more 
positions—both in the _ executive 
branch and we should have taken 
action on the legislative branch as 
well. 

For example, we should not be ex- 
tending this perk to the principal 
deputy of Cabinet Secretaries, 

And I want to put the Senate on 
notice that I intend to offer legislation 
next year to reduce both the number 
of executive and legislative branch of- 
ficials eligible for home-to-work trans- 
portation. 

Second, this substitute goes in the 
wrong direction by adding the position 
of the Comptroller General or the 
Postmaster General to the list of 
exempt officials. This sends the wrong 
signal at the very time we are paring 
down the executive branch. 

Third, there needs to be more speci- 
ficity regarding the exemptions con- 
tained in section (a)(2)(B) for “‘intelli- 
gence, counterintelligence, criminal 
law duties, or protective services.” 
These activities are essential and, in 
certain circumstances, warrant exemp- 
tion from the restrictions of this title. 
But by exempting them from the 
review of the GSA in the rulemaking 
section of the substitute, we are in- 
creasing the potential for abuse. It is 
crucial that the conference committee 
will clearly spell out congressional ex- 
pectations regarding the way in which 
compliance will be monitored. 

CONCLUSION 

Mr. President, despite my reserva- 
tions regarding specific compromises 
reached in this substitute, I believe 
that this substitute deserves the Sen- 
ate’s support. 

Clearly, this substitute is a compro- 
mise proposal. One that I hope we can 
improve in the future. But this propos- 
al builds upon the best concepts em- 
bodied in the House bill and makes 
substantive progress toward eliminat- 
ing the abuse that has pervaded home- 
to-work transportation for far too 
long. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 
call the roll. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 





29858 


RETIRING MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE 


Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I under- 
stand that a number of statements are 
going to be entered into the Recorp in 
recognition of those in this body who 
are departing. I just wanted to put ina 
couple of sentences about each. 

I have not served in this body long, 
though I have had the chance to 
know, at least slightly, all of the Mem- 
bers. Let me just go down the list and 
say what I appreciate about each. 

Before I do that, let me add my ap- 
preciation—this is a good time to add 
my appreciation—also for the Senator 
from Wisconsin, who day after day 
after day has been plugging away at 
the things that are really important to 
this Nation. This body is an infinitely 
richer body because of BILL PROXMIRE. 
It is a privilege to serve with him. 

Let me talk about the people who 
are retiring. 

Russet, Lonc. Kind of a walking 
history book, loaded with common 
sense. I have seen him on the floor, I 
have seen him in our Democratic cau- 
cuses get up, and sometimes you have 
to listen closely with that Louisiana 
twang and it goes a mile a minute, but 
if you listen closely you get wisdom 
from him. We have been fortunate, 
indeed, to have RusseLt LONG's 
wisdom as part of this body. 

Barry GOLDWATER. He says what he 
thinks; sometimes steps on toes. 

If I could just relate one small inci- 
dent. Senator GOLDWATER came to me 
one day and said, ‘‘Do you know where 
Bowen, Illinois is?” I said, “I thought I 
knew where every small town in Illi- 
nois was, but I don’t know where 
Bowen is.” 

He said, “My mother was born in 
Bowen.” It is near Macomb, IL, about 
539 people. 

I got our highway department to 
make a sign: ‘““‘Welcome to Bowen, Illi- 
nois, home of Josephine Williams, the 
mother of Senator Barry Go.p- 
WATER.” I presented the sign to the 
mayor and had my picture taken and 
handed it to Senator GOLDWATER on 
the floor. He said, “I’ve got to go to 
Bowen.” 

So about 6 months or so ago we went 
to Bowen. They had a parade in the 
town, all five blocks of the town. He 
spoke in the town’s square about what 
Bowen meant to his mother. About 
300 or 400 people gathered there. It 
was like an old Norman Rockwell 
cover on the Saturday Evening Post. It 
was absolutely marvelous. 

Then, not too long afterwards, Sena- 
tor GOLDWATER said to me, after his 
wife died, ““You Know, our home in 
California, we are going to have to 
close that, and I have all those books 
there. I think I will send them to the 
library of Bowen.” 

I said to him, “I’m not sure they 
have a library at Bowen.” But we 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


checked and there was a library and 
he sent his books there. 

It is just one of those little things. I 
am proud to have had that small asso- 
ciation with Barry GOLDWATER and to 
be with him here in the Senate. 

Pau. Laxatt, I think of the Rehn- 
quist hearings where, frankly, we were 
on a collision course, some of us 
wanted documents and some of us who 
wanted medical records, and PavuL 
LAXALT, in that quiet, solid way of his, 
put things together and ‘both sides 
were pleased with the results. 

There has been some criticism of the 
Rehnquist hearings. I happen to think 
they were superb hearings, really 
giving an insight into how our process 
works and everyone having a chance 
to get to be able to make a judgment. 
But one of the reasons they were suc- 
cessful was because of PauL LAXALT 
and his ability to get along with every- 
one, 

Gary Hart. We just heard Gary 
Hart speak here. He has been a 
thoughtful, reflective Member of this 
body. I am sure he is going to be enter- 
ing the national dialog and, whether 
he wins or not, will contribute in a 
continuing way. 

Senator ‘Mac’ MatTuras, CHARLES 
Martuias. Courage. I see the majority 
leader on the floor. Sometimes he has 
had more courage than the majority 
leader wants, from time to time, I am 
sure, in standing up to his colleagues 
on that side. But he stands up to ev- 
eryone. 

There is no question that “Mac” Ma- 
THIAs has made significant contribu- 
tions to this Nation and his leaving 
the Senate is our loss. 

And then, finally, one person that I 
am particularly going to miss, who I 
have known long before either one of 
us served in this Congress, and that is 
Tom EacLeton from Missouri. Tom 
EAGLETON has a sense of where this 
Nation ought to go. 

I may misread Tom EAGLeTON’s leav- 
ing the Senate, but I think part of it is 
his feeling is we are not dreaming any 
more. We are not putting together 
dreams about where this Nation ought 
to go and what we ought to do. I hope 
Iam wrong about that. 

But Tom Eacteton is that thought- 
ful person who cares, who is concerned 
about the future. I am sure, as a facul- 
ty member at Washington University 
in St. Louis, he is going to instill in 
those students that same kind of 
caring and vision. I hope we continue 
to hear from Tom EaGLeton here in 
this body. 

I have been fortunate, indeed, to 
serve with these Members of the 
Senate. I just want, in a small way, to 
pay tribute to them. I do not have an 
eloquent statement to enter in the 
ReEcorp, but I think all of us recognize 
that not only we but the American 
people have been served well. 


October 9, 1986 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank 
my colleague from Illinois. I agree 
with every statement he made. I know 
our colleagues will appreciate his elo- 
quence here this morning. 

Mr. President, at 10 o'clock we will 
go into closed session to continue the 
impeachment proceedings. 


THE PRESIDENT DESERVES THE 
FULL SUPPORT OF CONGRESS 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, within the 
hour the President will leave for Ice- 
land. I think it goes without saying 
that the President deserves the full 
support of Congress—100 percent sup- 
port—not some kind of conditioned 
support that disappears once the 
meeting in Reykjavik is over. 

It is sad to say, but the mischief on 
arms control concocted on the House 
side has been a disaster as far as 
timing is concerned. I think we have to 
be realistic. 

The President is about to engage in 
the highest stakes poker game any of 
us can imagine. He will be sitting down 
across the table from Mr. Gorbachev 
in the next day. Mr. Gorbachev reads 
the papers and will have all kinds of 
information on what is happening in 
the United States and around the 
world, and I assume particularly in 
Congress. 


0 0940 


And he will know that there are 
some, hopefully not a majority, who 
are trying to put roadblocks in the 
President's path to peace and progress 
on arms control. 

There are some who never ran for 
the Presidency, who are insisting on 
the House side that they, in fact, take 
the President’s place. That they deter- 
mine arms control, that they deter- 
mine what we do with unratified 
SALT agreements, that they deter- 
mine what we do about ASAT and nu- 
clear testing and chemical weapons. 

I do not believe there is any doubt in 
the mind of anyone in this body that 
the President is sincere in his efforts 
to reach a meaningful arms control 
agreement before his second term ex- 
pires. I cannot for the life of me un- 
derstand why some keep going back to 
an agreement that was never ratified 
in this body, the SALT II agreement. I 
would hope that the Democratic lead- 
ership in the House would back off, 
complete action on the continuing res- 
olution, postpone any mischief until 
the President has had an opportunity 
to try to deal with it face to face. 

There is no doubt about it. There 
are very strong differences of opinion 
about how we should proceed to 
achieve a meaningful and verifiable 
arms control agreement. 

There are some who are seriously 
concerned, some are Republicans and 
some are Democrats; some are in the 





October 9, 1986 


Congress, some are out of the Con- 
gress. But it does seem to me that in 
the next 48 to 72 hours we ought to let 
the President be the President. I do 
not believe that is too much to ask. 
We can play games. We will be around 
next year. If there is no agreement— 
and I do not expect any great agree- 
ments on the weekend—but if later 
there is a real summit in the United 
States and there is some agreement, I 
think most of us would believe that it 
happened because the Congress, the 
Democrats and Republicans, support- 
ed our President. 

We are optimistic. We wish the 
President well as we did in the resolu- 
tion passed in the Senate last evening, 
which we did, I might add, with a 
major effort by the distinguished Sen- 
ator from Illinois, Senator Stuon. 

We believe we are on the right track. 
We believe that the President will 
raise issues other than arms control. 
Arms control should be No. 1, but 
there are regional differences and 
there are human rights violations. And 
they should be brought to Mr. Gorba- 
chev’s attention. I believe in all of 
these things we find ourselves in sup- 
port of the President. 

Finally, Mr. President, let me indi- 
cate that I am advised that we may be 
able to act on the reconciliation ahead 
of the House. We may be able to do 
that today. It may not take long. I un- 
derstand there are three not insignifi- 
cant, but not major items, that need to 
be disposed of. There is a meeting 
right now of the Senate Finance Com- 
mittee conferees on those three issues: 
One with reference to AFDC, one with 
reference to oil spills, and one of them 
I cannot remember. So they are down 
to three issues. The papers have been 
signed by all the conferees except the 
conferees from Finance and Ways and 
Means. 

I hope we could act on reconciliation 
following proceedings on impeach- 
ment. I also hope we can have some 
agreement on the drug bill—I know 
there are some who feel very strongly 
about the death penalty provision in 
the drug bill as it comes from the 
House. We have a bipartisan staff 
group again looking at the other provi- 
sions. They took out some of the pro- 
visions in the House bill that we be- 
lieve ought to be in the drug bill ona 
bipartisan basis, not Democratic or 
Republican. 

If we could come together on one 
amendment when we have bipartisan 
support we could then focus on efforts 
of those who want to remove the 
death penalty, those who do not. I 
hope, somehow, we can get an agree- 
ment—if we cannot do anything else 
we would be forced to file cloture; 
which we might be permitted to vote 
on that tomorrow. Perhaps we could 
wind up our debate and dispose of that 
fairly early tomorrow. That may not 
happen. But at least it is a possibility. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Then I would anticipate, there 
would not be a session on Monday. I 
hope we would avoid a Saturday ses- 
sion if we can get an agreement to 
have a cloture vote tomorrow, if that 
becomes necessary. We would be here 
on Tuesday, and hopefully complete 
our work on Wednesday. 

Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 
Democratic leader. 

Mr. BYRD. If the distinguished 
leader would yield. As I have listened 
to the distinguished majority leader, I 
believe I hear it being said that there 
is a possibility that the Senate would 
go out after today’s business, and go 
over until next Tuesday; also that the 
reconciliation measure could be called 
up today in the Senate, and, hopeful- 
ly, the drug bill would be ready for 
some action in the Senate, and that in- 
asmuch as the House has not sent over 
the extension of the debt limit, and 
the continuing resolution will not be 
ready—as I understand from what the 
majority leader is saying—this week- 
end, the Senate then would go over 
until Tuesday, Monday being a reli- 
gious holiday as well as Columbus 
Day, a national holiday. 

I believe I am also hearing the dis- 
tinguished Senator say that it is possi- 
ble for the drug bill to cause the 
Senate to be in tomorrow, and possibly 
Saturday. If a cloture motion should 
be offered today and we do not get 
consent that it be voted on tomorrow, 
it would then mature on Saturday or 
if the Senate is not then in, it would 
mature on next Tuesday. 

Am I hearing the majority leader 
correctly? 

Mr. DOLE, That is correct. 

I hope we might be able to work out 
something. I believe most Members 
would be willing to do that. I know the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan 
last evening—I appreciate his candor— 
indicated not to plan on a quick dispo- 
sition of the drug bill. I believe there 
are some on this side who have the 
same view. 

Mr. BYRD. With respect to the ex- 
tension of the debt limit, why is it that 
the House does not send that bill over 
here to let the Senate begin work on 
it? 

Mr. DOLE. I discussed that with the 
Speaker yesterday. He indicated that 
they were trying to make a determina- 
tion whether to strip every amend- 
ment that the Senate had in it, I think 
23 or 24 amendments on the debt ex- 
tension, or whether to accept some or 
whether to go to conference. 

I indicated that once it is here, if it 
is stripped, it is difficult to handle be- 
cause it is open to amendment. And I 
assume some Members would have 
amendments. He also indicated that 
they were not trying to hold it back. 
They would be willing to send it when- 
ever we felt we would like to have it. 


29859 


Once we have disposed of reconcilia- 
tion and the drug bill, I assume we 
may as well have the debt ceiling. It 
may take a day or two. 

Mr. BYRD. It is not the majority 
leader's view, as it is mine, that the ex- 
tension of the debt limit, if it is sent 
over again as a clean measure, will 
very likely run into the Gramm- 
Rudman amendment again, and that 
would cause some debate and votes? 
That being the case, the bill would be 
open to further amendment, and 
would be like a lightning rod for fur- 
ther amendments, in which event, 
therefore, not only would Senators be 
held here beyond next Wednesday but 
House Members would be as well? 

Mr. DOLE. That is correct. I have 
not discussed this with any of the 
principals, either Gramm, RUDMAN, or 
HOLLINGS. 


0 0950 


I would hope we can have that. It 
would be one way to resolve the prob- 
lem of the debt ceiling. We have had 
that battle in the Senate. We know 
the House is not going to do anything 
with it this year. Most of us will be 
here next year. Perhaps if they were 
willing to withhold their fire on that, 
other Members might be willing to 
withhold their fire on other amend- 
ments. 

I can foresee having another 15 or 20 
amendments added to the debt ceiling 
if we are going to start down that 
road. I had not mentioned that to 
either Senators GRAMM, RUDMAN or 
HOLLINGS. It may trigger some reac- 
tion. I would hope they would at least 
reflect on that and perhaps decide 
they can make that battle again next 
year. 

Mr. BYRD. I share the distinguished 
majority leaders’s hope. I have been 
trying to get in touch with Congress- 
man WRrRiGHT this morning. I want to 
do so as soon as possible this morning. 
I want to discuss the debt limit legisla- 
tion with him and try to get some feel 
from him as to when that matter will 
be resolved in the other body and 
when we might expect it over here. 

I understood, last evening, the dis- 
tinguished majority leader to mention 
that the debt ceiling might be sent 
over here by the House along with the 
adjournment resolution. 

Mr. DOLE. If the minority leader 
will yield, the speaker, at least, has in- 
dicated that they are not purposely 
holding it. But I do know that the 
chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Congressman ROSTENKOW- 
SKI, has been tied up in the Superfund 
conference. They are still working on 
reconciliation. There is still a little res- 
olution to be completed on the tax 
bill. I think it has just been a matter 
of no time to focus on another confer- 
ence, in fairness to Members of the 
House. 





29860 


Mr. BYRD. Yes. I am sure of that. 

One final question, if I may ask the 
majority leader: How late does he fore- 
see the possibility of rollcall votes 
today? I think if I were in his place I 
would throw up my hands and say, 
“How would I know?” 

But he is in a position, however, to 
know what measures may come before 
the Senate today, the reconciliation 
measure being one, and with the 
Senate disposing of the Articles of Im- 
peachment rather early in the after- 
noon. Can he give Senators some idea, 
though it may be rather slim, as it 
were, can he give us some idea as to 
what we might expect with regard to 
rolicallis into this evening? 

Mr. DOLE. I would hope there 
would not be a late evening. It would 
seem to me that if the impeachment 
proceedings are completed, say, by 3 
o’clock and we are in a position to deal 
with reconciliation, I would not think 
that would take over 2 hours, though 
it has a 10-hour time limit. 

Then, by that time, if we could have 
some bipartisan agreement on the 
drug bill with maybe one or two excep- 
tions, to narrow the issues to the 
death penalty and whatever else the 
staff may recommend to us. Hopefully, 
we could have some agreement either 
to have to vote at a certain time or 
agree that we can vote on cloture to- 
morrow rather than to stay in until 11 
or 12 o’clock. I do not have the desire 
to stay late and I do not think the dis- 
tinguished minority leader has either. 
We both have the same affliction, 
colds. 

Mr. BYRD. The uncertainties being 
what they are, I think we all have to 
understand what the distinguished 
majority leader has said. We hope we 
will not be in late today but we could 
very well be. It will all depend upon 
whether or not we reach some kind of 
agreement on the drug bill which 
could, conceivably, keep us over into 
tomorrow. 

Mr. DOLE. And beyond. 

I certainly do not believe we should 
leave here this year without having 
passed that legislation. 

Mr. BYRD. I agree with the distin- 
guished majority leader. 

Would the distinguished majority 
leader bear with me further on one ob- 
servation: Would it be his feeling that 
if there is cloture to be voted on the 
drug bill, that that cloture vote should 
come Saturday or should await until 
Tuesday following the Monday recess? 

Mr. DOLE. I would rather do it to- 
morrow, if that could happen. Then 
we could have that behind us and 
really be back here next week and be 
able to see the end of the session. I 
think if we come back with the drug 
bill on Tuesday, my experience over 
the years has been that you generally 
use up the whole week. I think we 
have to be very honest. We have Mem- 
bers on each side that want to be re- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


elected. I have not seen a single person 
running who does not want to be re- 
elected. They want to get out of here. 
We are getting down to 3 weeks before 
the election. I think we are both going 
to have difficulty with our colleagues 
on our respective sides about next 
Wednesday if we are here. If they are 
not gone by then, I may want to leave. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank 
the majority leader. It is a very uncer- 
tain time to attempt to see clearly 
what the clock and calendar are going 
to do to us at this point. I think I have 
about exhausted his knowledge on this 
subject. He has certainly responded as 
well as he can to my questions. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk pro- 
ceeded to call the roll. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 


TRIBUTE TO SENATOR 
EAGLETON 


Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suspect 
that Tom EAGLETON, more than most 
Members, will appreciate the series of 
tributes which his colleagues will place 
in the REcorpD. 

I say that not because he is more of 
an egomaniac than the rest of us—he 
is not. He is no shrinking violet, but he 
is not any worse than the rest of us 
either. 

Nor do I say that because I think he 
will have nothing to do but spend his 
days studying the words which were 
said about him. I suspect that Tom will 
have better things to do with his time. 

No; I make that suggestion because I 
think that Tom EaGLeron has a better 
sense of what this place is about than 
most. He understands the rituals of 
this body and he has a sense of humor 
about them. 

I have served with him in the Gov- 
ernmental Affairs Committee and I 
have seen him work. He knows the 
rules and he knows how to win. He 
also knows how to count and he knows 
when he is going to lose. When he can 
win, he pulls out the stops and he does 
everything that can be done. When he 
is going to lose, he does what has to be 
done—he makes his speeches, he con- 
tributes what he can to the legislative 
history he hopes will minimize our 
folly—but he does not waste his time; 
he begins to plan for the next battle 
and organize the next veto. 

And through it all Tom EaGcLeron 
has kept a sense of perspective. He can 
look at what we do here and know 
that some of it is useful, some of it 
crucial and some of it is just absurd. I 
suspect he may, some day, look at 
these tributes and put them in the cat- 


October 9, 1986 


egory of the absurd. But that will be 
one of the few times that he will be 
wrong. 

The act of paying tribute to a Sena- 
tor like Tom EacG.eton allows us to 
focus on what is the best about this 
place and think about what a Senator 
ought to be. A Senator ought to be 
like Tom EaGLeton. 

I am sorry he is leaving. I will miss 
him. And I will continue to admire 
him. 


TRIBUTE TO SENATOR 
GOLDWATER 


Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, back in 
1979, when I had been in the Senate 
for just a year, I was faced with the 
problem of a possible collapse of the 
Chrysler Corp. I think members can 
understand what that meant to me: 
here I was, a new Senator and a major 
employer in my State was in trouble 
and looking for help. And even though 
my senior colleague, Senator RIEGLE, 
was on the “right’’ committee and 
more than able to handle the problem 
without any help from me, I felt that I 
had to do something. 

And I remember that at one point I 
wrote a fairly passionate and fairly 
lengthy ‘dear colleague” letter ex- 
plaining why Chrysler ought to be 
helped. I had 100 of them run out and 
I signed them all and added little 
notes to them and mailed them out. 
Some of my colleagues responded but 
the response I remember best came 
from Senator GoLpwaTerR. “Dear 
Car,” he wrote, “I think you are all 
wrong on this issue so I’m not going to 
give you my vote—but I’m not going to 
give you any trouble either.” 

That is Barry GoLpwaTER—honest, 
direct, no nonsense. Just about the 
only thing about that note that was 
not Barry GOLDWATER was the prom- 
ise not to give someone any trouble. 
Because BaRRY GOLDWATER has given 
lots of people—people on the left, 
people on the right, and people in the 
middle—plenty of trouble. 

He does not do it because he likes to 
cause problems; he does it because he 
loves his country and he has very 
strong ideas about where this Nation 
ought to go. 

Those ideas are rooted in Barry 
GOLDWATER’s love of America and his 
commitment to the traditions and 
values contained in the basic docu- 
ments which define American democ- 
racy. 

I have served on the Armed Services 
Committee under Chairman Go.Lp- 
WATER for 4 years now. I wish there 
were more Members like him: He does 
not legislate by press release and he 
does not vote by party affiliation. He 
looks at the issue, he looks at his 
values—and he looks after the defense 
of this country. 





October 9, 1986 


Barry GoOLpwateRr is a hell of a man 
and he has been a hell of a Senator. I 
respect him in both capacities. We will 
lose a great deal when he leaves the 
Senate—but he will gain a good deal of 
time to spend with his family. He has 
earned that. I wish him well. But even 
more, I wish he keeps giving all of us 
the kind of trouble we have come to 
expect—and accept—from him. 


TRIBUTE TO SENATOR HART 


Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in 1972, 
Gary HART, as campaign manager for 
George McGovern, led a revolution. 
Some may look back and declare his 
insurgency a failure: after all, for 
many reasons, his candidate was 
beaten badly in the fall election. But 
such a judgment ignores the reality of 
a revolution. Revolutions do not in- 
volve a single battle nor are they de- 
cided in a short period of time. In- 
stead, they evolve and emerge and 
modify themselves over time. And in 
that context, the revolution that Gary 
Hart once led has now triumphed. 

The revolution that Gary Hart once 
led helped lead a new generation into 
the political process. And once they 
were involved, he led them in another 
way: he refused to accept the ortho- 
dox views of any generation as inflexi- 
ble dogma. After his election to the 
U.S. Senate, he helped shape the evo- 
lutionary process which allowed the 
ideology of the 1960's to make peace 
with the reality of the 1980's. 

As a Senator, Gary Hart has con- 
founded the conventional wisdom. 
When he began his service on the 
Armed Services Committee, few ex- 
pected him to be more than a critic. 
But now he is an acknowledged expert 
on defense strategy and a vital voice in 
the ongoing effort to renew and revi- 
talize America’s strategic doctrine. 
Like the revolution he led in 1972, this 
effort has not had immediate success— 
but it has had success. The military 
reform caucus, which he helped found, 
has demonstrated that there are 
people willing to talk about defense 
issues without talking about politics. 
And it has also demonstrated that the 
people who talk about defense are also 
willing to talk about alternatives to ex- 
isting doctrine. 

When Gary Hart sought the Presi- 
dency in 1984, he showed the Ameri- 
can people that he could do more than 
handle an ax; he also demonstrated 
that he could handle ideas, the press, 
and the rigors of a nationwide cam- 
paign. Those are skills that, I suspect, 
he will call upon again in the years to 
come. For while Gary Hart will not be 
in the Senate, he will not be out of the 
public eye. He will continue to contrib- 
ute and continue to be a leading light 
for the generation he introduced to 
politics as well as lighting sparks in 
the generation that his once-youthful 
comrades have produced. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


TRIBUTE TO SENATOR LAXALT 


Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Pau. 
LaxaLt and I have never served to- 
gether on any committee and do not 
belong to the same political party. 
Consequently, our contact with each 
other has never been sustained and I 
cannot pretend that I know him well 
as a person. 

But I do know him as a Senator. And 
I know him well enough as a Senator 
to admire the skill and dedication and 
passion he has brought to this body. 

In addition to being a Senator, 
though, Paut LaxaLT has carried an 
additional obligation over the past 6 
years. He has had to carry the mantle 
of ‘special friend of the President.” In 
that capacity, he has been asked to 
carry messages from his colleagues to 
the White House, as well as from the 
White House to his colleagues and to 
foreign leaders. 

His “elevation” to the status of “‘spe- 
cial friend” was an accident of history; 
it was a result of a relationship begun 
when both the President and Senator 
LAXALT were serving as Governors. But 
what was no accident was the skill 
with which Paut LaxaLt discharged 
the role of special friend. 

He did not trade on his relationship 
with the President; he did not seek 
special advantage or favor. He was 
more than a special friend; he was a 
good friend—one who could be trusted 
to communicate ideas accurately, one 
who would be willing to accept the 
trying task of passing on the bad news 
as well as the good. And he was a 
friend who understood that his per- 
sonal relationship could not be al- 
lowed to interfere with the profession- 
al relationship that the leadership has 
to have with the President. As a Dem- 
ocrat, I found it interesting—and ulti- 
mately educational—to watch Senator 
LAXALT turn a potentially tense and 
difficult situation into an easy and 
clear chain of command. He did not 
allow anyone to forget that there are 
lines of authority in the Senate, and 
even friendship cannot be allowed to 
alter those lines or cross those bound- 
aries. It was a performance typical of 
the man—and worthy of the best tra- 
ditions of the U.S. Senate. 


TRIBUTE TO SENATOR LONG 


Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a few 
weeks ago, the Senate was in one of 
those traditional messes that we find 
ourselves in from time to time. A par- 
liamentary ruling held that Senator 
Ho.Luincs had given two speeches and 
could not speak again without unani- 
mous consent. The ruling created 
quite a stir and a good deal of debate. 
We had worked up the kind of emo- 
tion that comes to us easily whenever 
we think our rights are being threat- 
ened. And into this environment came 
the senior Senator from Louisiana, 
Russet, Lonc. And Senator Lone pro- 


29861 


ceeded to give us as an example of why 
he is so treasured in the Senate: he 
gave us a history lesson. He spoke 
about having seen the same sort of sit- 
uation—40 years ago. He told us that 
his father—Senator Huey Long—once 
had almost run up against the two- 
speech rule himself. He told us that he 
had been in the Chamber when that 
happened. He gave life to a precedent 
and meaning to a ruling of the Chair. 

But Senator Lone has always been 
more than a man of memories. He is a 
man who has created history. As 
member of the Senate Finance Com- 
mittee, he worked the Tax Code as few 
before him had. He not only knew the 
code, he had helped create it. And 
after he was done, after he had per- 
fected every nuance, every crack and 
cranny, he then worked just as hard to 
develop a tax policy which virtually 
eliminated the shelters and loopholes. 

RUSSELL Lonc is an amazing man. He 
is, in many ways, a transitional figure 
in the history of the U.S. Senate: his 
service here spans a period of radical 
change. He came to this body as a 
“Southern Senator” and he leaves as a 
national treasure; he came when the 
Senate might consider 180 bills a year 
and he leaves when we consider 180 
amendments to a single bill; he came 
when a few Senators controlled the 
work of the body and he leaves when a 
few Senators can stop all the work in 
this body. He has seen all those 
changes, contributed to some, tried to 
stop others. He has made a contribu- 
ton to this body, to the Nation and to 
the laws which will guide us for gen- 
erations yet to come. 

I fear we will not see his like in the 
Senate again. But I am encouraged to 
hope that we will continue to see more 
than his like—we will continue to see 
him as an active element in our public 
life. 


TRIBUTE TO SENATOR MATHIAS 


Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when po- 
litical people talk about Mac MATHIAS 
they normally say that he represents 
something called the ‘liberal’ or 
“Rockefeller wing’’ of the Republican 
party, Now, I am not a Republican so I 
do not get involved in their classifica- 
tion schemes—we have enough trouble 
in my party categorizing the liberals 
and populists and progessive and all 
the rest—but I know that Mac Ma- 
THIAS represents more than a wing of 
the Republican Party. He represents a 
grand tradition of decency and com- 
passion and commitment and princi- 
ple. And that tradition, I hope, tran- 
scends any wing and any party. 

Mac Maruias fights for the rights of 
the individual and cares about the 
future of our society. In the process of 
making those fights, he drew on a tra- 
dition of the Senate. In this body, we 
believe that each Member has certain 





29862 


rights and, as Senators, we accept a re- 
sponsibility to protect the rights of 
our colleagues even when we disagree 
with the substance of their position. 
Mac simply applies the principle we 
accept here to the larger society we 
seek to both protect and perfect. 

That, in itself, would be a sufficient 
contribution for any Member to make. 
But I believe that Mac Marturas has 
made another contribution which, 
while less specific, may be even more 
important. He represents the sort of 
Senator which we all, I hope, would 
like to be: A Member who seeks to 
achieve his end by reason and persua- 
sion rather than tactics and tricks. I 
cannot recall a single time when Mac 
Martuias was less than fair to a col- 
league, less then willing to work to- 
gether, less than committed to the 
notion that if we just worked a little 
harder and a little longer, we could 
reach an agreement. 

Senator Maruias is a decent human 
being and an outstanding Senator. 
When he leaves us, we will be poorer; I 
just hope that the time he now has to 
spend with his family and friends will 
leave him richer. 


RETIREMENT OF SENATOR 
GARY HART 
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I 
rise today to pay tribute to Senator 
Gary Hart of Colorado, who is retir- 


ing at the end of this Congress. 

In his 12 years of Senate service, 
Senator Hart and I have often dis- 
agreed on matters of national policy. 


Despite our ideological differences, 
Senator Hart has consistently been a 
well-prepared and articulate advocate. 
In the 1984 Democratic Presidential 
primary campaign, these talents assist- 
ed him in winning 27 primaries and 
caucuses. 

Senator Hart is an active committee 
member and serves on the Budget, En- 
vironment and Public Works, and 
Armed Services Committees. In our 
work on the Armed Services Commit- 
tee, the differences in our political 
views are often highlighted. Accord- 
ingly, it is particularly gratifying to 
work closely with Senator Hart on the 
same side of an issue. Recently, our 
joint support of the Department of 
Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 
provided such an opportunity, and I 
commend Senator Hart for his fine 
work on this important legislation. 

Senator Gary Hart is devoted to his 
principles. While in the Senate, he has 
energetically sought to implement 
those principles legislatively. He has 
earned the respect of his colleagues. 

I wish Senator Hart, and his lovely 
wife, Lee, good health and happiness 
in the future. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


RETIREMENT OF SENATOR 
THOMAS EAGLETON 


Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I 
would like to take this opportunity to 
pay tribute to a retiring colleague who 
for the past 18 years has been a cham- 
pion of our poor, elderly, and handi- 
capped citizens as well as a watchdog 
for Government waste—Missouri Sen- 
ator THOMAS EAGLETON. 

Growing up in south St. Louis, Tom 
EAGLETON developed an early and in- 
tense interest in politics, even attend- 
ing the 1940 Republican National Co- 
vention in support of Wendell Wilkie 
at the age of 10. 

After graduating cum laude from 
both Amherst College and Harvard 
Law School and serving a short time in 
the Navy, Tom returned to his native 
St. Louis to pursue a career in law and 
politics. At age 27, he became the 
youngest man to be elected circuit at- 
torney of the city of St. Louis. 

In 1960, he was elected attorney gen- 
eral of the State of Missouri, quickly 
earning a reputation as an energetic 
and effective State official. He estab- 
lished the division of consumer protec- 
tion within the attorney general’s 
office, concentrating his efforts on 
battling consumer fraud. 

Elected Lieutenant Governor in 
1964, Tom EAGLETON’s work as chair- 
man of the Governor's Commission on 
Vocational and Technical Education 
led to the creation of Missouri’s net- 
work of votech high schools. 

He ran a successful campaign for the 
Senate in 1968, becoming chairman of 
the District of Columbia Committee 
and a member of the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works and 
the Committee on Labor and Public 
Welfare. 

During his first Senate term, he led 
the fight for enactment of the Clean 
Air and Clean Water Acts and au- 
thored the Right To Read Program. 

Following his reelection in 1974, Tom 
EAGLETON became chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Aging, the Appro- 
priations Agriculture Subcommittee, 
and the Subcommittee on Governmen- 
tal Efficiency. 

Always fighting Government waste, 
he sponsored a bill creating the Office 
of the Inspector General in 12 major 
Federal departments and agencies to 
serve as internal auditors of fraud and 
corruption. These inspectors’ investi- 
gations have led to hundreds of indict- 
ments for abuse of tax funds as well as 
the recovery of hundreds of millions 
of dollars of lost Federal money. 

He is presently the ranking member 
of the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs. 

Tom EAGLETON has been truly devot- 
ed to the citizens of Missouri as wit- 
nessed by the many awards they have 
bestowed upon him including: Mis- 
souri Man of the Year; the Harry S. 
Truman Good Neighbor Award; the 
Leon Jordan Memorial Award; and the 


October 9, 1986 


Midcontinent Farmers Association 
Distinguished Service Award. 

I have always admired Tom’s com- 
mitment and conviction for those 
things in which he believes. He is a 
compassionate and dedicated Senator, 
and I wish him and his lovely wife, 
Barbara, our best wishes for a happy 
and long life back home in their be- 
loved Missouri. 


RETIREMENT OF SENATOR 
RUSSELL LONG 


Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I 
would like to take this opportunity to 
pay tribute to my very good friend, 
longtime Senate colleague, and next- 
door neighbor in the Russell Senate 
Office Building, Senator RussEti 
Lone, who is retiring from office. 

On December 1955, I came to the 
Senate to fill the unexpired term of 
Senator Charles E. Daniel. Today, 
there are only two Members still serv- 
ing in the Senate who were here on 
the first day that I assumed this 
office: Senator JoHn STENNIS and Sen- 
ator RUSSELL Lone. 

At the time, Senator Lonc was al- 
ready finishing his second Senate term 
at the ripe old age of 36, having been 
elected to fill the unexpired term of 
the late John P. Overton in 1948 and 
reelected in 1950. 

During the 38 years he has served in 
the Senate, Russet, Lone has earned 
a reputation for his vast knowledge of 
our Tax Code, serving as chairman of 
the Senate Finance Committee from 
1966 until 1980. 

Assistant majority leader from 1965- 
68, RuSSELL LoNnG served as chairman 
of the Merchant Marine Subcommit- 
tee of the Commerce Committee from 
1969-76, and took the chairmanship of 
the Surface Transportation Subcom- 
mittee from 1977-80. 

Presently, he is ranking minority 
member of the Finance Committee 
and Surface Transportation Subcom- 
mittee, as well as serving on the Mer- 
chant Marine Subcommittee and three 
Finance subcommittees. 

His commonsense approach and wry 
wit in heated debate have made him 
popular among his colleagues. A 1982 
survey of Members of Congress ranked 
him as the most influential and most 
persuasive Democrat in the entire 
Senate. 

RUSSELL LonG’s love and loyalty for 
the State of Louisiana know no 
bounds. Over the years he has been re- 
sponsible for numerous work projects 
for the State, including hurricane pro- 
tection, flood control, and navigational 
improvements. 

On the national level, he has led the 
fight for the Child Support Enforce- 
ment Program which has saved our 
Government more than $5 billion in 
welfare costs by locating “runaway” 





October 9, 1986 


fathers and requiring them to contrib- 
ute to the support of their children. 

A guardian of the disabled and elder- 
ly, RussELL Lone has worked diligent- 
ly to protect their Social Security and 
Medicare benefits, ensuring that our 
truly needy citizens receive adequate 
medical treatment. At the same time 
he strove to revise the welfare system, 
discontinuing the guaranteed annual 
income for able-bodied persons who 
refuse to work. 

Under his able leadership of the 
Senate Finance Committee, Congress 
passed the landmark 1972 and 1976 
Federal revenue-sharing laws and the 
1975, 1977, and 1978 tax cuts. 

A conservative, articulate Senator, 
and devoted anti-Communist, RussELL 
Lone has always supported a strong 
defense and persuaded many of our 
colleagues to join him in voting to pre- 
serve our national security. 

He is a man of the people, rendering 
outstanding service to the citizens of 
his State and never losing touch with 
his roots. RusSSELL Lone is a common 
man of uncommon abilities. He is a 
leader, a patriot, and a great Ameri- 
can. 

I will sincerely miss my good friend 
from Louisiana whose honesty, integri- 
ty, intelligence, and humor have added 
so much to the Senate over the years, 
and I wish Russett and his lovely 
wife, Carolyn, many, many years of 
continued health and happiness. 


RETIREMENT OF SENATOR 
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS 


Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as 
the days of the 99th Congress draw to 
a close, I would like to make a few re- 
marks about our distinguished col- 
league from Maryland, Senator 
CHARLES McC. Maruias, who is retir- 
ing after 18 years of Senate service. 

I have known Senator MArTuiAs since 
he first came to the Senate and have 
had the privilege of serving with him 
on the Senate Judiciary Committee 
for many years. 

He is an able legislator, who has rep- 
resented his State fairly and faithful- 
ly. Although I have not always agreed 
with the positions he has taken, I have 
found him to be a man of integrity 
who votes his conscience on the issues. 

Senator Maruras was born in 1922 in 
Frederick, MD. His schooling at Hav- 
erford College was interrupted during 
World War II while he served in the 
Coast Guard and the Navy. 

He graduated from the University of 
Maryland Law School in 1949. After 
admission to the bar, he practiced law 
with his father, became an assistant 
attorney general of Maryland, city at- 
torney of Frederick, and in 1958 he 
was elected to the General Assembly 
of Maryland as a delegate from Fred- 
erick County. He was elected to the 
U.S. House of Representatives in 1960 
and reelected in 1974 and 1980 when 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


he carried all the counties in the State 
and the city of Baltimore. 

In the Senate, he is currently chair- 
man of the Senate Rules Committee 
and member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Governmental Affairs 
Committee, and the Judiciary Com- 
mittee. 

As chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Patents, Copyrights and Trade- 
marks, Senator MaTHIaAs has spon- 
sored the the Trademark Counterfeit- 
ing Act of 1984, the Semiconductor 
Chip Protection Act of 1985, and other 
changes to patent law. He has support- 
ed legislation to allow joint research 
and development for corporations 
without violating antitrust laws. He 
has also fought for electronic commu- 
nications privacy and computer soft- 
ware protection. 

In his years in the Senate, Senator 
MarTuias has proven to be a dedicated 
pubic servant and a truly great Ameri- 
can. I am privileged to have known 
and served with him. 

Mr. President, I commend Senator 
Marturas on his years of Senate serv- 
ice, and I wish the best for him, his 
lovely wife, Ann, and his sons, Charles 
and Rob, in the years ahead. 


RETIREMENT OF SENATOR PAUL 
LAXALT 


Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I 
rise today to pay tribute to a man who 
can be counted among the most ad- 
mired and respected men in the U.S. 


Senate—and indeed the entire 
Nation—Senator Pau. LaxaLt, who is 
retiring at the end of this session after 
a long and distinguished public service 
career. 

In his years of public service, includ- 
ing 12 years as a Member of this body, 
Senator LaAxALt has shown himself to 
be a man of integrity and independ- 
ence. He is a fine example of those 
things which we consider to be virtues 
of the American West—strength, inde- 
pendence, loyalty, individuality, and 
honesty. 

The eldest of six Children, Senator 
LAXALT grew up in Carson City, NV. 
His upbringing by his Basque parents 
instilled in him a strong sense of 
family and the traditional values 
which have sustained him during his 
years in public life. 

He received an undergraduate 
degree from the University of Santa 
Clara and a law degree from the Uni- 
versity of Denver Law School inter- 
rupting his undergraduate education 
to serve his country as a U.S. Army 
corpsman in the South Pacific in 
World War II. 

In 1962, he left a successful private 
law practice to serve as Lieutenant 
Governor and then Governor of his 
State. During his tenure as Governor 
of Nevada, he concerned himself with 
establishing a policy of self-reliance 
and fiscal prudence, which he has con- 


29863 


tinued to advocate during his Senate 
career as well. 

He came out of a 4-year retirement 
from public life in 1974 and quickly es- 
tablished himself as a strong conserva- 
tive influence in the Senate, working 
to meet the need for a strong national 
defense and to reduce the size and 
scope of the Federal Government. 

Senator Laxatt has distinguished 
himself in many areas during his 
Senate career. He has been an able 
and dedicated member of the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary, where it 
has been a pleasure to work with him, 
and I appreciate the valuable service 
he has rendered as a member of that 
committee. He also serves as the chair- 
man of the Judiciary’s Criminal Law 
Subcommittee. He served for 2 years 
as chairman of the Appropriations’ 
State, Justice, Commerce Subcommit- 
tee. 

Another noteworthy accomplish- 
ment was his establishment of the 
Senate’s western coalition, which he 
formed to help Senators from Western 
States unite on issues of common con- 
cern. 

He has shown himself to be an able 
legislator, leading the opposition to 
the Panama Canal Treaties during his 
freshman term, and later chairing the 
subcommittee which passed the regu- 
latory reform bill through the Senate 
with no opposition. He also cospon- 
sored the Comprehensive Crime Con- 
trol Act of 1984. This bill has been 
called the most sweeping piece of anti- 
crime legislation in the history of the 
Congress, and Senator Laxa.tT’s role in 
its passage is especially noteworthy. 
He is currently working on the inter- 
state water compact. 

He has served as general chairman 
of the Republican Party since 1983; 
and after being the only Senator to 
publicly speak out on behalf of Ronald 
Reagan's campaign for the Presidency 
in 1976, he served as President Rea- 
gan’s national campaign chairman in 
that year, as well as in 1980 and 1984. 

Relying on a friendship which goes 
back to the early years of then-Gover- 
nors Reagan and Laxa.tt, President 
Reagan now calis frequently on his 
friend from Nevada and considers him 
to be his “eyes and ears on Capital 
Hill.” 

President Reagan’s belief in Paut 
LAXALT is so great that he entrusted 
him with the task of handling delicate 
negotiations with former President 
Marcos of the Philippines, prior to the 
fall of the Marcos government. Sena- 
tor LaxaLt’s perception of the situa- 
tion in the Philippines proved invalu- 
able to the President during the ensu- 
ing political upheaval in that country. 
In the short visit he had with Presi- 
dent Marcos, he so impressed that 
leader that Marcos called to ask for 
his advice during the crisis. 





29864 


The qualities which his colleagues 
have come to value most in him are 
his deep-seated sense of right and 
wrong; his quick sense of humor; his 
openness and honesty; and his unfail- 
ing loyalty. Our Nation was founded 
by men with these qualities—men who 
were not confined by the stale bound- 
aries of prescription politics. 

I am told that Senator LAXALT has a 
sign on the wall in his office which 
reads: ‘There is no limit to what a 
man can do or how far he can go as 
long as he does not mind who takes 
the credit.” 

This seems to be a true assessment 
of Pau. Laxa.t’s ideology. He quietly, 
and with determination, accomplishes 
what he thinks is necessary for the 
good of the people of his State and 
our Nation. 

I shall miss my friend from Nevada, 
both personally and professionally. I 
know that all of my distinguished col- 
leagues join me in wishing him and his 
lovely wife Carol, continued good 
health and happiness. 


RETIREMENT OF SENATOR 
BARRY GOLDWATER 


Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I 
have mixed feelings as I rise to honor 
Senator Barry GOLDWATER on his re- 
tirement, for it is easy to pay tribute 
to a man of his character, but difficult 
to say goodbye to a friend and truly 
great Member of this body. 


I have known him since I came to 
the Senate 30 years ago and have 
watched his leadership carry this 
Nation through some of the most 
formative and turbulent times in its 
history. Mr. President, I believe that 
few have served this country as faith- 
fully as this man, and few will be re- 
membered as well. 

When we look back over the decades 
of this century, Senator GOLDWATER'S 
image will be engraved there. He was 
part of the glory of World War II and 
privy to the threat of the cold war. He 
witnessed the unrest of the sixties and 
the crisis in Vietnam. He lived through 
the confusion of Watergate and the 
growth of the arms race. Through all 
these years, he has been a strong 
voice—at times a lonely voice—for 
fiscal conservatism, a strong defense, 
peace, and freedom. 

We will remember him as the pre- 
Vietnam Presidential candidate, who 
warned the Nation that it could not 
commit itself to war one step at a 
time—that to shed the lifeblood of a 
Nation for any less a goal than victory 
is sacrilege. For his honesty, he was 
harangued by liberals and castigated 
by petty politicians. The Nation that 
was promised no war got a long war. 
History judges BarRRyY GOLDWATER to 
have been right and he is now known 
as a prophet whose words stood the 
test of time. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


As the years go by, we will treasure 
his devoted public service, for he has 
defended this country in military 
combat and in the legislative trenches. 
Barry GOLDWATER has spent 37 years 
of his life in active military service and 
in the Reserves, where he retired as a 
major general. He has spent 37 years 
in government, with responsibilities 
ranging from member of the Phoenix 
City Council to the distinguished 
chairman of the powerful Senate 
Armed Services Committee. 

In addition, he has served ably as 
chairman of the Senate Select Com- 
mittee on Intelligence and as a 
member on the Commerce, Science 
and Transportation Committee, the 
Small Business Committee, the Select 
Committee on Indian Affairs, and the 
Aeronautical and Space Sciences Com- 
mittee. 

Recently, in the final days of his 
career in public service, he crowned 
the legislative achievements of his 
years here with the Department of 
Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. 
This measure, named in his honor, is a 
sweeping reorganization of the mili- 
tary services and the culmination of 
years of work. Future generations will 
owe an unending debt to the leader- 
ship and wisdom of Senator Go.p- 
WATER in this legislation. 

As the years go by, these accom- 
plishments will not be the only re- 
minder of Barry GOoOLDWATER's time 
here. His character will also be etched 
in our memories. We will remember 
his energy and enthusiasm; his humor 
and wit; his candor and kindness. We 
will recall the stubborn way he set his 
jaw when he thought he was right and 
the futility of getting him to change 
his mind. We will remember his cour- 
age; his patriotism; his integrity, and 
his compassion. 

So great was my admiration for this 
man and the principles for which he 
stood that I switched parties in 1964 to 
support his Presidential candidacy. 

Thomas Paine once said that in the 
times that try men’s souls, “the 
summer soldier and the sunshine pa- 
triot” will shrink from the service of 
his country. In those times, he says, he 
who is able to stand ‘‘deserves the love 
and thanks of man and woman.” 

Mr. President, BARRY GOLDWATER is 
a man who has proven during his life- 
time that in the “times that try men’s 
souls,”” he will not “shrink from the 
service of his country.” He is a man 
who has carried the sword so that he 
could raise the banner of peace. He is 
a man who has loved freedom and 
been willing to pay its price—a patriot 
for all seasons. He is a man who been a 
national servant and become a nation- 
al treasure. Yes, Mr. President, he is a 
man who deserves the gratitude of 
every person in this Nation. 


My words cannot capture all the 
contributions Barry GoLpWaTER has 
made, for much that he has offered 


October 9, 1986 


has been given from his heart. I can 
only say that he has served our coun- 
try well and fought for what is 
worthy. To him, I give my heartfelt 
gratitude. 

Mr. President, it is with deep regret 
that I see this truly great American 
leave this Chamber, but I consider it a 
great privilege to have served our 
Nation with him, and I count it high- 
est honor to have known him as a 
friend. 


SENATOR CHARLES “MAC” 
MATHIAS 


Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, in 
their unusual and highly informative 
work entitled ‘‘The Book of America,” 
Neal Pierce and Jerry Hagstrom make 
an interesting point about the State of 
Maryland as follows, and I quote: 

Maryland fits only reluctantly into a 
single portrait. What, after all, does the 
blue-collar port city of Baltimore, 55-per- 
cent black, have in common with the Wash- 
ington, DC, suburb of Montgomery County, 
which has among the highest family in- 
comes in the Nation? What do the water- 
men of the somnolent Eastern Shore have 
in common with the residents of mountain- 
locked Cumberland? What do the people 
who live in the almost continuous string of 
middle-class suburbs from Washington to 
Baltimore, in Prince Georges and Anne 
Arundel and Baltimore Counties, have in 
common with the others? 

The answer given in the book is ‘‘not 
very much, except that they all live 
within Maryland’s convoluted bound- 
aries.” My own answer is that the 
thing these disparate regions of a 
single State have in common and have 
had in common since 1969 to their en- 
during benefit is Mac MarTHIAs. 

I know what it is like to be a Repub- 
lican in a State where the party has 
registered a minority of the voters. It 
is often not easy, but Mac, by dint of 
his honesty, nonpartisan ability, and 
bipartisan activity, has held the re- 
spect and affection of the people of 
the State of Maryland of all parties 
for nearly 30 years. 

Likewise, he has held the respect 
and affection of this body and of the 
great majority of our party who be- 
lieve that diversity is the key to 
growth and progress. 

Of all the qualities of Mac Maruras 
as a man and as a Senator, none so 
stands out as his modesty. I remember 
a little over 1 year ago, standing in the 
back of the Senate caucus room, lis- 
tening to Mac Maruias deliver his an- 
nouncement not to seek reelection. He 
said then, “When I was elected to Con- 
gress in 1960, we were a nation divided 
by barriers of law, custom, and prac- 
tice. Today, there is no legal barrier of 


any kind between Americans of differ- 
ing race and creed. That is change in 


its most positive form. I am proud to 


have played a role in that peaceful 
revolution.” 





October 9, 1986 


I suggest, Mr. President, that here, 
our colleague’s modesty was excessive. 
They say that Mac Maruras’ family 
has been associated with the Republi- 
can Party since the time of Abraham 
Lincoln. 

It shows in the type of Senator he is 
and the type of Republican he is. In 
1963, it was Mac Marurtas and his Re- 
publican colleagues on the House Judi- 
ciary Committee who sponsored an 
omnibus civil rights bill. That bill later 
became the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
the landmark civil rights legislation of 
the 20th century. 

The legacy that Mac Maruias leaves 
to the field of civil rights also includes 
equal educational opportunity for the 
handicapped. Mac was the architect of 
an amendment in 1974 that provided 
the first Federal funding of schools at- 
tempting to serve the handicapped 
which Congress translated the follow- 
ing year into Public Law 94-142, the 
Education of All Handicapped Chil- 
dren’s Act. His work for the disabled 
represents all that is best about this 
body and that is the provision of op- 
portunity for all Americans to excel in 
a climate of peace. 

Mac also played a key role in the 
work that led to the televising of 
Senate sessions. My only wish is that 
the Senate and the people of the 
United States would have at least an- 
other term to look upon the calm 
countenance of my friend, Mac Ma- 
THIAS. 

But that is not to be and we must 
accept it. Some 50 years before Mac 
MatTuias came to the Congress as a 
young Representative, another Mary- 
land Representative, then in the twi- 
light of his career, Joshua Talbott, de- 
livered this wisdom to a freshman 
Member, and I quote. 

There are two kinds of Congressmen, 
show horses and work horses. If you want to 
get your name in the paper, be a show 
horse. If you want to gain the respect of 
your colleagues, keep quiet and be a work 
horse. 

Not many Members can balance the 
demands of style and substance in the 
U.S. Senate, but Mac Maruras has 
done it with grace, he has done it with 
courage, and the country is richer for 
it. 


SENATOR EAGLETON 


Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President some 
of us in this body have suffered or en- 
joyed the designation as blunt speak- 
ers on occasion. To this Senator, that 
designation has been especially wel- 
come when it earns a comparison with 
the senior Senator from Missouri, Tom 
EAGLETON. 

Tom will always be remembered for 
making the tough decisions. One of 
my enduring memories of this body, 
although a very ambivalent memory, 
is of the difficult matter of Harrison 
Williams. No one had a more difficult 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


time than Tom EacLeton. And when 
the time came for a decision, Tom 
EaGLeTon made his and explained it 
with a commanding eloquence on the 
floor of the Senate. 

The Nation, of course, has more 
than the collective memories of the 
Senate when it comes to Tom EAGLe- 
ton. He played the major role in the 
establishment of the National Insti- 
tute on Aging and was instrumental in 
expanding services available under the 
Older Americans Act. 

Tom EacLeton is a fighter and 
though we've found ourselves on oppo- 
site sides of an issue or two on this 
floor, his work in the U.S. Senate rep- 
resents the very best of this institu- 
tion. As the Senate moves into the 
100th Congress, we will be poorer for 
his absence. 


SENATOR LONG 


Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, today 
we say goodbye to a number of col- 
leagues, among them a man who wears 
the title ‘Mr. Chairman” as comfort- 
ably as any in this Chamber. 

That man is Russett LonG and 
though he hasn’t been in the majority 
for a few years he will always be re- 
membered as a leader of uncommon 
ability; a man of conscience always 
and a man of compromise when neces- 
sary. 

There is a quote attributed to Louisi- 
ana’s senior Senator that makes the 
point, “In politics, you must help your 
friends or you won’t have any.”’ One 
thing is for sure, Russet, Lonc has 
more friends around here than most 
Members. 

I suspect our colleague is not retir- 
ing because he is tired of public life. 
That doesn’t sound like Russet. Lone. 
No; I think he found a better deal 
down the road and none of us will find 
out anything about it until we read 
about it in the newspaper. 

After 36 years in the Senate, Rus- 
SELL Lonc leaves here to go back to 
Louisiana where I read that his ap- 
proval rating is somewhere in the 
neighborhood of 80 percent. Since so 
few of us ever get to visit the neigh- 
borhood, let me explain what that 
means. 

It means that when 10 people get to- 
gether in Louisiana, the chances are 
that 8 of them will have something 
good to say about Russei.t Lone. The 
only rating that could beat that would 
be one from this body. And I would be 
willing to bet if I were a gambling man 
that 100 percent of the Senate would 
voice their approval of RusseLL LONG 
in public or private. 

I, for one, consider it a privilege to 
have served with Russe. Lone. 


SENATOR LAXALT 


Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, it is 
no secret in this body that I am often 


29865 


at odds with the policies of the Presi- 
dent of the United States. It is also no 
secret that Paut Laxa.t is a great 
friend of the President. But what may 
not be so well known is the respect 
and affection I hold for the senior 
Senator from Nevada. 

Pau. has carried with him into the 
Senate these past 6 years an unusual 
burden and an unusual benefit. And 
that is his uncommonly close relation- 
ship to the President of the United 
States. This role is an unofficial liai- 
son between the Senate and the White 
House has been of benefit to all Sena- 
tors. 

The quality the people of the State 
of Nevada have found in their senior 
Senator for the past 12 years is the 
quality that made Paut the only Re- 
publican to win a previously Demo- 
cratic seat in 1974. 

That quality, quite simply, is candor 
in dealing with some of the Senate’s 
and the Nation's most contentious 
issues. Those of us in the Senate who 
have differed with Pau, Laxatt have 
always agreed that his work is marked 
by an open and straightforward ap- 
proach to public policy. No matter 
what our different philosophies and 
agendas, the entire Senate will miss 
PAvuL LAXALT. 


SENATOR GOLDWATER 


Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, 
Robert Frost said, ““The middle of the 
road is where the white line is, and 
that’s the worst place to drive.” 

Today, we honor a man who never 
tried to navigate that perilous center 
of the road and in so doing, constantly 
enriched both the political dialog and 
legacy of this Nation. 

BarRRY GOLDWATER is a@ man who 
speaks his mind and speaks it plainly, 
whatever the circumstance, whatever 
the issue, whatever the opposition. 

Unlike many on this floor over the 
decades who wear the label only when 
it suits them, the senior Senator from 
Arizona is a political conservative to 
the core. It is not surprising therefore, 
that the Senator's conscience has 
caused him to vote and speak out for 
such supposedly “liberal” positions as 
the independence of the judiciary with 
the same passion and precision that 
marks his support of an adequate na- 
tional defense. 

In recent years, the sort of outspo- 
kenness has gotten Senator Go.Lp- 
WATER in some trouble, not that he 
ever noticed it. The trouble came from 
the far right, social-issue wing of our 
party, those who call themselves con- 
servatives because it is a label that 
commands respect. In large part, it 
commands this kind of respect because 
of BARRY GOLDWATER. 

But the bullying of this group does 
not transfer to the true tenets of con- 
servatism as Senator GoLDWATER him- 





29866 


self observed in a speech in 1982. He 
said then: 

Iam frankly sick and tired of the political 
preachers across this country telling me as a 
citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I 
must believe in “A,” “B,” and “C” and “D.” 
I will fight them every step of the way if 
they try to dictate their moral convictions 
to all Americans in the name of conserv- 
atism. 

Conservatism will survive the tran- 
sient pressures of this or that wave or 
righteousness and the Senate with its 
rich variety of philosophy will survive 
after Barry GOLDWATER moves on to 
his mountain climbing, photography, 
and I understand, some teaching. But 
it will not be the same around here. 
This year, the Senate loses some of its 
toughest veterans to bigger and better 
pursuits. None is a greater loss to the 
Senate, to the country, than Barry 
GOLDWATER, a conservative, an Ameri- 
can that I have been proud to call a 
friend. 


TRIBUTE TO DEPARTING 
COLLEAGUES 


Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, 
the 99th Congress is nearly over, and 
the Senate can look back with pride 
over a record of extraordinary and his- 
toric legislative accomplishments. In 
recent months the Senate has passed a 
revolutionary tax bill that sets the 
foundation for true tax reform. Our 
action on the drug bill, and on Super- 
fund signals our commitment to deal 
seriously with pollutants that affect 
the health of our children and of our 
lands. Few can doubt that our other 
legislative efforts, including the 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings measure to 
balance the budget, will have lasting 
legacies for the economic well-being of 
our Nation. 

But while we can take some comfort 
from the many accomplishments of 
this 99th Congress, all of us in the 
Senate must temper our enthusiasm 
with the realization that six of our col- 
leagues will depart the Senate at the 
end of this session. 

Senator GotpwaTer, Senator Lone, 
Senator Marxsias, Senator LAxXatrt, 
Senator EaGLetron, and Senator Hart, 
have each made monumental contribu- 
tions to our Nation. They articulate 
individual and distinct political phi- 
losophies, yet we have witnessed their 
unified goals to make the United 
States a better place to live, to make 
us a trustworthy neighbor to our for- 
eign friends, and to make sure that 
our citizens realize the promises of de- 
mocracy that were established by our 
Founding Fathers. 

The accomplishments of our depart- 
ing colleagues are found in the laws of 
our Nation, and in our political histo- 
ry. No one among us can doubt that 
these six Senators have dedicated 
their lives to serve the public interest. 
It is not enough to simply say that we 
will miss BARRY GOLDWATER, RUSSELL 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Lonc, Tom EacGieton, Gary Hart, 
PauL LAXALT, and Mac Maruyias. It 
goes without saying that we will miss 
their companionship and grace. But 
what we will miss most of all are their 
gifts of leadership and wisdom. 


TRIBUTE TO SENATOR CHARLES 
McC. MATHIAS 


Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, with 
a combination of sorrow and joy, I bid 
farewell to Senator CHARLES McC. Ma- 
THIAS—sorrow because he is a man of 
conscience and decency whose voice 
and talents will be sorely missed in 
this body, but joy because he is a vital 
and committed man who will undoubt- 
edly apply himself to equally impor- 
tant endeavors outside this body. 

I have had the honor of serving with 
Mac Maturias for all 18 year of his 
Senate career. We often have been 
jokingly referred to as lonely lepers in 
the colony we call “moderate Repubi- 
canism,”’ and I long ago learned to re- 
spect his strong voice and dedicated 
spirit. 

A lot of history has been made 
during the past 18 years, and not all of 
it has been proud history: Vietnam, 
Watergate, and the incredible escala- 
tion of the nuclear arms race. But 
through it all, Mac Maruias has main- 
tained not only his commitment but 
also his civility. He has refused to 
remain silent when his conscience and 
vision put him at odds with the major- 
ity. But instead of attacking the ma- 
jority, Mac Marturas has set himself to 
the task of framing alternatives and 
advocating peace and justice. 

Of all the accomplishments Mac Ma- 
THIAS can proudly claim, I think the 
Voting Rights Act stands as one of the 
greatest testaments to his energy, cre- 
ativity, and compassion. At a time 
when domestic politics seemed to be 
coming apart at the seams, Mac Ma- 
THIAS refused to be among the nay- 
sayers. He knew what was right and 
melded it with what was possible and 
what was needed to frame a lasting 
piece of legislation. When we one day 
ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty, that too will stand as a testa- 
ment to the will and vision of Mac Ma- 
THIAS. 

As the ranking member of the 
Senate Rules Commitee, I will miss his 
leadership. As a moderate Republican, 
I will miss his companionship. And as 
a Member of this institution, I will 
miss his intellect, civility, and decency. 
But as I join my colleagues in bidding 
farewell to Mac Maruras, I take joy in 
the certainty that his commitment to 
civil rights, efficient government, and 
lasting peace will continue outside this 
Chamber. 


October 9, 1986 


TRIBUTE TO SENATOR THOMAS 
EAGLETON 


Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, in a 
few days, my good friend and distin- 
guished colleague Tom Eacieron will 
be leaving this body. I will miss his 
presence in this Chamber greatly. 
During my 20 years in the Senate, it 
has been my honor to serve with many 
distinguished Americans, who also 
happened to be U.S. Senators. It 
always is difficult to come to the end 
of another term and say goodbye to 
one of these trusted friends and col- 
leagues. 

During the 18 years Tom and I have 
served as Senators, my appreciation 
and respect for this man have grown 
immensely. I am’ pleased to say that 
we have stood shoulder to shoulder in 
battle on this floor on numerous occa- 
sions. It is with much less pleasure 
that I report that we also have stood 
toe to toe in battle. Of the two, I much 
prefer the former, because Tom EAGLE- 
Ton is a fierce warrior—he has no fear 
of battle. I learned this as chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee in 
many a markup session and also on 
the Senate floor during heated de- 
bates. My good friend, the senior Sen- 
ator from Missouri, always did his 
homework and came before our col- 
leagues eager to enter the fray. 

But beyond our professional rela- 
tionship, Tom and I have developed a 
close personal friendship. On a 
number of occasions, Antoinette and I 
have had the good fortune to travel 
with or entertain Tom and his wife, 
Barbara. He is a wonderful traveling 
companion. He is able to maintain the 
most rigorous schedule and always 
remain gracious. Above all else, Tom 
EaGLeton is able to keep his wits about 
him and to find humor in the most 
common experiences or in the most 
frenzied times. 

Mr. President, it has been a privilege 
to know and serve with this most dis- 
tinguished Senator. All who have 
served with Tom EaGLeton are better 
for it and we shall feel his absence 
profoundly. 


THE RETIREMENT OF SENATOR 
BARRY M. GOLDWATER 


Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 
rise to express my great respect and 
admiration for my distinguished col- 
league from the State of Arizona who, 
as we all know, will be retiring from 
the Senate after this year. It has been 
a pleasure and an honor to serve with 
Senator GoxtpwaTer in this body 
during the past 14 years, and I will 
sorely miss his presence. This Nation 
of ours has been fortunate to have had 
a leader such as he, whose commit- 
ment to national security and the Con- 
stitution go unparalleled. 

Senator GOLDWATER came to the 
Senate in 1952, when he defeated then 





October 9, 1986 


Senate Majority Leader Ernest McFar- 
land. Since then, he has been reelected 
four times and has become the best 
known member of the Republican 
Party. For so many years now, he has 
been the most articulate, forceful, cou- 
rageous, and consistent advocate of 
our conservative ideals, and I daresay 
it will be nearly impossible to replace 
such a man. True statesmen always 
are. 

Throughout his career, Senator 
GOLDWATER has been characterized as 
being an extremist in his views. It is 
this characterization that hurt his bid 
for the Presidency in 1964. However, 
in defending his political views, Sena- 
tor GOLDWATER once declared, “Extre- 
mism in the defense of liberty is no 
vice, and moderation in the pursuit of 
justice is no virtue.” There’s much 
truth to this saying, and only histcry 
will judge whether or not our Nation 
made a mistake in 1964. 

Coming from the Southwest as does 
Senator GotpwatTer, I feel a special 
closeness to him. We have shared 
many issues which are important to 
both Arizona and New Mexico. And as 
one of the earliest critics of high Fed- 
eral spending, he is surely a man after 
my own heart. Back in 1957, Senator 
GOLDWATER gave a speech criticizing 
President Eisenhower's fiscal 1958 
budget as being too high. That speech 
is often regarded as having launched 
his career as the leader of the conserv- 
ative wing of our party. Nearly 30 
years later, Senator GOLDWATER re- 
mains one of the most outspoken crit- 
ics of Government spending policies. 
Appropriately enough, it seems as 
though Government is finally starting 
to listen. 

Senator GoLDWATER’s unrelenting 
advocacy of a strong defense is all too 
well known. Again, I think it is appro- 
priate that, as he leaves office, he does 
so at a time when our Nation's mili- 
tary preparedness has been reestab- 
lished after a period of considerable 
neglect. As chairman of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, the Sena- 
tor has played a key role in the re- 
building of our conventional forces 
and the modernization of our strategic 
forces. 

In short, the legacy Senator GoLp- 
WATER leaves his Nation is immeasur- 
able. I wish my good friend and col- 
league all the best. 


SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER 


Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, there 
are among us, always, some who are 
giants. BARRY GOLDWATER is clearly 
one of those, a man of integrity, of 
vision, of principle, of philosophy, of 
guiding moral roots that have served 
him well and benefited his country. 

Courage told him to stand on princi- 
ple when he ran for President. That 
principle has been vindicated, al- 
though in the agony of defeat, clearly, 


I 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


the temptation to slide off principle 
into the always embraceable main- 
stream, must have been overpowering. 
To watch Senator GotpwatTeErR resist 
that has been one of the rare privi- 
leges of my life. To watch him urge 
America to stand up to its greatness, 
to watch him urge America to stand 
up to its word with allies such as 
Taiwan, to watch Senator GOLDWATER 
urge America to hang on to principles 
of freedom, liberty, and to fight to 
defend them has been an inspiration 
to all of us. 

It has been, from time to time, styl- 
ish to think that America could get by 
without strength and that the force of 
our smiling presence in the world 
would be enough to win over all the 
forces of imperialism that washed 
from ocean to ocean. Senator GoLp- 
WATER has been one who draws us 
back to the reality that if it is not we 
who stand for freedom, who then can, 
and who then will? 

I believe that this country owes a 
tremendous debt of gratitude to BARRY 
GoLpwarer. I shall miss him as a legis- 
lator, miss him as a statesman, miss 
him deeply as a friend. I wish him 
well. All of us are better for having 
served alongside him. 


SENATOR RUSSELL LONG 


Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, as we 
look this year at retirements from the 
Senate, certainly a couple of them will 
represent outstanding losses in capa- 
bility and service to the American 
people. One of those Senators is my 
friend Russet Lonc. 

RUSSELL Lonc represents wisdom, ex- 
perience, exuberant partnership when 
necessary, exuberant patriotism when 
obvious. His is a capability of reducing 
complex issues to understandable 
terms which focus on the necessary 
things. 

RussE_t Lone is a good friend. I 
have worked with him when he was 
chairman of the Finance Committee, 
and I have worked with him as rank- 
ing member of the Finance Commit- 
tee. On matters of tax policy, some- 
times we agreed, and sometimes we 
disagreed, but never was there a vitri- 
olic word between us. Always there 
was an effort to achieve something a 
President, whether Carter or Reagan, 
wished within a spectrum of integrity, 
honesty, and the decent philosophy 
that American business and American 
earners have singular rights in a free 
economy. 

RUSSELL LONG was creative. RUSSELL 
Lone was crafty. I say crafty with gen- 
uine admiration because, above all, 
RUvSSELL could achieve goals which he 
viewed as important. By molding alli- 
ances, by relating events, by sheer 
craftsmanship in the legislative proc- 
ess RUSSELL achieved his objectives 
and those of the Presidents he served. 


29867 


Mr. President, on top of all these 
truly wonderful qualities as a legisla- 
tor and as a committee chairman, Rus- 
SELL LONG just happens to be my 
friend. I wish him well as he enters his 
new life. The country can give thanks 
it had the services for such a long time 
of one who was so devoted to the very 
essence of that which makes America 
decent and successful. 


SENATOR TOM EAGLETON 


Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, as Sen- 
ator Tom EAGLETON retires this year, I 
am compelled to express a level of ad- 
miration for him that he would not let 
me express during the painful and 
trying times of the expulsion of Harri- 
son Williams. Tom EaGLeton and Pete 
Williams had been friends, and the 
agony that Senator EaGLeTon went 
through in making a judgment that 
the interests and integrity of the 
Senate outweighed bonds of friend- 
ship with an old and trusted ally was 
something that most of the Senate 
was not privileged to watch. I saw des- 
perate internal struggle as he sought 
not to choose between the integrity of 
the Senate and an old friend, but how 
to handle the choice that he had made 
instinctively. The choice was one of in- 
tegrity; it was a choice of a very great 
and courageous man. 

On other instances Senator EAGLe- 
Ton and I have disagreed philosophi- 
cally, he riding with his party and I 
with mine, but over the course of the 
years, I have worked with him on sev- 
eral legislative initiatives. I have 
known him always to be _ honest, 
straightforward, understanding, and 
creative. He has been tough in resist- 
ing any erosion of principle and under- 
standing as to the needs of others. 

Mr. President, Tom EaGLetTon is one 
who shows the civility of American po- 
litical life, something which can elicit 
the admiration from friendly partisans 
and from people whose integrity is 
above reproach. I will miss Tom. He 
has been one from whom I have 
learned much in the course of my 
Senate career. If I have learned noth- 
ing else, I have learned what it is to 
watch courage and philosophy domi- 
nate in a struggle to do what is right. 
Again I say, America has benefited 
from the integrity and gentility of one 
who showed us that, 


SENATOR PAUL LAXALT 


Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, one of 
our colleagues retiring this year is per- 
haps my first and longest friend in the 
U.S. Senate, Pau. LAXALT. PAUL came 
to Wyoming in the dark times of my 
first year of campaigning for the U.S. 
Senate and was willing to take a stand 
in my behalf. Some others who came 
out were willing to merely be present 
in my behalf, but Paut Laxatt 





29868 


weighed in. This typified PauL’s cour- 
age. 

Since that time, as a Member of the 
Senate and as a colleague of the Sena- 
tor from Nevada, I have watched with 
absolute admiration his ability to de- 
cently embrace the ideas of friend and 
foe alike, never rejecting anybody with 
arrogance or by posturing. He has 
friends, and deservedly so, on both 
sides of the aisle. Paut is yet another 
one of those Americans, the son of a 
Basque immigrant, whose beginnings 
have given him an appreciation of the 
essence of this country—what this 
country is all about. America benefits 
enormously by the presence of people 
of that understanding and that level 
of devotion to America’s greatness. 
America can be grateful, and I am 
grateful for the service of PAavuL 
Laxatt, for his friendship and that of 
his family. 

We lose a friend of the President. 
We lose an able and capable legislator. 
We lose an amiable and agreeable 
friend. We lose a tough and skilled 
fighter. As PAUL moves on, I wish him 
and his family well. Wherever his path 
leads him, we can be sure that if his 
country needs him, he'll be there. By 
his presence we've all been blessed. 
The country is stronger; the lives of 
Americans are more secure. 


TRIBUTE TO SENATOR GARY 
HART 


Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, at the 
end of the 99th Congress we will say 
farewell to Senator Gary Hart. For 
the past 12 years, Senator Hart has 
been an effective and hard-working 
spokesman for Colorado in this body. 
In addition, he has played an active 
role in defining our national agenda 
for the 1980’s, particularly in the criti- 
cal areas of economic policy, national 
security, and energy. 

We in Oklahoma are proud that 
Senator Hart spent his undergraduate 
college days at Bethany Nazarene Col- 
lege in Bethany, OK, obtaining a B.A. 
there in 1958 before attending divinity 
school and law school at Yale Univer- 
sity. 

Throughout his productive career in 
the Senate, Senator Hart has present- 
ed innovative ideas to deal with our 
Nation’s most severe problems. He has 
been a valued member of the Senate 
Armed Services, Budget, and Environ- 
ment and Public Works Committees. 

Senator Hart is an acknowledged 
expert on military reform, particularly 
on naval operations, and founded the 
bipartisan Military Reform Caucus. 
He is also one of the most knowledgea- 
ble Senators in this body on the de- 
tails of arms control. 

In the environmental area, Senator 
Hart has taken a leading role as a 
member of the Senate Environment 
and Public Works Committee, most 
often following a middle course in crit- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


ical debates between the desires of en- 
vironmental groups and _ business 
groups. He headed the Senate's inves- 
tigation of the Three Mile Island nu- 
clear powerplant accident and chaired 
the National Commission on Air Qual- 
ity, which released a report in 1981 on 
the Clean Air Act that drew fire from 
both sides. 

From the start of his career, Senator 
Hart has been a strong advocate of 
policies to increase our Nation's 
energy independence, supporting im- 
position of an oil import fee and op- 
posing the so-called Windfall Profits 
Tax. 

As a member of the Senate Budget 
Committee, Senator HarT proposed a 
plan which the committee adopted in 
1981 to balance the Federal budget. 
He also introduced legislation to pre- 
vent taxpayers from being pushed into 
higher brackets by inflation. 

I have been most honored by Sena- 
tor Hart’s support and cosponsorship 
of my legislation to reform campaign 
finance laws. He has been an outspo- 
ken advocate of the need to change 
the way campaigns are financed in 
this country in order to preserve the 
integrity of our election process. His 
support for these changes will be 
sorely missed as we press ahead with 
this critical debate next year. 

I join my fellow colleagues in paying 
tribute to the career of Senator Gary 
Hart and in thanking him for his serv- 
ice to our country as a Member of the 
U.S. Senate. Senator Hart, we all wish 
you and your family the very best for 
the future. 


TRIBUTE TO SENATOR RUSSELL 
LONG 


Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, when 
the 99th Congress adjourns we will say 
farewell to one of the Senate’s most 
esteemed and senior Members, Sena- 
tor Russet, Lone of Louisiana. His 
contributions to our Nation as a Sena- 
tor will be sorely missed. I know that 
he will continue to make an immense 
contribution as a private citizen. 

Senator Lone is currently second in 
seniority in this body, ranking behind 
only Senator JoHNn Stennis of Missis- 
sippi in length of service in the 
Senate. Elected just before his 30th 
birthday, Senator Lone has devoted 
more than half of his life to the 
United States Senate, to his State, and 
to this Nation. 

There is no Member of this body 
who understands the Federal Tax 
Code better than Senator Lone. There 
is no Senator who works harder or 
better does his homework than does 
Senator Lone. 

He has made his mark on this body 
in many ways, but most especially 
through his able service for 15 years as 
chairman of the Senate Finance Com- 
mittee where he because known as the 
master of consensus building, a role he 


October 9, 1986 


has continued during his service as the 
ranking member of that committee. 
Senator Lone was a skillful manager 
of the Finance Committee, encourag- 
ing bipartisan compromises and allow- 
ing all members of the committee to 
have a voice in the formulation of the 
critical legislation handled by that 
panel. His mark is on every major tax 
bill which has come out of Congress in 
the past 20 years. 

Part of his success stems from his 
mastery of the Senate’s parliamentary 
procedure, but, no doubt, much of his 
success also comes from his irrepress- 
ibly good sense of humor, his fairness, 
and his commonsense approach to any 
problem. 

Senator Lone has always correctly 
believed that the chief priority for our 
economy should be balancing the 
budget, and he has worked diligently 
in promoting that much-needed goal. 

Although to list all of his legislative 
accomplishments would be impossible, 
among them have been his authorship 
of the earned income tax credit, which 
rewards the working poor, and his pro- 
posal for welfare reform legislation to 
put a ceiling on Federal welfare costs 
and encourage able-bodied welfare re- 
cipients to work. 

Senator Lone has also proposed a 
system of catastrophic health insur- 
ance and advocated employee stock 
ownership plans [ESOP’s] to boost 
worker productivity. He has pushed 
for a reformed tax structure to en- 
courage much-needed capital forma- 
tion and give the private sector the in- 
centives it needs to move toward full 
employment. 

His work in promoting the need for 
energy independence in this country is 
unbounded, and he has always recog- 
nized the importance of the energy in- 
dustry to this country’s national secu- 
rity interests. 

In addition, Senator Lonc has made 
contributions as a member of the 
Senate Commerce, Science, and Trans- 
portation Committee, the Senate 
Select Committee on Ethics and the 
Joint Taxation Committee. He also 
served a term as Senate majority whip. 

The son of the late Senator and 
former Louisiana Governor, Huey P. 
Long, Senator Lonc was exposed to 
politics throughout his entire life. In 
fact, he was first elected to office 
while a junior at Louisiana State Uni- 
versity, when he became student body 
president. He received his law degree 
from LSU in 1942 before going into 
the Navy to serve our country in 
World War IT. In 1946, Senator Lone 
returned to Baton Rouge to practice 
law, but was again quickly immersed 
in politics, working for his uncle, Earl 
Long, who became Governor of Louisi- 


ana in 1948, Senator Lone served his 
uncle as executive counsel during his 
gubernatonial term. 





October 9, 1986 


Senator Lonc won his first election 
to the U.S. Senate in 1948 to fill the 
unexpired term of Senator John Over- 
ton, who died while in office. He was 
elected to his first full term in the 
Senate in 1950 by a more than 68-per- 
cent margin, and has been in the U.S. 
Senate ever since, winning election 
five more times by comfortable mar- 


It has been my distinct honor to 
serve on the Finance Committee and 
in this body with Senator Lone. He 
has been my good friend and adviser 
since I first came to the U.S. Senate in 
1979. I truly value his friendship. 

Upon announcing his impending re- 
tirement early in 1985, Senator Lonc 
said, “Every Senator should decide for 
himself at what point he thinks he 
should retire,” but also stated that 
when he leaves the Senate he will con- 
tinue to “take an interest in public af- 
fairs.” Those of us who know RUSSELL 
Lonc and know of his honesty, integri- 
ty, and devotion to his country know 
that he will remain active in counsel- 
ing us as we deal with our Nation's 
problems in the future. 

I join my fellow colleagues in paying 
tribute to the career of Senator Rus- 
SELL LoNG and in thanking him for his 
many years of service to our country 
as a Member of the U.S. Senate. 

I also want to thank his wife and 
partner, Carolyn Long, for supporting 
Senator Lone in his work and commit- 
ment to public service. I thank her 
also for making a very significant con- 
tribution of her own to the good of 
our Nation through her own earlier 
work on the staff of the U.S. Senate 
and for the encouragement and friend- 
ship which she has extended to count- 
less Senators, their spouses, and fami- 
lies. 

Senator Russe., Lone and his wife 
are truly loved by the people of Louisi- 
ana and those who make up the insti- 
tutional family of the U.S. Senate. My 
hope is that they will constantly re- 
member the great love and respect in 
which they are held by all of us and 
will have much happiness in the years 
ahead. 


RETIREMENT OF SENATOR 
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR. 


Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, like 
most of my colleagues, I will miss my 
very good friend “Mac” Marutas. He is 
well known for his wide range of tal- 
ents and ability. As I recall, the Wash- 
ington Post once commented on his re- 
markable ability to be at home with 
the dock workers of Baltimore and the 
wealthy residents of Maryland’s east- 
ern shore. 

In the Senate, Mr. Marnrias is at 
home in a technical debate about the 
impact of foreign trade on American 
industry or the fine points of nuclear 
proliferation treaties. I have always 
admired the strength of character and 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


commitment to ideals of Senator 
CHARLES McC. Martuias, Jr. We in the 
Senate seldom allow ourselves to take 
the time to appreciate the work of a 
fellow Senator. On the occasion of 
Senator Maruras’ completion of his 
last term, we owe it to Mac to thank 
him for his fine example. 

There are two substantive issues 
about Senator Martuias that I would 
like to share with my colleagues. The 
first is his commitment to the terms of 
the agreement reached by the Nation- 
al Bipartisan Commission on Central 
America. Senator MaTHias was one of 
the Senate's most convincing support- 
ers of this bipartisan doctrine. We 
were trying to convince our colleagues 
that a balanced approach to the 
human development, security, and po- 
litical needs of this troubled region. 

While the full Congress did not ulti- 
mately implement the terms of our bi- 
partisan effort to the extent we would 
have liked, I was always impressed 
with Senator Martuias’ skillful and ar- 
ticulate exposition of the full range of 
economic, military, and _ political 
change needed in Central America. I 
will continue to work for our goals in 
this area, and I will truly miss the en- 
ergetic support of my fellow senior 
counselor on the Commission. 

The second debt I owe to Senator 
Matuias is for his fine work on patent 
protection for semiconductors. New 
Mexico is a producer of semiconduc- 
tors and the law desperately needed 
clarification in this scientific and tech- 
nical arena. The excellent work of 
Senator Maturas has done much to 
stabilize an otherwise violatile ques- 
tion about the rights of many of our 
good scientists in New Mexico to have 
their ideas protected. On behalf of 
New Mexico and America’s computer 
industry, I thank my good friend for 
this lasting contribution to a vital in- 
dustry. 

In closing, I would only like to add 
that the U.S. Senate, as an institution, 
will sorely miss the calm and intelli- 
gence of one of its most individualistic 
and gentle Members. I hope Mac will 
continue to work with us in solving 
some of our most difficult problems. I 
know his hand can still carve out a 
path to agreement, as he showed us in 
the debate on Central America. 

Indeed, the entire Senate and the 
entire Nation owe a debt of gratitude 
to a hardworking American who un- 
derstands the problems of this Nation 
and its great future. We will only 
reach our national goals when more 
men and women of high caliber dedi- 
cate themselves to national service as 
Senator CHARLES McC. Maruias, Jr., 
has done. 


RETIREMENT OF SENATOR PAUL 
LAXALT 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

rise today to pay tribute to my col- 


29869 


leagues in the Senate who will retire 
at the conclusion of the 99th Con- 
gress. 

As these Members retire, they will 
leave behind many years of outstand- 
ing leadership, leadership which has 
been provided to both sides of the 
aisle. When I think of the leaders of 
the Senate, one name which immedi- 
ately comes to mind is Paut LaxatrT. 
As my colleagues know, Senator 
LAXALT is regarded as one of President 
Reagan’s closest friends. This special 
personal and professional friendship 
with the President has enabled him to 
perform a unique leadership role with 
his Senate colleagues. Senator LAXALT 
has often been the informal liaison be- 
tween the Senate and the White 
House, and I doubt we will be able to 
find anyone to step into this role. 

Senator LAXALT also leaves behind 
another leadership role which will be 
difficult to fill, one with which I am 
particularly concerned. Sentor LAxaLtT 
is the cochairman of the Western Coa- 
lition, a bipartisan, informal group of 
Western Senators. Recently, I was 
chosen to succeed Senator LAXALT as 
cochairman, a job which I believe is 
very important to my State and other 
Western States. Every region of the 
Nation has special characteristics and 
issues, but I would argue that this is 
especially true in the West. The vast 
openness of the West, the extensive 
public lands, and the scarce availabil- 
ity of water are unique to the Western 
frontiers. These special attributes re- 
quire an outstanding leader, and Sena- 
tor Laxa.Tt has been this man. 

As Senator Laxatt leaves. the 
Senate, I would like to take this oppor- 
tunity to thank him for his friendship 
and leadership. The void he leaves 
behind will be difficult to fill, and I 
am certain my colleagues will agree. 


TRIBUTE TO SENATOR THOMAS 
EAGLETON 


Mr..PELL. Mr. President, it is with a 
sense of pride and regret that I rise to 
pay tribute to my dear friend and col- 
league, Tom EaGLeton. I am proud to 
have served with him for the past 18 
years, and I regret very much that this 
will come to an end with the close of 
the 99th Congress. 

A deep and abiding interest in educa- 
tion has been with Tom EaGLeton for a 
long, long time. His father was a 
prominent member of the St. Louis 
School Board, and a young Tom EacLe- 
ton frequently accompanied his father 
to meetings. I understand, in fact, that 
Tom’s interest in politics may well 
have begun when he went to those 
meetings. 

When he was Lieutenant Governor 
of Missouri, Tom EaGLeton chaired the 
Governor’s Task Force on Vocational 
Education. That task force came up 
with the recommendations that result- 





29870 


ed in the establishment of Missouri's 
system of areawide vocational-techni- 
cal schools, a system that prevails 
even today. 

It was only natural, then, that when 
Tom EaGLeton came to the Senate, he 
would want to continue his intense 
and passionate interest in education. 
His first request as a Member of the 
Senate was to be assigned to the Sub- 
committee on Education, Arts, and 
Humanities. That was also the year 
that I became chairman, and for the 
next 15 years we enjoyed one of the 
best working relationships that I have 
experienced as a Member of the 
Senate. When he left the subcommit- 
tee in 1985, the loss was immense not 
only to the subcommittee but to all of 
education. 

His decade and a half of service on 
the subcommittee was remarkable in 
its achievements. He was the author of 
the first basic skills legislation, long 
before it was fashionable to champion 
these concerns. 

It was Senator EaGLeton’s leadership 
that brought about the reinstatement 
of the Emergency School Aid Act. 
This program, which provides critical- 
ly important Federal assistance to 
schools undergoing desegregation, had 
been eliminated in the 1981 budget 
reconciliation, and it was only through 
the Herculean efforts of Tom EAGLE- 
TON that we got it back. 


On a personal note, it was Tom 


EaGLeton who suggested that the 
Basic Education Opportunity Grant 


Program be renamed the Pell Grant 
Program. That was the effort of a 
kind and gracious man that I am 
proud to call my friend and an action 
for which I shall always be grateful. 
This tribute would not be complete 
without noting also Tom’s many con- 
tributions in the field of foreign rela- 
tions. He and I have long shared an in- 
terest in the Greece-Cyprus-Turkey 
relationship. Tom was the most elo- 
quent and forceful opponent of the 
Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, 
and he has been a persistently power- 
ful advocate of justice in Cyprus ever 
since then. I also greatly admired the 
important contribution that Tom 
EAGLETON made in the formulation and 
passage of the war powers resolution, 
one of the landmark acts of the Con- 
gress to reassert its constitutional pre- 
rogatives in the area of foreign policy. 
For the past 2 years, I have had the 
great pleasure of serving with Tom 
EAGLETON on the Foreign Relations 
Committee. And here, I was particu- 
larly appreciative of Tom’s leadership 
in putting together a compromise on 
the United States-United Kingdom ex- 
tradition treaty that enabled this con- 
troversial treaty to be approved by an 
overwhelming bipartisan majority. 
When Tom took up this task the com- 
mittee was hopelessly deadlocked in 
its efforts to reconcile antiterrorism 
concerns with the need to protect indi- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


vidual rights. What had seemed impos- 
sible soon became possible, and it 
would not have happened without 
Tom EAGLETON. 

Mr. President, when this Congress 
comes to a close, Tom EAGLETON will go 
home to Missouri not to retire but to 
continue his interest in education and 
foreign affairs as a professor at Wash- 
ington University in St. Louis. 

I must add, too, that my wife and I 
shall particularly miss his lovely Bar- 
bara. However, his students will then 
experience what we have experienced 
for 18 years. For it is they who will 
learn next what a rare privilege it is to 
know Tom EacLeton. It is they who 
will have the honor of working with 
him. They are the lucky ones, and the 
loss will be ours. For what a joy it has 
been to call him colleague and friend, 
and what a better place this Chamber 
is because he was here. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk pro- 
ceeded to call the roll. 


0 1000 


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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 


IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE 
HARRY E. CLAIBORNE 


COURT OF IMPEACHMENT 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
LAXALT). Under the previous order, the 
hour of 10 a.m. having arrived, the 
Senate will now proceed in closed ses- 
sion to deliberate upon the Articles of 
Impeachment. The time is equally di- 
vided in the usual form. 

(At 10 a.m. the doors of the Cham- 
ber were closed. The proceedings of 
the Senate were held in closed session 
until 2:51 p.m. at which time, the fol- 
lowing occurred.) 

OPEN SESSION 

(At 2:51 p.m. the doors of the Cham- 
ber were opened and the Senate re- 
sumed proceedings in open session.) 

(During the closed session there was 
a call of the roll, Quorum No. 16.) 

The managers of the House of Rep- 
resentatives, together with special 
counsel, were seated at the table as- 
signed to them in the well of the 
Senate to the right of the Chair. 

The respondent and his counsel were 
seated at the table assigned to them in 
the well of the Senate to the left of 
the Chair. 

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

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

The legislative clerk proceeded to 
call the roll. 


October 9, 1986 


Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent 
the order for the quorum call be re- 
scinded. 

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


AUTHORITY FOR RECORD STATEMENTS UNTIL 
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1986 

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent 
that all Senators may be permitted to 
insert their statements or their rea- 
sons for their votes through Wednes- 
day. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is 
there objection? 

Mr. DOLE. That is through Wednes- 
day of next week. 

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

Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of 
a quorum. 

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

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that 
further proceedings under the quorum 
call be rescinded. 

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

The Sergeant at Arms will make a 
proclamation. 

The Sergeant at Arms, Ernest E. 
Garcia, made proclamation as follows: 

All persons are commanded to keep 
silent on pain of imprisonment while 
the House of Representatives is exhib- 
iting to the Senate of the United 
States Articles of Impeachment 
against Judge Harry E. Caliborne. 


ARTICLE I 
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 
clerk will read the first Article of Im- 
peachment. 
The legislative clerk read as follows: 


ARTICLE I 


That Judge Harry E. Claiborne, having 
been nominated by the President of the 
United States, confirmed by the Senate of 
the United States, and while serving as a 
judge of the United States District of 
Nevada, was and is guilty of misbehavior 
and of high crimes and misdemeanors in 
office in a manner and form as follows: 

On or about June 15, 1980, Judge Harry E. 
Claiborne did willfully and knowingly make 
and subscribe a United States Individual 
Income Tax Return for the calendar year 
1979, which return was verified by a written 
declaration that the return was made under 
penalties of perjury; which return was filed 
with the Internal Revenue Service; and 
which return Judge Harry E. Claiborne did 
not believe to be true and correct as to every 
material matter in that the return reported 
total income in the amount of $80,227.04 
whereas, as he then and there well knew 
and believed, he received and failed to 
report substantial income in addition to 
that stated on the return in violation of sec- 
tion 7206(1) of title 26, United States Code. 

The facts set forth in the foregoing para- 
graph were found beyond a reasonable 
doubt by a twelve-person jury in the United 
States District Court for the District of 
Nevada. 

Wherefore, Judge Harry E. Claiborne was 
and is guilty of misbehavior and was and is 
guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor 





October 9, 1986 


and, by such conduct, warrants impeach- 
ment and trial and removal from office. 


O 1500 


VOTE ON ARTICLE I 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 
Chair reminds the Senate that each 
Senator, when his or her name is 
called, will stand and vote “guilty” or 
“not guilty.” 

Senators, how say you? Is the re- 
spondent, Harry E. Claiborne, guilty 
or not guilty? 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. STEVENS (when his name was 
called), Present. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Garn] and 
the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Syms] 
are necessarily absent. 

The result was announced—guilty 
87, not guilty 10, as follows: 


{Rollcall Vote No. 335] 


(Subject: Article I—Court of 
Impeachment—Judge H.E. Claiborne] 


GUILTY—87 


Ford 
Glenn 
Goldwater 


Melcher 
Mitchell 
Moynihan 
Murkowski 
Nickles 
Nunn 
Packwood 
Pell 
Pressler 
Proxmire 
Quayle 
Riegle 
Rockefeller 


Abdnor 
Andrews 
Armstrong 
Baucus 
Bentsen 
Biden 
Boren 
Boschwitz 
Bradley 
Broyhill 
Bumpers 
Burdick 
Byrd 
Chafee 
Chiles 
Cochran 
Cohen 
Cranston 
D'Amato 
Danforth 
DeConcini 
Denton 
Dixon 
Dodd 

Dole 
Domenici 
Durenberger 
Eagleton 
Exon 


Hollings 
Humphrey 
Inouye 
Johnston 
Kassebaum 
Kasten 
Kennedy 
Kerry 
Lautenberg 
Leahy 
Lugar 
Mathias 
Matsunaga 
Mattingly 
McClure Wilson 
McConnell Zorinsky 


NOT GUILTY—10 


Hecht Metzenbaum 
Laxalt Pryor 

Levin 

Long 


ANSWERED “PRESENT”—1 


Stevens 


NOT VOTING—2 
Garn Symms 


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I 
would remind the gallery there will be 
no expressions of approval or disap- 
proval when the result is announced. 

Upon this Article of Impeachment, 
87 Senators have voted guilty; 10 Sen- 
ators have voted not guilty; 1 voting 
present. 

Two-thirds of the Members present 
having voted guilty, the Senate ad- 
judges that the respondent, Harry E. 
Claiborne, is guilty as charged in this 
Article. 


Weicker 


Bingaman 
Evans 
Hatch 
Hatfield 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


ARTICLE II 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 
clerk will now read the second Article 
of Impeachment. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

ARTICLE II 

That Judge Harry E. Claiborne, having 
been nominated by the President of the 
United States, confirmed by the Senate of 
the United States District Court for the Dis- 
trict of Nevada, was and is guilty of misbe- 
havior and of high crimes and misdemean- 
ors in office in a manner and form as fol- 
lows: 

On or about June 15, 1981, Judge Harry E. 
Claiborne did willfully and knowingly make 
and subscribe a United States Individual 
Income Tax Return for the calendar year 
1980, which return was verified by a written 
declaration that the return was made under 
penalties of perjury; which return was filed 
with the Internal Revenue Service; and 
which return Judge Harry E. Claiborne did 
not believe to be true and correct as to every 
material matter in that the return reported 
total income in the amount of $54,251 
whereas, as he then and there well knew 
and believed, he received and failed to 
report substantial income in addition to 
that stated on the return in violation of sec- 
tion 7206(1) of title 26, United States Code. 

The facts set forth in the foregoing para- 
graph were found beyond a reasonable 
doubt by a twelve-person jury in the United 
States District Court for the District of 
Nevada. 

Wherefore, Judge Harry E. Claiborne was 
and is guilty of misbehavior and was and is 
guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor 
and, by such conduct, warrants impeach- 
ment and trial and removal from office. 


0 1520 


VOTE ON ARTICLE II 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I 
would remind the Senators when they 
vote they will stand and announce 
their decision. 

Senators, how say you, is the re- 
spondent Henry E. Claiborne guilty or 
not guilty of this Article? 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legis!ative clerk called 
the roll. 

Mr. STEVENS (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Garn] and 
the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Syms] 
are necessarily absent. 

The result was announced—guilty 
90, not guilty 7, as follows: 

[Rolicall Vote No. 336] 
(Subject: Article II1—Court of 
Impeachment—Judge H.E. Claiborne] 
GUILTY—90 


Chafee 
Chiles 
Cochran 
Cohen 


Abdnor 
Andrews 
Armstrong 
Baucus 
Bentsen 
Biden 
Boren 
Boschwitz 
Bradley 
Broyhill 
Bumpers 
Burdick 
Byrd 


Durenberger 
Eagleton 
Exon 

Ford 

Glenn 
Goldwater 


Hawkins 


29871 
Hecht Rockefeller 
Heflin 
Heinz 
Helms 
Hollings 
Humphrey 
Inouye 
Johnston 
Kassebaum 
Kasten 
Kennedy 
Kerry 
Lautenberg 
Laxalt 
Leahy 
Lugar 
Mathias 


Matsunaga 
Mattingly 
McClure 
McConnell 
Melcher 
Metzenbaum 
Mitchell 
Moynihan 
Murkowski 
Nickles 
Nunn 
Packwood 
Pell 

Pressler 
Proxmire 
Quayle Wilson 
Riegle Zorinsky 


NOT GUILTY—7 
Hatfield Pryor 
Levin 
Long 

ANSWERED “PRESENT”’—1 

Stevens 


NOT VOTING—2 
Garn Symms 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, may we 
have order? 

The President pro tempore. The 
Senate will come to order. 

I admonish the galleries again that 
no noise of approval or disapproval is 
to be given to the result. 

Upon this Article of Impeachment, 
90 Senators have voted guilty, 7 Sena- 
tors have voted not guilty, and 1 Sena- 
tor voted present. Two-thirds of the 
Members present and having voted 
guilty, the Senate adjudges that the 
respondent, Harry E. Claiborne, is 
guilty as charged in this Article. 

ARTICLE Ill 

The President pro tempore. The 
clerk will now read the third Article of 
Impeachment. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

ARTICLE IIt 

That Judge Harry E. Claiborne, having 
been nomimated by the President of the 
United States, confirmed by the Senate of 
the United States, and while serving as a 
judge of the United States District Court 
for the District of Nevada, was and is guilty 
of misbehavior and of high crimes in office 
in a manner and form as follows: 

On August 10, 1984, in the United States 
District Court for the District of Nevada, 
Judge Harry E. Claiborne was found guilty 
by a twelve-person jury making and sub- 
scribing a false income tax return for the 
calendar years 1979 and 1980 in violation of 
section 7206(1) of title 26, United States 
Code. 

Therefore, a judgment of conviction was 
entered against Judge Harry E. Claiborne 
for each of the violations of section 7206(1) 
of title 26, United States Code, and a sen- 
tence of two years imprisonment for each 
violation was imposed, to be served concur- 
rently, together with a fine of $5,000 for 
each violation. 

VOTE ON ARTICLE Iii 


The President pro tempore. I will 
remind Senators when they vote they 
will stand and vote “guilty” or “not 
guilty” or “‘present,” as the case may 
be 


Weicker 


Bingaman 
Evans 
Hatch 


Senators, how say you? Is the re- 
spondent, Harry E. Claiborne guilty or 
not guilty, or do you vote “present’’? 





29872 


The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. ABDNOR (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. ANDREWS (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG (when his name 
was called). Present. 

Mr. BIDEN (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. BURDICK (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. BYRD (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. COHEN (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. CRANSTON (when his name 
was called). Present. 

Mr. D’AMATO (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. DOLE (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. DOMENICI (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. FORD (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. GORE (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. GORTON (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. GRAMM (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. HART (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. HEFLIN (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. HUMPHREY (when his name 
was called). Present. 

Mr. INOUYE (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. KERRY (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. MATHIAS (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. MATTINGLY (when his name 
was called). Present. 

Mr. McCONNELL (when his name 
was called). Present. 

Mr. MELCHER (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. MOYNIHAN (when his name 
was called). Present. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI (when his name 
was called). Present. 

Mr. NUNN (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. PACKWOOD (when his name 
was called). Present. 

Mr. RUDMAN (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. SARBANES (when his name 
was called). Present. 

Mr. SIMPSON (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. STEVENS (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. THRUMOND (when his name 
was called). Present. 

Mr. WALLOP (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. WEICKER (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the 
Senator from Utah [Mr. Garn] and 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Syms] 
are necessarily absent. 

The result was announced—guilty 
46, not guilty 17, as follows: 


{Rollicall Vote No. 337] 


[Subject: Article I1I—Court of 
Impeachment—Judge H.E. Claiborne] 


GUILTY—46 


Glenn 
Grassley 
Harkin 
Hatfield 
Hollings 
Johnston 
Kassebaum 
Kasten 
Kennedy 
Lautenberg 
Leahy 
Levin 

Long 

Lugar 
Metzenbaum 
Mitchell 


NOT GUILTY—17 


Hawkins McClure 
Hecht Pell 
Heinz Pryor 
Helms Specter 
Goldwater Laxalt Warner 
Hatch Matsunaga 


Answered “‘Present”—35. 
NOT VOTING—2 
Symms 


Nickles 
Pressler 
Proxmire 
Quayle 
Riegle 
Rockefeller 
Roth 
Sasser 
Simon 
Stafford 
Stennis 
Trible 
Wilson 
Zorinsky 


Baucus 
Bentsen 
Bingaman 
Boren 
Boschwitz 
Bradley 
Broyhill 
Bumpers 
Cochran 
Danforth 
DeConcini 
Denton 
Dixon 
Durenberger 
Eagleton 
Exon 


Chafee 
Chiles 
Dodd 
Evans 


Garn 


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I ad- 
monish the galleries that no expres- 
sion of approval or disapproval is to be 
given when the vote is announced. 

Upon this Article of Impeachment, 
46 Senators have voted guilty; 17 Sen- 
ators have voted not guilty; and 35 


voted “present.” 

Less than two-thirds of the Members 
having voted guilty, the Senate ad- 
judges that respondent Harry E. Clai- 
borne is not guilty as charged in this 
article. 


ARTICLE IV 
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 
clerk will now read the Fourth Article 
of Impeachment. 
The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 


ARTICLE IV 


That Judge Harry E. Claiborne, having 
been nominated by the President of the 
United States, confirmed by the Senate of 
the United States, and while serving as a 
judge of the United States District Court 
for the District of Nevada, was and is guilty 
of misbehavior and of misdemeanors in 
office in a manner and form as follows: 

Judge Harry E. Claiborne took the oath 
for the office of judge of the United States 
and is required to discharge and perform all 
the duties incumbent on him and to uphold 
and obey the Constitution and laws of the 
United States. 

Judge Harry E. Claiborne, by virtue of his 
office, is required to uphold the integrity of 
the judiciary and to perform the duties of 
his office impartially. 

Judge Harry E. Claiborne, by willfully and 
knowingly falsifying his income on his Fed- 
eral tax returns for 1979 and 1980, has be- 
trayed the trust of the people of the United 
States and reduced confidence in the integ- 
rity and impartiality of the judiciary, there- 
by bringing disrepute on the Federal courts 


October 9, 1986 


and the administration of justice by the 
courts. 

Wherefor, Judge Harry E. Claiborne was 
and is guilty of misbehavior and was and is 
guilty of misdemeanors and, by such con- 
duct, warrants impeachment and trial and 
removal from office. 

THE VOTE ON ARTICLE IV 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I 
remind Senators that in voting, they 
will stand and vote “guilty,” “not 
get or “present” as the case may 
Senators, how say you: Is the re- 
spondent, Harry E. Claiborne guilty or 
not guilty? 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 
the roll. 

Mr. STEVENS (when his name was 
called). Present. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the 
Senator from Utah [Mr. Garn] and 
the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Syms] 
are necessarily absent. 

The result was announced—guilty 
89, not guilty, 8 as follows: 

CRollicall Vote No. 338] 


(Subject: Article [V—Court of 
Impeachment—Judge H.E. Claiborne] 


Abdnor 
Andrews 
Armstrong 
Baucus 
Bentsen 
Biden 
Boren 
Boschwitz 
Bradley 
Broyhill 
Bumpers 
Burdick 
Byrd 
Chafee 
Chiles 
Cochran 
Cohen 
Cranston 
D'Amato 
Danforth 
DeConcini 
Denton 
Dixon 
Dodd 

Dole 
Domenici 
Durenberger 


Melcher 
Mitchell 


Mathias 
Matsunaga 
Mattingly 
McClure 
McConnell 

NOT GUILTY—8 


Hatfield Metzenbaum 
Laxalt Pryor 
Long 
NOT VOTING—2 
Symms 
ANSWERED “PRESENT’’—1 
Stevens 


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 
Senate will be in order. I will again ad- 
monish the galleries that when the 
vote is announced there will be no ex- 
pression of approval or disapproval. 

The PRESIDENT pro _ tempore. 
Upon this Article of Impeachment, 89 
Senators having voted guilty, 8 Sena- 
tors having voted not guilty, 1 voting 
present, two-thirds of the Members 
present having voted guilty, the 





October 9, 1986 


Senate adjudges that the respondent, 
Harry E. Claiborne, is guilty as 
charged in this Article. 

The Chair directs judgment to be en- 
tered in accordance with the vote of 
the Senate, as follows: 

The Senate having tried Harry E. 
Claiborne, U.S. district judge for the 
District of Nevada, upon four Articles 
of Impeachment exhibited against him 
by the House of Representatives, and 
two-thirds of the Senators present 
having found him guilty of the 
charges contained in the first, second, 
and fourth Articles of Impeachment, 
it is, therefore, ordered and adjudged 
that the said Harry E. Claiborne be, 
and he is hereby removed from office. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an 
order to the desk. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 
clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

Ordered, that the Secretary be directed to 
communicate to the President of the United 
States and to the House of Representatives 
the order and judgment of the Senate in the 
case of Harry E. Claiborne, and transmit a 
certified copy of same to each. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. 
Without objection, the order will be 
entered and adjudged. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I 
rise to explain my own votes on the 
four Articles of Impeachment which 
have been presented by the House of 
Representatives against Judge Harry 
E. Claiborne. 

Let me start by putting this proceed- 
ing in context as I understand it. This 
is the first time in history that the 
U.S. Senate has been asked to try the 
impeachment of a public official who 
has already been convicted of a felony 
in the Federal courts and who is serv- 
ing time in a Federal penitentiary for 
that conviction. Judge Claiborne’s con- 
viction is final in the sense that all 
normal appeals from the conviction 
have been denied. 

The charges being brought against 
Judge Claiborne in this impeachment 
trial are identical to the charges upon 
which he was convicted by a jury in 
the Federal District Court of Nevada. 

A threshold question which we in 
the Senate need to decide is “What is 
the Senate’s proper role in this pro- 
ceeding?” In most cases, the Constitu- 
tion clearly contemplates that the 
Senate shall sit as a trier of fact to de- 
termine whether the charged individ- 
ual is guilty of “high crimes and mis- 
demeanors,” and therefore should be 
removed from office. It is clear to me 
that article I: section III, clauses 6 and 
7 of the Constitution, which provides 
that the Senate shall have the “sole 
power to trial impeachments,” did not 
contemplate a situation where the 
person charged would have already 
been convicted of a felony. 

Since this case presents us with Arti- 
cles of Impeachment based on the 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


same underlying facts which support- 
ed a jury conviction for a felony, I be- 
lieve we are not required to once again 
try those facts and make an independ- 
ent determination as to those facts. 
Clearly we have the authority to do so 
if we believe the criminal proceeding 
in the courts was so flawed as to justi- 
fy it, but we are not in any way bound 
by the Constitution to independently 
once again try again try the same fac- 
tual issues. 

In this case, the Senate has chosen 
to use the procedure under rule 11 of 
the Rules of the Senate to establish a 
committee to take testimony and pre- 
pare a record of the case to be present- 
ed to the full Senate. I have served on 
that committee and believe the com- 
mittee did its work in a responsible 
and fair manner. And in light of my 
own opinion that the Senate is not re- 
quired to try the underlying facts in a 
case such as this where a previous 
criminal conviction on those facts has 
been obtained, I believe the Senate 
action in delegating its responsibility 
to a special committee was appropriate 
and met all constitutional require- 
ments imposed upon the Senate. 

However, if this were not a case in 
which factual determinations underly- 
ing the Articles of Impeachment had 
earlier been established in a court, I 
would have serious doubts about the 
adequacy of the hearing which we in 
the full Senate have given to this 
matter in order to carry out the Sen- 
ate’s responsibilities under the Consti- 
tution. 

Mr. President, this brings me to a 
discussion of the four Articles of Im- 
peachment. The House of Representa- 
tives has presented its case to the 
Senate on two distinct theories. First, 
they have argued that the Senate 
should make an independent finding 
that Judge Claiborne willfully and 
knowingly filed tax returns for the 
years 1979 and 1980 which he did not 
believe to be accurate and true and 
that that willfull filing of false tax re- 
turns should be established by the 
Senate as constituting high crimes and 
misdemeanors justifying his removal 
from office. This theory is contained 
in Articles I, II, and IV of the Articles 
of Impeachment. 

The second and alternative theory 
put forward by the House of Repre- 
sentatives is contained in Article III 
and essentially is a request that the 
Senate accept the judgment of convic- 
tion which was entered against Judge 
Claiborne for violation of section 
7206(1) of title 26 of the United States 
Code as an adequate basis for his re- 
moval from office. As I understand 
this second theory, which is contained 
in Article II, a conviction by the 
Senate under this theory would not re- 
quire an independent determination 
by the Senate as to the underlying 
facts supporting the conviction. 


29873 


Let me discuss briefly my own view 
as to what has been presented under 
each of the two separate theories. 

For the Senate to convict on Articles 
I, Il, and IV, I believe the Senate 
would have to make an independent 
detertmination as to the state of mind 
of Judge Claiborne when he delivered 
information to his accountants in the 
spring of 1980 and 1981—for tax years 
1979 and 1980—and when those re- 
turns were filed. To make that type of 
independent determination of his state 
of mind, I believe it would be essential 
to hear witnesses and judge the credi- 
bility of those witnesses. For the 
Senate to convict on Articles I, II, and 
IV, the Senate must conduct itself as a 
factfinding body and cannot delegate 
that responsibility to a special commit- 
tee. In my opinion, putting the record 
of evidence presented to the commit- 
tee into the possession of all Senators 
is not an adequate substitute for Sena- 
tors hearing the witnesses present 
their case. At the very least, I believe 
it would be necessary for the Senate to 
permit the respondent, Judge Clai- 
borne, to testify as a witness in re- 
sponse to the specific allegations of 
fact underlying these charges. 

The Senator from Maine has argued 
that Judge Claiborne had a full hour 
to present his side of the case before 
the Senate and therefore any constitu- 
tional requirement has been fulfilled. 
In my view, this analysis is wrong. 
Judge Claiborne’s presentation to the 
full Senate was in the nature of part 
of a closing statement. It was a plea 
for the Senate to hear the witnesses in 
this case and the fact that he did not 
adequately refute specific charges and 
specific evidence presented against 
him in the proceeding before the 
Senate committee or presented against 
him in the court case is not a waiver of 
by him of his right to testify before 
the Senate and defend himself against 
those charges. 

In short, as to Articles I, II, and IV 
of the Articles of Impeachment, I be- 
lieve the Senate has failed to give 
Judge Claiborne an adequate hearing 
to justify a finding that he willfully 
and knowingly filed false tax returns 
for the years 1979 and 1980. It may be 
impractical in the closing days of a 
legislative session to contemplate a 
week or more of trial presentation to 
the U.S, Senate, but absent that kind 
of hearing, I do not believe the Senate 
can hold itself out as having been a 
“trier of fact” as we would be required 
to be under Articles I, II, and IV. 

Article III of the Articles of Im- 
peachment does not require the 
Senate to make an independent factu- 
al determination about the willfulness 
with which the judge acted in 1980 
and 1981. This article argues that the 
Senate should accept the felony con- 
viction of Judge Claiborne in the Fed- 
eral courts as an adequate basis for a 





29874 


conviction here which then removes 
him from office. Mr. President, I will 
vote to convict on Article III because I 
believe this is a legally sound and logi- 
cal course for the Senate to follow. 

Mr. President, if we do not go for- 
ward with a conviction in this case, we 
have the anomaly of leaving a Federal 
district judge in office while he also 
remains in the Federal penitentiary, 
has been stripped of his right to vote 
and continues to be labeled a felon 
under the criminal laws of this coun- 
try. To my mind, that is an unaccept- 
able result in this particular case that 
has been presented. 

Mr. President, one other issue needs 
to be addressed as part of this im- 
peachment and that is the allegations 
of misconduct and abusive targeting 
by Federal prosecutors. Judge Clai- 
borne’s allegations in this regard are 
serious and it is clear from the debate 
which has taken place here in the 
Senate that many members are con- 
cerned about not only the evidence of 
overreaching by the Government in 
this case but other instances of similar 
overreaching. I do not believe that 
these allegations, even if true, would 
justify the Senate in failing to convict. 
However, I do believe that the Senate, 
in its oversight responsibility as part 
of the legislative branch of our Feder- 
al Government, should direct the Judi- 
ciary Committee to hold oversight 
hearings on this issue and to deter- 
mine whether legislative action to deal 
with this problem is required. 

In conclusion, Mr. President, we 
have not given the respondent an ade- 
quate hearing to support a conviction 
on Articles I, II, and IV: A vote of 
guilty on each of those Articles re- 
quires an’ independent determination 
as to Judge Claiborne’s state of mind 
and in order to make that determina- 
tion we need to hear testimony, not 
have a select few hear testimony, but 
actually have the Senate hear testimo- 
ny. Accordingly, I will vote ‘‘no” on 
those three Articles. I believe a deci- 
sion to remove the respondent on the 
basis of Article III is appropriate and I 
will vote to do so. 

THE CLAIBORNE TRIAL 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the 
Senate conducted earlier today a trial 
because the Constitution clearly dis- 
tinguishes between criminal and im- 
peachment proce2dings. Article I, sec- 
tion 3, commits criminal processes to 
the judiciary and impeachments to the 
Congress. As a separated power, Con- 
gress had the responsibility to make 
an independent assessment of whether 
Judge Claiborne had done anything to 
warrant removal from office. The sep- 
aration of criminal and impeachment 
proceedings, in my mind, precludes 
this body from merely deferring to the 
existence of a criminal conviction. We 
have the duty to reach our own inde- 
pendent conclusion about the facts 
which gave rise to these charges. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD 

Each of the four counts of impeach- 
ment asserted that this body ought to 
convict Judge Claiborne because he 
willfully filed fraudulent tax returns 
which caused his conviction in a court 
of law. In other words, the reason the 
Senate was asked to convict is that a 
court found beyond a_ reasonable 
doubt that the judge willfully underre- 
ported his income. This is the charge 
that the Senate reviewed. It was obli- 
gated to ask itself whether, beyond a 
reasonable doubt, the judge purpose- 
fully and wittingly filed a false return. 
I contended that if the Senate found 
that he did, then it had to decide that 
he was properly convicted in court and 
it had to give him the same verdict on 
the question of removal. On the other 
hand, I argued, if there remains a rea- 
sonable doubt about his intentions, 
then the Senate. was obligated to con- 
clude that he should not have been 
convicted in court and that he should 
not have been impeached and that he 
should not have been convicted by the 
Senate. Relying as they did on the 
criminal conviction, the House Articles 
of Impeachment required the Senate 
to ascertain whether, beyond a reason- 
able doubt, Judge Claiborne intention- 
ally filed a false return. 

THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION 

Claiborne was charged and convicted 
under the Internal Revenue Code, 26 
U.S.C. 7206(1), which reads: 

Any person who * * * willfully makes and 
subscribes any return, statement, or other 
document, which contains or is verified by a 
written declaration that it is made under 
the penalties of perjury, and which he does 
not believe to be true and correct as to every. 
material matter * * * shall be guilty of a 
felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall 
be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in 
the case of a corporation), or imprisoned 
not ‘more than 3 years, or both, together 
with the costs of prosecution. 

Upon his conviction on two counts 
covering 1979 and 1980, Claiborne was 
sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment 
for each violation, to be served concur- 
rently, and was fined $5,000 for each 
violation. 

WILLFULNESS 

All of the issues before the Senate 
today were reducible to one simple 
question: Did Judge Harry Claiborne 
willfully file a false tax return? Both 
Judge Claiborne and the House agreed 
that the 1979 and 1980 tax returns fail 
to report taxable income. The issue 
before the Nevada District Court and 
the Senate today was whether that 
underreporting was “willful.” 

The Supreme Court, in United 
States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10 (1976) 
stated that the term “willfully” in the 
Tax Code requires more than a show- 
ing of carelessness or negligence; it re- 
quires proof of an intentional violation 
of a known legal duty. In United 
States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973), 
the Supreme Court stated: 


October 9, 1986 


Degrees of negligence given rise in the tax 
system to civil penalties * * * The Court's 
consistent interpretation of the word “‘will- 
fully’ to require an element of mens rea im- 
plement the pervasive intent of Congress to 
construct penalties that separate the pur- 
poseful tax violation from the well-meaning, 
* * * mass of taxpayers. Id at 360-361. 

The import of these cases is that 
willfulness is the intentional, deliber- 
ate, voluntary, or witting violation of a 
know legal obligation. 

Certainly Judge Claiborne knew the 
duty to file an accurate and complete 
tax return. It is far from clear from 
the evidence presented either in trial 
or during the impeachment proceed- 
ings that Judge Claiborne deliberately 
or intentionally or wittingly or pur- 
posefully tried to escape the obligation 
of every taxpayer. To the contrary, 
there is much to indicate that Judge 
Claiborne’s deliberate actions were an 
attempt to file an accurate and com- 
plete return. According to the judge 
and much corroborating evidence, mis- 
communications with accountants and 
mistakes by those accountants caused 
errors in the judge’s tax returns, or 
which he was aware until the criminal 
investigation was already underway. If 
the judge is correct, the voluminous 
evidence at most shows that he was 
negligent in failing to detect his ac- 
countant’s errors. This, however, 
would not be willfulness. It would not 
be deliberate and witting tax evasion. 
It would be simple negligence, which 
as the Supreme Court's Bishop case 
stated, would be corrected by a Civil 
proceeding, not a criminal action. 

Because the pivotal issue in this case 
is the state-of-mind issue, I examined 
extensively the concept ’of willfulness. 
In that connection, I adopted the for- 
mulation of that concept found in the 
House brief. As the House brief con- 
cedes, there is no direct evidence of 
willfulness in this case. There is no 
letter from the judge to Watson or 
Wright instructing them to falsify 
income or conspiring with them to 
hide some other material fact. No 
direct evidence of willfulness is found 
in the records of this case in the 
courts or before Congress. 

In the absence of direct evidence, 
the House was correct to note that 
“Willfulness may be inferred by the 
trier of fact from all the facts and cir- 
cumstances of the attempted under- 
statement of tax." U.S. v. Conforte, 624 
F.2d 869, 875 (9th Cir. 1980). The 
House post-trial brief then detailed 
several circumstances that may indi- 
cate a willful filing of a fraudulent 
return. These include, for instance, a 
consistent pattern of underreporting, 
the magnitude of the error, a sudden 
change in accountants, and so forth. I 
examined the evidence of this trial in 
each of these categories of circumstan- 
tial proof to ascertain if they indicate, 
beyond a reasonable doubt, willful- 
ness. 





October 9, 1986 


CIRCUMSTANTIAL WILLFULNESS EVIDENCE 
INSUFFICIENT 

The House brief purports to show 
sufficient circumstantial evidence of 
willfulness. I examined each of these 
bits of circumstantial evidence of will- 
fulness. The Seante had the duty to 
ask itself if this evidence leaves any 
reasonable doubts about Judge Clai- 
borne’s state of mind. To the extent 
that none of them establish beyond a 
reasonable doubt Judge Claiborne’s 
willfulness, the Senate should not, in 
my opinion, have convicted. 

The first of these is the consistent 
pattern of underreporting. Judge Clai- 
borne did report fully and accurately 
his income in both 1979 and 1980. Let’s 
look first at the evidence concerning 
the 1979 tax return. In his April 11 
letter to his accountant, Mr. Wright, 
the judge gave an accurate accounting 
of his legal fee income. That letter was 
handwritten by Judge Claiborne and 
contained the full and correct amount 
he had earned in fees, $41,073. Wright 
does not remember receiving the 
letter, but the judge’s secretary re- 
members delivering it, the judge saw 
the letter on Wright’s desk when he 
visited Wright’s office later that after- 
noon, Wright's employee—Ken Swan- 
son—saw the judge’s secretary in 
Wright's office on April 11, and the 
judge’s tax return accurately reflects 
the sale of his airplane which was re- 
ported to Wright in the April 11 letter. 
In addition, on the final day of the 
Senate impeachment proceedings, an 
affidavit was filed by a former secre- 
tary in Mr. Wright's office attesting 
that she had received the letter from 
the judge's secretary, Judy Ahlstrom, 
on April 11, 1979. This enormous body 
of evidence that the April 11 letter 
was received includes verification from 
Wright himself in the form of his rec- 
ordkeeping. He accurately notes that 
he received and filed the $8,000 check 
which accompanied the April 11 letter. 
The April 11 letter is a full and fair ac- 
counting of the judge’s 1979 tax liabil- 
ity. The evidence shows that the judge 
fully and fairly reported his 1979 
income. 

Wright maintains that the judge 
sent him a figure of only $22,622 in 
legal fees. This is also naturally and 
believably explained. On April 11, 
Judge Claiborne had sent the letter to 
Wright disclosing his full fee income. 
On May 1, nearly 3 weeks later, the 
judge was engaged in a phone conver- 
sation with Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright 
was asking the judge several questions 
about his tax return. At one point Mr. 
Wright was searching for the judge's 
legal fee income. Wright then purport- 
ed to find the amount and declared it 
to be $22,600. Because he had sent the 
accurate figure to Wright by letter a 
few weeks earlier, the judge naturally 
assumed that Wright has found the 
amount declared in the April 11 letter. 
The judge wrote that amount on his 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


worksheet. Later Wright used that 
same worksheet as the judge’s declara- 
tion of his income. This is a tragic mis- 
take. It is a classic instance of miscom- 
munication. It is not, however, a crafty 
plan to defraud the taxpayer. 

In 1980, the judge also reported all 
of his income to his accountant. Judge 
Claiborne wrote down personally his 
legal fee income of $88,500 on a yellow 
legal pad and gave it to Watson. Char- 
lotte Travaglia, the employee of 
Watson who did the work on the 
judge’s 1980 return, testified that the 
judge made a full disclosure of his 
income. Although the House contend- 
ed that the $88,000 never appears on 
the tax return, evidence presented by 
Travaglia and others, however, estab- 
lishes that the only way that the 1980 
return could have arrived, on an erro- 
neous Watson theory, at a figure for 
long-term capital loss in the sale of his 
law business was by including the 
$88,000 as a capital gain to be offset 
against capital losses. It was improper- 
ly treated as a capital gain by Watson, 
but Judge Claiborne had fully and 
fairly reported his 1980 income. 

On the point of whether this alleged 
underreporting was a consistent activi- 
ty, the House made much of the fact 
that these errors occurred in 2 succes- 
sive years. An examination of the evi- 
dence, however, offers a plausible ex- 
planation. After all, Judge Claiborne 
had only recently taken his position 
on the bench. He was still adjusting to 
new financial arrangements, new work 
schedules, new responsibilities, new 
demands on his time and talents. It 
was a time of turmoil and change in 
his life. He was selling his residence 
and purchasing another. He was turn- 
ing over his law firm to his former 
partners and liquidating his assets in 
that business. These drastic changes 
were also an important reason that he 
elected to switch accountants. With 
changes of this magnitude underway 
in his life, it is not wholly unexpected 
that miscommunications, mispercep- 
tions, and mistakes might occur in 
these 2 years. 

Another factor contributing to these 
errors is Judge Claiborne’s reluctance 
to devote precious time to his financial 
dealings. The evidence shows that he 
once left several tens of thousands of 
dollars in a safety deposit box where it 
drew no interest for months. Money 
was not uppermost in the judge’s 
mind. He hired accountants to relieve 
him of this unsavory part of his busi- 
ness life. In any event, because the 
judge did in fact disclose his income in 
each of the years in question, the fact 
that errors might have occurred in 2 
years of turmoil still has no criminal 
implications. 

In sum, Judge Claiborne did not un- 
derreport his income—consistently or 
otherwise. 

The next circumstantial point made 
by the House concerns the magnitude 


29875 


of the error. The $18,700 shortfall in 
his 1979 return was not due to any 
willful act on Judge Claiborne’s part. 
He thought the income he disclosed 
on April 11 was part of the return. 
The judge did not actually review the 
1979 tax return before it was filed. On 
May 2, 1980, he was leaving town to 
take an assigned case in another juris- 
diction. Fearing that he might not 
return before the filing deadline, the 
judge went to Wright’s office and 
signed a return in blank. He signed the 
return in blank because he was going 
out of town on assignment. He certain- 
ly expected that it would contain 
income which he had reported to his 
accountant in an earlier hand-written 
and hand-delivered letter. 

Wright's testimony on this point is 
that he had changed his practice of al- 
lowing tax returns to be signed in 
blank. It is nonetheless uncontrovert- 
ed that early in his career Wright had 
permitted tax returns to be signed in 
blank. Judge Caliborne had been asso- 
ciated with Wright for 30 years. The 
recent changes in practice may not 
have been binding on a longstanding 
customer like Judge Claiborne who 
testifies persuasively that he signed 
the form in blank sometime on May 2. 

In 1980, Judge Claiborne reported to 
Watson the $88,500 in income on the 
now-famous ‘yellow sheets.’”’ Watson 
told the judge that the income was re- 
flected in the schedule D form con- 
cerning capital gains because it was 
part of the sale of the law business. 
Watson pointed out that this method 
had been checked by the CPA who did 
the actual work on the judge’s tax 
return and further checked with the 
IRS. 

The 1980 tax return was a mess. It 
contained numerous blatant errors. It 
did not even credit Judge Claiborne 
with the $22,000 he had already paid 
in estimated taxes for that same tax 
year. It was filled out in pencil and 
had arrows drawn from one part of 
the return to others. If the judge had 
intended to defraud, he certainly 
would have been more cunning. If 
Judge Claiborne had intended to de- 
fraud, he certainly would not have 
filed a return full of red flags pointing 
to its likely deficiencies. 

Another aspect of the circumstantial 
evidence of willfulness discussed the 
disclosure of summary data only. By 
this the House meant to suggest that 
Judge Claiborne withheld from 
Wright or Watson information that 
they needed to file a complete return. 
If Judge Claiborne did write and cause 
to be delivered the April 11 letter, 
however, he withheld nothing. He had 
reported all of his income to Mr. 
Wright. His business practices had 
necessarily changed in 1978 when he 
began his service on the bench. For 
this reason, he no longer had deposits 
mailed directly to Mr. Wright. This 





29876 


was because he was no longer paid by 
clients in the same manner. He did not 
manage his affairs in the same 
manner he had when he was managing 
a law business. Instead some lingering 
payments came sporadically from his 
former partners and these the judge 
often cashed for his living expenses or 
other needs. Nothing was hidden. The 
April 11 letter is evidence of his care 
to report all income. 

The same is true in 1980. Judge Clai- 
borne reported his income to Mr. 
Watson who in turn passed it on to 
Ms. Travaglia. Nothing was hidden. 
Nothing was withheld. There is no evi- 
dence that Judge Claiborne refused to 
share all relevant information with his 
accountants in 1979 and 1980. 

The fourth aspect of circumstantial 
evidence of willfulness was the alleg- 
edly sudden change of accountants. 
Judge Claiborne had several good rea- 
sons for changing accountants. In the 
first place, he no longer was managing 
a law business. He had no need of the 
wide range of services provided by 
Wright. Moreover Wright had treated 
the judge coldly in some of their 
recent conversations. This may well 
have been because Mr. Wright had 
moved on to a different clientele after 
30 years in the business. He may have 
wished that he was receiving more 
compensation for his services. The 
reason that Judge Claiborne and his 
accountant began drifting apart are 
not fully stated. It is clear, however, 
that the judge perceived that his ac- 
countant was no longer as interested 
in his account as he had been in the 
past. 

Mr. Watson, on the other hand, 
came highly recommended by the 
judge’s wife and had impressed the 
judge on the one occasion he had to 
observe his work. Watson was very in- 
terested in Judge Claiborne’s account. 
He forthrightly solicited Judge Clai- 
borne’s business with the promise that 
he might be able to save him money 
on taxes in a legitimate manner. Judge 
Claiborne was selling his large home 
and Watson specifically mentioned in 
his letter a plan to treat that transac- 
tion favorably. In light of the distance 
between the judge and his former ac- 
countant, this offer must have been 
very attractive. 

The fourth category of circumstan- 
tial evidence of willfulness involved 
purportedly surreptitious cash trans- 
actions. Judge Claiborne was buying 
and selling at the time of these events 
two places of residence, some fine 
riding horses, and was making exten- 
sive home improvements. Moreover, 
he was accustomed to a high standard 
of living. He consumed cash. Accord- 
ingly he cashed his checks at the casi- 
nos where he often had lunch or 
breakfast. These casinos often serve as 
substitute banks for Nevada residents. 
There was nothing surreptitious about 
these dealings. He often deposited the 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


surplus amounts in his bank account. 
The evidence shows as well that the 
judge was accustomed to carrying 
large amounts of cash. 

Another aspect of the circumstantial 
evidence focused on background of the 
accused. The House brief attempted to 
attribute great significance to the 
judge’s expertise in tax matters. Al- 
though a fine judge, Harry Claiborne 
is no tax expert. During his years at 
the bar, he repeatedly referred tax 
cases to other attorneys and dealt only 
with the criminal procedure aspects of 
those cases. He relied on Wright for 30 
years and then on Watson to do his 
tax preparation. 

As a matter of law, reliance on a tax 
accountant is justified if the judge 
fully disclosed all pertinent facts and 
if his reliance was in good faith. In 
this case, the judge had fully disclosed 
his income in both 1979 and 1980. He 
had reason to rely in good faith on 
Wright because Wright had done his 
taxes for 30 years without a hitch. He 
had a reason to rely in good faith on 
Watson because Watson came highly 
recommended by his wife and seemed 
to handle business competently. 

A final aspect of the circumstances 
cited by the House brief involved the 
question of whether the judge turned 
a blind eye to the problems with his 
returns. With respect to 1979, it would 
be difficult to make that claim because 
the judge signed the return in blank. 
He relied fully on his accountant to 
correctly record the income reported 
by the April 11 letter. It certainly 
cannot be maintained that the judge 
deliberately arranged his schedule to 
be out of town so that he would have 
an excuse to sign a fraudulent return 
in blank. In the first place, he had no 
idea it would be fraudulent. In the 
second place, his out-of-town assign- 
ment was dictated by his judicial supe- 
riors. It was out of his control. 

With respect to 1980, the House con- 
tended that the judge may have volun- 
tarily kept himself ignorant of the 
gross errors it contained. From Judge 
Claiborne’s perspective, he had al- 
ready reported all of his income. He 
felt no need to double check the work 
of someone he had paid well to do his 
taxes. The evidence shows that Char- 
lotte Travaglia, the employee who ac- 
tually did the work on the judge’s 
return, sought some advice from 
Watson about the treatment of some 
items. She placed the incomplete 
return on Watson’s desk and had no 
further contact with it. A secretary in 
Watson’s office saw the return and 
called the judge to come sign it. Judge 
Claiborne went to Watson’s office on a 
lunch break when time was undoubt- 
edly short. He thumbed through the 
return and signed it. 

A few days later, Watson was in the 
judge’s office with a bill for his serv- 
ices. At that time, the judge did ques- 
tion the 1980 return, but Watson as- 


October 9, 1986 


sured him that he had checked the 
theory of the return with IRS agents 
who agreed with the figures on sched- 
ule D. The judge was satisfied ‘‘as long 
as you can support it,”’ in the words he 
used with Watson at that time. Judge 
Claiborne pointed out why he wanted 
it clearly supported by saying to 
Watson: “* * * I don’t want any trou- 
ble with the IRS because I got all the 
trouble with the FBI that I can handle 
right now.” This is an important in- 
sight into the judge’s state of mind. 
He knew in 1980 that the FBI was 
angry with him and perhaps even 
looking for some way to hang his pic- 
ture on their trophy wall. In that con- 
tentious state of affairs, it is simply in- 
conceivable that Judge Claiborne 
would attempts to escape tax liability. 
Not even a 4-year-old attempts to raid 
the cookie jar when he knows he is 
being watched. 

The sloppiness of the 1980 return is 
also significant. It is even more unlike- 
ly that in this time of tension Judge 
Claiborne would file a fraudulent 
return that begs for examination and 
audit. This is the equivalent of the 
judge shouting at the top of his lungs 
that he intends to raid the cookie jar 
and then proceeding to attempt the 
feat under his parent’s noses. 

SUMMARY ON INTENT 

Each of the primary circumstantial 
factors cited by the House brief should 
not have been dispositive of this case. 
The House contended that the concur- 
rence of these factors somehow cumu- 
latively showed guilt, but if there is a 
reasonable doubt as to each of these 
factors, there must also be reasonable 
doubt as to their sum total. 


NEGLIGENCE, NOT WILLFULNESS 

With even this quick overview of the 
facts of this case in mind, it is easy to 
find extensive evidence of negligence. 
Willfulness—that intentional, witting, 
purposeful, crafty design—is another 
matter. If the evidence justifies a find- 
ing of negligence without willfulness, 
that would not justify a criminal con- 
viction. In the absence of a criminal 
conviction, the House may not have 
urged impeachment. Indeed each of 
the Articles of Impeachment presup- 
posed a criminal conviction and should 
not have been effective if the judge 
had been found to be only negligent. 
The Senate had to look behind the 
conviction to see if the judge had done 
anything that warranted the convic- 
tion the House contended as its sole 
basis for impeachment. Without the 
conviction, the judge had perhaps mis- 
calculated taxes—a civil matter— 
which would not have warranted disci- 
pline any more than an addition mis- 
take on a tax return. 

ETHICS DISCLOSURE 

Another important fact demon- 
strates that the judge was not deliber- 
ately attempting to violate the law. He 





October 9, 1986 


fully disclosed his 1980 income on his 
ethics report. Why would he deliber- 
ately evade taxes and then tell the 
Government the facts that disclose his 
fraud in another filing? This is incredi- 
ble. If Judge Claiborne was acting 
with a criminal state of mind, it is in- 
explicable that he would lie on one 
Government filing and confess his 
guilt on another. The judge simply did 
not act willfully. 

With regard to the 1979 ethics 
report, Judge Claiborne did fail to 
report some of his income. That is 
very understandable in light of the to- 
tality of the facts. The judge simply 
grabbed his tax worksheet—the one 
with Mr. Wright’s erroneous supposi- 
tions about his 1979 income—when he 
filled out his ethics report. 

VENDETTA 

On the point of the Government’s 
role in trying to “bag the judge,” I 
would note that we all understand 
that law enforcement officers may not 
stoop to the level of a criminal in 
order to apprehend criminals. The re- 
vered Justice Brandeis gave us an ex- 
cellent summary of the consequences 
of lawless law enforcement. 

In a Government of laws, existence 
of a Government will be imperiled if it 
fails to observe the law scrupulously. 
Our Government is the potent, the 
omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it 
teaches the whole people by its exam- 
ple. Crime is contagious. 

If the Government becomes a law- 
breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it 
invites anarchy. To declare that in the 
administration of criminal law the end 
justifies the means—to declare that 
the Government may commit crimes 
in order to secure the conviction of a 
private citizen—would bring terrible 
retribution. Olmstead v. U.S., 277 438 
(1928). 

In the case of Harry Claiborne, we 
have not had the opportunity to ex- 
haustively examine the allegations of 
Government misconduct. That is re- 
grettable. In any event, this body 
ought to guard against Government 
overreaching with great care. Where 
there is even a spectre of this danger- 
ous abuse, we should carefully exam- 
ine the consequences of that intrusive 
conduct. This body, too, has the re- 
sponsibility to stamp out law enforce- 
ment abuses. This must not be left to 
the judiciary. 

CONCLUSION 

In summary, I do not think that this 
body can assert that Harry Claiborne 
purposefully, intentionally, wittingly— 
willfully—filed a false return. If he 
had intended to violate the law, he 
would not have done it so poorly. Nei- 
ther the 1979 nor the 1980 return 
shows any evidence of cunning or 
guile. They contain mistakes discerni- 
ble by a grade school observer. The 
judge relied too heavily on unreliable 
accountants. The judge was negligent 
in failing to check his accountant’s 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


errors. Frankly if one of the Articles 
of Impeachment had cited the judge’s 
gross negligence and disregard, I 
would have voted to impeach. The 
House Articles, however, are all based 
on the criminal conviction. The crimi- 
nal conviction is only valid if Judge 
Claiborne acted willfully. For the rea- 
sons I have cited, I could not find suf- 
ficient evidence of willfulness. 

I listened very carefully to every 
aspect of the testimony before the Im- 
peachment Committee. I compared 
each witness’ statements to the asser- 
tions made by other witnesses. In the 
long run, I found judge Claiborne to 
be a credible witness. I believed him. 
Moreover the evidence in this case 
supported the judge’s explanations of 
the circumstances that led to his in- 
dictment and conviction. Giving the 
judge the benefit of the doubt, as I be- 
lieve we are obligated to do when his 
life’s work and reputation are at stake, 
the evidence did not support a finding 
of willfulness. The evidence clearly 
showed that the judge had been gross- 
ly negligent and had carelessly disre- 
garded his obligations as a taxpayer. 
He did not, however, conspire or craft- 
ily design a plan to defraud the Gov- 
ernment. In the absence of willfull- 
ness, beyond a reasonable doubt, he 
should not have been convicted, 
should not have been impeached, and, 
in my opinion, should not have been 
removed from office. This was why I 
voted not guilty on each of the Arti- 
cles of Impeachment. 

IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE HARRY CLAIBORNE 

Mr. DIXON. Mr. President, the 
Senate today performed an extremely 
unpleasant duty. We have impeached 
a Federal judge for only the fifth time 
in our history. The last previous im- 
peachment was in 1936—50 years ago. 

I listened carefully to the distin- 
guished House managers and Judge 
Claiborne’s representatives on the 
Senate floor. I have reviewed the tran- 
scripts of the committee proceedings. I 
have discussed the issues raised by the 
prosecution and the defense at length 
with my colleagues in our closed ses- 
sions. I believe the evidence permits 
only one conclusion: That Judge Clai— 
borne is guilty as charged in the four 
Articles of Impeachment, and I, there- 
fore, voted in favor of all four Articles. 

Article III of the four Articles of Im- 
peachment, in my view, states a kind 
of “per se’’ case for impeachment. Es- 
sentially, that Article makes the argu- 
ment that Judge Clai-borne should be 
impeached because he was tried and 
found guilty in Federal court by a 12- 
person jury of two felony counts of 
filing false tax returns. In my own 
State of Illinois, the simple fact of his 
conviction for some crimes would auto- 
matically remove him from office. 

Frankly, I find it unconscionable 
that a person serving a 2-year prison 
sentence should be able to continue to 
receive his judicial salary. Judge Clai- 


29877 


borne had all the rights the American 
system of justice gives to anyone ac- 
cused of a crime. He had the right to a 
trial by jury. Like any other defend- 
ant, he could not be convicted unless 
the jury found him guilty beyond a 
reasonable doubt. The jury in Judge 
Claiborne’s case did find him guilty. 
He had the right, and exercised the 
right, to appeal his case. His appeal 
was heard by the court of appeals and 
turned down. The Supreme Court 
found no reason to overturn the jury 
verdict. 

I think the Federal judiciary is no 
place for convicted felons, and that 
the third Article of Impeachment 
stated a sufficient case for impeach- 
ment. However, it is important for all 
of us to remember that the impeach- 
ment process is not part of our judicial 
system. Under the Constitution, the 
impeachment process is totally sepa- 
rate from and independent of ordinary 
judicial processes. The Senate had a 
responsibility to look behind the jury 
verdict and to make its own determi- 
nation as to whether Judge Claiborne, 
as Judge Claiborne’s defense phrased 
it, “willfully and knowingly made a 
false statement” on his 1979 and 1980 
tax returns in violation of section 
7206(1) of the United States Code. 

I believe the Senate has made a full, 
fair, and independent evaluation of 
the charges. I will not take the time of 
my colleagues to recite the abundant 
evidence that convinces me that he is 
guilty. Let me simply say that I am 
convinced that Judge Claiborne will- 
fully and knowingly failed to report 
almost half of the $41,072.93 he re- 
ceived in fee income in 1979. I am also 
convinced that Judge Claiborne know- 
ingly and willfully failed to report 
$87,912 in fee income in 1980, and that 
he failed to report a taxable gain of 
$214,812 on the sale of his home, with 
the result that he reported taxes owed 
of only $1,101 for that year—about 1.1 
percent of the $97,864 he actually 
owed. 

Finally, Mr. President, I must say 
that I share the conclusions stated in 
the fourth Article of Impeachment. I 
believe his deliberate attempt to avoid 
paying his lawful tax obligations be- 
trayed the trust of the people of the 
United States. His actions do reduce 
confidence in the integrity and impar- 
tiality of the judiciary, and do bring 
disrepute on the Federal courts and 
the administration of justice by the 
courts. The only way to restore that 
trust and confidence was for the 
Senate to take the action that it did 
take—to impeach Judge Claiborne and 
remove him from office. 

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF JUDGE HARRY E. 
CLAIBORNE 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the 
historical proceedings involving the 
trial of Judge Harry E. Claiborne are 
noteworthy not only because they are 





29878 


the first such proceedings to be held 
since the impeachment trial of Judge 
Ritter in 1936, but also because, for 
the first time, the initial evidence re- 
ceived in the trial was taken by a com- 
mittee, and not by the full Senate. 

Yesterday, the Senate conducted a 
rolicall vote on Judge Claiborne’s con- 
tention that this process was unconsti- 
tutional, and constituted a denial of 
his right to a “full and fair” trial. The 
distinguished majority leader placed 
before the Senate the question: “Yes 
or no—the Senate should not hear ad- 
ditional witnesses in the case.” The 
purpose behind this question was to 
determine whether or not the Senate 
should reopen the case and conduct a 
more extensive trial. The vote on the 
motion was yeas 61, nays 32, thereby 
obviating the need to continue the 
trial, and allowing the Senate to pro- 
ceed to consideration of the four Arti- 
cles of Impeachment. 

I voted in favor of precluding fur- 
ther witnesses to be heard in this 
matter. A full 7-day trial was held 
before the Senate Impeachment Com- 
mittee, comprised of 12 of my able col- 
leagues. A trial transcript consisting of 
thousands of pages was made available 
by this committee. A series of prelimi- 
nary motions made by Judge Clai- 
borne were referred to the full Senate 
for consideration, and determination. 

In my opinion, Judge Claiborne has 
been accorded a full and fair proceed- 
ing. It should be noted, that U.S. Dis- 
trict Court Judge Harold H. Greene 
yesterday ruled that the committee 
procedure was constitutional. 

Article I, section 3 of the Constitu- 
tion declares that the Senate has the 
sole power to try all impeachments. 
The Constitution does not dictate the 
manner in which the trial shall be con- 
ducted, apart from its command that 
“no person shall be convicted without 
the concurrence of two-thirds of the 
Members present.” Article I, section 3. 
The Senate thus has the authority to 
fashion rules that govern the admissi- 
bility of evidence, the scope of the pro- 
ceeding, and the manner, form, and lo- 
cation in which evidence will be re- 
ceived. Therefore, Senate Impeach- 
ment Rule XI, providing for evidence 
to be received by a committee of Sena- 
tors, falls within the discretion of the 
Senate’s power to conduct an impeach- 
ment trial. 

As to the issue of Judge Claiborne’s 
guilt, I have been convinced, on the 
basis of the evidence adduced by the 
House managers, that Judge Claiborne 
should be convicted on three of the 
four Articles of Impeachment. The 
House established that Judge Clai- 
borne received and negotiated checks 
representing income received in 1979 
and 1980 that was not reported on his 
income tax returns. This was set forth 
in prior admissions under oath by 
Judge Claiborne, through prior sworn 
testimony of witnesses, and by live tes- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


timony of a number of those same wit- 
nesses. 

This evidence establishes that Judge 
Claiborne willfully and knowingly 
made false statements on his 1979 and 
1980 returns in violation of title 26, 
section 7206(1) of the United States 
Code. Articles I and II of Impeach- 
ment. The testimony and written doc- 
umentation depicts the changed be- 
havior of Judge Claiborne—cashing 
fee income checks at local casinos, 
rather than at the bank which he had 
been utilizing for years, changing ac- 
countants to prepare tax returns de- 
spite a 30-year relationship with one 
accountant, Mr. Joseph C. Wright, and 
dealing in large amounts of cash. The 
defense, rather than succeeding in re- 
butting this evidence, concentrated on 
developing a picture of judicial and 
prosecutorial misconduct against 
Judge Claiborne. Although such alle- 
gations are indeed serious, and have 
been examined by this body, they are 
not determinative on the issue of guilt 
or innocence in this case. 

As to Article III, I do not believe 
that that is a sufficient basis for im- 
peachment. In my opinion, the Senate 
has a duty to make an independent de- 
termination of the underlying facts. 
That has been done on Articles I, II, 
and IV. The Senate should not merely 
accept the judgment of the U.S. dis- 
trict court in which Judge Claiborne 
was tried and convicted. Accordingly, I 
do not believe that Article III estab- 
lishes in and of itself a basis of im- 
peachment. 

As to Articles I, II, and IV the evi- 
dence establishes that Judge Clai- 
borne has betrayed the trust of the 
people of the United States, reduced 
confidence in the integrity and impar- 
tiality of the judiciary, and thereby 
brought disrepute on the Federal 
courts and the administration of jus- 
tice. Such conduct by a Federal 
judge—one who should warrant re- 
spect from the American people—is 
particularly heinous. Our citizens have 
the right to expect and even demand 
proper conduct on the part of public 
officials, whether they be elected or 
appointed. As Judge Claiborne’s case 
has emphasized, Federal judges are 
unique in that once convicted even by 
the trial court system of illegal con- 
duct, the people may not simply vote 
them out of office if they so choose, 
assuming that the party refused to 
resign. Instead, a judge reluctant to re- 
linquish his office must be subject to 
the impeachment procedures estab- 
lished by the Constitution. 

The full gamut of those procedures 
has now been exhausted. Judge Clai- 
borne has had his day in court, before 
the House, and before the Senate. It is 
time for him now to become an ordi- 
nary U.S. citizen, convicted of a felony 
offense, who must serve his remaining 
time in prison, without the reward of 
believing that he can then return to 


October 9, 1986 


his bench and resume life as before. 
Judge Claiborne must pay for the of- 
fenses he committed, and can no 
longer assume the _ distinguished 
mantle of a Federal judge. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move 
that the Senate, sitting as a court of 
impeachment, adjourn sine die. 

(Thereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the Senate, 
sitting as a court of impeachment, ad- 
journed sine die.) 


EXECUTIVE SESSION 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate go 
into executive session. 

There being no objection, the Senate 
proceeded to the consideration of ex- 
ecutive business. 

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

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

The assistant legislative clerk pro- 
ceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 
distinguished Democratic leader is rec- 
ognized. 

The Senate will come to order. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we 
have order in the Senate? There is fur- 
ther business, and there is going to be 
at least one rollcall vote. 

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

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I advise 
my colleagues that there will be one 
vote that counts for six. It will take 
place immediately. 


TREATIES 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate go 
into executive session to consider the 
following treaties on the executive cal- 
endar: Executive Calendar Nos. 14, 15, 
16, 17, 18, and 19. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
Gramm). Is there objection? 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is 
no objection. These treaties have been 
cleared on this side by all Members, 
and we are ready to proceed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may 
we have order? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senate will be in order. Members will 
clear the well. The Senator will with- 
hold until the well is cleared and the 
Senate is in order. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I further 
ask unanimous consent that the trea- 
ties be advanced through the various 
parliamentary stages, up to and in- 
cluding the presentation of the resolu- 
tions of ratification, and all committee 
reported reservations and the two res- 
ervations introduced by Senator 





October 9, 1986 


LuGar, which appear in the September 
25 Recorp, be considered agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. I further ask unanimous 
consent that a vote occur on the reso- 
lutions of ratification immediately 
upon reporting by the clerk, and that 
one vote count as six votes, and that it 
be in order now to request the yeas 
and nays, with one show of seconds. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

Is there a sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the 
Senate will shortly vote on six treaties. 
Each one of these six has been careful- 
ly reviewed by the Senate Foreign Re- 
lations Committee. In each case, the 
committee unanimously recommended 
that the Senate give its advice and 
consent to ratification. 

Five of the six relate to private law 
treaties. By this, I mean these treaties 
govern relations between individuals 
and companies located in different 
countries. These five are: 

Hague Convention on the Civil As- 
pects of International Child Abduc- 
tion, 

U.N. Convention .on Contracts for 
the International Sale of Goods, 

Inter-American Convention on Com- 
mercial Arbitration, 

Inter-American Convention on Let- 
ters Rogatory, and 

Request for Advice and Consent to 
Withdrawal of a Reservation to the 
1975 Patent Cooperation Treaty. 

Each one of these treaties has been 
endorsed by the American Bar Asso- 
ciation and by other associations con- 
cerned with private international law. 
I. know of no opposition to any of 
them. 

Mr. President, through an oversight, 
two reservations to the Inter-Ameri- 
can Convention on Letters Rogatory 
and one to the U.N. Convention on the 
International Sale of Goods were not 
included in the resolutions of ratifica- 
tion to accompany these conventions. 
These reservations were recommended 
by the Department of State in the 
transmittal letters accompanying the 
conventions. I ask unanimous consent 
that they be printed in the Recorp at 
the end of my statement. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

{See exhibit 1.] 

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, of the 
five, the Hague Convention on Child 
Abduction merits special attention. 
This convention addresses the prob- 
lems created when children are wrong- 
fully removed or retained abroad in 
connection with parental custody dis- 
putes. It requires that these children 
be promptly returned to the country 
of their habitual residence upon appli- 
cation of the left-behind parent, sub- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


ject only to express conditions and 
narrow exceptions. 

The convention will help in resolving 
what is often a painful and difficult 
problem. It has been endorsed by the 
American Bar Association, the Ameri- 
can Public Welfare Association, the 
National Center for Missing & Ex- 
ploited Children, Vanished Children’s 
Alliance, Children’s Rights of Pennsyl- 
vania, the Kevin Collins Foundation 
for Missing Children and other groups 
concerned with missing children. 

In addition, the distinguished Sena- 
tor from Florida (Mrs. Hawxtns] to- 
gether with the Senator from Wyo- 
ming [Mr. Wa.LLop], the Senator from 
California [Mr. Cranston] and the 
Senator from Illinois [Mr. Stmmon] has 
strongly supported the convention. 
Their efforts in bringing the conven- 
tion to the floor are deeply appreciat- 
ed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that a letter from the four 
Senators be printed in the Recorp at 
the end of my remarks. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

[See exhibit 2.] 

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the 
sixth treaty we will vote on is the Con- 
vention on Wetlands of International 
Importance. This convention will pro- 
vide a framework for promoting the 
conservation of wetlands through 


international cooperation. It is sup- 
ported by a variety of State agencies 
and environmental organizations in- 
cluding the Southeastern Association 


of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, the Natu- 
ral Resources Defense Council and the 
Department of Natural Resources of 
the State of Wisconsin. 

Mr. President, Dr. Faith Campbell of 
the Natural Resources Defense Coun- 
cil recently wrote me explaining the 
importance of this convention. I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of Dr. 
Campbell’s letter appear in the 
RecorpD at the end of my remarks. It 
points out quite well the reasons for 
approving the convention. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

{See exhibit 3.] 

Mr. LUGAR, In sum, Mr. President, 
each of these six treaties is worthy of 
Senate consent to ratification. I urge 
my colleagues to support them. 


EXHIBIT No. 1 


INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON LETTERS 
Rocatory Treaty DocuMENT 98-7 


(Reservations intended to be proposed by 
Mr. Lugar) 

Before the period at the end of the resolu- 
tion of ratification, insert a comma and add 
the following: 

“Subject to the following reservations: 

“1, Pursuant to Article 2(b) of the Inter- 
American Convention on Letters Rogatory, 
letters rogatory that have as their purpose 
the taking of evidence shall be excluded 
from the rights, obligations and operation 
of this Convention between the United 
States and another State Party. 


29879 


“2. In ratifying the Inter-American Con- 
vention on Letters Rogatory, the United 
States accepts entry into force and under- 
takes treaty relations only with respect to 
States which have ratified or acceded to the 
Additional Protocol as well as the Inter- 
American Convention, and not with respect 
to States which have ratified or acceded to 
the Inter-American Convention alone. 

U.N. CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE 

INTERNATIONAL SALE oF Goops 


(Reservation intended to be proposed by 
Mr. Lugar) 


Before the period at the end of the resolu- 
tion of ratification, insert. a comma and add 
the following: 

“Subject to the following reservation: 

“Pursuant to Article 95 the United States 
will not be bound by subparagraphs (1)(b) 
of Article 1.” 


Exuisit No. 2 


U.S. SENATE, 
Washington, DC, April 9, 1986. 
Hon. RicHarp G. Lucar, 
Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign 
Relations, Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr, CHAIRMAN: As this session gets 
under way, it is our strong hope that as 
Chairman of the Senate Committee on For- 
eign Relations you will schedule prompt 
action on the Hague Convention on the 
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduc- 
tion, which the President transmitted to the 
Senate for advice and consent to ratification 
on October 30, 1985. The Convention has al- 
ready been ratified by France, Switzerland, 
Portugal and nearly all of Canada’s Prov- 
inces. The United Kingdom is presently 
working toward ratification. 

We have long been concerned with the 
problem of parental kidnapping—the wrong- 
ful removal or retention of a child by one of 
its parents. An‘attorney on the staff of Sen- 
ator Wallop joined the U.S. delegation as 
Congressional Observer at the final negotia- 
tions of the Convention in October, 1980. 
The United States signed the Convention in 
December, 1981. 

The Convention establishes an adminis- 
trative and a judicial mechanism’ to bring 
about the prompt return of children who 
have been abducted from, or retained out- 
side of, their country of habitual residence. 
Each country that becomes party to the 
Convention would establish a Central Au- 
thority to process applications from ag- 
grieved parents for the return of their ab- 
ducted children. Where a voluntary return 
could not be achieved, the Convention 
would give the aggrieved parent the right to 
seek the child’s return in court. The court 
would be under a treaty obligation to order 
the child promptly returned unless one of 
the few exceptions to the return obligation 
set forth in the Convention was found to 
apply. 

The object of the Convention is to restore 
an abducted child to his or her home coun- 
try as soon after an abduction as possible in 
order to minimize the trauma to the child, 
to ensure that any litigation on the merits 
of child custody can be heard in the child's 
home country, and to deprive the abductor 
parent of any legal advantage resulting 
from the abduction. If the Convention suc- 
ceeds in swiftly returning children to their 
pre-abduction circumstances, the ever-im- 
portant goal of deterring abductions can be 
achieved. 

The Convention is a logical extension of 
legislation enacted by Congress in 1980 to 
deal with interstate parental kidnapping. In 





29880 


recognition of the intolerably high inci- 
dence of parental kidnapping in this coun- 
try and the painful effects it has on chil- 
dren, the Congress adopted the Parental 
Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980. That 
law, supported by a strong, bipartisan coali- 
tion in both Houses, mandates interstate en- 
forcement of state custody decrees made in 
conformity with federal statute, directs the 
FBI to investigate state felony parental kid- 
napping cases pursuant to the Fugitive 
Felon Act, and authorizes the Federal 
Parent Locator Service to locate abductor- 
parents. The federal law complements the 
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, 
now in effect in every state and the District 
of Columbia, governing interstate recogni- 
tion and enforcement of child custody 
orders. Neither of these laws helps a parent 
whose child is abducted from the U.S. and 
taken abroad. The Hague Child Abduction 
Convention will fill this gap. It addresses 
the global dimension of the parental kid- 
napping problem, and, if ratified, will pro- 
vide a meaningful remedy to parents whose 
children are abducted across international 
borders. The American Bar Association 
strongly supports this Convention. We know 
of no opposition to it. 

We respectfully request that you schedule 
the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects 
of International Child Abduction for the 
earliest possible consideration by your com- 
mittee and expeditious ratification by the 
Senate. Please call upon us if we can be of 
any assistance to you in this regard. 

Sincerely, 


Pauta HAWKINS, 
Pau. SImon, 

U.S. Senators. 
EXxuisit No. 3 


NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, 
Washington, DC, July 17, 1986. 

Hon. RIcHArp Lucar, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Lucar: The Natural Re- 
sources Defense Council would like to take 
this opportunity to support prompt ratifica- 
tion of the Convention on Wetlands of 
International Importance Especially and 
Waterfowl Habitat (the Ramsar Conven- 
tion). 

The Natural Resources Defense Council 
represents 62,021 members throughout the 
United States. For over a decade, NRDC's 
International Program has promoted great- 
er efforts to conserve the global environ- 
ment, including specifically the diversity of 
the Earth’s plant and animal species. Wet- 
lands are extremely rich habitats which 
support a wide range of species, including 
waterfowl important to sportsmen and 
marine and freshwater fin and shellfish im- 
portant to the human diet. Wetlands also 
perform a myriad of ecological services, in- 
cluding filtration of pollutants, mainte- 
nance of water supplies, dampening of flood 
levels, and stabilization of shorelines, 

Unfortunately, wetlands throughout the 
world are under threat from various human 
activities, including drainage for agriculture 
or urbanization; pollution by agricultural, 
domestic, or industrial discharges or careless 
dumping of poisonous wastes; and overex- 
ploitation of the native birds, fish, or vege- 
tation (especially timber), The Ramsar Con- 
vention is an established and effective inter- 
national forum for addressing these prob- 
lems. NRDC is pleased that the United 
States is finally joining the treaty. 

On a personal level, I can attest to the 
aesthetic and biological values of two of the 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


wetlands chosen for addition to the List of 
Wetlands of International Importance. The 
Edwin B. Forsythe (Brigantine) National 
Wildlife Refuge is a prime habitat for ducks 
and geese, as well as wading birds, raptors, 
and forest birds, and such mammals as river 
otter, muskrat, and fox. Okefenokee NWR 
is a wonderous place, home of the alligator, 
pitcher plants, cranes and ibisis, as well as 
the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. 
Although I have not visited Ash Meadows 
NWR, I understand that it is home to a 
dozen federally listed threatened and en- 
dangered fish and plant species—the high- 
est density of such species anywhere in the 
continental United States. NRDC congratu- 
lates the Fish and Wildlife Service on nomi- 
nating this unique wetland for recognition 
by this international program. 

The Natural Resources Defense Council 
hopes that the Senate will move rapidly to 
complete the ratification process for the 
Ramsar Convention. We look forward to 
working with our colleagues in the conserva- 
tion community—both inside and outside 
government—to utilize Ramsar’s mecha- 
nisms to improve conservation of wetlands 
around the world. 

Sincerely, 

FaItH THOMPSON CAMPBELL, Ph.D. 
RATIFICATION OF THE HAGUE TREATY ON CHILD 
ABDUCTION 

Mrs. HAWKINS. Mr. President, I am 
pleased that the Senate is considering 
the ratification of the treaty for the 
1980 Hague Conference on Private 
International Law. The Hague confer- 
ence conducted a convention on the 
civil aspects of international child ab- 
duction and drafted a treaty to help 
resolve custody disputes. The conven- 
tion proposed the prompt return of 
the child by the country of refuge. 

The foreign court does not deter- 
mine or redetermine which parent 
keeps the child. It is not a criminal 
remedy. It simply decides whether a 
youngster under the age of 16 has 
been wrongfully removed or retained 
by the alleged abductor. The treaty 
covers parental kidnapings that occur 
both before and after a custody order 
has been rendered and abductions by 
joint custodians. The treaty also ad- 
dresses visitation rights grievances. 
Under the convention, each participat- 
ing nation sets up a government office 
called a central authority, which will 
process applications for help by par- 
ents. Each central authority will be 
linked to other participating countries 
with the aim of trying to locate the 
child, to bring about the voluntary 
return of the child in order to resolve 
the custody or visitation conflict and 
to offer legal representation. 

Every parental kidnaping is heart- 
breaking, but an international child 
kidnaping is even more so because of 
the costs, complications and difficul- 
ties in trying to work within a foreign 
jurisdiction’s legal system. Sally Abra- 
hams in her book, “Children in the 
Crossfire: The Tragedy of Parental 
Kidnapping,” related the difficulties 
that American parents have faced in 
trying to locate and regain custody of 
children who have been taken abroad 


October 9, 1986 


by ex-spouses who are unhappy with 
custody or visitation orders. Ms. Abra- 
hams cited the possibility of the 
United States and additional countries 
ratifying the Hague conference as the 
one hope that an attempt to eliminate 
the redtape and facilitate a safer 
method of resolving custody disputes 
will be made internationally. 

Florida has been fortunate to have 
some of the leading experts on inter- 
national child abduction residing in 
our State. Kathy Rosenthal of Chil- 
dren’s Rights of America, which is lo- 
cated in Largo, FL, has assisted nu- 
merous parents in the legal morass of 
redtape involved in locating and secur- 
ing the return of a child abducted to a 
foreign jurisdiction. 


HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF 
INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION 

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I 
strongly support Senate ratification of 
the Hague Convention on the Civil As- 
pects of International Child Abduc- 
tion. This convention establishes ad- 
ministrative and judicial mechanisms 
to bring about the prompt return of 
children who have been abducted 
from, or retained outside of, their 
country of habitual residence. In rap- 
idly returning a child to his or her 
preabduction circumstances, the con- 
vention seeks to minimize the trauma 
to the child caused by the abduction, 
to ensure that litigation on the merits 
of child custody be heard in the child’s 
home country, to deprive the abductor 
of any legal advantage resulting from 
the abduction, and, ultimately, to 
deter international, parental kidnap- 


ing. 

Parental kidnaping has long been a 
concern of mine. It is clear that paren- 
tal kidnaping has harmful and long- 
lasting psychological consequences for 
its victim—children. In 1980, Congress 
enacted the Parental Kidnapping Pre- 
vention Act, legislation I had spon- 
sored to reduce the incidence of inter- 
state child abduction, and which en- 
joyed strong, bipartisan support in 
both Houses of the Congress. The 
Hague Child Abduction Convention is 
a logical and necessary extension of 
the Parental Kidnaping Prevention 
Act; it addresses the global dimension 
of the parental kidnaping problem. 
When ratified, it will provide a mean- 
ingful remedy to parents whose chil- 
dren are abducted across international 
borders. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 
statement of the American Bar Asso- 
ciation with respect to this convention 
be printed in the Recorp at the con- 
clusion of my remarks. The portion of 
the ABA's statement on the child ab- 
duction convention was written by 
Partica M. Hoff, who, as an attorney 
on my staff between 1977 and 1980, 
worked with me on the Parental Kid- 
napping Prevention Act and joined the 
U.S. delegation as congressional ob- 





October 9, 1986 


server at the final negotiations of the 
child abduction convention in October 
1980. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Recorp, as follows: 


STATEMENT OF ARTHUR W. RovINeE, CHAIR- 
MAN, SECTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND 
PRACTICE, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 


CONTENTS 


In the preparation of this statement, the 
American Bar Association (ABA) has had 
the benefit of a number of experts whose 
authorship of each section is noted here. 
The professional background of each of 
these lawyers, as well as those who will be 
assisting in orally presenting the ABA's 
views, appear in Appendix A to this state- 
ment. 

Il. HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS 
OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION 
(TREATY DOC. 99-11) 

Mr. Chairman, I would next turn to the 
most recent of the treaties before us, and in 
many respects the most urgently needed— 
the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects 
of International Child Abduction (‘child ab- 
duction convention” or “Convention’’). 

The ABA's endorsement of the child ab- 
duction convention is a direct outgrowth of 
nearly two decades of deep concern on the 
part of the Association and the ABA's 
Family Law Section about the harmful ef- 
fects that parental kidnapping has on chil- 
dren. Parental kidnapping involves the uni- 
lateral taking, retention or concealment of a 
child by one parent from the other parent. 
Whatever the provocation, parental kidnap- 
ping is rarely, if ever, in the child's best in- 
terest. Rather, the child is uprooted from 
home, family, friends, school, and all that is 
familiar, and forced into an existence simi- 
lar to that of a fugitive—a life on the run, 
frequently with new identities, denial of all 
past relationships, and above all, the loss of 
emotional security and stability that is so 
crucial to normal child development. 

In recognition of the need to enact laws to 
safeguard children from parental kidnap- 
ping, the ABA in 1968 approved for enact- 
ment in all states the Uniform Child Custo- 
dy Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA"), drafted that 
same year by the National Conference of 
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The 
UCCJA, now the law in every state and the 
District of Columbia, eliminates a major in- 
centive for parental kidnapping by denying 
the abductor any legal advantage in the 
state to which he or she removes the child. 
The UCCJA limits the exercise of custody 
jurisdiction to the state where the child had 
his home or where there were other signifi- 
cant contacts with the child and his family. 
It provides for the recognition and enforce- 
ment of out-of-state custody decrees in 
many instances and limits the right of 
states to modify sister state decrees. Judges 
in sister states are directed to communicate 
and cooperate with one another in order to 
avoid jurisdictional conflicts that can result 
in the issuance of inconsistent custody de- 
crees, which suspend the child in a state of 
legal limbo. 

While the UCCJA represented a major im- 
provement in the legal system's response to 
parental kidnapping, the ABA recognized a 
need for a more comprehensive solution to 
the problems of interstate and international 
parental kidnapping. In 1978, at the request 
of the Family Law Section, the Association's 
House of Delegates adopted five resolutions 
designed to stem the proliferation of paren- 


71-059 O-87-2 (Pt. 21) 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


tal kidnapping. Among other things, the 
ABA supported passage by Congress of the 
Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act 
(“PKPA") which was enacted on December 
28, 1980. 

The PKPA is the federal analog to the 
UCCJA. It requires interstate enforcement 
of child custody decrees that conform to the 
articulated federal jurisdictional and related 
criteria (28 U.S.C. 1738a); makes the Federal 
Parent Locator Service available to locate 
absconding parents who abduct their chil- 
dren and conceal their whereabouts (42 
U.S.C. 663); and authorizies the F.B.I. to in- 
vestigate interstate felony parental kidnap- 
ping cases in accordance with the Pugitive 
Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073 note). 

The UCCJA and PKPA, together with 
state criminal parental kidnapping statutes, 
today provide a fairly effective meachanism 
for deterring, or remedying, interstate pa- 
rental kidnapping. There remains a need to 
expand the existing legal framework to pro- 
vide more effective remedies in internation- 
al parental kidnapping cases. 

Cognizant of this need, the ABA has been 
interested from the outset in the develop- 
ment of the child abduction convention. 
The Association kept abreast of the brilliant 
contributions by the late Brigitte Boden- 
heimer, professor of law at the University of 
California at Davis Law School, to the draft- 
ing of the Convention. Then in October, 
1980, Larry Stotter, past chairman of the 
Family Law Section, represented the ABA 
as observer on the U.S. delegation at the 
final negotiations of the Convention. 

At the Midyear Meeting in February, 
1981, only four months after the completion 
of the Convention, the ABA House of Dele- 
gates adopted a resolution urging “the ap- 
propriate government agencies to approve 
and ratify the Convention on the Civil As- 
pects of International Child Abduction as 
proposed by the Hague Conference on Pri- 
vate International Law.” 

The ABA's interest in ratification of the 
Convention has intensified over the last five 
years as the number of reported interna- 
tional parental kidnapping cases has stead- 
ily grown. According to State Department 
figures, between 1973 and the present there 
have been 2,184 cases reported to the De- 
partment involving children removed from 
our country and taken abroad. 

The two-thousand-plus cases of children 
abducted from the United States represents 
two-thousands-plus bereft victim parents— 
those left behind after the child has been 
taken or kept abroad—and the same or 
greater number of children—depending 
upon the number of siblings who are victim- 
ized—whose lives have been disrupted and 
who oftentimes have been thrust into new 
cultures with unfamiliar languages and cus- 
toms. The cost to the victim parent is signif- 
icant—in legal fees, travel expenses and 
emotional upheaval. The cost to the victim 
child is beyond calculation. 

For lawyers consulted by victim parents 
whose children have been taken out of the 
country, each of these cases represents a 
legal challenge of international dimension: 
the lawyer must learn the applicable foreign 
law and in all probability retain counsel in 
the foreign country to pursue the appropri- 
ate administrative or judicial procedures to 
secure the child’s return. And no matter 
how artful the legal representation is, there 
is no certainty of success in recovering the 
child of children. Frequently, the foreign 
court is under no legal obligation to recog- 
nize and enforce a U.S. custody decree, and, 
absent a statutory requirement, will not en- 


29881 


force the U.S. order as a matter of comity. 
It then becomes necessary for the U.S. 
parent to reapply for custody in a foreign 
tribunal, which typically pits the U.S. peti- 
tioner against a citizen or resident of the 
foreign country who has the benefit of de- 
fending the custody suit in a family, if not 
friendly, forum. Moreover, in the absence of 
a custody decree in existence at the time of 
the abduction of retention which defines 
the respective custody, visitation or joint 
custody rights of the parents, it is extreme- 
ly unlikely that a foreign court will order 
the child returned to the parent in the 
United States either pursuant to law or as a 
matter of comity. 

In essence, under the present system, 
victim parents in the United States and 
their lawyers face very real and too often in- 
surmountable obstacles in securing the 
return to the United States of a child who 
has been taken abroad. 

Ironically, under present law when chil- 
dren are wrongfully brought to this country 
it is much more likely that they will be or- 
dered returned to their country of origin. 
Over the last three years, 43 cases in this 
category have been reported to the State 
Department. For victim parents abroad, sec- 
tion 23 of the UCCJA, adopted by nearly 
every state, provides the statutory means 
for having a state court recognize and en- 
force a foreign custody determination, so 
long as it was made in conformity with 
UCCJA policies after notice and opportuni- 
ty to be heard were given to the abducting 
parent. Section 23 applies to orders made 
even after the child has been abducted. 
UCCJA case law reflects adherence by 
courts in many states to section 23’s man- 
date, with resulting orders to parents in the 
U.S. to return children to their parents 
abroad. 

The Hague Convention on the Civil As- 
pects of Child Abduction will do for victim 
parents in the United States what UCCJA 
§23 now does for many victim parents 
abroad—establish tangible remedies for re- 
covering a child who has been wrongfully 
removed to, or retained in, a ratifying coun- 
try. The Convention will likewise provide 
additional legal tools for parents abroad 
who seek return of their children for the 
United States. 

Specifically, the child abduction conven- 
tion is designed to secure the prompt return 
of children who have been abducted from, 
or retained outside of, their country of ha- 
bitual residence, and to facilitate the exer- 
cise of visitation across international bor- 
ders. 

The Convention does not depend upon the 
existence of court orders as a condition of 
returning children, nor does it seek to settle 
disputes about legal custody rights. The 
goal is to restore the child to the factual sit- 
uation that existed prior to the removal or 
retention as quickly as possible, while re- 
serving to the courts of the child’s country 
of habitual residence the right to make sub- 
stantive custody decisions regarding the 
child once the child is back home. By prom- 
ising a swift and sure return remedy when a 
child is wrongfully removed or retained, the 
effect of the Convention, if successfully im- 
plemented here and abroad, will be to dis- 
courage abductions in ratifying countries. 

In order to invoke the Convention reme- 
dies, the child’s removal or retention must 
be wrongful within the meaning of the Con- 
vention. For purposes of the Convention, a 
removal or retention is wrongful if it vio- 
lates custody rights that are defined in an 
agreement or court order, or that arise by 





29882 


operation of law, provided these rights are 
actually exercised. The Convention covers 
abductions that occur both before and after 
the issuance of custody orders, as well as ab- 
ductions by joint custodians. The Conven- 
tion remedies apply to children under the 
age of sixteen. 


ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY 


Each country that ratifies the Convention 
must establish at least one Central Author- 
ity (“CA”) to process incoming and outgoing 
requests for assistance in securing the 
return of a child or the exercise of visitation 
rights. The duties of the CA include locat- 
ing abducted children, facilitating the vol- 
untary return of children, providing legal 
representation, either directly or indirectly, 
if voluntary return is impossible and judicial 
recourse is sought, promoting the exercise 
of visitation rights, and helping to arrange 
for the child’s return travel. 

Establishment of a Central Authority in 
each country party to the Convention will 
be remarkably beneficial for victim parents 
and their lawyers. At last there will be a 
government office charged with assisting 
parents recover their abducted children! No 
longer will victim parents be shunted from 
one office to the next in search of assist- 
ance. To parents who have been through 
this hellish experience, and to their lawyers 
who have found themselves apologizing for 
the official indifferences and legal process 
inability to right a wrong, the mere exist- 
ence of a CA will be a meaningful improve- 
ment over current law. 


JUDICIAL REMEDY 


With all of its potential, the CA will some- 
times attempt but fail to secure the volun- 
tary return of a child, or determine it best 
not to seek a voluntary return from an ab- 
ductor who has shown a propensity to flee 
and hide with the child. For wrongful re- 


moval and retention cases where voluntary 
return is impossible, the Convention estab- 
lishes a judicial remedy which permits an 
aggrieved parent to seek a court order for 
the prompt return of a child. An aggrieved 
parent may pursue judicial relief while si- 
multaneously pursuing administrative relief 
through the CA. 

Articles 11-17 are the major provisions 
governing legal proceedings for the return 
of an abducted child. Under Article 12, if a 
proceeding is brought less than a year from 
the date of the wrongful removal or reten- 
tion and the court finds that the conduct 
was wrongful, the court is under a treaty ob- 
ligation to order the child returned. When 
proceedings are brought a year or more 
after the wrongful removal or retention, the 
court is still obligated to order the child re- 
turned unless the person resisting return 
demonstrates that the child is settled in the 
new environment. 

Article 13 enumerates the exceptional cir- 
cumstances under which a court need not 
order a child returned. The person opposing 
return has the burden of proving that (1) 
custody rights were not actually being exer- 
cised by the person seeking return, or the 
person seeking return had consented to or 
subsequently acquiesced in the removal or 
retention, or (2) there is a grave risk that 
return would expose the child to physical or 
psychological harm or otherwise place the 
child in an intolerable situation. A court 
also has discretion to refuse to order a child 
returned if it finds that the child objects to 
being returned and has reached an age or 
degree or maturity making it appropriate to 
consider his or her views. Finally, Article 20 
permits a court to deny a return request if 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


returning the child would not be permitted 
by the fundamental principles of the re- 
quested State relating to the protection of 
human rights and fundamental freedoms. 

Visitation rights, referred to in the Con- 
vention as “access rights,” are covered in Ar- 
ticle 21. The remedies for breach of access 
rights do not include the return remedy pro- 
vided by Article 12. However, the noncusto- 
dial parent may apply to the CA under Arti- 
cle 21 for “organizing or securing the effec- 
tive exercise of rights of access." The CA is 
charged with promoting the peaceful enjoy- 
ment of those rights. 

Custodial parents in the United States 
who are reluctant to send their children 
abroad for court-ordered visitation with the 
noncustodial parent may also benefit from 
this provision. Prior to the visitation, it may 
be possible to enlist the cooperation of the 
foreign CA to monitor the visitation and 
take steps, if necessary, to have the child re- 
turned at the end of the lawful visitation 
period. Moreover, the Convention's return 
remedy would become available in the event 
of an unauthorized “holdover” visit. Thus, 
this provision will safeguard the custodial 
parent’s rights while fostering the noncusto- 
dial parent's exercise of visitation rights 
across international borders. 

The ABA is aware that Secretary Shultz 
has recommended that the United States 
enter two reservations, both of which are 
permitted by the Convention. The first res- 
ervation, pursuant to Articles 24 and 42, 
would require that all documents submitted 
to the U.S. Central Authority be accompa- 
nied by an English translation. The second 
reservation, pursuant to Article 26, would 
exempt the United States from paying any 
legal expenses incurred in connection with 
efforts to secure a child’s return from the 
United States, except as otherwise covered 
by a legal aid program. The ABA supports 
entry of these reservations. With respect to 
the latter, the Family Law Section will at- 
tempt to identify lawyers willing to repre- 
sent parents who seek relief pursuant to the 
Convention, and encourage the provision of 
legal services either on a pro bono or re- 
duced fee basis. 

To date, France, Portugal, Switzerland, 
and most of Canada’s provinces and territo- 
ries have become parties to the Convention. 
The United Kingdom has also very recently 
ratified the Convention, and Australia has 
taken all steps preliminary to ratification. 
The sooner the United States. becomes a 
party to the Convention, the sooner parents 
in this country will have a meaningful vehi- 
cle for securing the return of children who 
are wrongfully removed to, or retained in, 
these ratifying countries and others that 
become party to the Convention. Toward 
this end, the American Bar Association 
strongly recommends prompt and favorable 
committee and Senate action on the Hague 
Convention on the Civil Aspects of Interna- 
tional Child Abduction, as well as swift con- 
gressional approval of federal legislation to 
ensure its effective implementation. 

Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, today 
I rise to encourage my colleagues to 
consider thoughtfully and thereafter 
ratify the Hague convention on the 
Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. I 
further urge my fellow Senators to 
support ensuing legislation which will 
implement aspects of the Hague con- 
vention and assure uniform enforce- 
ment of the convention. 

Mr. President, between 1973 and the 
present there have been 2,184 cases re- 


October 9, 1986 


ported to the State Department in- 
volving children abducted from our 
country and taken abroad. Higher 
rates of international marriages and 
resultant divorces have increased this 
caseload by 1,507 in the last 3 years. 
This amounts to an average of over 40 
such abductions per month. 

The long-term psychological trauma 
experienced by these children is stag- 
gering. In a recent article, the Journal 
of Pediatrics indicated that children 
who are victims of parental kidnap- 
ping suffer from one or more of five 
types of trauma ranging from long- 
term grief to rage to mental indoctri- 
nation. Other research has shown that 
parental kidnapping contributes to a 
child’s depression, anger toward both 
parents; and obvious disruption of 
schooling. 

Within the borders of our Nation, 
child abduction by a noncustodial 
parent has received appropriate and 
effective statutory attention at both 
the State and national levels. The Uni- 
form Child Custody Jurisdiction Act 
drafted in 1968 and adopted by all 
States and the District of Columbia, 
eliminates the incentive for parental 
kidnapping by denying an abductor 
any legal advantage in any State to 
which he or she removes a child. The 
act eliminates incentive for parent ab- 
duction by providing for the recogni- 
tion and enforcement of out-of-State 
custdry decrees of sister States. The 
Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 
Public Law 96-611, is the correspond- 
ing Federal statute which requires 
interstate enforcement of child custo- 
dy decrees conforming to Federal ju- 
risdictional criteria, provides for the 
Federal Parent Locator Service to 
locate absconding parents, and author- 
izes the FBI to investigate interstate 
felony parental kidnapping cases. 

A need remains to confront the 
problem of parental abduction of chil- 
dren at the international level. This 
need was recently addressed by the 
Hague convention on the Civil Aspects 
of International Child Abduction. 

The Hague convention, signed by 
the United States on December 23, 
1981, was transmitted to the Senate by 
the President in October 1985. Hear- 
ings on the convention were completed 
earlier this month by the Foreign Re- 
lations Committee. 

The Hague convention has three 
major purposes: 

First, to restore an abducted child to 
the same status held by that child 
prior to abduction, in the country of 
his or her habitual residence. 

Second, to provide central offices 
and procedures in each country by 
which applications can be made to 
locate and return abducted children; 
and 

Third, to place the country to which 
a child has been abducted or in which 
a child is being wrongfully detained 





October 9, 1986 


under a treaty obligation to return the 
child promptly to the parent in the 
child’s country of habitual residence. 

Countries which are parties to the 
treaty are required to establish a cen- 
tral authority which will receive and 
process requests for locating and re- 
turning children. Expected duties of 
the U.S. central authority will be: To 
locate children removed or retained in 
the United States, to determine possi- 
bilities of voluntary return of abduct- 
ed children without court proceedings; 
to expedite return of children by court 
proceedings when voluntary return is 
refused; to arrange for provisional care 
of the children during return proceed- 
ings; and to arrange for transportation 
of the child when a return is ordered. 

Of particular interest is a measure 
contained in article 26 of the conven- 
tion requiring that the costs of a suc- 
cessful return proceeding be levied 
against the wrongfully removing or re- 
taining parent. It is the hope of the 
convention that this provision will 
deter the actions of a removing parent. 

Other articles in the convention 
govern legal proceedings for the 
return of the abducted child. Timing 
of a custody hearing, visitation rights 
and exceptional circumstances pre- 
cluding the return of a child are all 
enumerated by the convention. 

Current parties to the convention in- 
clude France, Portugal, Switzerland, 
Hungary, Canada, and the United 
Kingdom. Australia has completed all 
steps toward ratification. Our repre- 
sentatives to the convention have been 
informed that other countries will 
adopt the convention provided the 
United States does so. 

Mr. President, in order to provide for 
full and uniform implementation of 
the Hague convention throughout the 
United States, the State Department 
has encouraged passage of legislation 
accompanying the convention ratifica- 
tion. This legislation would specifically 
deal with venue, determination of 
original jurisdiction, the effect of 
court orders in other U.S. jurisdic- 
tions, and necessary measures for the 
protection of children. 

Again, I reemphasize, the approval 
of the Hague convention and the en- 
actment of enabling legislation will 
represent a significant step in combat- 
ing the child abduction problem. I 
urge my colleagues to lend their unan- 
imous and enthusiastic support to 
both the Hague convention and ensu- 
ing legislation. 

I ask unanimous consent to have a 
letter in this connection printed in the 
RECORD. 

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

Re: The Hague Convention on the Civil As- 
pects of International Child Abduction. 
Attention: Richard Holcomb. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING 
AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN, 
Washington, DC, October 2, 1986. 
Hon. JEREMIAH DENTON, 
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, 
Washington, DC. 

DearR SENATOR DeENTON: In response to 
your inquiry concerning the position of the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children on the Hague Convention on the 
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduc- 
tion, I wish to take this opportunity to ex- 
press the opinion of the Center that the 
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of 
International Child Abduction, which has 
just been favorably reported out of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, be 
ratified. Parental kidnapping is a serious 
problem encountered by many American 
families as parents increasingly take the law 
into their own hands by unilaterally remov- 
ing and often concealing the children from 
the other parent when the marriage or non- 
marital partnership dissolves. Many times 
parents lose all contact with their children, 
unable to see or speak to them for years. 

Recent research on the effects on the 
child-victim of parental kidnapping reveals 
that, in addition to the suffering of the left- 
behind parent, many of the children who 
have been kidnapped by noncustodial par- 
ents suffer long-term psychological trauma 
and other consequences. Clinical research 
(Journal of Pediatrics, July 1983, Terr) has 
demonstrated that children who are the vic- 
tims of parental kidnapping suffer one or 
more of five basic kinds of psychic trauma— 
from long-term grief to rage to mental in- 
doctrination. 

In addition, a study done by Dr. Dorothy 
Huntington of the Center for the Family in 
Transition (Corte Madera, California) found 
that children victimized by parental kidnap- 
ping suffer from depression at having been 
torn from their families, their friends, and 
their school. These children are not only de- 
prived of the other parent, they are de- 
prived of both parents’ families. Children 
become very angry at both parents as they 
continue to be a pawn in the struggle be- 
tween the two parents. Their schooling is 
disrupted, and they find it difficult to make 
and keep friends, as the abductor parent 
may move frequently in order to avoid dis- 
covery. Moreover, in some cases these chil- 
dren are abused, neglected, or abandoned by 
the parents who snatched them vengefully. 
It is impossible to know whether these chil- 
dren are well cared for until they are locat- 
ed 


Families victimized by parental kidnap- 
ping routinely face tremendous difficulties 
in finding their children and in obtaining 
court orders for their return. These difficul- 
ties are compounded when the abductor 
parent removes the child from the United 
States. Court custody orders obtained in 
American courts are of little value when 
custody decisions must be relitigated in for- 
eign courts: 

The Hague Convention on the Civil As- 
pects of international Child Abduction 
promises to be of significant assistance in 
international cases of parental kidnapping, 
since it will require the return of the child 
to the country of the child’s habitual resi- 
dence. Disputes about custody rights can 
then be heard and settled in the courts of 
the child’s habitual domicile. The abductor 
is, thus, denied legal advantage from the ab- 
duction to or retention in a foreign country. 
Moreover, the establishment of a Central 
Authority in the ratifying state will provide 
assistance to the families in locating their 


29883 


children and in securing the cooperation of 
foreign states. 

Since the cooperation of countries other 
than the United States depends on the reci- 
procity of obligations, American citizens 
cannot avail themselves of the services of 
the Central Authorities of other countries 
until the United States ratifies this Conven- 
tion. Nor can they avail themselves of the 
provisions requiring the return of the chil- 
dren to the country of habitual residence. 
Over 2,100 American families have experi- 
enced the difficulties of international child 
abduction since 1973. Of these, over one 
half (1,132) involved countries who have ex- 
pressed an interest in ratifying the Hague 
Convention. State Department records 
reveal that over 137 Americans sought as- 
sistance on international child abduction 
cases in the first five months of 1986 alone. 

The National Center for Missing and Ex- 
ploited Children views the ratification of 
the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects 
of Child absuction to be an important step 
in resolving the dilemmas currently faced 
by families victimized by international child 
abduction. Accordingly, the National Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children urges 
the Senate to ratify this Convention and re- 
quests your assistance in obtaining expedi- 
tious action on this matter. 

Sincerely, 
Jay HOWELL, 
Executive Director. 


THE RAMSAR CONVENTION: TOWARD THE 
PROTECTION OF WETLANDS 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the 
Senate Committee on Foreign Rela- 
tions recently reported the Conven- 
tion on Wetlands of International Im- 
portance for Senate Consideration. 
The so-called Ramsar Convention will 
lay the groundwork for United States 
cooperation in international efforts to 
protect and preserve fragile wetland 
areas. As a member of the Foreign Re- 
lations Committee, and as a strong 
supporter of wetland protection, I 
urge the Senate to give its consent to 
this convention. 

There is a growing recognition in 
this country of the importance of 
marshes, swamps, and bogs to the en- 
vironment. The diversity of wildlife 
supported by wetlands, the vital role 
of wetlands in the life cycles of fish 
and birds, and the tenuous grasp on 
survival of wetland vegetation have 
led to strong public actions in support 
of the protection of these areas. 

Wetlands have traditionally been 
viewed in the context of local or re- 
gional ecosystems. But this is only 
part of the story. Migratory waterfowl 
and fish depend on viable wetland sys- 
tems in many countries for their sur- 
vival. The United States needs to pro- 
tect its wetlands, but that determina- 
tion has to be matched in other coun- 
tries for these migratory animals to 
survive. The Ramsar Convention, 
when approved by the Senate, will act 
as an encouragement for other nations 
to make similar commitments, and as a 
foundation for the exchange of infor- 
mation to improve the care and man- 
agement of wetlands around the 
world. 





29884 


The most important benefits for the 
United States will come from _ in- 
creased cooperation with Latin Ameri- 
can and Caribbean countries, where 
many species of North American mi- 
gratory birds have wintering habitats. 
The convention calls for the recogni- 
tion by each signatory country of at 
least one wetland area of international 
importance. The designation of a wet- 
land highlights the decision of that 
country to ensure its protection and 
survival. It also provides a focus for 
international technology and expertise 
in wetland protection and manage- 
ment. 

Four national wildlife refuges have 
been proposed for designation under 
the Ramsar Convention. The diverse 
locations of these sites—Alaska, New 
Jersey, Florida, and Nevada—show 
that wetlands in all regions of our 
country are part of a larger, interna- 
tional ecosystem. The Ramsar Conven- 
tion helps expand the recognition of 
the interconnection of seemingly sepa- 
rate wetlands, to the benefit of migra- 
tory birds and fish, which know no na- 
tional boundaries. 

The Rasmar Convention does not re- 
quire any outlays of Federal dollars. 
However, it does signal a clear commit- 
ment on the part of the United States 
to the preservation and enhancement 
our wetlands for the good of all. Of 
equal importance, the convention pro- 
vides the assurance that our efforts 
are matched by those in other coun- 
tries. Approval of the Ramsar Conven- 
tion serves notice that we are willing 
to commit our knowledge and experi- 
ence to other countries who make a 
similar dedication to their own wet- 
land areas. 

One final point: This is not the final 
step toward international cooperation 
and understanding of wetlands man- 
agement and protection; it is just a be- 
ginning. Other steps can and should 
be taken. The United States has clear- 
ly been at the forefront of wetland 
protection. Approval of the Ramsar 
Convention provides us with frame- 
work to put that experience to work 
on a larger scale. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the 
Hague Convention on the Civil As- 
pects of International Child Abduction 
the Senate now has before it a treaty 
which is of major importance to the 
safety and well-being of our children. 
Before the 99th Congress come to a 
close, we should give this treaty, 
known as the Hague Convention, our 
resounding approval. 

Negotiated in 1981, the Hague Con- 
vention deals with the problem of pa- 
rental kidnaping—specifically, with 
the legal and practical complications 
that can result when a child is taken 
beyond national boundries. 

At present, a parent whose child has 
been abducted to a foreign country in 
violation of a valid custody decree 
must go through the costly and time- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


consuming process of getting a foreign 
court to recognize that decree. The 
U.S. Department of State can offer 
some aid, but its authority in this area 
is at present quite limited, and the 
FBI can only become involved if the 
abduction is a State felony. Criminal 
extradition treaties have been of little 
effect under these circumstances. 

These are the reasons that the pro- 
posed Hague Convention—approved 
last month by the Foreign Relations 
Committee and now before the full 
Senate ratification—represents a 
major stride forward. This convention 
requires that children who are wrong- 
fully taken or retained abroad be 
promptly returned to their country of 
residence. Thus, it simply requires res- 
toration of the custody status quo that 
existed before the abduction. 

Mr. President, I urge the Members 
of the Senate to delay no further and 
to give their prompt approval to this 
valuable agreement. 


HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF 
INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION 

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I 
am particularly pleased that the 
Senate is today approving the Hague 
Convention on the Civil Aspects of 
International Child Abduction. This 
treaty establishes an administrative 
and judicial mechanism to bring about 
the prompt return of children who 
have been abducted from their coun- 
try in parental custody struggles. 

In 1980, I coauthored with the Sena- 
tor from Wyoming (Mr. WaLLop] the 
Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act 
which addressed the problem of do- 
mestic parental kidnaping cases. 
During the hearings I chaired on the 
problem of parental kidnaping in the 
96th Congress, the need for a remedy 
to deal with international—as well as 
domestic—parental kidnaping cases 
was well documented. 

On a number of occasions, I have 
seen the difficulties that parents from 
California have experienced in at- 
tempting to recover their children 
when they have been taken abroad by 
a noncustodial parent. Ratification of 
this treaty by the United States is a 
significant step forward in dealing 
with these very difficult cases. Each 
country that becomes a party to the 
Hague Convention is obligated to es- 
tablish a central authority to process 
applications from aggrieved parents 
for the return of their abducted chil- 
dren and provide a judicial mechanism 
for the parent to recover these chil- 
dren. 

Although ratification of this treaty 
will not end the heartache and distress 
that parental kidnaping brings about, 
it is designed to provide for a clear and 
hopefully a swift mechanism for re- 
storing abducted children to their 
homes. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the vote show 


October 9, 1986 


in the record as six separate rollcall 
votes on the resolutions. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The clerk will report the treaties. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

Calendar No. 14, Treaty Doc. No. 98-9, 
United Nations Convention on Contracts for 
the International Sale of Goods; Calendar 
No. 15, Treaty Doc. No. 98-27, Inter-Ameri- 
can Convention on Letters Rogatory, with 
Protocol; Calendar No. 16, Treaty Doc. No. 
99-28, the Convention on Wetlands of Inter- 
national Importance; Calendar No. 17, 
Treaty Doc. No. 98-29, Request for Advice 
and Consent to Withdrawal of a Reserva- 
tion made to the 1975 Patent Cooperation 
Treaty; Calendar No. 18, Treaty Doc. No. 
97-12, Inter-American Convention on Com- 
mercial Arbitration; and Calendar No. 19, 
Treaty No, 99-11, Hague Convention on the 
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduc- 
tion. 


O 1620 


Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent to proceed for 2 
minutes, 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a good 
many Senators have left the Chamber 
not knowing there was going to be an- 
other rollcall vote. This one counts for 
six. 

I wonder, while our cloakrooms are 
alerting, if the distinguished majority 
leader could tell us whether or not 
there are going to be any votes follow- 
ing this one today. 

Mr. DOLE. I may be able to give the 
minority leader that reply in about 30 
minutes. We are still working on rec- 
onciliation. That could occur. 

Mr. BYRD. The majority leader 
would expect the Senate to be late 
today? 

Mr. DOLE. If we have reconciliation 
we could be as late as 7:30 or 8, not 
real late. 

Mr. BYRD. I thank the majority 
leader. 

Mr. DOLE. We will leave the vote 
open for a while. 

Mr. BYRD. Very well. 

I thank the majority leader. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the resolu- 
tions of ratification. 

On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will 
call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I announced that 
the Senator from Utah [Mr. Garn] 
and the Senator from Idaho [Mr. 
Syms] are necessarily absent. 

I further announce that, if present 
and voting, the Senator from Idaho 
(Mr. Syms] would vote “yea.” 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
Evans). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote? 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 98, 
nays 0 as follows: 





October 9, 1986 


(Rolicall Vote No. 
98-9.) 

{Rolicall Vote No. 
98-27.) 

{Rollcall Vote No. 
99-28.) 

{Rollcall Vote No. 
98-29.) 

{Rollcall Vote No. 
97-12.] 

{Rollcall Vote No. 
99-11.) 


{Rollcall Vote No. 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344 
Ex.) 


YEAS—98 
Goldwater 


339—Treaty Doc. No. 


340—Treaty Doc. No. 


341—Treaty Doc. 
342—Treaty Doc. 
343—Treaty Doc. 


344—Treaty Doc. No. 


Melcher 
Metzenbaum 
Mitchell 
Moynihan 
Murkowski 
Nickles 
Nunn 
Packwood 
Pell 
Pressler 
Proxmire 
Pryor 
Quayle 
Riegle 
Rockefeller 
Roth 
Rudman 
Sarbanes 
Sasser 
Simon 
Simpson 
Specter 
Stafford 
Stennis 
Stevens 
Thurmond 
Trible 
Wallop 
Warner 
Weicker 
Wilson 
Zorinsky 


Abdnor 
Andrews 
Armstrong 
Baucus 
Bentsen 
Biden 
Bingaman 
Boren 
Boschwitz 
Bradley 
Broyhill 
Bumpers 
Burdick 
Byrd 
Chafee 
Chiles 
Cochran 
Cohen 
Cranston 
D'Amato 
Danforth 
DeConcini 
Denton 
Dixon 
Dodd 
Dole 
Domenici 
Durenberger 
Eagleton 
Evans 
Exon 
Ford 
Glenn 


Hatfield 
Hawkins 
Hecht 
Heflin 
Heinz 
Helms 
Hollings 
Humphrey 
Inouye 
Johnston 
Kassebaum 
Kasten 
Kennedy 
Kerry 
Lautenberg 
Laxalt 
Leahy 
Levin 

Long 
Lugar 
Mathias 
Matsunaga 
Mattingly 
McClure 
McConnell 


NAY—0 
NOT VOTING—2 
Garn Symms 


The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two- 
thirds of the Senators present having 
voted in the affirmative, the resolu- 
tions of ratification are agreed to. 

The resolutions of ratification 
agreed to are as follows: 

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS 
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE oF Goops 

Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators 
present concurring therein/, That the 
Senate advise and consent to the ratifica- 
tion of the United Nations Convention on 
Contracts for the International Sale of 
Goods, adopted by a United Nations confer- 
ence of sixty-two States on April 11, 1980, 
subject to the following reservation: 

Pursuant to Article 95 the United States 
will not be bound by subparagraphs (1)(b) 
of Aticle 1. 

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON LETTERS 

ROGATORY, WITH PROTOCOL 

Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators 
present concurring therein/, That the 
Senate advise and consent to the ratifica- 
tion of the Inter-American Convention on 
Letters Rogatory, adopted at Panama City, 
Panama, on January 30, 1975, together with 
the Additional Protocol to the Convention, 
adopted at Montevideo, Uruguay, on May 8, 
1979, and signed on behalf of the United 
States on April 15, 1980, subject to the fol- 
lowing reservations: 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


1. Pursuant to Article 2(b) of the Inter- 
American Convention on Letters Rogatory, 
letters rogatory that have as their purpose 
the taking of evidence shall be excluded 
from the rights, obligations and operation 
of this Convention between the United 
States and another State Party. 

2. In ratifying the Inter-American Con- 
vention on Letters Rogatory, the United 
States accepts entry into force and under- 
takes treaty relations only with respect to 
States which have ratified or acceded to the 
Additional Protocol as well as the Inter- 
American Convention, and not with respect 
to States which have ratified or acceded to 
the Inter-American Convention alone. 


THE CONVENTION ON WETLANDS OF 
INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE 


Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators 
present concurring therein/, That the 
Senate advise and consent to the ratifica- 
tion of the Convention on Wetlands of 
International Importance especially as Wa- 
terfow] Habitat, concluded at Ramsar, Iran, 
February 2, 1971, with a Protocol to the 
Convention, concluded at Paris on Decem- 
ber 3, 1982. 


REQUEST FOR ADVICE AND CONSENT TO WITH- 
DRAWAL OF A RESERVATION MADE TO THE 
1975 PATENT COOPERATION TREATY 


Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators 
present concurring therein), That the 
Senate advise and consent to the ratifica- 
tion of the Request for Advice and Consent 
to withdraw a reservation declaring that the 
United States would not be bound by the 
provisions of Chapter II of the Treaty made 
when the United States deposited its instru- 
ment of ratification for the Patent Coopera- 
tion Treaty with the World Intellectual 
Property Organization on November 26, 
1975. 


INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON 
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 


Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators 
present concurring therein), That the 
Senate advise and consent to the ratifica- 
tion of the Inter-American Convention on 
Commercial Arbitration adopted by the 
First Inter-American Specialized Confer- 
ence on Private International Law, at 
Panama City, Panama, on January 30, 1975, 
and signed by the United States on June 9, 
1978, subject to the following reservations: 

1. Unless there is an express agreement 
among the parties to an arbitration agree- 
ment to the contrary, where the require- 
ments for application of both the Inter- 
American Convention on _ International 
Commercial Arbitration and the Convention 
on the Recognition and Enforcement of 
Foreign Arbitral Awards are met, if a major- 
ity of such parties are citizens of a state or 
states that have ratified or acceded to the 
Inter-American Convention and are member 
states of the Organization of American 
States, the Inter-American Convention shall 
apply. In all other cases, the Convention on 
the Recognition and Enforcement of For- 
eign Arbitral Awards shall apply. 

2. The United States of America will apply 
the rules of procedure of the Inter-Ameri- 
can Commercial Arbitration Commission 
which are in effect on the date that the 
United States of America deposits its instru- 
ment of ratification, unless the United 
States of America makes a later official de- 
termination to adopt and apply subsequent 
amendments to such rules. 


29885 


3. The United States of America will apply 
the Convention, on the basis of reciprocity, 
to the recognition and enforcement of only 
those awards made in the territory of an- 
other Contracting State. 

HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF 
INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION 

Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators 
present concurring therein), That the 
Senate advise and consent to the ratifica- 
tion of the Hague Convention on the Civil 
Aspects of International Child Abduction, 
adopted on October 24, 1980, at the 14th 
Session of the Hague Conference on Private 
International Law and signed on behalf of 
the United States on December 23, 1981, 
subject to the following two reservations: 

(1) Pursuant to the second paragraph of 
Article 24, and Article 42, the United States 
makes the following reservation: All applica- 
tions, communications and other documents 
sent to the U.S. Central Authority should 
be accompanied by their translation into 
English. 

(2) Pursuant to the third paragraph of Ar- 
ticle 26, the United States declares that it 
will not be bound to assume any costs or ex- 
penses resulting from the participation of 
legal counsel or advisers or from court and 
legal proceedings in connection with efforts 
to return children from the United States 
pursuant to the Convention except insofar 
as those costs or expenses are covered by a 
legal aid program. 


O 1640 


Mr. KASTEN and Mr. PACKWOOD 
addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senator from Wisconsin is recognized. 

Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent to proceed as if in 
morning business for not to exceed 2 
minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senate is now in executive session. 

Mr. KASTEN. I am pleased to yield 
to the Senator from Oregon. 

Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, 
was there a motion to reconsider the 
vote by which treaties were ratified? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There 
was not. 

Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I 
have been asked by the majority 
leader to move to reconsider the vote, 
and I move to reconsider the vote by 
which the resolutions of ratification 
were agreed to. 

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


LEGISLATIVE SESSION 


Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that we go out of 
executive session, and that I be recog- 
nized as if in morning business for not 
to exceed 2 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there objection? Without objection, it 
is so ordered. 

The Senator from Wisconsin is rec- 
ognized. 





29886 


THE GOVERNMENT OF NICARA- 
GUA’S VIOLATION OF INTER- 
NATIONAL LAW 


Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, today, 
the Government of Nicaragua is in vio- 
lation of international law. Eugene 
Hasenfus, a Wisconsinite, a United 
States citizen, is imprisoned in Nicara- 
gua, and has not been allowed to speak 
to United States Embassy officials. 

By international law, the Nicara- 
guan Government is violating the 
Vienna Convention. Under article 36, 
subparagraph a: 

Consulate officials shall be free to com- 
municate with nationals of the sending 
state, and to have access to them. 

Subparagraph b says that: 

If he so requests, the authorities for the 
receiving state shall without delay inform 
the sending state whenever a national is ar- 
rested or is detained in any other manner. 

Subparagraph c goes on to say: 

Consulate officials shall have the right to 
visit a national of the sending state who is 
in prison, custody, or detention. 

Mr. President, this treaty was signed 
by approximately 100 nations around 
the world, including the United States 
and Nicaragua. What this means is, all 
citizens have the right of access to 
their embassy officials in Nicaragua. 
The Government of Nicaragua is using 
Eugene Hasenfus as a pawn in an in- 
flammatory media game. Our efforts 
must be to protect this man and create 
an environment that does not give the 
Nicaraguan Government an incentive 
to imprison Mr. Hasenfus. 

I urge my colleagues here, and all 
Americans, to speak out against this 
injustice. I urge my colleagues to con- 
tact the Nicaraguan Embassy and pro- 
test their violations of international 
law. If this government continues to 
mistreat Eugene Hasenfus, we will not 
stand for it. This man must have his 
rights protected as an American citi- 
zen in a foreign country. 

Mr. HARKIN and Mr. McCONNELL 
addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senator from Iowa. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, are we 
in executive session? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There 
is nothing before the Senate. We are 
in legislative session. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that I be able to 
proceed as if in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Iowa. 


EUGENE HASENFUS AND THE 
DOWNING OF FLIGHT C-123 


Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as 
more and more news of Eugene Hasen- 
fus, and the Sunday downing of the C- 
123 cargo plane over Nicaragua comes 
out, Iam reminded of a line from Alice 
in Wonderland: “This story gets cur- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


iouser and curiouser.” First, no one 
claims ownership of the plane. 

General Singlaub denies it, so does 
the Reagan administration, and so 
does Southern Air Transport which 
apparently commissioned two of the 
Americans on the flight. 

No one claims responsibility for the 
Americans on the flight. Yet, Hasen- 
fus’ wife claims that her husband 
worked for the CIA. 

The Salvadoran Government claims 
that it had no knowledge of the Ha- 
senfus flight or any other mission in 
support of the Contras. Yet, the plane, 
after leaving Miami, landed in Ilo- 
pango, which we know is the Salvador- 
an military’s main airport. 

The President totally disavows any 
connection between the U.S. Govern- 
ment and the downed plane. Yet Ha- 
senfus and his companions were wear- 
ing dogtags identifying them as U.S. 
military advisers. 

The President's ‘‘absolute denials” 
and the administration’s smoke and 
mirrors cannot hide from the Ameri- 
can people and the Congress the real 
facts behind this incident. 

When dealing with an administra- 
tion which claims that truth must be 
protected by deception, we must keep 
asking questions and keep looking for 
the truth. 

First, we have to ask who owned the 
C-123 downed over Nicaragua? The 
Contras deny ownership of the C-123 
downed over Nicaragua, but claim that 
there was a third country involved in 
purchase of the plane; and General 
Singlaub, the commander of the pri- 
vate war against Nicaragua, denies 
that his group owns it and has com- 
pletely disassociated itself from the 
Hasenfus mission. We know the Con- 
tras have never owned a C-123, yet 
their spokesman claims that a third 
country was involved in the mission. 

Was the plane purchased with funds 
from a third country? Did the adminis- 
tration assist in any way in linking 
that country with the Contras? 

What was the country? Why are 
they involved? Who involved them? 

Second, just who is Eugene Hasenfus 
and what connection is there between 
Southern Air Transport and the CIA? 
From the President to Secretary 
Shultz to the Central Intelligence 
Agency, the administration claims 
that no one on the plane was an em- 
ployee of the CIA or Defense Depart- 
ment. 

Yet, Eugene Hasenfus’ wife, Sally, 
admits that her husband worked for 
the CIA. Furthermore, Hasenfus and 
two other Americans on board had 
been employed by Southern Air Trans- 
port. Southern Air has a long history 
of ties with the CIA. 

According to the Church Committee 
Report of 1976, Southern Air was 
owned by the CIA from 1960 to 1973. 
The airline has since maintained con- 
tact with the Agency, and according to 


October 9, 1986 


a CBS News story of July 8, 1984, 
Southern Air flew guns to the Contras 
at the behest of the CIA. 

Furthermore, Hasenfus was an em- 
ployee of Air America during the Viet- 
nam War. According to the Church 
Committee, Air America was also a 
proprietary of the CIA. 


0 1650 


Has Mr. Hasenfus ever worked for 
the CIA? What was the last date of 
contract between CIA personnel and 
Hasenfus? Has the CIA or any other 
U.S. Government agency contracted 
with Southern Air Transport within 
the last year for flights in Central 
America? 

Was there any prior knowledge by 
the U.S. Government? President 
Reagan admits that the U.S. Govern- 
ment has been aware of private efforts 
to aid Nicaraguan rebels, but denies 
any government role in the mission 
leading to Hasenfus’ capture. 

Yet, how did Hasenfus and his asso- 
ciates get ID cards from the Salvador- 
an Air Force identifying them as U.S. 
military advisers in El Salvador? Did 
any DOD or other U.S. Government 
employee approve the issuance of 
those identification cards by the Sal- 
vadoran Air Force? 

Where did the Hasenfus flight origi- 
nate? If it began in Miami, were any 
U.S. Government personnel aware 
that the flight was carrying or eventu- 
ally would carry weapons to the Con- 
tras? 

Most curious of all, Mr. President, 
how did the C-123 land at Ilopango 
Airport without the knowledge of U.S. 
military personnel at the airport? It is 
my understanding that a half dozen 
members of the U.S. milgroup are sta- 
tioned at Ilopango, and one U.S. advis- 
er is stationed at the control tower at 
the airport. Were U.S. personnel in 
Tlopango aware of the cargo on the C- 
123 flight and aware of its flight path? 

Were any of them involved in any 
way in refueling, loading, transferring 
material, or in other ways supporting 
that aircraft at Nopango Airport? 

It seems unlikely to me, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that the plane could land at Ilo- 
pango Airport yet no one knows any- 
thing about it. This C-123 lands, prob- 
ably refuels, maybe takes on cargo, 
and yet nobody saw it. 

It strains credulity to think that our 
military personnel there did not know 
of it or perhaps did not even have 
something to do with it. 

Did U.S. personnel provide any as- 
sistance to the Hasenfus flight? Did 
any Defense Department or other U.S. 
Government employee assist Hasenfus 
and his companions in loading or refu- 
eling the cargo plane? Did any DOD or 
other U.S. Government employee 
meet with Hasenfus, advise them, or in 
any way assist them in carrying out 
their supply operation? Were the 





October 9, 1986 


weapons on board ever the property of 
the CIA, or purchased by U.S. Govern- 
ment funds? 

Getting to the truth in this case is 
like trying to capture the Cheshire 
Cat in the Alice in Wonderland story. 
Every time you think you are getting 
closer, it disappears. 

With the Hasenfus mission, we have 
entered that grey world of spooks and 
spies, where the law is an inconven- 
ience and where truth is smothered by 
lies and half truths. 

Mr. President, we have a responsibil- 
ity to see that the laws, the laws 
which this body has passed and which 
previous Presidents have signed—such 
as the Neutrality Act and prohibitions 
against the CIA aiding the Contras— 
are not being broken. We have a re- 
sponsibility to insure that the Ameri- 
can people as well as our colleagues 
are not victims once again of an elabo- 
rate disinformation campaign. 

Toward this end, next week I intend 
to offer an amendment seeking from 
the President a full and detailed ac- 
counting of both direct and indirect 
association, knowledge, or assistance 
provided Eugene Hasenfus and the 
downed flight, by the U.S. Govern- 
ment. 

Again, Mr. President, I believe we 
have taken those final steps which are 
going to involve us ever more deeply in 
war in Central America. As I said yes- 
terday, Mr. Hasenfus is the first POW. 
His American compatriots who were 


killed will be coming home in the first 
body bags. 
There will be more, if the President 


continues this illogical, illegal, and 
damaging policy in Central America. 

I am hopeful that we can get an- 
swers to these questions. I am hopeful 
that the Congress will speak before we 
adjourn and go home for the elections, 
not to probably meet again until next 
year in a new Congress. I am hopeful 
that this Congress will at least insist 
that we have a reporting from the 
President and a full accounting, not 
any coverups, not any grinning Chesh- 
ire cat that seems to evaporate when 
you get closer, but some cold, hard 
data on where this airplane came from 
and who owns it, who was the third 
country involved, and, if that is so, 
how was that country dragged into 
this? 

Where did the arms come from? 
Who was Eugene Hasenfus? For whom 
did he really work? 

And, most important of all, is the 
CIA, under the directorship of William 
Casey, obeying the law, or is it skirting 
the law, and possibly violating it, by 
using proxies such as Mr. Hasenfus 
and others to carry out what we in the 
Congress have declared should not be 
done? 

Second, what was the involvement of 
the U.S. Department of Defense in 
this, if any, and were personnel aware 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


of this at Ilopango Airport, and what 
were their orders? 

What were the orders to the military 
group at Ilopango in terms of assisting 
this type of a mission or this particu- 
lar mission? 

If, in fact, those orders were to 
assist, then I submit, Mr. President, 
that certain officers or officials in the 
Department of Defense are also guilty 
of violating the laws of this country. 

We just had an impeachment pro- 
ceeding today, the first one in many 
years, in which the U.S. Senate has 
taken an official of the U.S. Govern- 
ment, a member of the third coequal 
branch of our Government, and, ac- 
cording to the procedures set forth in 
the Constitution of the United States, 
removed him from that office. 

I believe that we ought to be taking 
a look at certain military officials if 
they are involved in this operation, if 
they have given orders to others under 
their command in clear violation of 
the laws of the land. 

If such is the case, then those offi- 
cers, no less than Judge Harry Clai- 
borne, ought to also be removed from 
their positions for violating the laws 
of the United States. 

So Mr. President, as more and more 
of information leaks out on this flight, 
and more and more questions are 
raised, I intend to take the floor on a 
daily basis to raise those questions and 
to ask for a full accounting. 

As I said, Mr. President, sometime 
before this body adjourns, I hope to 
offer an amendment that will ask the 
President to be forthcoming with a 
full accounting of just who was in- 
volved in this flight, where the flight 
originated, and what, if any, was the 
involvement of both the Central Intel- 
ligence Agency and the Department of 
Defense. 

Mr. McCONNELL addressed the 
Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senator from Kentucky. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President. I 
ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed as in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 


DR. ABBY NKOMO, CHAIRMAN 
OF THE ATTERIDGEVILLE/ 
SAULSVILLE CIVIC ASSOCIA- 
TION 


Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on 
behalf of Mr. CoHEN, Mr. BorREN, Mr. 
Lucar, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DUREN- 
BERGER, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. 
MuRKOwWSKI, Mr. Rotn, and myself, I 
send a resolution to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there objection? 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving 
the right to object, and I will not 
object, this resolution has been 
cleared on this side of the aisle. 


29887 


Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the dis- 
tinguished minority leader. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A resolution (S. Res. 503) relative to Dr. 
Abby Nkomo, Chairman of the Atteridge- 
ville/Saulsville Civic Association. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, the Senate will proceed 
to its immediate consideration. 

The Senate proceeded to consider 
the resolution. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as 
we all know, on June 12, 1986, the 
South African Government imposed 
sweeping state of emergency regula- 
tions which grant the military and 
police broad powers to question and 
detain individuals. 

Since June 12, 1986, the Government 
has acknowledged detaining close to 
10,000 South Africans. Independent 
monitoring groups estimate more than 
12,000 people have actually been de- 
tained. But I am not here to talk 
about these statistics, as horrifying as 
they may be. I would like to take a 
moment of my colleague’s time to dis- 
cuss just one victim of apartheid and 
the state of emergency regulations. 

The resolution I have submitted con- 
cerns the case of Dr. Abby Nkomo. 
Over the past several years, Dr. 
Nkomo has been an active and well re- 
spected community leader. In addition 
to his successful medical practice, he 
has chaired the Atteridgeville Civic 
Association and served as vice chair- 
man of the Pretoria Council of 
Churches. But most importantly, Dr. 
Nkomo has worked tirelessly for 
peaceful change in South Africa, 


O 1700 


My colleagues probably wonder why 
I would bring Dr. Nkomo’s case to 
their attention. Has he distinguished 
himself in some unusual way? the 
answer is ““No.”’ The fact of the matter 
is Dr. Nkomo is very much like many 
other community leaders who advo- 
cate including the black majority in 
the South African political process 
and power. 

Inexplicably, it is just these voices of 
moderation that the South African 
Government has chosen to harass, 
detain, and put on trial. Dr. Nkomo is 
representative of thousands of black 
citizens and leaders who has advocated 
dialog with the Government—and the 
Government has responded with re- 
pression. 

Over the past year, Dr. Nkomo and 
his family have been threatened, his 
clinics have been ransacked, and his 
car and home have been bombed. In 
spite of his pleas, none of these inci- 
dents have been investigated by the 
police. In fact, instead, his daughter 
was detained for 47 days and he has 
been detained since June 12. He has 
suffered solitary confinement, he has 





29888 


been separated from his family, and 
he has been denied adequate medical 
attention. 

Prior to his arrest, Dr. Nkomo was 
representative of the many moderate 
voices of reason within the black com- 
munities of South Africa who believe 
in dialog. As a detainee under the 
state of emergency, he is representa- 
tive of thousands who have been 
stripped of their civil liberties and 
basic rights. 

This resolution expresses the Sen- 
ate’s concern with the treatment Dr. 
Nkomo has suffered. But it is more 
than a statement of support for an in- 
dividual victim of apartheid. It is a 
statement of support for due process 
and civil liberties for all South Afri- 
cans. Most importantly, this resolution 
is a strong statement of support for 
dialog between the Government and 
the moderate advocates of peaceful 
change that Dr. Nkomo represents. 

Last week, the Senate made the dif- 
ficult decision to override the Presi- 
dent’s veto of the Anti-Apartheid Act 
of 1986. None of us should feel this 
action resolved the issue or closed dis- 
cussion of the problems South Africa 
confronts. 

By overriding the veto, we confirmed 
our responsibility and role in shaping 
our policy toward South Africa. This 
sense of the Senate resolution reaf- 
firms our support for those who seek 
dialog and peaceful ways to dismantle 
apartheid. 

The resolution has been cleared by 


the majority and minority leaders and 
the chairman and ranking minority 
members of the Foreign Relations 
Committee. I ask my colleagues’ sup- 
port in immediately adopting the reso- 
lution. 


SOUTH AFRICA'’S TREATMENT OF DR. ABBY 
NKOMO 

@ Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am 
pleased to join as a cosponsor of this 
amendment. It is important that the 
Senate make this firm statement on 
behalf of human rights and civil liber- 
ties for all citizens of the Republic of 
South Africa. 

One of the real tragedies in that 
troubled country is that the Govern- 
ment, which is already oppressing the 
vast majority of its citizens under its 
apartheid policies, is harassing the 
moderate black leaders with whom it 
should be talking as forces seeking 
peaceful, rather than violent change 
in that country. 

The case of Dr. Abby Nkomo is rep- 
resentative of many in South Africa 
today. Dr. Nkomo is a respected com- 
munity leader, highly regarded by his 
peers and, I might add, by American 
Embassy officials in South Africa. He 
is a successful physician, chairman of 
the Atteridgeville/Saulsville Civic As- 
sociation, vice chairman of the Preto- 
ria Council of Churches, and an active 
member of the Methodist Church. Dr. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Nkomo has also been a vocal advocate 
of peaceful change in South Africa. 

Despite this, the Government, when 
it declared its state of emergency, de- 
tained Dr. Nkomo, placing him in soli- 
tary confinement on June 12. Since 
that time, he has been denied ade- 
quate medical attention, including 
medication for diabetes. He has been 
separated from his family and permit- 
ted only infrequent visits by his wife. 
Even then, the couple has suffered 
harassment from prison guards. 

The harassment of Dr. Nkomo—and 
of other black leaders like him 
throughout the country—did not begin 
on June 12. Dr. Nkomo’s clinics have 
been sabotaged, his home and car have 
been petrol-bombed, and telephone 
threats have been made against him 
and his family. The police have re- 
fused to investigate any of these inci- 
dents or threats. 

Dr. Nkomo represents the majority 
of South Africans, black and white 
alike, who seek peaceful change. He is 
exactly the sort of individual with 
whom the South African Government 
should be engaged in dialog, rather 
than persecution. 

The Senate must do all it can to en- 
courage the Government of South 
Africa to enter into dialgo with moder- 
ate forces within that country so that 
positive action can be taken to bring 
an end to apartheid policies. This reso- 
lution on behalf of Dr. Nkomo, who is 
representative of thousands of similar 
victims currently detained under the 
state of emergency regulations, is a 
forceful statement in that regard. My 
hope is that it will have the broad sup- 
port of Members of this body and win 
unanimous approval.e 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there further debate on the resolu- 
tion? If not, the question is on agree- 
ing to the resolution. 

The resolution (S. Res. 503) was 
agreed to. 

The preamble was agreed to. 

The resolution, with its preamble, is 
as follows: 


S. Res. 503 


Whereas, Dr. Abby Nkomo, Chairman of 
the Atteridgeville,/Saulsville Civic Associa- 
tion, Vice Chairman of the Pretoria Council 
of Churches and an active member of the 
Methodist Church, has been detained by 
the South African police for an extended 
period without charge or trial; 

Whereas, Dr. Nkomo has been a vocal ad- 
vocate of peaceful change in South Africa; 

Whereas, Dr. Nkomo has been in solitary 
confinement since his incarceration on June 
12, 1986 and has been denied adequate medi- 
cal attention including medication for diabe- 
tes; 

Whereas, Dr. Nkomo has been separated 
from his family and permitted infrequent 
visits by his wife during which the couple 
suffers harassment from prison guards; 

Whereas, Dr. Nkomo and his family have 
been harassed for more than twenty 
months, including the gasoline bombing of 
his home and car, the sabotage of the doc- 


October 9, 1986 


tor’s clinics, and telephone threats on their 
lives; 

Whereas, the police have refused to inves- 
tigate any of these threats or incidents; 

Whereas, the police detained the doctor's 
daughter Suzan for 47 days and threatened 
his wife Marjorie with arrest: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the 
Senate that Dr. Nkomo is representative of 
the majority of South Africans who seek 
peaceful change and with whom the South 
African government should be engaged in 
dialogue rather than persecution; 

That the government of South Africa be 
encouraged to enter into dialogue with mod- 
erate forces within that country so that 
positive action can be taken to bring an end 
to apartheid policies; 

That Dr. Nkomo has been subjected to an 
unreasonable and reprehensible deprivation 
of his civil rights; 

That Dr. Nkomo is representative of thou- 
sands of similar victims currently detained 
under the state of emergency regulations; 

That Dr. Nkomo’'s family has been the 
victim of continual, excessive harassment by 
the police authorities of South Africa caus- 
ing severe emotional and financial loss; 

That the actions of the South African 
government toward Dr. Nkomo are con- 
demned as an obstruction to prospects for 
peaceful change in South Africa; 

That the United States Government and 
its representatives should emphasize to offi- 
cials of the Republic of South Africa our na- 
tion’s resolve that all individuals in that 
country be afforded due process and that 
their civil liberties be protected. 

Mr. McCONNELL. I move to recon- 
sider the vote by which the resolution 
was agreed to. 

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


EXTENSION OF SBA PILOT 
PROGRAM 


Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, I 
send a bill to the desk on behalf of 
myself and Senator Bumpers and ask 
unanimous consent for its immediate 
consideration. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving 
the right to object, I shall not object. 
Mr. WEICKER and Senator Bumpers 
have cleared this bill on this side of 
the aisle. We are ready to proceed. 
Therefore, I withdraw my reservation. 

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

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 2914) to extend through fiscal 
year 1988 SBA pilot programs under section 
8 of the Small Business Act. 

The Senate proceeded to consider 
the bill. 

Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, the 
legislation before the Senate would 
extend through fiscal year 1988, two 
Small Business Administration [SBA] 
Pilot Procurement Programs, which 
are designed to enhance the SBA’s 
ability to assist minority-owned firms. 
This legislation is identical to Title I 
of H.R. 2787, which was unanimously 





October 9, 1986 


passed by both the House and Senate. 
Unfortunately, President Reagan, on 
October 7, 1986, vetoed H.R. 2787. 

In his veto message, the President 
concentrated his remarks on title II of 
H.R. 2787, which authorized funding 
for a technology institute at the Uni- 
versity of Bridgeport. Therefore, the 
pending legislation strikes title II of 
H.R. 2787 and simply reauthorizes 
these two important minority business 
development programs. 

The principal program reauthorized 
by this legislation gives SBA the in- 
creased authority to select and reserve 
certain contracts from one agency des- 
ignated by the President and to match 
that contract with a qualified minori- 
ty-owned business. You might say it 
gives SBA additional clout to negotiate 
for quality contracts that foster busi- 
ness development. The administration 
argues that this authority is unneces- 
sary, but the unanimous testimony of 
minority business owners at Small 
Business Committee hearings contra- 
dicted that point of view. 

Under the regular 8(a) program, mi- 
nority small business have traditional- 
ly received less sophisticated con- 
tracts, predominantly in service areas. 
The nature of the contracts offered to 
SBA by other agencies for the pro- 
gram has limited the growth potential 
for firms under the regular 8(a) pro- 
gram. The pilot authority was intend- 
ed to give SBA authority to address 
that problem on a limited basis. 

The pilot program was originally au- 
thorized in 1978. Since 1983 until it ex- 
pired in 1985, the program operated in 
the Department of Transportation 
{DOT]. From testimony at committee 
hearings, I might add it has worked 
very well at DOT. 

As I stated, each of the minority 
business owners who testified at com- 
mittee hearings believed that without 
the existence of the pilot program 
their contract opportunity would not 
have been made available. According 
to Mr. Robert Jones of AMAF Indus- 
tries, the pilot authority helps break 
some of the institutional resistance of 
procuring agencies to award quality 
contracts to minority businesses. As 
Mr. Jones stated, 

The pilot program is a countervailing 
force which alleviates the internal and ex- 
ternal pressures not to make quality con- 
tracts available under the program. 

In other words, the visibility and im- 
portance that Congress and the desig- 
nated agency give to the program 
make the program work, even if SBA 
chooses not to use the additional clout 
provided under the law. 

The second pilot program extended 
by this legislation is the Surety Bond 
Waiver Pilot Program. Under this au- 
thority the SBA can waive surety 
bonding requirements for section 8(a) 
startup firms, if certain other require- 
ments are met. Again, this program is 
intended to give SBA a tool to help mi- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


nority firms develop a track record 
and gain Government contracting ex- 
perience. Since the program was origi- 
nally authorized in 1978, SBA has 
never utilized this authority. Again, 
the administration has argued that it 
is unnecessary. Besides the fact that in 
this instance the administration has 
simply defied the will of Congress by 
refusing to test the concept, I am not 
persuaded by the argument that pri- 
vate surety companies will totally 
ignore actual performance on a previ- 
ous job solely because it was done 
without a bond. 

I would also point out that this legis- 
lation has been supported by the Latin 
American Manufacturers Association, 
the National Association of Minority 
Contracts, the National Federation of 
8(a) Companies, and the Black Presi- 
dents’ Roundtable—associations repre- 
senting thousands of minority busi- 
nesses. 

Mr. President, this week, as pro- 
claimed by the President, is “Minority 
Enterprise Development Week." Since 
Sunday, there have been celebrations 
here in Washington and around the 
Nation honoring the accomplishments 
and contributions of minority entre- 
preneurs to our Nation's economy. I 
am sure that a central question raised 
in many of the forums discussing 
issues of concern to minority business- 
es has been the role and commitment 
of the Federal Government to con- 
tinuing the gains made over the past 
15 years. It is unfortunate that the 
President has seen fit to veto reau- 
thorization of these two modest pro- 
grams. I believe it is important that we 
pass this legislation to give him an- 
other opportunity to reaffirm the Fed- 
eral commitment to minority business 
development. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to support passage of this 
bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there further debate? If not, the ques- 
tion is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 
for a third reading, was read the third 
time, and passed, as follows: 


S. 2914 


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, 

Section 1. (a) Subparagraph (B) of section 
8(a)(1) of the Small Business Act is amend- 
ed by striking out “(other than the Depart- 
ment of Defense or any component there- 
of)". 

(b) The designation of an agency pursuant 
to the amendment made by subsection (a) 
shall be made not later than sixty days after 
the date of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 2. The last sentence of section 8(a)(1) 
of the Small Business Act is amended to 
read as follows: “No contract may be en- 
tered into under subparagraph (B) after 
September 30, 1988."". 

Sec. 3. The last sentence of section 8(a)(2) 
is amended to read as follows: *“‘The author- 
ity to waive bonds provided in this para- 


29889 


graph (2) may not be exercised after Sep- 
tember 30, 1988."". 

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before I 
move to lay the motion on the table, I 
want to compliment the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut. I think it is 
a reflection of the high esteem in 
which he is held in this body that he 
calls up a bill, introduces it, has it ad- 
vanced to third reading, voted on, and 
passed and motion to _ reconsider 
made—and the motion to reconsider 
will, I assume, be tabled—all in the 
space of less than 5 minutes. 

I move to lay that motion on the 
table. 

Mr. WEICKER. I thank the distin- 
guished minority leader, who has been 
a dear friend of mine in this body, for 
his kind remarks. 

I also thank the ranking member of 
the Small Business Committee (Mr. 
Bumpers) who has assisted in every 
way in making this action possible. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 
call the roll. 


O 1710 


Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the proceed- 
ings under the quorum call be dis- 
pensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
McCOoNNELL). Without objection, it is 
so ordered. 

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that I may speak 
as if in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. I 
thank the Chair. 


ABUSE OF FEDERAL POWER 


Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I 
rise to speak against the raw and awe- 
some power of the Federal agencies of 
the U.S. Government and about an 
abuse of that power that I truly be- 
lieve led to the ultimate conviction in 
the lower court of Judge Harry Clai- 
borne. 

Mr. President, I rise today to speak 
for the opportunity, if not the basic 
right, of every American taxpayer to 
have the right to face an auditor of 
the Internal Revenue Service Civil Di- 
vision to explain their tax return 
before criminal prosecution starts. 
Judge Claiborne did not have that op- 
portunity. He was denied it. 

Mr. President, I rise today to speak 
against what has become the accepted 
practice of arbitrarily and capriciously 
targeting individual citizens of our 
country, of intimidating witnesses in 
their trials, of forgiving past crimes to 
testify against particular people, of en- 





29890 


snaring individuals into crime or 
become Government bounty hunters. 


0 1720 


This is not what our Government or 
our country must stand for. The fram- 
ers of our Constitution never intended 
it this way. In fact, in their wisdom 
and in their vision, they made it possi- 
ble, as in this particular instance of 
Judge Claiborne, for the legislative 
branch to have a check over the judi- 
cial branch of Government. 

Our constitutional framers spoke 
eloquently to the majesty and to the 
strength of our American system when 
they permitted one Harry Claiborne to 
bring his case to the court of last 
resort, the U.S. Senate. 

After sitting for days as a member of 
the impeachment committee, I have 
attempted to the best of my ability to 
fairly judge and determine the case of 
Harry Claiborne. I must admit to my 
colleagues that a month ago, I, like 
most Americans, wondered why we 
were giving him even the benefit of 
the doubt. As the weeks passed, after 
reading transcripts and listening to 
and observing witness after witness, I 
must say at this time, and during this 
day, that at least in my mind there 
was a reasonable doubt about his will- 
fulness or his deliberate intent to de- 
fraud the Government. 

But, Mr. President, there is no rea- 
sonable doubt in my mind about an- 
other aspect of this case, and that is 
the long arm of the U.S. Government 
and the abuse of power that ultimate- 
ly led to Judge Claiborne’s conviction. 

I have concluded that he was target- 
ed by the Federal Bureau of Investiga- 
tion in a very arbitrary and capricious 
manner. If we have any doubts about 
Judge Claiborne having been a target, 
then I ask these questions: 

Why did our Government forgive 
$16 million in back income taxes to a 
criminal fugitive named Conforte to 
come back from Brazil and help make 
a case against Judge Claiborne? 

Why did Harry Claiborne, unlike 
most other citizens, not have the op- 
portunity to face an IRS audit in the 
civil division before criminal prosecu- 
tion charges occurred? 

Why did one IRS agent assigned to 
this sting operation of Harry Clai- 
borne become so incensed and rebelled 
to the degree that he refused to par- 
ticipate, and ultimately was demoted 
and sent to another State? 

Why was it that after administering 
a polygraph test to Harry Claiborne, a 
test which he passed, the polygraph 
operator, himself, became a target of 
intimidation by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation? 

What is going on in this country 
when we allow this sort of practice to 
occur? 

In the Article of Impeachment No. 
III, we were asked by the managers to 
impeach from office Harry Claiborne. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Why? Because, simply, he was convict- 
ed by a lower court and a jury. 

My question concerning Article III 
this afternoon was, how was that con- 
viction actually obtained? 

Once again, I have concluded in my 
own mind that had Harry Claiborne 
not been a target of the Federal Gov- 
ernment, had Harry Claiborne’s ac- 
countant not been intimidated by the 
U.S. Government, had Harry Clai- 
borne had the opportunity to submit 
all evidence into the lower court deci- 
sion and trial, had an appeal en banc 
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
been granted, I believe the case of 
Harry Claiborne might not have been 
before the U.S. Senate today. 

No, Mr. President, I cannot, as one 
Senator or as one American, defend 
Harry Claiborne’s abysmal tax return, 
especially for 1980. 

No, I cannot defend his cashing 
checks at the casino and, no, I certain- 
ly cannot defend his Elmer Gantry 
type tax preparer. But especially, Mr. 
President, I cannot defend how this 
conviction was ultimately obtained. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation 
sent a special representative to Nevada 
by the name of Yablonsky. Mr. Yab- 
lonsky evidently was given the widest 
and unchecked latitude to headhunt 
in Nevada. He wanted someone big and 
someone important. Did he go after 
the drug lords? Did he go after the 
major crime figures? Did he go after 
the child pornographers? No. He went 
after Judge Claiborne, and allegedly 
he also wanted Senator LaxaLt. He 
said he did not like Laxatr. I ask, is 
that the criteria our Federal Bureau 
of Investigation uses in going after 
someone? 

I fear that there are too many Yab- 
lonsky’s out there in this country, 
working for various agencies of gov- 
ernment, who have become headhunt- 
ers. They are unchecked. They are un- 
bridled. They are people who arbitrar- 
ily and capriciously make these deci- 
sions which can suddenly bring to a 
crushing end the careers and lives of 
any American citizen they so choose. 

The next Yablonsky may not like 
the names of people like MaTsuNnaGaA or 
BoscHwIitz or LAUTENBERG or Iaccoca 
or Smith or Jones. What happens 
then? Where do we install this system 
of checks, and when is our Govern- 
ment finally going to realize that 
these sorts of operations represent not 
the best but the worst within our 
system? 

They set up Pete Williams. He was 
entrapped. They tried it on Senator 
PRESSLER. He smelled a rat. 

The Claiborne conviction, Mr. Presi- 
dent, is over. In my opinion, it is the 
fruit of the poisoned tree. 

Judge Harry Claiborne has been 
found guilty. He has been impeached 
and removed from office, as I have 
said. 


October 9, 1986 


I hope that the resolution that I and 
other Members of this body will intro- 
duce within the next several hours, or 
certainly the next several days, calling 
for a full and total investigation of 
sting operations—how they are set up, 
how they are administered, and what 
checks and balances must be placed in 
that area of our system of Govern- 
ment—will certainly be passed by the 
great majority of this body. 

Mr. President, we have seen a very 
sad day today, but I must say, also, 
that it has been a day when we have 
seen the majesty and the strength of 
our system work. I hope it worked 
well, and I hope it will be a lesson for 
us in the future, to make certain that 
such situations do not happen again. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 


0 1730 


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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 
call the roll. 


0 1740 


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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 


AN INVESTIGATION IS NEEDED 


Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, we have 
just finished a very historic event in 
the U.S. Senate; that is, the U.S. 
Senate has just sat as a court of im- 
peachment and has removed a life-ten- 
ured Federal judge from office. 

I have some thoughts that I would 
like to mention in a preliminary 
manner now, but I will develop and set 
them forth in a more succinct manner 
at a later date. 

First, I think there is no question 
that most of the Members of the 
Senate feel that there should be an in- 
vestigation by an appropriate commit- 
tee pertaining to the possible over- 
reaching by the executive branch into 
the judicial branch and an investiga- 
tion into the procedure which has 
been called targeting. 

I am not accusing the Executive 
Branch, the Department of Justice, 
the FBI or the Internal Revenue Serv- 
ice of improper targeting or of improp- 
er activity. But I feel that there is 
enough smoke to justify whether or 
not a fire exists. 

We also had in recent years the 
Abscam incidents. It seems to me that 
if an appropriate committee of Con- 
gress investigates what potentially 
may have been an abuse of power in 
Nevada—it may not have been, I am 
not accusing anyone—but they should 
also take a look into Abscam. 

I think that a vast number of the 
Members of Congress feel that a thor- 





October 9, 1986 


ough investigation ought to be made 
and that we ought to look into both 
incidents and determine whether or 
not there was targeting. Further, we 
should determine whether the target- 
ing was proper or not. I think we all 
know that sting operations by the De- 
partment of Justice are necessary and 
that they may have to operate in a 
certain manner to catch some serious 
violators of the law. I think we must 
bear in mind that if you are going to 
apprehend criminals, sometimes it is 
necessary for FBI agents and others to 
disguise themselves as being “gutter 
brothers” and get into the gutter with 
the criminals. On the other hand, 
there is the potential for overreaching, 
there is the potential that someone 
may be out to get someone and that 
proper due process is not allowed the 
targeted person. Therefore, I think a 
thorough investigation is needed to de- 
termine if proper due process was al- 
lowed in the above two cases. 

Second, I believe that a 100-man 
jury is too cumbersome and is unwork- 
able. I think that we ought to examine 
what the States have done relative to 
the judiciary and the removal from 
office of judges who have become cor- 
rupt. 


0 1750 


Most of the States originally fol- 
lowed the Federal pattern if they had 
a bicameral system of legislation 
which established the Senate as being 
the court of impeachment, and re- 


quired the House of Representatives 
to act as a grand jury, or the indicting 
body. 

Many of the States found that this 
procedure presents mumerous prob- 


lems and, therefore, they adopted 
other methods. Some States have cre- 
ated judicial inquiry commissions 
which are very representative and 
have broad-based membership. The 
members come from the laity, the ju- 
diciary, and some members come from 
the lawyer ranks. The commission in 
effect serves as the investigating body 
and the indicting body. There is a sep- 
arate mechanism, usually composed of 
something like 10 or 12 people that 
would be a court of the judiciary, or a 
judicial commission, which would de- 
termine the guilt or innocence of the 
accused under the articles of the in- 
dictment that would come from the ju- 
dicial inquiry commission. Most of the 
States have found this procedure to be 
workable. It has been adopted in their 
constitutions, and has proved to be 
very effective. I am going to study the 
various systems that now prevail in 
the States and I am going to offer a 
constitutional amendment to alter the 
Federal pattern when we return in 
January at the start the 100th Con- 
gress. 

I feel like we ought to explore alter- 
natives. In my own home State of Ala- 
bama we adopted a different proce- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


dure from the Federal scheme. We 
have a court of the judiciary, and a ju- 
dicial inquiry commission which serves 
as the grand jury. There are other sys- 
tems in the States. I think we ought to 
study them all. 

I think we ought to replace the pro- 
cedure that we have because in my 
judgment a 100-man jury is too cum- 
bersome and is unworkable. When 
Judge Claiborne was giving his argu- 
ment or testimony here on the floor of 
the Senate, I counted the number of 
Senators, in attendance and there 
were 63 present. Thirty-seven were 
absent. I think it is very crucial that 
all Senators should have been in a po- 
sition to hear what he said at that 
time. 

I suppose that throughout the entire 
proceedings there could have been as 
many as 30 Senators that never heard 
a word of the argument. If we are to 
sit as a court of impeachment, I think 
it is necessary that each individual 
Senator hear the arguments, read the 
transcripts, read the briefs, and pre- 
pare. Because, in effect, we act as 
judges. And I feel our system is not ef- 
fective, I think it is unworkable, and I 
think as we look to the future, we can 
expect many, many more instances of 
impeachment or proposed impeach- 
ment of members of the judiciary. 

The judiciary has grown, and it is 
now in the neighborhood of around 
1,000 judges. There is no question in 
my mind that there are some bad eggs, 
or bad apples in the barrel, and that 
we need to look at this now. But, at 
the same time, we must protect the in- 
dependence of the judiciary. 

Therefore, I say to the Members of 
the Senate, let us benefit from the ex- 
periences of the States who have ex- 
perimented with other systems. Some 
of those procedures have been in exist- 
ence for 30 or 40 years. I think we can 
profit from a study. In my judgment, 
we need to adopt a better forum by 
which a life-tenure judge is removed 
from office. 

Thank you, Mr. President. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would 
the Senator from Alabama like to sug- 
gest the absence of a quorum? 

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I will 
follow the Chair’s suggestion, and sug- 
gest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk pro- 
ceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum Call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
Boscuwitz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. 


O 1830 


PROGRAM 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me in- 
dicate that there will be no votes this 


29891 


evening, but we will be in session to- 
morrow. 

I have had a number of Senators 
make inquiries: “Are we going to have 
any votes tomorrow?” I really believe 
we will have two or more, but I cannot 
say that with certainty. 

Reconciliation should be available 
tomorrow morning, and we would like 
to work out some way to resolve any 
outstanding issues on the drug bill and 
dispose of those two matters tomor- 
row. 

There are other matters that I un- 
derstand could require votes, and it 
may be that we can dispose of one or 
two of those. 

So we will be in session tomorrow. I 
am almost certain there will be votes. 
There will be no votes before noon, 
but there could be votes starting at 
noon and continuing into the after- 
noon. 

I hope we will be able to complete 
our work by early afternoon, but I 
have no assurance and have no control 
over whether or not that can be done. 


CALENDAR 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I inquire 
of the distinguished minority leader if 
he is in a position to pass or indefinite- 
ly postpone any of the following calen- 
dar items: Calendar Nos. 216, 592, 593, 
775, 1027, 1067, 1068. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the first 
four items enumerated by the distin- 
guished majority leader have been 
cleared for postponement on this side, 
and the three closing ones—1027, 1067, 
and 1068—are cleared for action on 
this side. 

Mr. DOLE. I thank the distin- 
guished minority leader. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of the calendar items 
just identified, and that they be con- 
sidered en bloc, and passed or indefi- 
nitely postponed en bloc, and that all 
committee-reported amendments be 
agreed to en bloc. 

the PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 


ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INFOR- 
MATION AGE COMMISSION 


The Senate proceeded to consider 
the bill (S. 786) to establish an Infor- 
mation Age Commission, which had 
been reported from the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, with amend- 
ments as follows: 

(The parts of the bill intended to be 
stricken are shown in boldface brack- 
ets, and the parts of the bill intended 
to be inserted are shown in italics.) 

S. 786 

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 “Information Age 
Commission Act of [1985] 1986”. 





29892 


Sec. 2. The Congress finds and declares 
that— 

(1) the introduction and use of computer 
and communications systems have brought 
our Nation and the world into the Informa- 
tion Age; 

(2) computer and communications systems 
are affecting the manner in which business, 
education, and government operate, and the 
manner in which our Nation's security and 
involvement in world trade are carried out; 

(3) the rapid pace of technological change 
and the complexity of the issues involved 
with respect to computers and communica- 
tions systems have combined to diminish 
public awareness and understanding of their 
impact on society; 

(4) the impact of computer and communi- 
cations systems on society has not been 
completely analyzed; and 

(5) while Congress has begun to address 
issues relating to the Information Age, such 
as intellectual property rights, computer 
education, computer crime, and privacy, 
there remains a need for a comprehensive 
and systematic study of the Information 
Age. 

Sec. 3. The purposes of this Act are to— 

(1) create a forum for discussions and tar- 
geted ressearch on the present and future 
impact of computer and communications 
system on our Nation and its citizens; and 

(2) present critical alternative views and 
choices to the President, Congress, and the 
public generally, so that such views and 
choices may serve as a catalyst for change, 
if necessary, and maximize the benefits of 
the Information Age to our society. 

Sec. 4. (a) There is established a commis- 
sion to be known as the Information Age 
Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 
“Commission”’). 

(b) The Commission shall be composed of 
twenty-three members. Individuals appoint- 
ed to the Commission pursuant to clause (3) 
of this subsection shall have a competence 
in the areas with which the Commission 
deals. Members of the Commission shall be 
appointed as follows: 

(1) three members appointed by the Presi- 
dent pro tempore of the Senate, two upon 
the recommendation of the Majority Leader 
of the Senate and one upon the recommen- 
dation of the Minority Leader of the 
Senate; 

(2) three members appointed by the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
two upon the recommendation of the Ma- 
jority Leader of the House of Representa- 
tives and one upon the recommendation of 
the Minority Leader of the House of Repre- 
sentatives; 

(3) seventeen members appointed by the 
President including, to the extent feasible, 
at least three representatives each from the 
information industry, labor, and academe, 
not more than two public officials from 
State and local governments, and six mem- 
bers drawn from the Executive branch of 
the Federal Government, including the Sec- 
retary of Commerce or his designee, the 
Secretary of Defense or his designee, and 
the Secretary of Education or his designee. 

(c) Of the members specified in para- 
graphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) of this 
section, not more than two members speci- 
fied in each such paragraph shall be from 
the same political party. 

(ad) The President shall designate one 
member of the Commission appointed from 
the private sector as Chairman of the Com- 
mission, and one such member as Vice 
Chairman of the Commission. 

(e) Twelve members of the Commission 
shall constitute a quorum. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


(f) Any vacancy in the Commission shall 
not affect its power, but shall be filled in 
the same manner in which the original ap- 
pointment was made. 

Sec, 5. (a) The Commission shall conduct 
or have conducted, through subcommittees 
or study groups, such research and studies 
as it determines necessary to develop a re- 
sponsible understanding of the Information 
Age, including, but not limited to— 

(1) the efforts and resources needed to 
maximize the benefit to society of computer 
and communications systems; 

(2). the effort and resources needed to 
maintain the lead of the United States in 
the world information marketplace; 

(3) the education and reeducation re- 
quired to equip the people of the United 
States for the Information Age; 

(4) the use and impact of computer and 
communications systems on the national de- 
fense of the United States; 

(5) the effort and resources needed to’en- 
courage new technological innovations; and 

(6) the impact of the computer and com- 
munications systems on labor and [employ- 
ment.] employment; and 

(7) the effect of computer and communica- 
tions systems on personal privacy. 

(b) In carrying our its functions and 
duties, the Commission shall make every 
reasonable effort to avoid duplication of 
studies and research relating to the matters 
referred to in subsection (a) of this section, 
and shall marshal existing information for 
reevaluation. 

(c) The Commission shall develop a data 
base of material information to which the 
public shall have reasonable access during 
the life of the Commission. 

(d) The Commission shall, from time to 
time, submit to the President and Congress 
analyses and reports summarizing the mate- 
rials and positions of the Commission, and 
outlining responsive alternative views and 
choices developed by the Commission. 

(e) The Commission shall assemble and 
reasonably make available, upon request, a 
comprehensive index of relevant materials. 

(f) The Commission shall provide maxi- 
mum information to the media and the 
public so as to stimulate the broadest re- 
sponsible public understanding and appre- 
ciation of the Information Age. 

Sec, 6. (a) The Commission, or on the au- 
thorization of the Commission, any subcom- 
mittee or study group thereof, shall, for the 
purpose of carrying out the functions and 
duties of the Commission, hold such public 
hearings and sit and act at such times and 
places throughout the Nation as the Com- 
mission or such subcommittee or study 
group may deem advisable. 

(b) The Commission is authorized to nego- 
tiate and enter into such contracts with pri- 
vate organizations as the Commission deter- 
mines necessary to enable it to carry out its 
duties and functions under this Act relating 
to research and studies and the preparation 
of analyses and reports. 

(c) The Administrator of General Serv- 
ices, at the request of the Chairman of the 
Commission, shall provide the Commission 
with necessary administrative services (in- 
cluding those relating to budgeting, ac- 
counting, financial reporting, personnel, and 
procurement). Payment for such services 
shall be made in advance or by reimburse- 
ment from funds appropriated to the Com- 
mission. Payments shall be in such manner 
and in such amounts as may be agreed upon 
by the Commission and the Administrator 
of General Services. 

(d) The Commission is authorized, in ac- 
cordance with this subsection, to secure di- 


October 9, 1986 


rectly from any executive department, 
agency, or independent instrumentality of 
the Federal Government any information, 
facilities, and services the Commission 
deems necessary to carry out its functions 
and duties under this Act; and each such de- 
partment, agency, and instrumentality is au- 
thorized and directed to cooperate with the 
Commission and, to the extent permitted by 
law, to furnish such information, facilities, 
and services to the Commission upon re- 
quest made by the Chairman, unless the 
head of such department, agency, or instru- 
mentality determines that urgent, overrid- 
ing reasons will not permit the making of 
such information, facilities, or services avail- 
able to the Commission and so notifies the 
Chairman in writing. 

Sec. 7. Subject to such rules and regula- 
tions as may be adopted by the Commission, 
the Chairman is authorized to— 

(1) appoint, terminate, and fix the com- 
pensation, without regard to the provisions 
of title 5, United States Code, governing ap- 
pointments in the competitive service, and 
without regard to the provisions of chapter 
51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 
5, United States Code, or any other provi- 
sion of law relating to the number, classifi- 
cation, and General Schedule rates, of such 
personnel as the Commission deems advisa- 
ble to assist in the performance of its duties: 
and 

(2) procure, as authorized by section 3109 
of title 5, United States Code, temporary 
and intermittent services to the extent as is 
authorized by law for agencies in the Execu- 
tive branch but at rates not to exceed the 
daily equivalent of the maximum annual 
rate of basic pay in effect for grade GS-18 
of the General Schedule. 

Sec. 8. (a) Members of the Commission 
shall serve on the Commission without addi- 
tional compensation for their services as 
such. 

(b) All members of the Commission shall 
be reimbursed for travel as authorized by 
section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, 
subsistence, and other necessary expenses 
incurred in the performance of the func- 
tions and duties of the Commission. 

Sec. 9. The Commission may adopt such 
rules and regulations as may be necessary to 
establish its procedures and to govern the 
manner of its operations, organization, and 
personnel. 

Sec. 10. For the purpose of carrying out 
its functions and duties under this Act, the 
Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
gifts or donations of money, services, or 
property. 

Sec. 11. On or before the expiration of the 
twenty-four-month period following the 
date on which this Act becomes law, the 
Commission shall transmit to the President 
and to the Congress a final report contain- 
ing a detailed statement of the findings of, 
and studies conducted by, the Commission 
under this Act, together with its recommen- 
dations, if any. Upon the expiration of the 
thirty-day period following the date of the 
transmission of such report to the President 
and the Congress, the Commission shall ter- 
minate. 

(Sec. 12. There is authorized to be appro- 
priated the sum of $3,000,000 to carry out 
the provisions of this Act.] 


Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise in 
support of legislation that Senator 
LAUTENBERG and I introduced last year, 
the Information Age Commission Act. 
The purpose of this bill is to create a 
forum for discussions on the present 





October 9, 1986 


and future impact of computer and 
communications systems on our 
Nation and its citizens, and to present 
critical choices to the President, the 
Congress, and the public that will 
maximize the benefits of the ‘“infor- 
mation age” to our society. 

Mr. President, information systems 
of all kinds are playing an increasingly 
important and controlling role in our 
society. Sophisticated computer tech- 
nology is being used routinely in busi- 
ness, education, government, and the 
military. It is being used in informa- 
tion storage, processing, management, 
and decisionmaking. Most of this tech- 
nology was not even in the conceptual 
phase several years ago. 

Furthermore, the introduction of ad- 
ditional information technology is 
driving social and economic changes. 
Most of these changes are benefiting 
our society and generally improving 
the quality of our lives. In the next 
few years, information technology will 
continue to undergo rapid develop- 
ment and will be applied to a growing 
number of activities. However, these 
technologies changes also appear to be 
rapidly outpacing the capability of our 
economic and legal system to respond. 

To date, policy development regard- 
ing the “information age’ has been a 
piecemeal effort, and generally reac- 
tive to situations that have come to 
our attention. For example, in the last 
Congress we adopted changes to the 
copyright laws for protecting comput- 
er chips. We adopted legislation, 
which I cosponsored with Senator 
TsonGas, to provide assistance to small 
business in the areas of computer se- 
curity and education; this legislation 
was the first of several “computer 
crime” bills adopted in the 98th Con- 
gress. We enacted several laws making 
it a crime to alter medical records or 
use a computer to obtain classified in- 
formation. 

Nevertheless, the 40 or so criminal 
laws which are on the books today, 
even coupled with the actions we took 
previously, are not sufficient to pro- 
vide a firm basis for combating com- 
puter crime. Many States were not 
able to wait for the Federal Govern- 
ment, and have adopted their own set 
of laws on computer crime and securi- 
t 


y. 
Mr. President, I will not take the 
time here to spell out the litany of 


congressional reports, executive 
agency actions, or private sector stud- 
ies that demonstrate that fragmented 
nature of our “information age” 
policy, or the need for a comprehen- 
sive review of this issue. Suffice it to 
say that our current understanding of 
these, issues, and our ability to re- 
spond, is neither adequate nor satis- 
factory. 

We cannot continue to tackle these 
critical national issues in such a piece- 
meal fashion. In my view, it is worth 
the time and effort to take a step 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


beyond our current reactive efforts 
and try to identify in advance those 
issues that need to be addressed at the 
national level. It is for this reason that 
the Information Age Commission Act 
is essential. 

The Commission, to be composed of 
23 members, will draw from govern- 
ment at all levels, industry, labor, edu- 
cation, and academia. Under the legis- 
lation, the Commission will conduct 
studies and analyses of the “informa- 
tion age” that will include the efforts 
and resources needed to: 

First, maximize the benefit to socie- 
ty of computer and communications 
systems; second, maintain the lead of 
the United States in the world infor- 
mation marketplace; third, educate 
and reeducate our people; fourth, 
assess the impact of computers and 
communications systems on our na- 
tional security, labor, and employ- 
ment; and fifth, encourage technologi- 
cal innovations. 

The Commission is to complete its 
work within 2 years and then submit 
its final report to the Congress and 
the President. I would hope that there 
would be interim reports as necessary 
when the Commission identifies criti- 
cal issues which Congress or the Exec- 
utive should immediately address. 

We have purposely structured the 
Commission to select the best re- 
sources that are available within and 
outside the Federal Government. For 
example, we have specifically included 
the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, 
and Education as members of the 
Commission. Each of these depart- 
ments are directly and significantly af- 
fected by the use of computers and 
communications systems, and each has 
a critical role in any comprehensive so- 
lution to the problems of the “infor- 
mation age.” 

Of the public members, we have 
specified that at least three represent- 
atives be drawn from the information 
industry, labor, and academe. This will 
ensure that each of these perspectives 
are made available to the Commission 
for its deliberations. In fact, under the 
terms of the bill, the non-Federal 
members of the Commission have a 
majority of the votes on the Commis- 
sion. We believe that such broad par- 
ticipation will enable the Commission 
to conduct its work with a diverse per- 
spective that can only strengthen the 
product of its labors and lend credibil- 
ity to its effort. 

Mr. President, the $3 million author- 
ization in the original bill Senator 
LAUTENBERG and I introduced has been 
deleted. In my view this $3 million au- 
thorization represented a modest com- 
mitment by the Federal Government 
to the important work of the Commis- 
sion. In light of the serious budgetary 
constraints which exist at the Federal 
level, I believe this was all that could 
reasonably have been allocated to this 
function at this time. 


29893 


However, in an effort to move this 
legislation through the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, I complied with 
Chairman Rortu’s request to strike the 
funding provision from the bill. It is 
my understanding that private indus- 
try has agreed to underwrite the work 
of the Commission. 

While the private sector is expected 
to make a significant contribution to 
the work of the Commission, Govern- 
ment participation is essential to pro- 
vide a balance against protective or 
biased action by industry. Federal re- 
sponsibilities in the areas of national 
security, trade policy, and education 
will broaden and complement the pri- 
vate sector perspective. 

Mr. President, in the development of 
this legislative proposal, we have been 
working with many of the “informa- 
tion age’’ industry associations and 
companies. The Association of Data 
Processing Service Organizations 
CLADAPSO] has been particularly help- 
ful in framing this issue and assisting 
me in developing the outlines of this 
legislation. However, this bill is not, 
and cannot be, a competitive proposal, 
with one group or company or type of 
technology seeking to use this Com- 
mission for its own purposes. 

While this legislation is the culmina- 
tion of substantial time and effort, it 
is also the beginning of a long, ardu- 
ous process that we as a nation must 
undertake if we are to adequately deal 
with the complexities and multifacet- 
ed nature of our computer and com- 
munications society. But we cannot 
delay the process much longer. Upon 
enactment of this bill, I look forward 
to working with the Commission to 
provide answers to questions that 
have, thus far, in my view, received far 
too little attention. 

Mr. President, identical legislation, 
H.R. 5515, has been introduced and co- 
sponsored by Representatives GrorGcE 
Brown of California, and Pat Swin- 
DALL and DouG BARNARD both of Geor- 
gia. I am hopeful that in the little 
time remaining in the current session 
of Congress, this measure will be ap- 
proved in the House so that the Infor- 
mation Age Commission's important 
work can begin without further delay. 

I urge adoption of the bill. 

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

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 





29894 


ARTHUR R. MARSHALL LOXA- 
HATCHEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE 
REFUGE 


The Senate proceeded to consider 
the bill (S. 511) to change the name of 
the Loxahatchee National Wildlife 
Refuge, FL, to the Arthur R. Marshall 
Loxahatchee National Wildlife 
Refuge. 

Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, I am 
very pleased that the Senate is now 
acting on legislation I introduced to 
honor an individual who has contrib- 
uted greatly to the enhancement and 
protection of my State’s natural re- 
sources. 

S. 511, as reported by the Environ- 
ment and Public Works Committee, re- 
names the Loxahatchee National 
Wildlife Refuge in south Florida after 
Arthur R. Marshall. Art’s academic 
work and personal efforts in the field 
of environmental protection have had 
tremendous impact on south Florida's 
ecosystem, particularly the everglades. 

The Loxahatchee National Wildlife 
Refuge is, in fact, a small portion of 
the Florida Everglades and is one of 
the largest freshwater marshes on the 
North American continent. It is fit- 
ting, therefore, that this particular 
refuge bear the name of Arthur Mar- 
shall. 

Art Marshall is highly regarded as 
an early champion of theories regard- 
ing the impact of growth on south 
Florida’s natural system. He designed 


and advocated policies aimed at restor- 
ing the everglades system to permit 
the sheet flow of water across them, as 
once had occurred naturally. 

He supported acquiring lands now 
known as the Big Cypress National 
Preserve, an area purchased by the 


Federal Government in order to 
ensure protected sheet flow of water 
necessary for the survival and liveli- 
hood of Everglades National Park. 

Art Marshall was a pioneer in envi- 
ronmental conservation and has justly 
earned the respect and recognition of 
major environmental organizations in 
the State of Florida. He served as advi- 
sor to three Florida Governors and 
worked for 15 years for the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service in south Florida. 

Art felt the protection of our south 
Florida ecosystem was worth fighting 
for. He waged one conservation battle 
after another and was fortunate to see 
many of his ideas and initiatives put 
into constructive action. Art died on 
February 18. His death will be a loss to 
the fighters of conservation battles yet 
to be waged. It is highly appropriate 
that an example of the habitat and 
natural systems he worked so diligent- 
ly to preserve bear his name. 

For this reason, I am pleased the 
Senate is acting on legislation to 
rename the Loxahatchee National 
Wildlife Refuge in honor of the contri- 
butions of Arthur R. Marshall. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


The bill was ordered to be engrossed 
for a third reading, read the third 
time, and passed, as follows: 

8.511 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the 
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, in 
the State of Florida, shall hereafter be 
known and designated as the “Arthur R. 
Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife 
Refuge”. Any reference in any law, regula- 
tion, map, document, record, or other paper 
of the United States to such wildlife refuge, 
shall be held and considered to be a refer- 
ence to the “Arthur R. Marshall Loxahat- 
chee National Wildlife Refuge”. 

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


ALBERT V. BRYAN FEDERAL 
COURTHOUSE 


The Senate proceeded to consider 
the bill (S. 2890) to designate the U.S. 
Courthouse for the Eastern District of 
Virginia in Alexandria, VA, as the 
“Albert V. Bryan Federal Court- 
house,’’ which had been reported from 
the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works, with amendments, as 
follows: 

(The parts of the bill intended to be 
stricken are shown in boldface brack- 
ets, and the parts of the bill intended 
to be inserted are shown in italics.) 

S. 2890 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the 
United States Courthouse for the Eastern 
District of Virginia, located at 200 South 
Washington Street in Alexandria, Virginia, 
shall hereafter be known and designated as 
the “Albert V. Bryan [Federal] United 
States Courthouse". Any reference in any 
law, regulation, document, record, map, or 
other paper of the United States to such 
courthouse is deemed to be a reference to 
the “Albert V. Bryan [Federal] United 
States Courthouse”’. 

The amendments were agreed to. 

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

The title was amended so as to read 
“A bill to designate the United States 
Courthouse for the Eastern District of 
Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia, as the 
Albert V. Bryan United States Court- 
house.” 

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


October 9, 1986 


NATIONAL FOREST SKI AREA 
PERMIT ACT 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calen- 
dar No. 922, S. 2266, the ski area 
permit system. 

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

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there objection to the present consid- 
eration of the bill? 

There being no objection, the Senate 
proceeded to consider the bill, which 
had been reported from the Commit- 
tee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
with an amendment to strike out all 
after the enacting clause, and insert 
the following: 


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the “National 
Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986". 

SEC. 2. PURPOSES. 

The purposes of this Act are to— 

(a) provide a unified and modern permit- 
ting process for nordic and alpine ski areas 
on national forest lands; 

(b) provide for ski area permits which 
more closely reflect the acreage and other 
physical requirements of modern ski area 
development; and 

(c) provide a permit system which will be 
more commensurate with the long-term con- 
struction, financing, and operation needs of 
ski areas on national forest lands. 

SEC. 3. SKI AREA PERMITS. 

(a) Law APPLICABLE TO PERMITS.—The pro- 
visions of the Act of March 4, 1915 (16 
U.S.C. 497) notwithstanding, the term and 
acreage of pemits for the operation of 
nordic and alpine ski areas and facilities on 
National Forest System lands shall hence- 
forth be governed by this Act and other ap- 
plicable law. 

(b) AutHorRITy.—The Secretary of Agricul- 
ture (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Secre- 
tary”), is authorized to issue permits (here- 
inafter referred to as “ski area permits’) for 
the use and occupancy of suitable lands 
within the National Forest System for 
nordic and alpine skiing operations and pur- 
poses. A ski area permit— 

(1) may be issued for a term not to exceed 
40 years; 

(2) shall ordinarily be issued for a term of 
40 years (unless the Secretary determines 
that the facilities or operations are of a 
scale or nature as are not likely to require 
long-term financing or operation), or that 
there are public policy reasons specific to a 
particular permit for a shorter term; 

(3) shall encompass such acreage as the 
Secretary determines sufficient and appro- 
priate to accommodate the permittee’s 
needs for ski operations and appropriate an- 
cillary facilities; 

(4) may be renewed at the discretion of 
the Secretary; 

(5) may be cancelled by the Secretary in 
whole or in part for any violation of the 
permit terms or conditions, for nonpayment 
of permit fees, or upon the determination, 
by the Secretary in his planning for the 
uses of the national forests that the permit- 
ted area is needed for higher public pur- 
poses; 

(6) may be modified from time to time by 
the Secretary to accommodate changes in 





October 9, 1986 


plans or operations in accordance with the 
provisions of applicable law; 

(7) shall be subject to such reasonable 
terms and conditions as the Secretary 
deems appropriate; and 

(8) shall be subject to a permit fee based 
on fair market value in accordance with ap- 
plicable law. 

(c) RULES AND REGULATIONS.—Within one 
year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary shall promulgate rules and 
regulations to implement the provisions of 
this Act, and shall, to the extent practicable 
and with the consent of existing permit 
holders, convert all existing ski area permits 
or leases on National Forest System lands 
into ski area permits which conform to the 
provisions of this Act within 3 years of the 
date of enactment of this Act. 

(d) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to 
amend, modify or otherwise affect the Sec- 
retary’s duties under the National Environ- 
mental Policy Act, or the Forest and Range- 
lands Renewable Resources Planning Act as 
amended by the National Forest Manage- 
ment Act, including his duties to involve the 
public in his decisionmaking and planning 
for the national forests. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

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

The title was amended so as to read 
“A bill to establish a ski area permit 
system on national forest lands, and 
for other purposes.”’. 

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 
CONVEYANCE VALIDATION ACT 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calen- 
dar No. 99, H.R. 2067, to validate con- 
veyance of certain lands in California. 

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

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A bill (H.R. 2067) to validate conveyances 
of certain lands in the State of California 
that form part of the right-of-way granted 
by the United States to the Central Pacific 
Railway Company. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there objection to the present consid- 
eration of the bill? 

There being no objection, the bill 
was considered, ordered to a third 
reading, read the third time, and 
passed. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to 
reconsider the vote by which the bill 
Was passed. 

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


RELEASE OF RESTRICTIONS ON 
CERTAIN AIRPORT LAND 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calen- 
dar No. 1000, S. 2852, dealing with the 
Peninsula Airport Commission. 

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

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A bill (S. 2852) to authorize the Secretary 
of Transportation to release restrictions on 
the use of certain property conveyed to the 
Peninsula Airport Commission, Virginia, 
and for other purposes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there objection to the present consid- 
eration of the bill? 

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

AMENDMENT NO. 3265 
(Purpose: To provide that the release of the 
use of certain property conveyed to the 

Peninsula Airport Commission, Virginia, 

be subject to certain conditions.) 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an 
amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator TRIBLE. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
amendment will be stated. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Doe}, for 
Mr. TRIBLE, proposes an amendment num- 
bered 3265. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. 


President, I ask 


unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with. 


The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 2, add after line 21 the following 
new paragraphs: 

(3) Any release granted by the Secretary 
of Transportation under subsection (a) of 
this section may not apply to more than 7.5 
acres of real property. 

(4) The Peninsula Airport Commission 
may not lease or convey any interest in any 
of the property which the United States 
conveyed to such Commission by the deed 
described in subsection (a), to any person or 
business concern other than the city of 
Newport News, Virginia. 

Mr. TRIBLE. Mr. President, the Pe- 
ninsula Airport Commission which op- 
erates the Patrick Henry Airport in 
Newport News, VA, would like to grant 
a right-of-way to the city of Newport 
News for the construction of a public 
road that would provide access to a 
presently unusable tract of airport 
land. In addition the public road 
would serve a planned residential and 
commercial project adjacent to the 
airport property. In return for the 
right-of-way the public road and other 
improvements will be built by the de- 
veloper of the adjacent project at no 
cost to the airport commission. The 
developer will also deed other adjacent 
land to the commission for airport use. 

The current airport deed restricts 
land use to airport purposes. The Fed- 
eral Aviation Administration cannot 


29895 


grant this right-of-way without legisla- 
tive action, they lack the administra- 
tive flexibility under the Federal Air- 
port Act which allowed the United 
States to transfer the property in 
1947. 

This is a local issue that can best be 
handled by the FAA and the Penin- 
sula Airport Commission. The amend- 
ment to S. 2852 protects the public in- 
terest in the airport property by limit- 
ing the total amount of land that can 
be used for the right-of-way and by re- 
quiring that the grantee of the right- 
of-way be the city of Newport News, 
VA. 

Mr. President, I believe that this 
measure has been cleared on both 
sides. Therefore I move the adoption 
of the amendment and the passage of 
S. 2852 as amended, and thank my col- 
leagues for their support. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the amend- 
ment. 

The amendment 
agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
bill is open to further amendment. If 
there be no further amendment to be 
proposed, the question is on the en- 
grossment and third reading of the 
bill. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 
for a third reading, was read the third 
time, and passed, as follows: 

S. 2852 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
notwithstanding section 16 of the Federal 
Airport Act (as in effect on May 14, 1947), 
the Secretary of Transportation is author- 
ized, subject to section 4 of the Act of Octo- 
ber 1, 1949 (50 U.S.C. App. 1622c) and sub- 
section (b) of this section, to grant releases 
from any of the terms, conditions, reserva- 
tions, and restrictions contained in the deed 
of conveyance dated May 14, 1947, under 
which the United States conveyed certain 
property in Newport News, and York 
County, Virginia, to the Peninsula Airport 
Commission for airport purposes. 

(b) Any release granted by the Secrectary 
of Transportation under subsection (a) of 
this section shall be subject to the following 
conditions— 

(1) The Peninsula Airport Commission 
shall agree that in leasing or conveying any 
interest in the property which the United 
States conveyed to such Commission by the 
deed described in subsection (a), the Com- 
mission will receive an amount for such in- 
terest which is equal to the fair lease value 
or the fair market value, as the case may be 
(as determined pursuant to regulations 
issued by the Secretary). 

(2) Any amount so received by the Penin- 
sula Airport Commission shall be used by 
the Commission for the development, im- 
provement, operation, or maintenance of a 
public airport. 

(3) Any release granted by the Secretary 
of Transportation under subsection (a) of 
this section may not apply to more than 7.5 
acres of real property. 

(4) The Peninsula Airport Commission 
may not lease or convey any interest in any 
of the property which the United States 


(No. 3265) was 





29896 


conveyed to such Commission by the deed 
described in subsection (a), to any person or 
business concern other than the City of 
Newport News, Virginia. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to 
reconsider the vote by which the bill 
Was passed. 

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that Calendar No. 
1001, H.R. 5379, the House companion 
bill, be indefinitely postponed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 


KOREAN WAR VETERANS 
MEMORIAL 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to the consideration of Cal- 
endar No. 943, H.R. 2205, the Korean 
War Veterans Memorial. 

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

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (H.R. 2205) to authorize the Ameri- 
can Battle Monuments Commission to es- 
tablish a memorial to honor members of the 
Armed Forces of the United States who 
served in the Korean conflict. 


There being no objection, the Senate 
proceeded to consider the bill, which 
had been reported from the Commit- 
tee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
with an amendment to strike all after 
the enacting clause, and insert the fol- 


lowing: 
AUTHORIZATION OF MEMORIAL 


Section 1. The American Battle Monu- 
ments Commission is authorized to establish 
a memorial on Federal land in the District 
of Columbia and its environs to honor mem- 
bers of the Armed Forces of the United 
States who served in the Korean War, par- 
ticularly those who were killed in action, are 
still listed as missing in action, or were held 
as prisoners of war. Such memorial shall be 
established in accordance with the provi- 
sions of H.R. 4378, as approved by the 
Senate on September 10, 1986 S. Rpt. 99- 
421). 

ESTABLISHMENT OF KOREAN WAR VETERANS 

MEMORIAL ADVISORY BOARD 


Sec. 2. (a) There is hereby established a 
Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory 
Board which shall consist of 12 veterans 
who served in the Korean War. The mem- 
bers of the Board shall be appointed by the 
President within 120 calendar days of enact- 
ment of this Act. 

(b) The Korean War Veterans Memorial 
Advisory Board shall be responsible for: 

(1) recommending the site and selecting 
the design for the memorial, subject to the 
approval of the American Battle Monu- 
ments Commission and in accordance with 
section 7(a) of H.R. 4378, as approved by the 
Senate on September 10, 1986; and 

(2) promoting the establishment of the 
memorial and encouraging the donation of 
private funds for the construction and 
maintenance of the memorial. 

FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION AND PRIVATE FUNDING 

Sec. 3. (a) The American Battle Monu- 
ments Commission shall establish the me- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


morial with private funds except as provid- 
ed in subsection (b) of this section. For the 
purpose of carrying out this Act, the Ameri- 
can Battle Monuments Commission is au- 
thorized to solicit and accept private contri- 
butions. The Commission is directed to es- 
tablish an account into which these private 
funds shall deposited and to maintain docu- 
mentation of such contributions. 

(b) There are hereby authorized to be ap- 
propriated: 

(1) $500,000 for site preparation, design, 
planning and associated administrative costs 
for the establishment of the memorial; and 

(2). $500,000 for construction of the memo- 
rial, to be available only after a construction 
permit has been issued for the memorial. 

(c) Private funds donated in excess of the 
cost of construction and maintenance of the 
memorial shall be deposited in the Treasury 
as miscellaneous receipts to reimburse the 
United States for funds appropriated pursu- 
ant to subsection (b) of this section. 

AMENDMENT NO. 3266 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an 
amendment to the committee substi- 
tute to the desk on behalf of Senator 
McC.uureE and ask for its immediate 
consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
amendment will be stated. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dote], for 
Mr. McC.LureE, proposes an amendment 
numbered 3266. 

On page 3, line 5, of H.R. 2205 as reported 
by the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, strike “Senate on September 10, 
1986 (S. Rept. 99-421)" and insert in lieu 
thereof ‘House of Representatives on Sep- 
tember 29, 1986". 

On page 3, line 20, of H.R. 2205 as report- 
ed by the Committee on Energy and Natu- 
ral Resources, strike “Senate on September 
10, 1986" and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘House 
of Representatives on September 29, 1986”. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the amend- 
ment. 

The amendment 
agreed to. 

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, it gives 
me great pleasure to see the Korean 
War Veterans Memorial Act finally 
come before the full Senate. This leg- 
islation would authorize the erection 
of a memorial to honor those members 
of the U.S. Armed Forces who so 
bravely and honorably served more 
than three decades ago, without reser- 
vation, in the struggle against the 
Communist threat to the country of 
South Korea. This is legislation which 
I have supported and advocated for 
quite some time. With this in mind, it 
gives me even greater pleasure to rise 
in support of this act. 

Mr. President, on that day in June 
1950 when the Communist forces of 
North Korea invaded South Korea, 
the people of the United States were 
outraged. Shortly after that, the 
Soviet Union and the People’s Repub- 
lic of China joined North Korea in its 
attempt to lay the cloak of commu- 
nism over the people of South Korea. 
It soon became obvious that the free 


(No. 3266) was 


October 9, 1986 


people of South Korea could not 
alone, even with their vast determina- 
tion, withstand the surge from the 
North. 

It was at this time that President 
Truman, honoring his commitment to 
South Korea, authorized U.S. combat 
support of what we may call the 
Korean freedom fighters; and entered, 
along with 16 other nations, into the 
Korean war. And, Mr. President, that 
is exactly what it was—war. Time and 
time again, we have heard this war 
called a “‘conflict” or a “‘police action.” 
But it was war, Mr. President. 

For 3 long years, brave American 
men and women gave of their all in a 
fierce struggle for freedom. What is 
more, these heroic men and women 
gave of their all for the freedom of the 
people of another country. They did 
this because they believed in the insti- 
tution of liberty for all. The most ac- 
curate figures show that nearly 6 mil- 
lion Americans served in the Korean 
war. Of those, close to 5,000 were cap- 
tured or missing in action. More than 
100,000 were wounded and close to 
55,000 paid the supreme sacrifice, 
giving their lives to the cause of free- 
dom. 

Mr. President, there are close to 
90,000 Korean war veterans in my 
home State of Alabama. Many of 
these have spoken to me personally 
concerning the absence of a Korean 
war memorial in Washington. Others 
have either written or phoned, asking 
for something to be done about this 
indiscretion. There is a monument in 
this city honoring the veterans of 
every other war in which the United 
States has been engaged; but there is 
no memorial honoring the brave 
American veterans of the Korean war. 
Mr. President, the time for something 
to be done about this is long overdue. 

This legislation would do just that. 
The Korean War Veterans Memorial 
Act would justly honor those brave 
men and women of the U.S. Armed 
Forces who so unselfishly gave of 
themselves when freedom was in need. 

Mr. President, I urge speedy passage 
of this act. 

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as a 
cosponsor of S. 1223 introduced by my 
distinguished colleague from Colorado 
(Mr. ARMSTRONG,] I rise as a strong 
supporter of this legislation as amend- 
ed. 

This memorial is long overdue. Our 
Nation’s veterans of the Korean war 
deserve this recognition for having 
fought successfully under extremely 
harsh conditions. 

As a Korean war veteran myself, 
serving with the U.S. Marine Corps, I 
experienced firsthand the adversities 
that confronted our troops. From 1950 
to 1952, I served as a first lieutenant 
and communications officer with the 
First Marine Air Wing. 





October 9, 1986 


Our soldiers, sailors, marines, and 
airmen, together with the troops of 
other United Nations countries, 
fought valiantly, honorably and suc- 
cessfully to stop the advance of com- 
munism in Asia. 

From Pusan to the Yalu River, in 
summer heat and arctic cold, almost 
always outnumbered and—in the be- 
ginning—ill-equipped, our men wrote a 
shining chapter of valor in the long 
history of the U.S. Armed Forces. 

Their reward was not victory pa- 
rades, but, unfortunately, public indif- 
ference and confusion at America’s 
first “limited” war. 

The memorial the Senate authorizes 
today is a belated step toward giving 
our Korean war veterans the honor 
they so richly deserve. 

Their true monument, of course, is a 
free and prosperous South Korea, a 
strong ally of the United States and a 
bastion of freedom in the Far East. 

To paraphrase Sir Christopher 
Wren’s memorial in St. Paul's Cathe- 
dral in London, “If you would see their 
monument, look around you.” 

Nevertheless, it is fitting and proper 
that we should, before the Korean war 
fades from the national memory, rec- 
ognize the bravery and sacrifice of our 
Armed Forces in a tangible form in 
the Nation's Capital. 

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, as we 
take up the Korean War Memorial 
bill, I am proud to rise as a cosponsor 
of this important and long overdue 
legislation. 

For over three decades since the con- 
clusion of the Korean war, our recog- 
nition of the tremendous sacrifices 
and ultimate triumph of our Korean 
war veterans has, I believe, been in- 
complete. Nearly 6 million Americans 
served in that 3-year conflict and 
54,000 paid the ultimate price, yet in 
our Nation’s Capital we have erected 
no memorial to their noble service. 

I visited the Republic of Korea last 
winter and found a thriving nation 
that itself stands as the greatest living 
monument to the American veterans 
of the Korean war. Every visitor to 
that country can see what our Ameri- 
can heroes won in battle: they won a 
future of freedom and prosperity for 
40 million people who otherwise would 
have been doomed to a life of oppres- 
sion, poverty, and unrelieved suffer- 
ing. And they won for America the 
lasting and palpable gratitude of the 
Korean people and nation. 

Today, in authorizing the construc- 
tion in Washington, DC, of a national 
memorial to the American veterans of 
the Korean war, we are acting to build 
a tangible symbol of the respect, admi- 
ration, and gratitude that up to now 
has been inadequately expressed, but 
that has lived within our hearts. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If 
there be no further amendment to be 
proposed, the question is on agreeing 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


to the committee amendment, as 
amended, in the nature of a substitute. 

The committee amendment, as 
amended, was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on the engrossment of the 
committee amendment and third read- 
ing of the bill. 

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

The bill was read a third time. 

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

So the bill (H.R. 2205) as amended, 
was passed. 

The title was amended so as to read 
“An Act to authorize the erection of a 
memorial on Federal land in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia and its environs to 
honor members of the Armed Forces 
of the United States who served in the 
Korean War.”. 

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


ADDITIONAL LEASES IN THE EL 
PORTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to the consideration of Cal- 
endar No. 764, H.R. 1390, dealing with 
the Yosemite National Park. 

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

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A bill (H.R. 1390) to authorize additional 
long-term leases in the El Portal administra- 
tive site adjacent to Yosemite National 
Park, California, and for other purposes. 

There being no objection, the Senate 
proceeded to consider the bill, which 
had been reported from the Commit- 
tee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
with an amendment to strike out all 
after the enacting clause, and insert 
the following with amendments, as fol- 
lows: 

(The parts of the bill intended to be 
sticken are shown in boldface brack- 
ets, and the parts of the bill intended 
to be inserted are shown in italic.) 

H.R. 1390 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the 
Act entitled “An Act to authorize the Secre- 
tary of the Interior to grant long-term 
leases with respect to lands in the El Portal 
administrative site adjacent to Yosemite Na- 
tional Park, California, and for other pur- 
poses”, approved July 21, 1968 (82 Sat. 393; 
16 U.S.C. 47-2), is amended— 

(1) by striking out “‘fifty-five years to any 
operator of concession facilities in the park, 
or its successor for purposes of providing 
employee housing.’’, in the first sentence of 
the first section and inserting in lieu there- 
of “‘not to exceed ninty-nine years to any in- 


29897 


dividual, including an employee of the 
United States Government, to any operator 
of concession facilities in the park, or the 
administrative site, or its successor, or to 
any public or private corporation or organi- 
zation (including a nonprofit corporation) 
for purposes of providing employee housing, 
community facilities, administrative offices, 
eaienence facilities, and commercial serv- 
ces.”"; 

(2) by striking out “the concessioner may 
sublease the property to its employees” in 
the second sentence of the first section and 
inserting in lieu thereof “if the lessee is a 
concessioner, corporation, or other organiza- 
tion (including a nonprofit corporation) 
such lessee may sublease the property to its 
employees, employees of the United States 
Government, or other individuals whose res- 
idence on the leased premises is solely in 
support of Yosemite National Park or the El 
Portal administrative site,”’; 

(3) in the proviso to the first section by 
striking out “an annual”, inserting a period 
after “him”, and deleting the remainder of 
the sentence; and 

(4) by redesignating “Sec. 2."" as “Src. 3.” 
and inserting the following new section 
after the first section: 

“Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the proceeds from any 
leases issued by the Secretary pursuant to 
the first section of this Act may be credited 
to the appropriation bearing the cost of ad- 
ministering (directly or by contract) the 
leases and of constructing, improving, and 
maintaining roads, utilities, buildings, and 
other facilities within the El Portal adminis- 
trative site. In the administration of the 
leases, the Secretary may contract for the 
management of the leases and of the leased 
premises, subject to such terms and condi- 
tions, including the right of the Secretary to 
purchase and sell the unexpired terms of 
leases and subleases, as will protect the in- 
terests of the United States. The Secretary 
may also contract for the use by him of any 
improvements to leased property for pur- 
poses of the El Portal administrative site or 
for purposes of Yosemite National Park, 
and he may use the proceeds from any 
leases for the purpose of making payments 
under any such contract. 

“(b) The Secretary may at any time ac- 
quire the unexpired term of any lease or 
sublease issued or entered into pursuant to 
this Act by purchase with funds available 
from the proceeds of leases, or with donated 
or appropriated funds, or by donation or ex- 
change.”; and 

(5) by adding at the end thereof the fol- 
lowing new [section:] sections, 

“Sec. 4. After the date of enactment of 
this section, no lease may be issued for the 
purpose of providing housing or other facili- 
ties in the El Portal administrative site 
except in accordance with regulations pro- 
mulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. 
Such regulations shall establish the qualifi- 
cations of natural persons and corporations 
who may be eligible to acquire a lease and a 
sublease, and they shall set forth the cir- 
cumstances under which the Secretary may 
elect to acquire any unexpired lease or sub- 
lease. Such regulations shall become effec- 
tive only after sixty calendar days from the 
day on which they have been submitted to 
the Committee on Interior and Insular Af- 
fairs of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Re- 
sources of the Senate.”. 

(Sec. 5. Concurrent with the submission 
of the regulations referred to in section 4, 
the Secretary shall submit a summary 





29898 


report on the El Portal administrative site 
including existing and projected lease ar- 
rangements at that time contemplated to be 
exercised under the provisions of this Act, 
along with a timetable for the consequent 
removal of specific facilities in Yosemite Na- 
tional Park (with particular emphasis on 
Yosemite Valley). Not later than three 
years after the date the summary report is 
submitted, the Secretary shall submit an ad- 
ditional report to the committees referenced 
in section 4 as to the progress achieved in 
the development of the El Portal adminis- 
trative site pursuant to the provisions of 
this Act. The report also shall include infor- 
mation as to the progress achieved in re- 
moval of facilities from Yosemite National 
Park. Implementation of the provisions of 
this Act shall at all times be in full accord 
with the then current general management 
plan for the park.J 

“Sec. 5. In carrying out the provisions of 
this Act, the Secretary shall take care that 
there be no opportunity for any personal in- 
fluence by an employee of the Department of 
the Interior upon the availability of housing 
for other such employees or employees of 
persons in a contractual relationship with 
the Department. In the selection of lessees 
and sublessees, the issuance of leases and 
subleases, the establishment of rental values, 
and the acquisition of any unexpired term 
of any lease or sublease, the Secretary shall 
act through an agent or agents appointed by 
the Secretary from among associations, cor- 
porations, or nacural persons having no ma- 
terial, financiz' Tegal, or equitable interest 
in the action proposed, other than a reason- 
able fee for their services. 

“Sec. 6. Any new spending authority 
(within the meaning of section 401 of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974) which is provided 
under this Act shall be effective for any 


fiscal year only to the extent or in such 
amounts as provided in appropriation Acts 
or to the extent that proceeds are available 
from any leases issued by the Secretary pur- 
suant to the first section of this Act.”. 


The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the commit- 
tee amendment in the nature of a sub- 
stitute. 

The committee amendment was 
agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO, 3267 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an 
amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator McC.Lure. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
amendment will be stated. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

The Senator from Kansas (Mr. Dots) for 
Mr. McCLurReE, proposes an amendment 
numbered 3267. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 4, line 12, after the word “sub- 
lease,’’ insert the following: 

“the process to be used in establishing 
fees for such leases and subleases,”’. 

On page 6, line one, delete “Sec. 6." and 
insert in lieu thereof: “Sec. 2.”. 

On page 6, after line 7, add the following 
new section 3: 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


“Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provi- 
sion of law, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall, within six months of the enactment 
of this Act, complete the exchange of all 
lands in four isolated federal parcels within 
the boundaries of Inks Creek Ranch, 
Tehama County, California, as described in 
Exhibit A of the July 25, 1986, letter of 
intent to exchange issued by the District 
Manager, Ukiah District Office, Bureau of 
Land Management.”’. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the amend- 
ment. 

The amendment 
agreed to. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, I would 
like to take this opportunity to thank 
the Energy Committee for successfully 
completing action on the bill before 
us, H.R. 1390. It will go a long way 
toward relieving the congested hous- 
ing situation in Yosemite Valley, and 
thereby help to enhance the natural 
setting within the park. 

The only question I have with 
regard to the committee’s action on 
this bill relates to the intent of section 
4. My reading of this section suggests 
to me that the Secretary is directed to 
allow for the full participation of the 
affected community and park employ- 
ees in the writing of the regulations 
that will govern leases issued for the 
purpose of providing housing or other 
facilities in the El Portal administra- 
tive site. 

Would the distinguished chairman 
of the Energy Committee state for the 
record whether my interpretation of 
section 4 of the bill is correct? 

Mr. McCLURE. I am happy to re- 
spond to my friend from California 
and would like to assure him that it is 
the intent of the committee that the 
Secretary will make every reasonable 
effort to solicit input from affected 
employees and residents during the 
period in which the regulations relat- 
ing to the making of leases are being 
drafted. 

Mr. WILSON. I thank the chairman 
for clarifying this matter. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and 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 a third time. 

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

So the bill (H.R. 1390) as amended, 
was passed. 

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


(No. 3267) was 


October 9, 1986 


FRANCIS SCOTT KEY MEMORIAL 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to the consideration of Cal- 
endar No. 941, S. 2370, the Francis 
Scott Key Memorial. 

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

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 


A bill (S. 2370) to allow the Francis Scott 
Key Park Foundation, Incorporated to erect 
a memorial in the District of Columbia. 


There being no objection, the Senate 
proceeded to consider the bill which 
had been reported from the Commit- 
tee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
with an amendment to strike out all 
after the enacting clause, and insert 
the following: 


Section 1. That the Francis Scott Key 
Park Foundation, Inc. is authorized to erect 
a memorial on public grounds in the District 
of Columbia in honor and in commemora- 
tion of Francis Scott Key, the author of the 
words to “The Star Spangled Banner,” our 
National Anthem, who lived and practiced 
law in Washington, District of Columbia at 
the time he penned those immortal words. 

Sec, 2, (a) The Secretary of the Interior is 
authorized and directed to select, with the 
approval of the Commission of Fine Arts 
and the National Capital Planning Commis- 
sion, a suitable site on public grounds in the 
District of Columbia upon which may be 
erected the memorial authorized in the first 
section of this Act. 

(b) The design and plans for such memori- 
al shall be subject to the approval of the 
Secretary of the Interior, the Commission 
of Fine Arts, and the National Capital Plan- 
ning Commission. 

(c) Neither the United States nor the Dis- 
trict of Columbia shall be put to any ex- 
pense in the establishment of the memorial. 

Sec, 3. The authority conferred by this 
Act shall lapse unless (1) the erection of the 
memorial is commenced within five years 
from the date of enactment of this Act, and 
(2) prior to groundbreaking for the actual 
construction on the site funds are deter- 
mined available in an amount sufficient, in 
the judgment of the Secretary of the Interi- 
or, to insure completion of the memorial. 

Sec. 4. If the site for the memorial author- 
ized herein shall be on public grounds be- 
longing to or under the jurisdiction of the 
District of Columbia, the words “Mayor of 
the District of Columbia” shall be substitut- 
ed for the words “Secretary of the Interior” 
at each place in sections 2 and 3 of this Act 
where the words ‘Secretary of the Interior” 
appear. 

Sec. 5. In the event that the memorial au- 
thorized herein is erected on Federal lands 
in the District of Columbia and its environs 
as defined in H.R. 4378, as approved by the 
Senate on September 10, 1986 (S. Rpt. 99- 
421), such memorial shall be required to 
comply with the provisions of that Act. 

Sec. 6. If the memorial erected under the 
provisions of this Act is on public grounds 
belonging to or under the jurisdiction of the 
District of Columbia, the Mayor of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia shall be responsible for 
the care and maintenance of the memorial. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

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





October 9, 1986 


The title was amended so as to read 
“A bill to authorize the Francis Scott 
Key Park Foundation, Inc., to erect a 
memorial in the District of Colum- 
bia.”. 

AMENDMENT NO, 3268 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an 
amendment on behalf of Senator 
McC ture to the committee substitute. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
amendment will be stated. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dote], for 
Mr. McCiure, proposes an amendment 
numbered 3268. 

On page 4, line 25, of S. 2370 as reported 
by the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, strike “Senate on September 10, 
1986 (S. Rept. 99-421)" and insert in lieu 
thereof “House of Representatives on Sep- 
tember 29, 1986"’. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the amend- 
ment. 

The amendment 
agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
bill is open to further amendment. If 
there be no further amendments to be 
proposed, the question is on agreeing 
to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended. 

The committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on the engrossment and 
the third reading of the bill. 


(No. 3268) was 


The bill was ordered to be engrossed 
for a third reading, was read the third 
time, and passed, as follows: 


S. 2370 


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, 

Section 1. That the Francis Scott Key 
Park Foundation, Inc. is authorized to erect 
a memorial on public grounds in the District 
of Columbia in honor and in commemora- 
tion of Francis Scott Key, the author of the 
words to “The Star Spangled Banner”, our 
National Anthem, who lived and practiced 
law in Washington, District of Columbia at 
the time he penned those immortal words. 

Sec. 2. (a) The Secretary of the Interior is 
authorized and directed to select, with the 
approval of the Commission of Fine Arts 
and the National Capital Planning Commis- 
sion, a suitable site on public grounds in the 
District of Columbia upon which may be 
erected the memorial authorized in the first 
section of this Act. 

(b) The design and plans for such memori- 
al shall be subject to the approval of the 
Secretary of the Interior, the Commission 
of Fine Arts, and the National Capital Plan- 
ning Commission. 

(c) Neither the United States nor the Dis- 
trict of Columbia shall be put to any ex- 
pense in the establishment of the memorial. 

Sec. 3. The authority conferred by this 
Act shall lapse unless (1) the erection of the 
memorial is commenced within five years 
from the date of enactment of this Act, and 
(2) prior to groundbreaking for the actual 
construction on the site funds are deter- 
mined available in an amount sufficient, in 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


the judgment of the Secretary of the Interi- 
or, to insure completion of the memorial. 

Sec. 4. If the site for the memorial author- 
ized herein shall be on public grounds be- 
longing to or under the jurisdiction of the 
District of Columbia, the words “Mayor of 
the District of Columbia” shall be substitut- 
ed for the words “Secretary of the Interior” 
at each place in sections 2 and 3 of this Act 
where the words “Secretary of the Interior” 
appear. 

Sec. 5. In the event that the memorial au- 
thorized herein is erected on Federal lands 
in the District of Columbia and its environs 
as defined in H.R. 4378, as approved by the 
House of Representatives on September 29, 
1986, such memorial shall be required to 
comply with the provisions of that Act. 

Sec. 6. If the memorial erected under the 
provisions of this Act is on public grounds 
belonging to or under the jurisdiction of the 
District of Columbia, the Mayor of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia shall be responsible for 
the care and maintenance of the memorial. 

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


0 1840 


LOWER COLORADO WATER 
SUPPLY ACT 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to the consideration of Cal- 
endar Order No. 1006, H.R. 5028, deal- 
ing with the Lower Colorado Water 
Supply Act. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A bill (H.R. 5028) entitled the ‘‘Lower Col- 
orado Water Supply Act.” 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Kansas? 

There being no objection, the Senate 
proceeded to consider the bill, which 
had been reported from the Commit- 
tee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
with amendments, as follows: 

(The parts of the bill intended to be 
stricken are shown in boldface brack- 
ets, and the parts of the bill intended 
to be inserted are shown in italics): 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION. 

(a) The Secretary of the Interior is au- 
thorized to construct, operate, and maintain 
the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project, 
California, in order to supply water for do- 
mestic, municipal, industrial and recreation- 
al purposes [only] only: Provided, That, the 
Secretary is hereby authorized, in his discre- 
tion, to contract with non-Federal interests 
Sor the care, operation, and maintenance of 
all or any part of the project works subject 
to such rules and regulations as he may pre- 
scribe. 

Such project shall be constructed in 
stages as increases in demand warrant and 
substantially in accordance with the plans 


29899 


set forth in the document entitled “Lower 
Colorado Water Supply Study, California” 
(December 1985): Provided, That the Secre- 
tary is prohibited from constructing facili- 
ties with a total capacity in excess of ten 
thousand acre-feet per annum under au- 
thority of this Act. 

(b\(1) The Secretary is further authorized 
to enter into exchange contracts and take 
such actions as the Secretary deems appro- 
priate to facilitate a water exchange agree- 
ment between non-Federal interests and 
those interests designated in section 2(b) of 
this Act in which such non-Federal interests 
agree to exchange a portion of their rights 
to divert water from the Colorado River for 
an equivalent quantity and quality of 
groundwater to be withdrawn from a well 
field located in the Sand Hills area, Imperial 
County, California. 

(2) The Secretary is prohibited from exe- 
cuting any contracts under the authority of 
subsection (b)(1) of this section until such 
contracts have been submitted to the Com- 
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the 
House of Representatives and to the Com- 
mittee on Energy and Natural Resources of 
the Senate and ninety calendar days have 
elapsed. 

SEC, 2. REPAYMENT OF COSTS. 

(a) The Secretary is prohibited from obli- 
gating or expending any of the funds au- 
thorized to be appropriated by section 3 of 
this Act until— 

(1) a study has been completed, and sub- 
mitted to the appropriate committees of the 
Congress, allocating among the Federal and 
non-Federal beneficiaries the capital costs 
and the costs of operating, maintaining, and 
replacing the project authorized by section 
1 of this Act; 

(2) the Secretary has entered into a con- 
tract or contracts with non-Federal interests 
for repayment of the capital costs, plus [in- 
terest,] interest, as determined by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury, as of the beginning of 
the fiscal year in which the contract is exe- 
cuted, on the basis of the average market 
yields on outstanding marketable obliga- 
tions to the United States with remaining 
periods to maturity comparable to the appli- 
cable reimbursement period of the project, 
adjusted to the nearest one-eighth of 1 per 
centum, allocated to non-Federal interests 
for [municipal and industrial] domestic, 
municipal, industrial, and recreational pur- 
poses as identified in the cost allocation 
study prepared under subsection (a)(1): Pro- 
vided, That the terms and provisions of 
such contracts and repayment shall be gov- 
erned by section 9/c/ of the Reclamation 
Project Act of 1939 (Act of August 4, 1939, ch. 
418, 53 Stat. 1187) and by the provisions of 
the Water Supply Act of 1958 which were in 
effect on January 1, 1986; and 

(3) the Secretary has entered into a con- 
tract or contracts with non-Federal interests 
for payment of 100 per centum of the costs 
allocated to such non-Federal interests for 
the operation, maintenance, and replace- 
ment of the project. 

(b) Any contracts executed by the Secre- 
tary to fulfill the requirements of subsec- 
tions (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section must 
be with persons, or Federal or non-Federal 
governmental! entities whose lands or inter- 
ests in lands are located adjacent to the Col- 
orado River in the State of California who 
do not hold rights to Colorado River water 
or whose rights are insufficient to meet 
their present or anticipated future needs, as 
determined by the Secretary. Such persons, 
or Federal or non-Federal governmental en- 





29900 


tities shall include the city of Needles, the 
town of Winterhaven, and other domestic, 
municipal, industrial, and recreational water 
users along the Colorado River in the State 
of California. 

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated 
for the construction of the Lower Colorado 
Water Supply Project [through September 
30, 1991, the sum of $1,800,000, such sums to 
remain available until expended. There is 
further authorized to be appropriated for 
each of the fiscal years through September 
30, 1991, the sum of $100,000 for the oper- 
ation, maintenance, and replacement of 
that portion of the project used to supply] 
the sum of $1,800,000 plus or minus such 
amounts, if any, as may be justified by 
reason of ordinary cost indices applicable to 
the types of construction involved therein 
and in addition thereto such sums as may 
be required for operation, maintenance and 
replacement of that portion of the project 
used to supply domestic, municipal, industri- 
al, or recreational water supplies for lands 
managed by the Federal Government. No 
funds are authorized to be appropriated for 
payment of the operation, maintenance, or 
replacement costs allocated to non-Federal 
beneficiaries as determined by the study un- 
dertaken under authority of section 2(a)(1). 
SEC. 4. SAVINGS PROVISION, 

Nothing contained in this Act shall be con- 
strued to alter, repeal, modify, interpret, or 
be in conflict with the provisions of the Col- 
orado River Compact (45 Stat. 1057), the 
Water Treaty of 1944 with the United Mexi- 
can States (Treaty Series 994, 59 Stat. 1219), 
the decree entered by the Supreme Court of 
the United States in Arizona against Cali- 
fornia, and others (376 U.S. 340), the Boul- 
der Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057), the 
Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act (54 
Stat. 774; 43 U.S.C. 618a), or the Colorado 
River Basin Project Act (82 Stat. 885; 43 
U.S.C. 1501). Nor shall any provision of this 
Act— 

(a) affect the rights or jurisdictions of the 
United States, the States, Indian tribes, or 
other entities over waters of any river or 
streams or over any groundwater resources, 
or 

(b) otherwise be construed to alter or es- 
tablish the respective rights of States, the 
United States, Indian tribes, or any person 
with respect to any water or water-related 
right. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the commit- 
tee amendments. 

The committee amendments were 
agreed to. 


AMENDMENT NO, 3269 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an 
amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senators McC.Lure and METzENBAUM 
and ask for its immediate consider- 
ation. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

The Senator from Kansas (Mr. Do.e], on 
behalf of Mr. McCiure and Mr. Metz- 
ENBAUM, proposes an amendment numbered 
3269. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that further read- 
ing of the amendment be dispensed 
with. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment reads as follows: 

Page 4, line 8, strike the period and insert: 
“on a current basis.” 

Page 4, line 8, following the period insert: 

(4) The Secretary has transmitted to 
Congress the final planning report/environ- 
mental assessment on the Lower Colorado 
Water Supply Project.’’. 

Page 4, line 23, following “struction” 
insert: ‘through September 30, 1993”. 

Page 5, line 16, insert the following new 
section and renumber the existing section 4 
as section 5: 

SEC. 4. CONTRIBUTION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS. 

“The Secretary is authorized to accept 
monetary contributions from the City of 
Needles and other incorporated cities for 
the construction of project features of the 
Lower colorado Water Supply Project allo- 
cated to the provision of water supplies to 
the City of Needles and other incorporated 
cities: Provided, That, such contributions 
shall be credited towards the reimbursible 
costs to be repaid by the City of Needles 
and other incorporated cities pursuant to 
the contracts entered into pursuant to sec- 
tion 2 of this Act. Such contribution by the 
City of Needles and other incorporated 
cities shall be contributed during the con- 
struction of the appropriate project features 
and shall constitute twenty percent of the 
costs of such project features allocated to 
the City of Needles and other incorporated 
cities for repayment.”’. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the amend- 
ment. 

The amendment 
agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If 
there be no further amendment to be 
offered, the question is on the engross- 
ment 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 amendments were engrossed 
and the bill was read the third time. 

The bill (H.R. 5028), as amended, 
was passed. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to 
reconsider the vote by which the bill 
Was passed. 

Mr. BYRD. 


(No. 3269) was 


I move to lay that 
motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATION- 
AL COMMISSION TO PREVENT 
INFANT MORTALITY 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to the consideration of Cal- 
endar Order No. 1028, S. 1209, to es- 
tablish the National Commission to 
Prevent Infant Mortality. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A bill (S. 1209) to establish the National 
Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality. 


October 9, 1986 


The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Kansas? 

There being no objection, the Senate 
proceeded to consider the bill, which 
had been reported from the Commit- 
tee on Governmental Affairs, with 
amendments, as follows: 

(The parts of the bill intended to be 
stricken are shown in boldface brack- 
ets, and the parts of the bill intended 
to be inserted are shown in italic.) 


S. 1209 


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 “National Commis- 
sion to Prevent Infant Mortality”. 


FINDINGS AND PURPOSE 


Sec. 2. The Congress finds and declares 
that: 

(1) The United States ranked seventeenth 
in the world in 1982 with an infant mortali- 
ty rate of eleven and two-tenths deaths per 
thousand live births, a higher rate than 
many developed nations of the world. 

(2) The infant mortality rate in some 
areas of the United States is twice the na- 
tional rate. 

(3) The main cause of a high infant mor- 
tality rate is low birthweight. Some 6.7 per 
centum of all infants born in the United 
States are of low birthweight. 

(4) Inadequate prenatal care is associated 
with an increased risk of low birthweight. 
Some twenty-five percent of all pregnant 
women in the United States do not begin 
prenatal care until after the first three 
months of pregnancy, if at all. 

(5) In certain areas throughout the United 
States, there exist barriers to medical serv- 
ices, nutritional support, educational oppor- 
tunities, and financial support for adequate 
health care for pregnant mothers and in- 
fants. The absence of needed support serv- 
ices during prenatal care, labor and delivery, 
and post-partum care through the age of 
one year contributes substantially to a high 
national infant mortality rate. 

(6) Our Nation, which benefits from many 
diverse governmental and private resources, 
has a patchwork, uncoordinated, and little 
understand approach to the delivery of serv- 
ices associated with preventing infant mor- 
tality. 

(7) The Congress and the President can 
act to prevent infant mortality and the inci- 
dence of low birthweight infants by estab- 
lishing a commission by law, whose purpose 
shall be to address respective governmental 
and private roles in the delivery of services 
associated with preventing infant mortality, 
and to recommend actions designed to 
change and improve the Nation's compre- 
hensive approach to this national problem. 


DEFINITION 


Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, the 
term “infant mortality” refers to the 
number of infants born alive but who die 
before their first birthday. 


ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL COMMISSION 


Sec. 4. (a) To accomplish the purpose set 
forth in section 2 of this Act there is estab- 
lished the National Commission to Prevent 
Infant Mortality (hereinafter referred to as 
the “Commission’’). 

(b) The Commission shall be composed of 
fifteen members, as follows: 

(1) Two members of the Senate, one to be 
selected by the majority leader of the 





October 9, 1986 


Senate, the other to be selected by the mi- 
nority leader of the Senate. 

(2) Two members of the House, one to be 
selected by the Speaker of the House, the 
other to be selected by the minority leader 
of the House. 

(3) Three members from representatives 
of State and local government; to be select- 
ed by the President and no more than two 
of whom shall be members of the same po- 
litical party. One shall be a Governor; one 
shall be a State legislator; and one shall be a 
representative of local government. 

(4) The Secretary of Health and Human 
Services shall be a member. 

(5) The Comptroller General of the 
United States shall be a member. 

(6) Six at large members, with demon- 
strated expertise in maternal and child 
health, shall be jointly selected by the ma- 
jority leader of the Senate and the Speaker 
of the House. 

(c) The Commission shall select a Chair- 
person and Vice Chairperson from among 
its members. 

(d) Eight members of the Commission 
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser 
number may hold hearings. 

(e) The Commission shall meet at the call 
of the Chairperson. 

(f) Members shall be appointed for the 
life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the 
Commission shall not affect its powers, but 
shall be filled in the same manner as the 
original appointment. 


DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION 


Sec. 5. (a) The Commission shall: 

(1) Identify and examine comprehensively 
Federal, State, local, and private resources 
which impact infant mortality, including 
but not limited to— 

(A) the effectiveness and adequacy of pro- 
grams such as the Supplemental Feeding 
Program for Women, Infants, and Children; 
the Maternity and Infant Care Program; 
the Improved Pregnancy Outcome Program; 
the Maternal and Child Health Block 
Grant; Community Health Centers; pre- 
pregnancy services and other programs that 
increase access to prenatal and postnatal 
education, care, and nutrition; 

(B) the effectiveness of current Federal 
and State policies under the Medicaid Pro- 
gram to ensure adequate access to prenatal 
and postnatal care for low-income pregnant 
women and mothers; 

(C) the role of income maintenance and 
other programs that impact infant mortali- 
ty such as Aid to Families With Dependent 
Children and Federal housing subsidies; and 

(D) the adequacy of current Federal and 
State efforts to enable an appropriate distri- 
bution of properly trained health care pro- 
fessionals to provide comprehensive mater- 
nal and child health services. 

(2) Identify current financial, intergovern- 
mental, and within the Federal Govern- 
ment, interagency barriers to the health 
care needed to prevent high infant mortali- 
ty. 
(3) Review recommendations made in 
recent regional and national reports that 
promote the health status of childbearing 
women and their infants and carry forward 
such recommendations as deemed appropri- 
ate. 

(b) The Commission shall— 

(1) recommend a national policy designed 
to change and improve the current ap- 
proach to preventing infant [mortality. 
Such recommendations shall include] mor- 
tality, including recommendations concern- 
ing appropriate roles for the Federal Gov- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


ernment, States, local governments, and pri- 
vate institutions; 

(2) recommend to the Congress and the 
President what specific changes are needed 
within Federal laws and Federal programs 
to achieve an effective Federal role in. pre- 
venting infant mortality; and 

(3) present such recommendations to the 
President, the Speaker of the House, and 
the majority leader of the Senate no later 
than one year after enactment of this Act. 


POWERS OF THE COMMISSION 


Sec. 7. (a) The Commission, or at its direc- 
tion, any subcommittee or member thereof, 
may for the purpose of carrying out the 
provisions of this Act, hold such hearings, 
sit and act at such times and places, take 
such testimony, receive such evidence and 
administer such oaths, as the Commission 
or such subcommittee or member may deem 
advisable. [Such attendance of witnesses 
and the production of such evidence may be 
required from any place within the United 
States at any designated place of hearing 
within the United States.] Any member of 
the Commission may administer oaths or af- 
firmations to witnesses appearing before the 
Commission, subcommittee, or member 
thereof. 

((b) The Commission may require by sub- 
poenas the attendance and testimony of 
such witness and production of such materi- 
als as the Commission may deem advisa- 
ble.J 

(b) The Commission may secure directly 
from any Federal department or agency 
such information as may be necessary to 
enable the Commission to carry out this Act. 
Upon request of the Chairman of the Com- 
mission, the head of such department or 
agency shall furnish such information to the 
Commission. 

(c) To carry out this Act, the Commission 


may enter into such contracts and other ar- 


rangements to such extent or in such 
amounts as are provided in appropriation 
Acts, and without regard to the provisions 
of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 
U.S.C. 5). Contracts and other arrangements 
may be entered into under this subsection 
with or without consideration or bond. 

(d) The provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act shall not apply to the Com- 
mission. 


COMMISSION STAFF 


Sec. 8. (a) The Chairperson and Vice 
Chairperson of the Commission shall ap- 
point an executive director. The employ- 
ment of such executive director shall be 
subject to confirmation by the Commission. 

(b) The Commission may appoint and ter- 
minate the executive director selected under 
subsection (a) and such other personnel as 
it considers appropriate to assist in the per- 
formance of its duties under this Act, with- 
out regard to the provisions of title 5, 
United States Code, governing appoint- 
ments in the competitive service, and may 
pay such executive director and other per- 
sonnel without regard to the provisions of 
chapter 51 and subchapter 111 of chapter 53 
of such title relating to classification and 
General Schedule pay [rates.] rates, ercept 
that the rate of pay for such executive direc- 
tor and other personnel may not exceed the 
rate payable for GS-18 of the General Sched- 
ule under section 5332 of such title. 

(c) Service of an individual as a member of 
the Commission or employment of an indi- 
vidual by the Commission on a part-time or 
full-time basis and with or without compen- 
sation shall not be considered as service or 
employment bringing such individual within 


29901 


the provisions of any Federal law relating to 
coflicts of interest or otherwise imposing re- 
strictions, requirements, or penalties in rela- 
tion to the employment of persons, the per- 
formance of services, or the payment of re- 
ceipt of compensation in connection with 
claims, proceedings, or matters involving 
the United States. Service as a member of 
the Commission or as an employee of the 
Commission, shall not be considered service 
in an appointive or elective position in the 
Government for purposes of section 8344 of 
title 5, United States Code, or comparable 
provisions of Federal law. 

(d) Subject to such rules as may be pre- 
scribed by the Commission, the Chairman 
of the Commission may procure temporary 
and intermittent services under section 3109 
of title 5, United States Code, at rates for 
individuals not to exceed the daily rate pay- 
able for GS-18 of the General Schedule 
under section 5332 of such title. 

SUNSHINE PROVISION 

Sec. 9. The Commission shall establish 
procedures to ensure its proceedings are 
open to the public to the maximum extent 
practicable. 

TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION 

(Sec. 9.] Sec. 10. Ninety days after the 
Commission submits its recommendations as 
required by section 5(b)(3) the Commission 
shall terminate. 

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

(Sec. 10.] Sec. 11. There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Commission [such 
sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
Act] $1,000,000. Amounts appropriated 
under this section shall remain available 
until the day on which the Commission ter- 
minates under section 10. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the commit- 
tee amendments. 

The committee amendments were 
agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If 
there be no further amendments to be 
proposed, the question is on the en- 
grossment and the third reading of 
the bill. 

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

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

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay the motion 
on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


INTERFERENCE TO THE BROAD- 
CASTS OF VOICE OF AMERICA 
AND RFE/RL, INCORPORATED 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to the consideration of 
House Concurrent Resolution 391, 
dealing with the Voice of America, 
now being held at the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A concurrent resoluton (H. Con. Res. 391) 
calling on the Governments of the Soviet 





29902 


Union, Poland, and Czechoslovakia to cease 
activities causing harmful inteference to the 
broadcasts of the Voice of America and 
RFE/RL, Incorporated. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Kansas? 

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

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, on 
August 12, 1986, Senators Hatcu, 
Drxon, LAXALT, RIEGLE, HATFIELD, and 
I submitted Senate Concurrent Reso- 
lution 160, expressing the sense of 
Congress that the jamming of radio 
broadcasting is contrary to the best in- 
terests of the people of the world and 
should be terminated, and urging the 
President to try to negotiate an end to 
this practice with the Soviet Union. 
Our resolution has 21 cosponsors. 

Most of those who cosponsored our 
concurrent resolution also signed a 
letter to Mr. Charles Z. Wick, Director 
of the United States Information 
Agency, urging him to use his good of- 
fices to increase awareness of Soviet 
jamming and the ill will it creates 
internationally. This letter was sent to 
coincide with the sixth anniversary of 
the resumption of Soviet jamming of 
the Voice of America on August 20, 
1986. 

The of 


House Representatives 


passed a slightly different version, 
House Concurrent Resolution 391, 
which calls on Poland and Czechoslo- 
vakia, in addition to the U.S.S.R., to 


cease jamming Western radio broad- 
casts, with special reference to the 
Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, 
and Radio Liberty. I am pleased to 
join with my colleagues today in bring- 
ing up House Concurrent Resolution 
391 for Senate consideration, because I 
believe that this measure will go a 
long way to expressing Senate dissatis- 
faction with Soviet and East European 
jamming practices. 

These harmful activities set back 
East-West dialog and lead us away 
from understanding each other’s con- 
cerns. We are not trying to propagan- 
dize. Our radios inform. They get out 
the news where none exists. They 
present a variety of Western views on 
issues of concern to the people of the 
Soviet Bloc. I hope that General Sec- 
retary Mikhail Gorbachev realizes just 
how counterproductive his jamming 
practices are, and that an agreement 
can be concluded soon on removing 
this barrier between the people of 
East and West. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there further debate on the concur- 
rent resolution? 

If not, the question is on agreeing to 
the concurrent resolution. 

The concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 391) was agreed to. 

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


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


GOVERNMENT SECURITIES ACT 
OF 1986 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that 
the Chair lay before the Senate a mes- 
sage from the House of Representa- 
tives on H.R. 2032. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid 
before the Senate the following mes- 
sage from the House of Representa- 
tives: 


Resolved, That the House agree to the 
amendment of the Senate to the text of the 
bill (H.R. 2032) entitled “An Act to amend 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to pro- 
vide improved protection for investors in 
the government securities market, and for 
other purposes", with the following amend- 
ment: 

In lieu of the matter inserted by the afore- 
said amendment, insert: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS. 

(a) SHORT TitLe.—This Act may be cited as 
the “Government Securities Act of 1986”. 

(b) Finpinas.—The Congress finds that 
transactions in government securities are 
affected with a public interest which makes 
it necessary— 

(1) to provide for the integrity, stability, 
and efficiency of such transactions and of 
matters and practices related thereto; 

(2) to impose adequate regulation of gov- 
ernment securities brokers and government 
securities dealers generally; and 

(3) to require appropriate financial re- 
sponsibility, recordkeeping, reporting, and 
related regulatory requirements; 
in order to protect investors and to insure 
the maintenance of fair, honest, and liquid 
markets in such securities. 


TITLE I—GOVERNMENT SECURITIES 
BROKERS AND DEALERS 
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF GOVERNMENT SECURI- 
TIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY. 

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (here- 
after in this title referred to as “the Act”) is 
amended by inserting after section 15B (15 
U.S.C. 780-4) the following new section: 

“GOVERNMENT SECURITIES BROKERS AND 
DEALERS 

“Sec. 15C. (a(1)(A) It shall be unlawful 
for any government securities broker or gov- 
ernment securities dealer (other than a reg- 
istered broker or dealer or a financial insti- 
tution) to make use of the mails or any 
means or instrumentality of interstate com- 
merce to effect any transaction in, or to 
induce or attempt to induce the purchase or 
sale of, any government security unless such 
government securities broker or government 
securities dealer is registered in accordance 
with paragraph (2) of this subsection. 

“(B)(i) It shall be unlawful for any govern- 
ment securities broker or government securi- 
ties dealer that is a registered broker or 
dealer or a financial institution to make use 
of the mails or any means or instrumentali- 
ty of interstate commerce to effect any 
transaction in, or to induce or attempt to 
induce the purchase or sale of, any govern- 
ment security unless such government secu- 
rities broker or government securities dealer 
has filed with the appropriate regulatory 
agency written notice that it is a govern- 
ment securities broker or government securi- 
ties dealer. When a government securities 


October 9, 1986 


broker or government securities dealer 
ceases to act as such it shall file with the ap- 
propriate regulatory agency a written notice 
that it is no longer acting as a government 
securities broker or government securities 
dealer. 

“(ii) Such notices shall be in such form 
and contain such information concerning a 
government securities broker or government 
securities dealer that is a financial institu- 
tion and any persons associated with such 
government securities broker or government 
securities dealer as the Board of Governors 
of the Federal Reserve System shall, by rule, 
after consultation with each appropriate 
regulatory agency (including the Commis- 
sion/, prescribe as necessary or appropriate 
in the public interest or for the protection of 
investors. Such notices shall be in such form 
and contain such information concerning a 
government securities broker or government 
securities dealer that is a registered broker 
or dealer and any persons associated with 
such government securities broker or gov- 
ernment securities dealer as the Commission 
shall, by rule, prescribe as necessary or ap- 
propriate in the public interest or for the 
protection of investors. 

“(tii) Each appropriate regulatory agency 
(other than the Commission) shall make 
available to the Commission the notices 
which have been filed with it under this sub- 
paragraph, and the Commission shall main- 
tain and make available to the public such 
notices and the notices it receives under this 
subparagraph. 

“(2) A government securities broker or a 
government securities dealer subject to the 
registration requirement of paragraph (1)(A) 
of this subsection may be registered by filing 
with the Commission an application for reg- 
istration in such form and containing such 
information and documents concerning 
such government securities broker or gov- 
ernment securities dealer and any persons 
associated with such government securities 
broker or government securities dealer as 
the Commission, by rule, may prescribe as 
necessary or appropriate in the public inter- 
est or for the protection of investors. Within 
45 days of the date of filing of such applica- 
tion (or within such longer period as to 
which the applicant consents), the Commis- 
sion shall— 

“(i) by order grant registration, or 

“(ii) institute proceedings to determine 
whether registration should be denied. Such 
proceedings shall include notice of the 
grounds for denial under consideration and 
opportunity for hearing and shall be con- 
cluded within 120 days of the date of the 
filing of the application for registration. At 
the conclusion of such proceedings, the Com- 
mission, by order, shall grant or deny such 
registration. The Commission may extend 
the time for the conclusion of such proceed- 
ings for up to 90 days if it finds good cause 
for such extension and publishes its reasons 
for so finding or for such longer period as to 
which the applicant consents. 


The Commission shall grant the registration 
of a government securities broker or a gov- 
ernment securities dealer if the Commission 
finds that the requirements of this section 
are satisfied. The Commission shall deny 
such registration if it does not make such a 
finding or if it finds that if the applicant 
were so registered, its registration would be 
subject to suspension or revocation under 
subsection (c/) of this section. 

“(3) Any provision of this title (other than 
section 5 or paragraph (1) of this subsec- 
tion) which prohibits any act, practice, or 





October 9, 1986 


course of business if the mails or any means 
or instrumentality of interstate commerce is 
used in connection therewith shall also pro- 
hibit any such act, practice, or course of 
business by any government securities 
broker or government securities dealer regis- 
tered or having filed notice under paragraph 
(1) of this subsection or any person acting 
on behalf of such government securities 
broker or government securities dealer, irre- 
spective of any use of the mails or any 
means or instrumentality of interstate com- 
merce in connection therewith. 

“(4) The Secretary of the Treasury (herein- 
after in this section referred to as the ‘Secre- 
tary’), by rule or order, upon the Secretary’s 
own motion or upon application, may con- 
ditionally or unconditionally exempt any 
government securities broker or government 
securities dealer, or class of government se- 
curities brokers or government securities 
dealers, from any provision of subsection 
(a), (b), or (d) of this section or the rules 
thereunder, if the Secretary finds that such 
exemption is consistent with the public in- 
terest, the protection of investors, and the 
purposes of this title. 

“(6)(1) The Secretary shall propose and 
adopt rules to effect the purposes of this title 
with respect to transactions in government 
securities effected by government securities 
brokers and government securities dealers as 
Sollows; 

‘(A) Such rules shall provide safeguards 
with respect to the financial responsibility 
and related practices of government securi- 
ties brokers and government securities deal- 
ers including, but not limited to, capital 
adequacy standards, the acceptance of cus- 
tody and use of customers’ securities, the 
carrying and use of customers’ deposits or 
credit balances, and the transfer and control 
of government securities subject to repur- 
chase agreements and in similar transac- 
tions. 

“(B) Such rules shall require every govern- 
ment securities broker and government secu- 
rities dealer to make reports to and furnish 
copies of records to the appropriate regula- 
tory agency, and to file with the appropriate 
regulatory agency, annually or more fre- 
quently, a balance sheet and income state- 
ment certified by an independent public ac- 
countant, prepared on a calendar or fiscal 
year basis, and such other financial state- 
ments (which shall, as the Secretary speci- 
fies, be certified) and information concern- 
ing its financial condition as required by 
such rules. 

“(C) Such rules shall require records to be 
made and kept by government securities 
brokers and government securities dealers 
and shall specify the periods for which such 
records shall be preserved. 

(2) Rules promulgated and orders issued 
under this section shall— 

“(A) be designed to prevent fraudulent and 
manipulative acts and practices and to pro- 
tect the integrity, liquidity, and efficiency of 
the market for government securities, inves- 
tors, and the public interest; and 

“(B) not be designed to permit unfair dis- 
crimination between customers, issuers, gov- 
ernment securities brokers, or government 
securities dealers, or to impose any burden 
on competition not necessary or appropriate 
in furtherance of the purposes of this title. 

“(3) In promulgating rules and issuing 
orders under this section, the Secretary— 

“(A) may appropriately classify govern- 
ment securities brokers and government se- 
curities dealers (taking into account rele- 
vant matters, including types of business 
done, nature of securities other than govern- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


ment securities purchased or sold, and char- 
acter of business organization) and persons 
associated with government securities bro- 
kers and government securities dealers; 

“(B) may determine, to the extent consist- 
ent with paragraph (2) of this subsection 
and with the public interest, the protection 
of investors, and the purposes of this title, 
not to apply, in whole or in part, certain 
rules under this section, or to apply greater, 
lesser, or different standards, to certain 
classes of government securities brokers, 
government securities dealers, or persons as- 
sociated with government securities brokers 
or government securities dealers; 

“(C) shall consider the sufficiency and ap- 
propriateness of then existing laws and rules 
applicable to government securities brokers, 
government securities dealers, and persons 
associated with government securities bro- 
kers and government securities dealers; and 

“(D) shall consult with and consider the 
views of the Commission and the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 
except where the Secretary determines that 
an emergency exists requiring expeditious or 
summary action and publishes its reasons 
Sor such determination. 

“(4) If the Commission or the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
comments in writing on a proposed rule of 
the Secretary that has been published for 
comment, the Secretary shall respond in 
writing to such written comment before ap- 
proving the proposed rule, 

“(5) No government securities broker or 
government securities dealer shall make use 
of the mails or any means or instrumentali- 
ty of interstate commerce to effect any 
transaction in, or to induce or attempt to 
induce the purchase or sale of, any govern- 
ment security in contravention of any rule 
under this section. 

“(c)(1) With respect to any government se- 
curities broker or government securities 
dealer registered or required to register 
under subsection (a)(1)(A) of this section— 

“(A) The Commission, by order, shall cen- 
sure, place limitations on the activities, 
functions, or operations of, suspend for a 
period not exceeding 12 months, or revoke 
the registration of such government securi- 
ties broker or government securities dealer, 
if it finds, on the record after notice and op- 
portunity for hearing, that such censure, 
placing of limitations, suspension, or revo- 
cation is in the public interest and that such 
government securities broker or government 
securities dealer, or any person associated 
with such government securities broker or 
government securities dealer (whether prior 
or subsequent to becoming so associated), 
has committed or omitted any act or omis- 
sion enumerated in subparagraph (A), (D), 
or (E) of paragraph (4) of section 15(b) of 
this title, has been convicted of any offense 
specified in subparagraph (B) of such para- 
graph (4) within 10 years of the commence- 
ment of the proceedings under this para- 
graph, or is enjoined from any action, con- 
duct, or practice specified in subparagraph 
(C) of such paragraph (4). 

“(B) Pending final determination whether 
registration of any government securities 
broker or government securities dealer shall 
be revoked, the Commission, by order, may 
suspend such registration, if such suspen- 
sion appears to the Commission, after 
notice and opportunity for hearing, to be 
necessary or appropriate in the public inter- 
est or for the protection of investors. Any 
registered government securities broker or 
registered government securities dealer may, 
upon such terms and conditions as the Com- 


29903 


mission may deem necessary in the public 
interest or for the protection of investors, 
withdraw from registration by filing a writ- 
ten notice of withdrawal with the Commis- 
sion. If the Commission finds that any regis- 
tered government securities broker or regis- 
tered government securities dealer is no 
longer in existence or has ceased to do busi- 
ness as a government securities broker or 
government securities dealer, the Commis- 
sion, by order, shall cancel the registration 
of such government securities broker or gov- 
ernment securities dealer. 

“(C) The Commission, by order, shall cen- 
sure or place limitations on the activities or 
Junctions of any person associated, or seek- 
ing to become associated, with a govern- 
ment securities broker or government securi- 
ties dealer registered or required to register 
under subsection (a/(1)(A) of this section or 
suspend for a period not exceeding 12 
months or bar any such person from being 
associated with such a government securi- 
ties broker or government securities dealer, 
if the Commission finds, on the record after 
notice and opportunity for hearing, that 
such censure, placing of limitations, suspen- 
sion, or bar is in the public interest and that 
such person has committed or omitted any 
act or omission enumerated in subpara- 
graph (A), (D), or (E) of paragraph (4) of sec- 
tion 15/6) of this title, has been convicted of 
any offense specified in subparagraph (B) of 
such paragraph (4) within 10 years of the 
commencement of the proceedings under 
this paragraph, or is enjoined from any 
action, conduct, or practice specified in sub- 
paragraph (C) of such paragraph (4). 

“(2)(A) With respect to any government se- 
curities broker or government securities 
dealer which is not registered or required to 
register under subsection (a/(1)/(A) of this 
section, the appropriate regulatory agency 
for such government securities broker or 
government securities dealer may, in the 
manner and for the reasons specified in 
paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, censure, 
place limitations on the activities, func- 
tions, or operations of, suspend for a period 
not exceeding 12 months, or bar from acting 
as a government securities broker or govern- 
ment securities dealer any such government 
securities broker or government securities 
dealer, and may sanction any person associ- 
ated with such government securities broker 
or government securities dealer in the 
manner and for the reasons specified in 
paragraph (1)(C) of this subsection. 

“(B) In addition, where applicable, such 
appropriate regulatory agency may, in ac- 
cordance with section 8 of the Federal De- 
posit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1818), section 
5 of the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933 (12 
U.S.C. 1464), or section 407 of the National 
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1730), enforce com- 
pliance by such government securities 
broker or government securities dealer or 
any person associated with such govern- 
ment securities broker or government securi- 
ties dealer with the provisions of this sec- 
tion and the rules thereunder. 

“(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B) of 
this paragraph, any violation of any such 
provision shall constitute adequate basis for 
the issuance of any order under section 8(b) 
or 8(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 
section 5(d/(2) or 5(d)/(3) of the Home 
Owners’ Loan Act of 1933, or section 407(e) 
or 407(f) of the National Housing Act, and 
the customers of any such government secu- 
rities broker or government securities dealer 
shall be deemed, respectively, ‘depositors’ as 
that term ts used in section 8(c) of the Feder- 
al Deposit Insurance Act, ‘savings account 





29904 


holders’ as that term is used in section 
5(d)/(3) of the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 
1933, or ‘insured members’ as that term is 
used in section 407(f) of the National Hous- 
ing Act. 

“(D) Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
construed to affect in any way the powers of 
such appropriate regulatory agency to pro- 
ceed against such government securities 
broker or government securities dealer 
under any other provision of law. 

‘(E) Each appropriate regulatory agency 
(other than the Commission) shall promptly 
notify the Commission after it has imposed 
any sanction under this paragraph on a 
government securities broker or government 
securities dealer, or a person associated 
with a government securities broker or gov- 
ernment securities dealer, and the Commis- 
sion shall maintain, and make available to 
the public, a record of such sanctions and 
any sanctions imposed by it under this sub- 
section. 

“(3) It shall be unlawful for any person as 
to whom an order entered pursuant to para- 
graph (1) or (2) of this subsection suspend- 
ing or barring him from being associated 
with a government securities broker or gov- 
ernment securities dealer is in effect willful- 
ly to become, or to be, associated with a gov- 
ernment securities broker or government se- 
curities dealer without the consent of the ap- 
propriate regulatory agency, and it shall be 
unlawful for any government securities 
broker or government securities dealer to 
permit such a person to become, or remain, 
a person associated with it without the con- 
sent of the appropriate regulatory agency, if 
such government securities broker or gov- 
ernment securities dealer knew, or, in the ex- 
ercise of reasonable care should have 
known, of such order. 

“(d)(1) All records of a government securi- 
ties broker or government securities dealer 
are subject at any time, or from time to 
time, to such reasonable periodic, special, or 
other examinations by representatives of the 
appropriate regulatory agency for such gov- 
ernment securities broker or government se- 
curities dealer as such appropriate regula- 
tory agency deems necessary or appropriate 
in the public interest, for the protection of 
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the 
purposes of this title. 

“(2) Information received by any appro- 
priate regulatory agency or the Secretary 
from or with respect to any government se- 
curities broker or government securities 
dealer or with respect to any person associ- 
ated therewith may be made available by the 
Secretary or the recipient agency to the 
Commission, the Secretary, any appropriate 
regulatory agency, and any self-regulatory 
organization. 

“(e)(1) It shall be unlawful for any govern- 
ment securities broker or government securi- 
ties dealer registered or required to register 
with the Commission under subsection 
fa}(1)(A) to effect any transaction in, or 
induce or attempt to induce the purchase or 
sale of, any government security, unless 
such government securities broker or gov- 
ernment securities dealer is a member of a 
national securities exchange registered 
under section 6 of this title or a securities 
association registered under section 15A of 
this title. 

“(2) The Commission, after consultation 
with the Secretary, by rule or order, as it 
deems consistent with the public interest 
and the protection of investors, may condi- 
tionally or unconditionally exempt from 
paragraph (1) of this subsection any govern- 
ment securities broker or government securi- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


ties dealer or class of government securities 
brokers or government securities dealers 
specified in such rule or order. 

“(f)(1) Nothing in this section except para- 
graph (2) of this subsection shall be con- 
strued to impair or limit the authority 
under any other provision of law of the 
Commission, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
the Board of Governors of the Federal Re- 
serve System, the Comptroller of the Curren- 
cy, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpora- 
tion, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 
the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance 
Corporation, the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development,,and the Government 
National Mortgage Association. 

“(2) Notwithstanding any other provision 
of this title, the Commission shall not have 
any authority to make investigations of, re- 
quire the filing of a statement by, or take 
any other action under this title against a 
government securities broker or government 
securities dealer, or any person associated 
with a government securities broker or gov- 
ernment securities dealer, for any violation 
or threatened violation of the provisions of 
this section or the rules or regulations there- 
under, unless the Commission is the appro- 
priate regulatory agency for such govern- 
ment securities broker or government securi- 
ties dealer. Nothing in the preceding sen- 
tence shall be construed to limit the author- 
ity of the Commission with respect to viola- 
tions or threatened violations of any provi- 
sion of this title other than this section, or 
the rules or regulations under any such 
other provision. 

“(gi(1) The authority of the Secretary to 
issue orders and to propose and adopt rules 
under this section shall terminate on Octo- 
ber 1, 1991. 

“(2) All orders and rules— 

“(A) which have been issued or adopted by 
the Secretary, and 

“(B) which are in effect on the date speci- 
Sied in paragraph (1), 
shall continue in effect according to their 
terms.”. 

SEC. 102. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 

(a) DEFINITION OF EXEMPTED SECURITY.— 
Paragraph (12) of section 3a) of the Act (15 
U.S.C. 78cla/(12)) is amended to read as fol- 
lows: 

“(12)(A) The term ‘exempted security’ or 
‘exempted securities’ includes— 

“(i) government securities, as defined in 
paragraph (42) of this subsection; 

“(ti) municipal securities, as defined in 
paragraph (29) of this subsection; 

“(ii) any interest or participation in any 
common trust fund or similar fund main- 
tained by a bank exclusively for the collec- 
tive investment and reinvestment of assets 
contributed thereto by such bank in its ca- 
pacity as trustee, executor, administrator, 
or guardian; 

“(iv) any interest or participation in a 
single trust fund, or a collective trust fund 
maintained by a bank, or any security aris- 
ing out of a contract issued by an insurance 
company, which interest, participation, or 
security is issued in connection with a 
qualified plan as defined in subparagraph 
(C) of this paragraph; and 

“(v) such other securities (which may in- 
clude, among others, unregistered securities, 
the market in which is predominantly intra- 
state) as the Commission may, by such rules 
and regulations as it deems consistent with 
the public interest and the protection of in- 
vestors, either unconditionally or upon spec- 
ified terms and conditions or for stated peri- 
ods, exempt from the operation of any one 
or more provisions of this title which by 


October 9, 1986 


their terms do not apply to an ‘exempted se- 
curity’ or to ‘exempted securities’. 

“(B)(i) Notwithstanding subparagraph 
(A/(i) of this paragraph, government securi- 
ties shall not be deemed to be ‘exempted se- 
curities’ for the purposes of section 17A of 
this title. 

“ib Notwithstanding subparagraph 
(A}(ii) of this paragraph, municipal securi- 
ties shall not be deemed to be ‘exempted se- 
curities’ for the purposes of sections 15, 15A 
(other than subsection (g)(3)), and 17A of 
this title. 

“(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A/tiv) 
of this paragraph, the term ‘qualified plan’ 
means (i) a stock bonus, pension, or profit- 
sharing plan which meets the requirements 
for qualification under section 401 of the In- 
ternal Revenue Code of 1954, (ii) an annuity 
plan which meets the requirements for the 
deduction of the employer’s contribution 
under section 404(a)(2) of such Code, or (iii) 
a governmental plan as defined in section 
414(d) of such Code which has been estab- 
lished by an employer for the exclusive bene- 
fit of its employees or their beneficiaries for 
the purpose of distributing to such employ- 
ees or their beneficiaries the corpus and 
income of the funds accumulated under 
such plan, if under such plan it is impossi- 
ble, prior to the satisfaction of all liabilities 
with respect to such employees and their 
beneficiaries, for any part of the corpus or 
income to be used for, or diverted to, pur- 
poses other than the exclusive benefit of 
such employees or their beneficiaries, other 
than any plan described in clause (i), (ii), or 
(iit) of this subparagraph which (1) covers 
employees some or all of whom are employ- 
ees within the meaning of section 401(c) of 
such Code, or (II) is a plan funded by an an- 
nuity contract described in section 403(b) of 
such Code.” 

(6) DEFINITION OF APPROPRIATE REGULATORY 
AGeEncyY.—Section 3(a/(34) of the Act is 
amended— 

(1) by inserting after paragraph (F) there- 
of the following new paragraph: 

“(G) When used with respect to a govern- 
ment securities broker or government securi- 
ties dealer, or person associated with a gov- 
ernment securities broker or government se- 
curities dealer: 

“(i) the Comptroller of the Currency, in 
the case of a national bank, a bank in the 
District of Columbia examined by the Comp- 
troller of the Currency, or a Federal branch 
or Federal agency of a foreign bank (as such 
terms are used in the International Banking 
Act of 1978); 

“(ii) the Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System, in the case of a State 
member bank of the Federal Reserve System, 
a foreign bank, a State branch or a State 
agency of a foreign bank, or a commercial 
lending company owned or controlled by a 
foreign bank (as such terms are used in the 
International Banking Act of 1978); 

“(iii) the Federal Deposit Insurance Cor- 
poration, in the case of a bank insured by 
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
(other than a member of the Federal Reserve 
System or a Federal savings bank); 

“(iv) the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 
in the case of a Federal savings and loan as- 
sociation, Federal savings bank, or District 
of Columbia savings and loan association; 

“(v) the Federal Savings and Loan Insur- 
ance Corporation, in the case of an institu- 
tion insured by the Federal Savings and 
Loan Insurance Corporation (other than a 
Federal savings and loan association, Feder- 
al savings bank, or District of Columbia 
savings and loan association); 





October 9, 1986 


“(vi) the Commission, in the case of all 
other government securities brokers and 
government securities dealers.”; and 

(2) by inserting “, and the term ‘District of 
Columbia savings and loan association’ 
means any association subject to eramina- 
tion and supervision by the Federal Home 
Loan Bank Board under section 8 of the 
Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933” before the 
period ending the last sentence thereof. 

(c) DEFINITION OF STATUTORY DISQUALIFICA- 
TIon.—Section 3(a)(39) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 
78c(a)(39)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (B/— 

(A) by inserting “or other appropriate reg- 
ulatory agency” after “Commission”; and 

(B) by striking out “or municipal securi- 
ties dealer” and inserting in lieu thereof 
“municipal securities dealer, government se- 
curities broker, or government securities 
dealer’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (C)— 

(A) by striking out “or municipal securi- 
ties dealer” and inserting in lieu thereof 
“municipal securities dealer, government se- 
curities broker, or government securities 
dealer’; and 

(B) by inserting “, an appropriate regula- 
tory agency,” after “Commission”. 

(d) AppITIONAL DerFinitions.—Section 3(a/ 
of such Act (15 U.S.C. 78cfa/) is further 
amended by adding at the end thereof the 
following new paragraphs: 

“(42) The term ‘government securities’ 
means— 

“(A) securities which are direct obliga- 
tions of, or obligations guaranteed as to 
principal or interest by, the United States; 

“(B) securities which are issued or guar- 
anteed by corporations in which the United 
States has a direct or indirect interest and 
which are designated by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for exemption as necessary or ap- 
propriate in the public interest or for the 
protection of investors; 

“(C) securities issued or guaranteed as to 
principal or interest by any corporation the 
securities of which are designated, by stat- 
ute specifically naming such corporation, to 
constitute exempt securities within the 
meaning of the laws administered by the 
Commission; or 

“(D) for purposes of sections 15C and 174A, 
any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege 
on a security described in subparagraph (A), 
(B), or (C) other than a put, call, straddle, 
option, or privilege— 

“(i) that is traded on one or more national 
securities erchanges; or 

“(ii) for which quotations are disseminat- 
ed through an automated quotation system 
operated by a registered securities associa- 
tion. 

“(43) The term ‘government securities 
broker’ means any person regularly engaged 
in the business of effecting transactions in 
government securities for the account of 
others, but does not include— 

‘(A) any corporation the securities of 
which are government securities under sub- 
paragraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (42) of 
this subsection; or 

“(B) any person registered with the Com- 
modity Futures Trading Commission, any 
contract market designated by the Commod- 
ity Futures Trading Commission, such con- 
tract market's affiliated clearing organiza- 
tion, or any floor trader on such contract 
market, solely because such person effects 
transactions in government securities that 
the Commission, after consultation with the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
has determined by rule or order to be inci- 
dental to such person's futures-related busi- 
ness. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


“(44) The term ‘government securities 
dealer’ means any person engaged in the 
business of buying and selling government 
securities for his own account, through a 
broker or otherwise, but does not include— 

“(A) any person insofar as he buys or sells 
such securities for his own account, either 
individually or in some fiduciary capacity, 
but not as a part of a regular business; 

“(B) any corporation the securities of 
which are government securities under sub- 
paragraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (42) of 
this subsection; 

“(C) any bank, unless the bank is engaged 
in the business of buying and selling govern- 
ment securities for its own account other 
than in a fiduciary capacity, through a 
broker or otherwise; or 

“(D) any person registered with the Com- 
modity Futures Trading Commission, any 
contract market designated by the Commod- 
ity Futures Trading Commission, such con- 
tract market's affiliated clearing organiza- 
tion, or any floor trader on such contract 
market, solely because such person effects 
transactions in government securities that 
the Commission, after consultation with the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
has determined by rule or order to be inci- 
dental to such person's futures-related busi- 
ness. 

‘¢45) The term ‘person associated with a 
government securities broker or government 
securities dealer’ means any partner, officer, 
director, or branch manager of such govern- 
ment securities broker or government securi- 
ties dealer (or any person occupying a simi- 
lar status or performing similar functions), 
and any other employee of such government 
securities broker or government securities 
dealer who is engaged in the management, 
direction, supervision, or performance of 
any activities relating to government securi- 
ties, and any person directly or indirectly 
controlling, controlled by, or under common 
control with such government securities 
broker or government securities dealer. 

“(46) The term ‘financial institution’ 
means (A) a bank (as such term is defined in 
paragraph (6) of this subsection), (B) a for- 
eign bank, and (C/ an insured institution 
(as such term is defined in section 401 of the 
National Housing Act). 

“(48) The term ‘registered broker or dealer’ 
means a broker or dealer registered or re- 
quired to register pursuant to section 15 or 
15B of this title, except that in paragraph 
(3) of this subsection and sections 6 and 15A 
the term means such a broker or dealer and 
a government securities broker or govern- 
ment securities dealer registered or required 
to register pursuant to section 15C(a/(1)}(A) 
of this title.”. 

fe) ENFORCEMENT AND DiscipLine.—Section 
15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(15 U.S.C. 780(b)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (4)(A), by inserting “or 
with any other appropriate regulatory 
agency” after “Commission” the first time it 
appears therein; 

(2) in paragraph (4)/(B), by inserting in 
clause (ii) thereof “government securities 
broker, government securities dealer,” after 
“municipal securities dealer,”; 

(3) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking out 
“or municipal securities dealer,” and insert- 
ing in lieu thereof “municipal securities 
dealer, government securities broker, or gov- 
ernment securities dealer,”’: and 

(4) in paragraph (8)— 

(A) by striking out “any broker or dealer 
required to register pursuant to this title” 
and inserting in lieu thereof “any registered 
broker or dealer”; and 


29905 


(B) by striking out “an exempted securi- 
ty”. 

(f) Net Caprrat.—Section 15(c)(3) of such 
Act (15 U.S.C. 780(c)(3)) is amended— 

(1) by inserting “(other than a government 
securities broker or government securities 
dealer, except a registered broker or dealer)” 
after “dealer”; and 

(2) by inserting “(except a government se- 
curity)” after “erempted security”. 

(9) REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATIONS.— 
(1) Section 15A(f) of the Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 780-3(f)) is amended 
to read as follows: 

“(f/(1) Except as provided in paragraph 
(2) of this subsection, nothing in this section 
shall be construed to apply with respect to 
any transaction by a registered broker or 
dealer in any exempted security. 

“(2) A registered securities association 
may adopt and implement rules applicable 
to members of such association (A) to en- 
force compliance by registered brokers and 
dealers with applicable provisions of this 
title and the rules and regulations thereun- 
der, (B/ to provide that its members and per- 
sons associated with its members shall be 
appropriately disciplined, in accordance 
with subsections (6/(7), (b/(8), and th) of 
this section, for violation of applicable pro- 
visions of this title and the rules and regula- 
tions thereunder, (C) to provide for reasona- 
ble inspection and examination of the books 
and records of registered brokers and deal- 
ers, (D) to provide for the matters described 
in paragraphs (b/(3), (b/(4), and (b/(5) of 
this section, (E/) to implement the provisions 
of subsection (g) of this section, and (F) to 
prohibit fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, 
and faise advertising. 

“(3) Nothing in subsection (6/(6) or (b)/(11) 
of this section shall be construed to permit a 
registered securities association to make 
rules concerning any transaction by a regis- 
tered broker or dealer in a municipal securi- 
ty.”. 
(2) Section 15A(g/) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 
780-3(g)) is amended— 

(A) by inserting after paragraph (3)(C) the 
following: 

“(D) Nothing in subparagraph (A), (B), or 
(C) of this paragraph shall be construed to 
permit a registered securities association to 
deny membership to or condition the mem- 
bership of, or bar any person from becoming 
associated with or condition the association 
of any person with, a broker or dealer that 
engages exclusively in transactions in ez- 
empted securities.”’; 

(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as 
paragraph (5); and 

(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the 
following new paragraph: 

“(4)(A) A registered securities association 
may deny membership to, or condition the 
membership of, a government securities 
broker or government securities dealer if 
such government securities broker or gov- 
ernment securities dealer (i) does not meet 
standards of financial responsibility under 
rules adopted pursuant to _ section 
15C(b/(1)(A) of this title, or (ii) has engaged 
and there is a reasonable likelihood that it 
will again engage in any conduct or prac- 
tice which would subject such government 
securities broker or government securities 
dealer to sanctions under section 15C{c) of 
this title. A registered securities association 
may establish procedures including exami- 
nation of the books and records of govern- 
ment securities brokers and government se- 
curities dealers to verify compliance with 
the provisions of this title and the rules 
thereunder. 





29906 


“(B) A registered securities association 
may bar any person from becoming associ- 
ated with a member or condition the asso- 
ciation of a person with a member (i) if 
such person has engaged in any conduct or 
practice and there is a reasonable likelihood 
that such person will again engage in any 
conduct or practice which would subject 
such person to sanctions under section 
15C{c) of this title, or (it) if such person does 
not agree to supply such association with 
such information with respect to its rela- 
tionship and dealings with the member as 
may be specified in the rules of the associa- 
tion and to permit examination of its books 
and records to verify the accuracy thereof.”. 

(h) FILING OF AND ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS.— 
Section 17(c) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q(c)) is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the 
following new paragraph: 

“(4) The Commission or the appropriate 
regulatory agency may specify that docu- 
ments required to be filed pursuant to this 
subsection with the Commission or such 
agency, respectively, may be retained by the 
originating clearing agency, transfer agent, 
or municipal securities dealer, or filed with 
another appropriate regulatory agency. The 
Commission or the appropriate regulatory 
agency (as the case may be) making such a 
specification shall continue to have access 
to the document on request.”. 

(i) Lost AND STOLEN Securities.—Section 
17(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(15 U.S.C. 78q(f)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1) by inserting. “‘govern- 
ment securities broker, government securi- 
ties dealer,” after “municipal securities 
dealer,”’; 

(2) in paragraph (1/(A), by inserting “and, 
in the case of government securities, to the 
Secretary of the Treasury” after “Commis- 
sion” the second time it appears; and 

(3) in paragraph (3)— 

(A) by inserting “(A)” after “(3)”: and 

(B) by adding the following new subpara- 
graph: 

“(B) In order to carry out the authority 
under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the 
Commission or its designee and the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury shall enter into an 
agreement whereby the Commission or its 
designee will receive, store, and disseminate 
information in the possession, and which 
comes into the possession, of the Depart- 
ment of the Treasury in regard to missing, 
lost, counterfeit, or stolen securities.” 

(j) BURDEN ON COMPETITION; PUBLIC RULE- 
MAKING REQUIREMENTS.—Section 23(a/) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
78wla)) is amended— 

(1) by inserting “and the Secretary of the 
Treasury” after “Commission” each place it 
appears in paragraph (2); 

(2) by inserting “or the Secretary's” after 
“Commission’s” in paragraph (2); 

(3) by inserting “and the Secretary” after 
“Commission” the first, second, and fourth 
places it appears in paragraph (3); and 

(4) by inserting “or the Secretary” after 
“Commission” the third place it appears in 
paragraph (3). 

(k) JupictaL Review OF ORDERS AND 
Ruies.—Section 25(d)(1) of the Act (15 
U.S.C. 78y(d)(1)) is amended by inserting 
before the period at the end thereof the fol- 
lowing: “and the Secretary of the Treasury 
insofar as he is acting pursuant to section 
15C of this title”. 

(l) INVESTMENT COMPANIES: DISQUALIFICA- 
TIons.—Section 9 of the Investment Compa- 
ny Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-9) is amend- 
ed— 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


(1) by striking out paragraphs (1) and (2) 
of subsection (a) and inserting in lieu there- 
of the following: 

“(1) any person who within 10 years has 
been convicted of any felony or misdemean- 
or involving the purchase or sale of any se- 
curity or arising out of such person’s con- 
duct as an underwriter, broker, dealer, in- 
vestment adviser, municipal securities 
dealer, government securities broker, gov- 
ernment securities dealer, or entity or 
person required to be registered under the 
Commodity Exchange Act, or as an affili- 
ated person, salesman, or employee of any 
investment company, bank, insurance com- 
pany, or entity or person required to be reg- 
istered under the Commodity Exchange Act; 

“(2) any person who, by reason of any mis- 
conduct, is permanently or temporarily en- 
joined by order, judgment, or decree of any 
court of competent jurisdiction from acting 
as an underwriter, broker, dealer, invest- 
ment adviser, municipal securities dealer, 
government securities broker, government 
securities dealer, or entity or person re- 
quired to be registered under the Commodity 
Exchange Act, or as an affiliated person, 
salesman, or employee of any investment 
company, bank, insurance company, or 
entity or person required to be registered 
under the Commodity Exchange Act, or from 
engaging in or continuing any conduct or 
practice in connection with any such activi- 
ty or in connection with the purchase or 
sale of any security; or”; 

(2) by inserting “or of the Commodity Ex- 
change Act,” after “this litle,” in subsection 
(6)(2); and 

(3) by inserting “or of the Commodity Er- 
change Act,” after “this litle,” in subsection 
(6)(3). 

(m) INVESTMENT ADVISERS: DISQUALIFICA- 
TIONS.—Section 203 of the Investment Advis- 
ers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 806-3) is amend- 
ed— 

(1) by striking out “or fiduciary” in sub- 
section (e)/(2)(B) and inserting in lieu there- 
of “government securities broker, govern- 
ment securities dealer, fiduciary, or entity 
or person required to be registered under the 
Commodity Exchange Act’: 

(2) by striking out paragraph (3) of subsec- 
tion (e) and inserting in lieu thereof the fol- 
lowing: 

“(3) is permanently or temporarily en- 
joined by order, judgment, or decree of any 
court of competent jurisdiction from acting 
as an investment adviser, underwriter, 
broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, 
government securities broker, government 
securities dealer, or entity or person re- 
quired to be registered under the Commodity 
Exchange Act, or as an affiliated person or 
employee of any investment company, bank, 
insurance company, or entity or person re- 
quired to be registered under the Commodity 
Exchange Act, or from engaging in or con- 
tinuing any conduct or practice in connec- 
tion with any such activity, or in connec- 
tion with the purchase or sale of any securi- 
ty.”; and 

(3) by inserting “the Commodity Exchange 
Act,” after “this title,” in paragraph (4) of 
subsection (e)/. 

SEC. 103. STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH 
RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF TREASURY 
AUTHORITY. 

(a) TasK ForRcE RECOMMENDATION.—The 
Secretary of the Treasury, together with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission and 
the Board of Governors of the Federal Re- 
serve System, shall evaluate the effectiveness 
of the rules promulgated pursuant to section 
15C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 


October 9, 1986 


in effecting the purposes of such Act, and 
shall submit to the Congress, not later than 
October 1, 1990, their recommendation with 
respect to the extension of the Secretary's 
authority under such section and such other 
recommendations as they may consider ap- 
propriate. 

(b) COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY AND REC- 
OMMENDATIONS.—The Comptroller General 
shall conduct a study of the regulation of 
government securities brokers and govern- 
ment securities dealers pursuant to section 
15C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
and the effectiveness of the amendments 
made by this Act in protecting investors and 
in effecting the purposes described in sec- 
tion 15C(b/(2), and shall submit to the Con- 
gress, not later than March 31, 1990, his rec- 
ommendations with respect to the extension 
of the Secretary’s authority under such sec- 
tion and such other recommendations as he 
may consider appropriate. 

SEC. 104. STUDY OF TRADING SYSTEM FOR GOVERN- 
MENT SECURITIES. 

(a) REQUIREMENTS FOR STUDY.—The Comp- 
troller General, in coordination and consul- 
tation with the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury, and the Commission, shall study the 
nature of the current trading system in the 
secondary market for government securities, 
including— 

(1) the extent and form of availability of 
bids and asks for government securities 
transactions on a real time basis; 

(2) the extent and form of the availability 
of government securities brokers’ services in 
the secondary market; and 

(3) whether quotations for government se- 
curities and the services of government secu- 
rities brokers are available on terms which 
are consistent with the public interest, the 
protection of investors, and the purposes of 
this title. 

(b) Pusitic Hearinas.—In addition to the 
collection of information through surveys, 
public document review, interviews, and 
other information-gathering methods, at 
least one joint public hearing shall be held 
during the course of conducting the study. 

(c) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—The 
report of the Comptroller General shall be 
submitted to the Congress no later than 6 
months after the date of enactment of this 
Act. 

SEC. 105. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
LEGISLATION STUDY. 

(a) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.—The Securi- 
ties and Exchange Commission is author- 
ized and directed to make a study of the use 
of the exemption contained in section 
3(ai(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 
U.S.C. 77c(a/(2)) for securities guaranteed 
by banks, and of the use of insurance poli- 
cies to guarantee securities. Such study shall 
include an analysis of— 

(1) the impact of the guarantee provision 
of such section 3(a/(2) on investor protec- 
tion and the public interest; 

(2) the impact of the guarantee provision 
of such section 3(a/(2) on competition be- 
tween banks and insurance companies and 
between domestic and foreign guarantors; 

(3) whether, and under what circum- 
stances, debt securities guaranteed by insur- 
ance policies should be exempt from regis- 
tration under the Securities Act of 1933; 

(4) an analysis of the impact of such an 
exemption on investor protection and the 
public interest; and 

(5) such other issues as the Commission 
deems relevant. 





October 9, 1986 


(6) ConsuLTATION.—In conducting the 
study required by subsection (a/, the Com- 
mission shall consult with and solicit com- 
ment from the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, and other Federal bank regulatory 
agencies. 

(c) Report.—The Securities and Exchange 
Commission shall, on or before 6 months 
after the date of enactment of this Act, 
submit a report to the Congress contain- 
ing— 

(1) the results of its study under this sec- 
tion; 

(2) the actions it proposes to take on the 
basis of its study; and 

(3) recommendations for legislation. 

TITLE II—DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS 


SEC. 201. DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS. 

(a) AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 31 OF TITLE 31, 
UnireD STATES Cobpe.—Section 3121 of title 
31, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end thereof the following: 

“(h}(1) The Secretary shall prescribe by 
regulation standards for the safeguarding 
and use of obligations issued under this 
chapter, and obligations otherwise issued or 
guaranteed as to principal or interest by the 
United States. Such regulations shall apply 
only to a depository institution that is not a 
government securities broker or a govern- 
ment securities dealer and that holds such 
obligations as fiduciary, custodian, or other- 
wise for the account of a customer and not 
for its own account. Such regulations shall 
provide for the adequate segregation of obli- 
gations so held, including obligations which 
are purchased or sold subject to resale or re- 
purchase. 

“(2) Violation of a regulation prescribed 
under paragraph (1) shall constitute ade- 
quate basis for the issuance of an order 
under section 5239(a) or (b/ of the Revised 
Statutes (12 U.S.C. 93(a) or (b)), section 8(b) 
or 8(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 
section 5(d/(2) or 5S(d/(3) of the Home 
Owners’ Loan Act of 1933, section 407(e) or 
407(f) of the National Housing Act, or sec- 
tion 206(e) or 206(f) of the Federal Credit 
Union Act. Such an order may be issued 
with respect to a depository institution by 
its appropriate regulatory agency and with 
respect to a federally insured credit union 
by the National Credit Union Administra- 
tion Board. 

“(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be 
construed to affect in any way the powers of 
such agencies under any other provision of 
law. 

“(4) The Secretary shall, prior to adopting 
regulations under this subsection, determine 
with respect to each appropriate regulatory 
agency and the National Credit Union Ad- 
ministration Board, whether its rules and 
standards adequately meet the purposes of 
regulations to be promulgated under this 
subsection, and if the Secretary so deter- 
mines, shall exempt any depository institu- 
tion subject to such rules or standards from 
the regulations promulgated under this sub- 
section, 

“(5) As used in this subsection— 

‘(A) ‘depository institution’ has the mean- 
ing stated in clauses (i) through (vi) of sec- 
tion 19(b)/(1)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act 
and also includes a foreign bank, an agency 
or branch of a foreign bank, and a commer- 
cial lending company owned or controlled 
by a foreign bank (as such terms are defined 
in the International Banking Act of 1978). 

“(B) ‘government securities broker’ has the 
meaning prescribed in section 3(a/(43) of 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


“(C) ‘government securities dealer’ has the 
meaning prescribed in section 3(a/(44) of 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

“(D) ‘appropriate regulatory agency’ has 
the meaning prescribed in _ section 
3(a)(34)(G) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934.” 

(0) AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 91 OF TITLE 31, 
UniTeD States Cope.—Chapter 91 of title 31, 
United States Code, is amended— 

(1) by adding at the end thereof the follow- 
ing: 

Ҥ 9110. Standards for depository institutions hold- 
ing securities of a Government-sponsored corpo- 
ration for customers 
“(a) The Secretary shall prescribe by regu- 

lation standards for the safeguarding and 
use of obligations that are government secu- 
rities described in subparagraph (B) or (C) 
of section 3(a/(42) of the Securities Ex- 
change Act of 1934. Such regulations shall 
apply only to a depository institution that 
is not a government securities broker or a 
government securities dealer and that holds 
such obligations as fiduciary, custodian, or 
otherwise for the account of a customer and 
not for its own account. Such regulations 
shall provide for the adequate segregation of 
obligations so held, including obligations 
which are purchased or sold subject to resale 
or repurchase. 

“(b) Violation of a regulation prescribed 
under subsection (a) shall constitute ade- 
quate basis for the issuance of an order 
under section 5239(a) or (b/ of the Revised 
Statutes (12 U.S.C. 93(a) or (b)), section 8(b) 
or &(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 
section 5S(d/(2) or 5S(d/(3) of the Home 
Owners’ Loan Act of 1933, section 407(/e) or 
407(f) of the National Housing Act, or sec- 
tion 206(e) or 206(f) of the Federal Credit 
Union Act. Such an order may be issued 
with respect to a depository institution by 
its appropriate regulatory agency and with 
respect to a federally insured credit union 
by the National Credit Union Administra- 
tion. 

“(ce) Nothing in this section shall be con- 
strued to affect in any way the powers of 
such agencies under any other provision of 
law. 

“(d) The Secretary shall, prior to adopting 
regulations under this section, determine 
with respect to each appropriate regulatory 
agency and the National Credit Union Ad- 
ministration Board, whether its rules and 
standards adequately meet the purposes of 
regulations to be promulgated under this 
section, and if the Secretary so determines, 
shall erempt any depository institution sub- 
ject to such rules or standards from the regu- 
lations promulgated under this section. 

“(e) As used in this subsection— 

“(1) ‘depository institution’ has the mean- 
ing stated in clauses (i) through (vi) of sub- 
paragraph 19(b/)(1)(A) of the Federal Reserve 
Act and also includes a foreign bank, an 
agency or branch of a foreign bank, and a 
commercial lending company owned or con- 
trolled by a foreign bank (as such terms are 
defined in the International Banking Act of 
1978). 

“(2) ‘government securities broker’ has the 
meaning prescribed in section 3(a/(43) of 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

“(3) ‘government securities dealer’ has the 
meaning prescribed in section 3(a/(44) of 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

“(4) ‘appropriate regulatory agency’ has 
the meaning prescribed in _ section 
3(a)(34)(G) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934." and 

(2) by adding at the end of the chapter 
analysis the following: 


29907 


“9110. Standards for depository institutions 
holding securities of a Govern- 
ment-sponsored corporation 
for customers. ”. 


TITLE III—TRANSITIONAL AND 
SAVINGS PROVISIONS 
SEC. 301. TRANSITIONAL AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS. 

(a) EFFECT ON PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE 
PROCEEDINGS.—The provisions of this Act 
shall not affect any proceedings pending on 
the effective date of this Act. 

(b) EFFECT ON PENDING JUDICIAL PROCEED- 
INGS.—The provisions of this Act shall not 
affect suits commenced prior to the effective 
date of this Act, and in all such suits, pro- 
ceedings shall be had, appeals taken, and 
judgments rendered in the same manner and 
effect as if this Act had not been enacted. 

(c) DISCRETION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE 
Bank OF New Yorx.—Nothing in this Act 
shall be construed to limit or impair the dis- 
cretion or authority of the Federal Reserve 
Bank of New York to require reports or es- 
tablish terms and conditions in connection 
with the Bank’s relationship with any gov- 
ernment securities broker or government se- 
curities dealer, including a primary dealer. 

(d) JURISDICTION OF THE COMMODITY Fu- 
TURES TRADING Commission.—Nothing in this 
Act affects the jurisdiction of the Commodi- 
ty Futures Trading Commission as set forth 
in the Commodity Exchange Act over trad- 
ing of commodity futures contracts and op- 
tions on such contracts involving govern- 
ment securities. 

TITLE IV—EFFECTIVE DATES 
SEC. 401. GENERAL EFFECTIVE DATES. 

Except as provided in section 402, this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall 
take effect 270 days after the date of enact- 
ment of this Act. 

SEC. 402. EFFECTIVE DATE AND REQUIREMENTS FOR 
REGULATIONS. 

Notwithstanding section 401, the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury and each appropriate 
regulatory agency shall, within 120 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, pub- 
lish for notice and public comment such reg- 
ulations as are initially required to imple- 
ment this Act, which regulations shall 
become effective as temporary regulations 
210 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act and as final regulations not later than 
270 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act. 

SEC. 403. REGISTRATION DATE. 

No person may continue to act as a gov- 
ernment securities broker or government se- 
curities dealer after 270 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act unless such person 
has been registered or has provided notice to 
the Commission or the appropriate regula- 
tory agency as required by the amendment 
made by section 101 of this Act. 

@ Mr. GARN. Mr. President, for sever- 
al years, savings institutions have been 
attempting to resolve a serious prob- 
lem that is interfering with their abili- 
ty to take full advantage of certain 
new powers they have been granted. 
Specifically, they have been impeded 
in their efforts to issue signature guar- 
antees because of the unwillingness of 
stock transfer agents to accept signa- 
ture guarantees from thrifts. There is 
no basis for this refusal, which contin- 
ues notwithstanding advice from the 
SEC's Division of Market Regulation 
that discrimination among signature 


guarantors solely by reference to the 





29908 


type of financial institutions issuing 
the guarantee appears to be inconsist- 
ent with State and Federal law. Al- 
though the SEC has attempted to re- 
solve this situation on a voluntary 
basis, insufficient progress has been 
made. 

Accordingly, the committee expects 
the SEC to move promptly to issue 
regulations to remedy this situation. 
These regulations should require that 
transfer agents apply the same reason- 
able standards to all institutions, in- 
cluding securities exchanges, banks, 
savings institutions, credit unions and 
similar institutions, in evaluating the 
acceptability of their signature guar- 
antees. Regulatory agencies such as 
the SEC should exercise their regula- 
tory authority to prevent the dispar- 
ate treatment of thrift institutions 
with regard to signature guarantees. 

Because savings institutions histori- 
cally have been overwhelmingly 
mutual in form, their involvement 
with the SEC over the years has been 
minimal. This situation has been 
changing, however, as more and more 
thrifts have converted to stock char- 
ters in order to improve their capital 
positions, and as the industry has 
become more active in the capital mar- 
kets generally. Although the Federal 
Home Loan Bank Board has primary 
responsibility for the securities regula- 
tion of thrifts, that agency basically 
follows SEC rules and procedures, and 
the SEC has direct securities jurisdic- 
tion over savings and loan holding 


companies. Nevertheless, the level of 
familiarity between the SEC and 
thrift institutions could be increased. 


Given the _ well-known finanical 
problems of the savings institution in- 
dustry, and significance of this indus- 
try for the Government and the 
public, it is extremely important that 
the SEC be cognizant of the impact of 
its actions on thrift institutions. While 
such institutions can participate in the 
public comment process associated 
with SEC rulemaking proceedings, we 
believe the need for increasing the 
degree of industry-agency understand- 
ing is sufficiently great to warrant cre- 
ation by the SEC of a Savings Institu- 
tions Advisory Committee, and it is 
our expectation that the agency will 
act very promptly to establish one. 

The Committee would consist of 
knowledgeable industry representa- 
tives who would meet with the SEC 
Chairman and Commissioners, as well 
as key SEC staff, on a regular basis to 
discuss matters of joint interest and 
importance, and should be large 
enough to assure diversity of member- 
ship—there should be at least two 
members from each of the twelve Fed- 
eral Home Loan Bank districts. 

It should be noted that the Federal 
Reserve Board for several years has 
had a body of this kind in place—the 
Thrift Industry Advisory Committee— 
and it has been very successful as a 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


device for enhancing the quality of in- 
dustry-agency communication.e 

@ Mr. D'AMATO. I would like to 
engage now in a brief colloquy with 
Senator Garn to establish legislative 
history on a point that has been of 
concern to me for some time. Specifi- 
cally, I would like to establish that it 
is the sense of the Senate that it is ex- 
tremely important given the problems 
besetting the thrift industry and that 
industry’s increasing involvement with 
the SEC, that the SEC take steps to 
create a Savings Institutions Advisory 
Committee. 

@ Mr. GARN. I agree that such com- 
mittee would do much in raising the 
level of familiarity between the SEC 
and the thrift industry, to the benefit 
of both as well as of the general 
public. The Federal Reserve Board es- 
tablished a body of this sort several 
years ago, the Thrift Industry Adviso- 
ry Committee, which has been very 
successful as a device for improving 
the quality of industry-agency commu- 
nications. Senator D'Amato, could you 
give us some idea of how the commit- 
tee you envision would operate? 

e@ Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly, the com- 
mittee would consist of knowledgeable 
thrift industry representatives who 
would meet with the SEC Chairman 
and Commissioners, as well as key 
SEC staff, on a regular basis to discuss 
matters of joint interest and impor- 
tance. The committee should be large 
enough to assure diversity of member- 
ship, with at least two members from 
each of the 12 Federal Home Loan 
Bank districts. 

@ Mr. GARN. The idea of a committee 
is an excellent one. The Senate antici- 
pates that the SEC should move very 
promptly to establish the Savings In- 
stitutions Advisory Committee in ac- 
cordance with your description. 

@ Mr. D'AMATO. I would like at this 
time to engage in a colloquy with Sen- 
ator Garwn to establish legislative his- 
tory on a point of considerable con- 
cern to me. Specifically, I would like to 
ask the Senator whether in his view 
adequate progress has been made in 
resolving the problem created by the 
unwillingness of stock transfer agents 
to accept savings institutions’ signa- 
ture guarantees. 

@ Mr. GARN. The answer is no. De- 
spite the efforts of the SEC to achieve 
a voluntary end to this disparate treat- 
ment, very little improvement has oc- 
curred. There is simply no basis for 
the refusal of stock transfer agents to 
accept thrifts’ signature guarantees, 
and I believe the time has come for 
the SEC to solve the problem by regu- 
lation. 

@ Mr. D'AMATO. I agree with the 
Senator. The SEC should use its au- 
thority to issue regulations that will 
assure that transfer agents apply the 
same reasonable standards to all insti- 
tutions, including securities ex- 
changes, banks, savings institutions, 


October 9, 1986 


credit unions, and similar institutions, 
in evaluating the acceptability of their 
signature guarantees. 

@ Mr. GARN. The Senator is correct. 
This completely reflects the sense of 
the Senate on this issue, in my opin- 
ion. Regulatory agencies such as the 
SEC should use their regulatory au- 
thority to remedy the current inequi- 
ties that exist with regard to the ac- 
ceptability of signature guarantees.e@ 

@ Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise 
to urge my colleagues to support the 
Government Securities Act of 1986. 
Passage of this legislation is the culmi- 
nation of a process that began over a 
year ago. Each provision of the bill 
has been carefully crafted because this 
legislation will have a profound effect 
on the manner in which the Depart- 
ment of the Treasury finances and 
manages the Federal debt. The bill 
that we enact today will ensure that 
the market in U.S. Government securi- 
ties, the largest securities market in 
the world, will remain the safest, the 
most efficient, stable, and liquid secu- 
rities market in the world. Maintain- 
ing investor confidence and the integ- 
rity of the market in these securities is 
of paramount importance to the effec- 
tive, low-cost financing of the national 
debt. 

The importance of this legislation 
cannot be underestimated. Given the 
depth and breadth of the Government 
securities market, the Government Se- 
curities Act of 1986 is perhaps the 
most important Securities legislation 
since the enactment of the Securities 
Act of 1933—Securities Act—and the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934—Ex- 
change Act. The Government Securi- 
ties Act of 1986 would provide, 
through an amendment to the Ex- 
change Act, a comprehensive and co- 
ordinated pattern for the regulation of 
brokers, dealers, and financial institu- 
tions trading Government securities. 
The lack of Federal regulation of the 
conduct of Government securities pro- 
fessionals and the trading market for 
Government securities has encouraged 
the proliferation of fraudulent prac- 
tices resulting in substantial losses to 
investors. Such a result presents a seri- 
ous threat to the integrity of the cap- 
ital-raising system upon which the 
U.S. Government relies to finance the 
Federal debt and to conduct monetary 
policy. 

The market in U.S. Government se- 
curities is expanding, increasingly 
active, in recent years increasing vola- 
tile and, ironically, the least regulated 
securities market in this country. The 
expansion and volatility of the market 
has been driven by the amount of Fed- 
eral debt to be financed, both new 
debt resulting from Government defi- 
cits and old debt that must be refi- 
nanced. The absence of a coordinated 
regulatory structure for this market 
generally, and specifically for unregis- 





October 9, 1986 


tered brokers and dealers, was cited in 
testimony before the Securities Sub- 
committee as a major factor in the 
recent failures of Government securi- 
ties dealers. This legislation was neces- 
sitated by the failures of several un- 
registered Government securities deal- 
ers with losses to investors in exess of 
$1 billion. 

Between July 1975 and April 1985, 
several failures of unregistered Gov- 
ernment securities dealers have oc- 
curred. The failures include Financial 
Corp. of Kansas City, MO, 1975; Win- 
ters Government Securities, 1977; 
Drysdale Government Securities, 1982; 
Lombard-Wall, 1982; Comark, 1982; 
Lion Capital Group, Inc., 1984; and 
most recently E.S.M. Government Se- 
eurities, Inc. and Bevill, Bresler & 
Schulman Asset Management Corp., 
1985. All of the dealer failures oc- 
curred in firms outside of the Federal 
regulatory structure. 

After extensive hearings that ad- 
dressed the appropriate form of regu- 
lation of the Government securities 
markets, two legislative proposals—S. 
936 and S. 1416—were introduced in 
the Senate. After these hearings and 
many hours of exhaustive study, 
debate, and analysis of these proposals 
by my colleagues, committee staff and 
representatives of the Federal regula- 
tory agencies and Government securi- 
ties industry, substantial amendments 
were made to S. 1416 by the time it 
was considered by the Senate Commit- 
tee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs. 

As a result of the deliberations on 
this issue, the committee determined 
that legislation regulating the Govern- 
ment securities market must accom- 
plish three purposes: First, the legisla- 
tion should contain certain safeguards 
to maintain a fair and orderly market 
in Government securities; second, the 
regulation of the Government securi- 
ties market should not adversely 
affect the liquidity and efficiency of 
the market; and third, the legislation 
should, where possible, rely upon ex- 
isting regulation, since many Govern- 
ment securities brokers and dealers 
are already subject to some of Federal 
regulation. The legislation which we 
consider today is specifically designed 
to satisfy these requirements and to 
protect the public interest in the Gov- 
ernment securities market. Because 
the legislation addresses identified 
weaknesses in the Government securi- 
ties market, it would not result in ex- 
cessive regulation that would impair 
the efficient operation of the market, 
increase the costs of financing the 
Federal debt or compromise the execu- 
tion of domestic monetary policy. 

On August 13, 1986, S. 1416—con- 
taining the committee amendment— 
was unanimously reported from the 
Banking Committee. The substance of 
S. 1416 was offered and accepted by 
the Senate as an amendment to H.R. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


2032. Therefore, the language of S. 
1416 as reported by the Senate Bank- 
ing Committee was offered and passed 
as an amendment which struck the 
language of H.R. 2032 as passed by the 
House on September 17, 1986. H.R. 
2032, containing the Senate amend- 
ment subsequently passed the Senate 
on September 16, 1986. The legislation 
that we consider this morning is, with 
a few modifications, almost identical 
to the bill that was passed by the 
Senate on September 16, 1986. These 
few modifications to H.R. 2032 as 
passed by the Senate are reflected in 
an amendment which was passed by 
the House under House Resolution 547 
on October 6, 1986. House Resolution 
546 provided for the concurrence of 
the House to amendments of the 
Senate to H.R. 2032 with an amend- 
ment. 

Without providing an exhaustive ex- 
planation of the House amendment 
before the Senate, I think an explana- 
tion of some of the most important 
provisions of H.R. 2032, in its present 
form, is required. 

In its present form the legislation 
adds a new section to the Exchange 
Act, section 15C, and provides for vari- 
ous conforming amendments to the 
Exchange Act, the Investment Compa- 
ny Act of 1940, and the Investment 
Advisers Act of 1940. The legislation 
requires currently unregulated Gov- 
ernment securities brokers and dealers 
to register with the Commission and 
other Government securities brokers 
and dealers, specifically registered bro- 
kers and dealers and financial institu- 
tions, to file a notice with their appro- 
priate regulatory agencies. 

In addition, the bill grants specific 
rulemaking authority to the Secretary 
of the Treasury to adopt rules regard- 
ing: financial responsibility including 
capital adequacy, custody and use of 
customers’ securities, and the transfer 
and control of Government securities 
in repurchase transactions; financial 
statements; and recordkeeping exemp- 
tions from registration. The enforce- 
ment of these rules would be the re- 
sponsibility of the Commission as to 
currently registered brokers and deal- 
ers and those Government securities 
brokers and dealers required to regis- 
ter with the Commission under the 
bill. The enforcement of the rules pro- 
mulgated by the Secretary would be 
the responsibility of other appropriate 
regulatory agencies as to banks and 
other institutions specified in the bill. 

Government securities would contin- 
ue to be treated as exempted securities 
for purposes of the Exchange Act 
except for section 17A of the Ex- 
change Act. Therefore, a registered se- 
curities association would have no new 
authority with respect to Government 
securities brokers, Government securi- 
ties dealers, or Government securities 
transactions except as_ specifically 


29909 


authorized in the bill or as already 
exists under current law. 

The legislation invests the Secretary 
with the rulemaking authority due to 
the expertise of the Treasury in these 
markets and to ensure that the rules 
will accomplish the purposes of the 
bill. I am confident that the Secretary 
possesses the exquisite expertise and 
the commitment to pursue fully and 
faithfully the rulemaking authority 
granted in this legislation. 

Since rulemaking authority is vested 
in the Secretary, the establishment of 
a new self-regulatory organization as 
required by the original House bill be- 
comes unnecessary. Moreover, the leg- 
islation affords significant advantages 
over granting rulemaking authority to 
an existing self-regulatory organiza- 
tion such as the Municipal Securities 
Rulemaking Board [MSRB]. The cre- 
ation of a new self-regulatory organi- 
zation would fail to take advantage of 
existing regulatory structures and 
would be unnecessarily duplicative and 
expensive. To grant rulemaking au- 
thority to the MSRB, or a self-regula- 
tory organization created specifically 
to regulate the Government securities 
market, would be unwarranted. 

The legislation would grant to the 
Secretary specific rulemaking author- 
ity in the areas of financial responsi- 
bility and related practices, financial 
statements, recordkeeping, and exemp- 
tions from registration. Rulemaking 
authority in additional areas does not 
appear to be necessary to address the 
weaknesses that have been identified 
in the Government securities market. 
The Secretary, in exercising rulemak- 
ing authority under the bill, will ac- 
count for the differences between 
types of transactions engaged in by 
brokers or dealers participating solely 
in the markets for securities of Gov- 
ernment agencies and Government- 
sponsored corporations and transac- 
tions of brokers or dealers participat- 
ing in the general market in Govern- 
ment securities. 

In adopting rules under section 15C, 
the Secretary must consider the ade- 
quacy of rules already applicable to 
Government securities brokers and 
Government securities dealers. The 
provisions of section 15C(a)(4) togeth- 
er with section 15C(b)(3) authorize the 
Secretary to exempt Government se- 
curities brokers or dealers from the 
rules under section 15C in areas where 
such brokers or dealers already are 
adequately regulated. As a result, the 
Secretary should be able to avoid ap- 
plying duplicative and unnecessarily 
costly requirements to brokers and 
dealers registered under section 15 of 
the Exchange Act and financial insti- 
tutions, which are already subject to 
Federal regulations in areas covered 
by section 15C(b)(1). This exemptive 
authority is intended to avoid, to the 
maximum extent consistent with 





29910 


achieving the objectives of the bill, 
subjecting registered broker-dealers 
and financial institutions to conflict- 
ing or unnecessary regulation in the 
areas of financial responsibility or rec- 
ordkeeping. 

To preserve flexibility and to guard 
against the negative effects on the ef- 
ficiency and liquidity of the govern- 
ment securities markets, the Secretary 
would also be empowered to exempt 
any Government securities broker or 
dealer or class of Government securi- 
ties broker or dealer from registration 
or any rules or regulations that the 
Secretary promulgates pursuant to 
this legislation. 

The business relationship the Feder- 
al Reserve Bank of New York has with 
primary dealers—and those seeking to 
become primary dealers—is protected 
by this legislation. 

Although no formal conference was 
convened to reconcile the differences 
between H.R. 2032 as passed by the 
House and H.R. 2032 containing the 
Senate amendment—which passed the 
Senate on September 16, 1986—staffs 
from both bodies conducted extensive 
negotiations and ultimately reconciled 
the differences between the two bills. 
No formal conference was required 
due to the acceptance of most of the 
Senate amendments to H.R. 2032. I 
thank my colleagues in the Senate and 
the House, especially Congressman 
DrnceE.tt, for their efforts to resolve 
their differences in such an expedi- 
tious and considerate manner. 

Since no formal conference met, 
thereby obviating the need for a con- 
ference report, an explanation of 
those few House amendments made in 
to the Government Securities Act, as 
passed by the Senate, is required. The 
statement of the chairman and rank- 
ing minority member of the Banking 
Committee and the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Secu- 
rities Subcommittee which appears at 
the end of my remarks identifies those 
few provisions of the Government Se- 
curities Act, as passed by the Senate, 
which were amended by the House in 
accordance with House Resolution 
547. As detailed in the statement, 
these amended provisions affect: First, 
the duration of the Secretary’s rule- 
making authority; second, the scope of 
the rulemaking authority; third, the 
registration requirements for primary 
dealers; fourth, the registration re- 
quirements for clearing agencies; and 
fifth, inclusion of a study regarding 
the blind broker trading system that 
was contained in H.R. 2032 as passed 
by the House on September 17, 1986. 
For those provisions unique to the 
Senate bill that were not modified by 
the House amendment in accordance 
with House Resolution 574, the Senate 
report—Report 99-426—which accom- 
panied S. 1416 explains those provi- 
sions of the Government Securities 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Act as passed by the Senate on Sep- 
tember 16, 1986. 

While the statement that appears at 
the conclusion of my remarks is in- 
tended to provide guidance regarding 
the House amendment to the bill ap- 
proved by the Senate on September 
16, 1986, I would like to explain the 
significance of a few of these amend- 
ments to the bill as reported by the 
Senate. Briefly, I would like to address 
five points. 

First, the provision in the legislation 
addressing the registration of clearing 
agencies is not designed to single out 
one specific company that would be re- 
quired to register under section 17A of 
the Exchange Act. In providing for the 
applicability of the registration and 
other requirements of section 17A of 
the Securities Exchange Act to clear- 
ing agencies for Government securi- 
ties, the Commission has broad au- 
thority under section 17A—as well as 
under section 23—to take into account 
the distinctions between membership 
clearing agencies and _ proprietary 
clearing agencies. In the report accom- 
panying S. 249, the Securities Act 
Amendments of 1975, the legislation 
which first provided for the regulation 
of clearing agencies, the committee 
stated—at pages 124-125—that: 

The rules of the clearing agency must 
assure fair representation of its sharehold- 
ers (or members) and participants in the de- 
cision making process of the clearing 
agency. (17A(bx3)c)) The reference to 
shareholders or members makes it clear 
that the bill establishes no norm as to 
whether clearing agencies should or should 
not be operated for profit. The bill makes 
no attempt to set up particular standards of 
representation or participation. Rather, it 
provides that the Commission must assure 
itself that the rules of the clearing agency 
regarding the manner in which decisions are 
made give fair voice to participants as well 
as to shareholders or members. 

In light of the foregoing, the Com- 
mission, under the expanded scope of 
section 17A, should recognize distinc- 
tions between proprietary and mem- 
bership clearing agencies, and exercise 
its discretionary authority to interpret 
and adapt the requirements of section 
17A, where appropriate, to proprietary 
clearing agencies for Government se- 
curities. 

Second, new section 15C(b)(2) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as 
added by the bill, provides certain 
guidelines regarding the nature of the 
rules to be proposed and adopted by 
the Secretary under section 15C(b)(1). 
These guidelines are not intended, 
however, either to expand or to limit 
the scope of the Secretary’s rulemak- 
ing authority under the bill. 

Third, the new definition of “regis- 
tered broker or dealer’’ added by the 
bill would encompass those intrastate 
brokers and dealers—within the defini- 
tions in existing sections 3(a)(4) and 
3(a)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act 
of 1934—who are required to register 


October 9, 1986 


under section 15B but not under sec- 
tion 15 of that act, and is not intended 
to cover banks or separately identifia- 
ble departments or divisions of banks 
that do not fall within the definition 
of broker or dealer. 

Fourth, this bill and the existing 
legal structure, as well as the success- 
ful working relationships between the 
Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board 
and the Government securities indus- 
try, are adequate to deal with such 
issues as when-issued trading and 
margin and other issues—such as oper- 
ational capability—not expressly re- 
ferred to in the areas of rulemaking 
set out in the bill. 

Finally, one provision of H.R. 2032 
as passed by the Senate on September 
16, 1986, section 208, has been deleted 
from the legislation presently pending 
before the U.S. Senate. Section 208, 
which was the subject of much discus- 
sion subsequent to its passage by the 
Senate, would have provided that debt 
securities guaranteed by an insurance 
policy of the highest rating would 
have been exempt from the registra- 
tion requirements of the Securities 
Act of 1933. This provision was not in- 
tended to exempt such securities from 
any other provisions of the securities 
laws. 

Section 208 arose from the competi- 
tive inequities created by the ability of 
banks, under section 3(a)(2) of the Se- 
curities Act of 1933, to issue letters of 
credit assuring payment to investors of 
interest and principal of corporate 
debt instruments. Because a bank 
letter of credit protects security hold- 
ers from default by the bond’s issuer, 
the Securities Act of 1933 exempts 
those bonds from registration. Howev- 
er, securities covered by insurance 
policies do not receive the same treat- 
ment. Securities guaranteed by an in- 
surance policy would not qualify for 
an exemption from registration under 
section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 
1933 since the promise of indemnifica- 
tion comes from an insurance compa- 
ny and not a bank. The Securities 
Act’s exemptive provisions do not 
apply to securities backed by insur- 
ance policies and, therefore, issuers 
have to register those securities with 
the SEC. 

Since the Comptroller of the Cur- 
rency has determined that guarantees 
provided by bank letters of credit and 
insurance policies are functional 
equivalents, there is much merit to the 
argument that securities covered by 
insurance policies be treated in the 
same manner as securities guaranteed 
by bank letters of credit. Like bank 
letters of credit, insurance policies 
would offer similar protections to pur- 
chasers of corporate debt by insuring 
payments of interest and principal. 
However, the Securities Act’s distinc- 
tion between bank and insurance com- 
pany guarantees makes it virtually im- 





October 9, 1986 


possible for insurance companies to 
provide cost-effective coverage to issu- 
ers and raises important competitive 
issues. 

Section 208 was deleted from the 
legislation because it was a legislative 
proposal that required further analy- 
sis and refinement. Such a detailed ex- 
amination was not possible during the 
waning days of the 99th Congress. Al- 
though the concept embodied in sec- 
tion 208 was worthwhile, time limita- 
tions prevented the formulation of leg- 
islative language that would permit se- 
curities guaranteed by an insurance 
policy of the highest rating to be 
treated in the same manner, with 
regard to the registration require- 
ments of the Securities Act of 1933, as 
securities guaranteed by a bank letter 
of credit. 

While the language of section 208 
may have been imprecise, it caused the 
Congress and the SEC to focus upon 
the competitive inequities that pres- 
ently exist under the Securities Act of 
1933 between securities guaranteed by 
insurance policies and securities guar- 
anteed by a bank letter of credit. Real- 
izing the need for more study of this 
proposal, as chairman of the Securi- 
ties Subcommittee, I asked the SEC to 
make recommendations on legislative 
proposals which would improve upon 
section 208 and would solve the com- 
petitive inequities created by the Secu- 
rities Act while maintaining investor 
protection. The SEC should be com- 
mended for its expeditious response to 
the subcommittee’s inquiry. There- 
fore, I would like to place into the 
Recorp the SEC’s response to the sub- 
committee’s inquiry to acknowledge 
the Commission's efforts. 

Further, section 105 of the bill pend- 
ing before us directs the SEC to con- 
duct a study of section 3(a)(2) of the 
Securities Act of 1933 which exempts 
from registration securities that are 
guaranteed by banks. The scope and 
purpose of this study are articulated 
in section. 105 of the bill. It is incum- 
bent upon the Banking Committee, 
and specifically the Securities Sub- 
committee, to hold hearings to deter- 
mine whether the current statutory 
scheme is adequate or whether section 
3(a)(2) requires amendment to en- 
hance competition among the provid- 
ers of financial services in a manner 
consistent with the protection of in- 
vestors and the public. 

The statement describing the differ- 
ences between H.R. 2032 as amended 
by the Senate on September 16, 1986, 
and the concurrence of the House, 
with an amendment to the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 2032 provided by 
House Resolution 547, which I re- 
ferred to earlier in my remarks is pro- 
vided below. Again, I urge my col- 
leagues to support this legislation be- 
cause it would provide comprehensive 
regulation of Government securities 
brokers and Government securities 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


dealers and would not impair the effi- 
ciency or liquidity of the market in 
Government securities. 
The material follows: 
H.R. 2032, THE GOVERNMENT SECURITIES ACT 
or 1986 
On September 17, 1985, the House passed 
H.R. 2032, the Government Securities Act 
of 1985, and, on September 16, 1986, the 
Senate passed the bill with an amendment. 
On October 6, 1986, the House passed House 
Resolution 574 providing for the concur- 
rence of the House to amendments of the 
Senate to the bill (H.R. 2032) with an 
amendment. In lieu of a conference report, 
this floor statement represents the views of 
the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs, and the chairman and rank- 
ing minority member of the Subcommittee 
on Securities and is intended to serve as the 
legislative history, along with S. Rpt. 99-426 
(September 3, 1986) and CONGRESSIONAL 
Recorp (September 16, 1986) at S12699- 
S12706 and H. Rpt, 99-258 (September 9, 
1985) and CONGRESSIONAL Recorp (Septem- 
ber 17, 1985) at H7479-H7490. 
ANALYSIS OF MAJOR PROVISIONS 


The Rulemaker.—The amendment grants 
specific rulemaking authority to the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury (Secretary) and pro- 
vides that the authority of the Secretary to 
issue orders and to propose and adopt rules 
shall terminate on October 1, 1991. All 
orders and rules which have been issued or 
adopted by the Secretary and which are in 
effect on the sunset date shall continue in 
effect according to their terms. 

It is our intent and belief that, should 
Congress fail to renew or transfer this au- 
thority by October 1, 1991, the Secretary 
has the authority to respond to emergency 
situations and make technical corrections 
beyond October 1, 1991, pursuant to the 
Secretary’s authority to interpret such 
rules. The government securities market is 
vital to the financing of the national debt 
and the implementation of monetary policy. 
For this reason, we believe that responsible 
regulation of this market will be a continu- 
ing necessity. 

In this regard, the amendment requires 
certain studies and recommendations with 
respect to extension of the rulemaking au- 
thority of the Department of Treasury 
(Treasury). The Comptroller General is au- 
thorized and directed to conduct a study of 
the regulation of government securities bro- 
kers and government securities dealers and 
the effectiveness of the amendments made 
by the legislation, and submit a report, not 
later than March 31, 1990, with recommen- 
dations with respect to, among other things, 
the extension of the Secretary’s authority. 

The Secretary, together with the Securi- 
ties and Exchange Commission (SEC) and 
the Board of Governors of the Federal Re- 
serve System (Federal Reserve Board) are 
charged to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
rules promulgated and submit to Congress, 
not later than October 1, 1990, their recom- 
mendation with respect to, among other 
things, the extension of the Secretary's au- 
thority. Although the Committee expects 
the Task Force recommendation required 
by section 103 to reflect a consensus, the 
Committee understands that such unanimi- 
ty, while desirable, is not always attainable. 
Therefore, the recommendation, if appro- 
priate, will contain any divergent viewpoints 
of the Task Force participants. 

These studies and recommendations, 
along with effective oversight and hearings 


29911 


over the intervening five years, will form 
the basis for a fair and timely evaluation of 
the extension or transfer of the Secretary's 
authority in order to provide the govern- 
ment securities markets with certainty and 
continuity. 

The Rules.—The amendment maintains 
the core rulemaking areas agreed to by the 
House and Senate versions of the bill. These 
include: financial responsibility, record- 
keeping and financial statement rules, in- 
cluding the requirement to file annually or 
more frequently a balance sheet and income 
statement certified by an independent 
public accountant. The amendment drops 
specific reference to rulemaking authority 
relating to when-issued trading in govern- 
ment securities since the Secretary current- 
ly possesses that authority under 31 USC 
subsection 3121. Furthermore, we believe 
that our concerns about operational capabil- 
ity and margin can be addressed through 
capital adequacy requirements and early 
warning rules. 

The amendment incorporates the House 
positive and negative standards and prohibi- 
tions, along with two Senate requirements, 
for Treasury rulemaking, including author- 
ity to classify, a requirement to consult with 
the SEC and the Federal Reserve Board, 
and a requirement that the rules not be de- 
signed to permit unfair discrimination be- 
tween customers, issuers, government secu- 
rities brokers or government securities deal- 
ers, or to impose any unnecessary or inap- 
propriate burden on competition. Further, 
the rules, as specified under the rulemaking 
authority under 15C(b)(2), will be designed 
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts 
and practices. 

In order to avoid duplicative rulemaking, 
the amendment also requires the Secretary 
to consider the sufficiency and appropriate- 
ness of existing laws and rules of appropri- 
ate regulatory agencies which, to varying 
degrees, exercise some existing authority 
over the entities affected by this legislation. 
For example, the SEC has promulgated ex- 
tensive net capital and other related rules 
with respect to currently registered brokers 
and dealers that will probably be sufficient 
for government securities brokers and gov- 
ernment securities dealers that are current- 
ly registered with the SEC. 

Registration.—_The amendment requires 
unregulated government securities brokers 
and government securities dealers to regis- 
ter with the SEC. The amendment requires 
currently registered brokers and dealers and 
financial institutions to file a notice with 
their appropriate regulatory agencies. The 
Federal Reserve Board shall, after consulta- 
tion with the appropriate regulatory agen- 
cies, prescribe a common notice form for fi- 
nancial institutions in order to ensure the 
necessary and appropriate consistency in 
form and content. The amendment does not 
create an exemption for the so-called pri- 
mary dealers. Although the Secretary does 
have authority to exempt and to develop ap- 
propriate classifications of registrants, pri- 
mary dealer status alone should not be a 
sufficient basis for such a classification. 

Clearing Agencies.—The amendment in- 
cludes the House provision to require clear- 
ing agencies, as defined in Section 3(a)(23) 
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to 
register with the SEC pursuant to Section 
17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 
Under this amendment, for example, the 
MBS Clearing Corporation, the proposed 
Federal National Mortgage Association 
clearing corporation and the subsidiary es- 
tablished by Security Pacific Corporation to 





29912 


provide clearing functions with respect to 
government securities options would be re- 
quired to register with the SEC pursuant to 
Section 17A. We believe that this treatment 
is consistent with the general purpose of 
H.R. 2032 to ensure that adequate public 
safeguards exist for transactions in govern- 
ment securities. 

Studies. —The amendment retains the 
House provision for a study of the current 
blind broker trading system in the second- 
ary market for government securities and a 
report to the Congress by the Comptroller 
General. It is essential that Congress have 
sufficient information available to it to fa- 
cilitate an evaluation of whether quotations 
for such securities and the services of gov- 
ernment securities brokers are available on 
terms which are consistent with the Ex- 
change Act and the public policy goals of 
H.R. 2032. 

The amendment also includes a require- 
ment that the SEC study the use of the ex- 
emption contained in section 3(a)(2) of the 
Securities Act of 1933 for securities guaran- 
teed by banks, and the use of insurance poli- 
cies to guarantee securities in competition 
with banks. We are concerned about broad 
application of the principle of national 
treatment under the International Banking 
Act and recent administrative interpreta- 
tions which raise competitive and investor 
protection questions as regards the applica- 
bility of the federal securities laws to for- 
eign and domestic banks and domestic fi- 
nancial guarantee insurance companies. We 
anticipate that at least one public hearing 
shall be held during the course of conduct- 
ing the study and that the views of the De- 
partment of State and insurance and bank- 
ing industry representatives will be solicited. 
It is our intent that there be Congressional 
hearings as soon as practicable after receipt 
of the SEC’s report. 


U.S. SECURITIES AND 
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 
Washington, DC, October 6, 1986. 

Hon. ALronse M. D'Amato, 

Chairman, Securities Subcommittee, Com- 
mittee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DeaR CHAIRMAN D'Amato: With reference 
to Section 208 of the Government Securities 
Act of 1986, this letter summarizes four al- 
ternative approaches, including revised lan- 
guage concerning the proposed amendment 
that you provided on October Ist. 

Section 208 and the October 1 proposed 
amendment address the competitive dispari- 
ties between bank and insurance company 
guarantees. On October 2, the Commission 
carefully reviewed the October 1 proposed 
amendment and various alternatives. The 
Commission recognized that repeal of the 
bank exemption from registration under 
Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act would 
effectively resolve the competitive disparity 
issue. 

If Congress does not repeal the bank ex- 
emption, the Commission can revisit the 
question of whether bank letters of credit 
should continue to be treated as ‘“guaran- 
tees” for purposes of the Section 3(a)(2) ex- 
emptions (i.e., whether securities backed by 
bank letters of credit should be exempt 
from the Securities Act). The competitive 
disparity might be alleviated adminstrative- 
ly by the Commission reinterpreting the 
word “guaranteed” as it appears in Section 
3(a)(2) to exclude bank letters of credit. 

If, however, Congress decides to enact leg- 
islation that would exempt securities guar- 
anteed by insurance companies, Congress 
could consider: (a) authorizing the Commis- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


sion to exempt by rule from the registration 
requirements securities guaranteed by in- 
surance; or (b) enacting the enclosed revi- 
sion of the October 1 proposed amendment. 


COMPETITIVE DISPARITY BETWEEN BANKS AND 
INSURANCE COMPANIES 


Under Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act 
of 1933, any security guaranteed by a bank 
is exempt from registration. Section 3(a)(8) 
exempts insurance policies issued by state- 
regulated insurers, but not securities guar- 
anteed by insurance policies. As a result, 
while an issuer may choose to enhance the 
credit rating of its securities through either 
bank or insurance guarantees, bank guaran- 
tees also exempt the securities from Securi- 
ties Act registration. Insurance guarantees 
do not. 

Vice President Bush’s Task Group on Reg- 
ulation of Financial Services included the 
heads of all the bank and other federal 
agencies that regulate financial services. 
The Task Group unanimously recommend- 
ed consolidating within the SEC the securi- 
ties registration and reporting requirements 
of banks and thrifts. This recommendation 
is expected to be formally transmitted to 
Congress in the near future. The Commis- 
sion supports this recommendation. 


ALTERNATIVES 


The competitive disparities between banks 
and other guarantors of securities might be 
addressed in four ways. 

First, Congress could repeal the bank ex- 
emption under Section 3(a)(2) of the Securi- 
ties Act. 

Second, without legislation, the Commis- 
sion could address the disparities through 
regulatory action. The Commission has in- 
terpreted the Section 3(a)(2) exemption to 
include securities backed by bank letters of 
credit. However, federal banking law, and 
the banking laws of many states, preclude 
banks from guaranteeing securities of other 
parties. The Commission, in consultation 
with the bank regulatory authorities and 
through the rulemaking process, can recon- 
sider whether bank letters of credit should 
be treated as guarantees for Section 3(a)(2) 
exemptive purposes. 

Third, the competitive disparity can be ad- 
dressed legislatively by granting the Com- 
mission rulemaking authority to exempt se- 
curities guaranteed by insurance companies 
from the registration requirements of the 
Securities Act. This would provide flexibil- 
ity by permitting the Commission to adapt 
exemptions to new financial instruments as 
the markets evolve. A draft of this legisla- 
tive approach is set forth under Tab A. 

Fourth, Congress could create an insur- 
ance guarantee exemption. This is the ap- 
proach reflected in Section 208 and in the 
October 1 proposed amendment. Both of 
these formulations raise Securities Act ques- 
tions which the Commission has attempted 
to resolve in the revised language set forth 
under Tab B. The revised language ampli- 
fies and also makes explicit implicit provi- 
sions of the October 1 proposed amend- 
ment. It makes it clear that the guaranteed 
security is subject to the antifraud provi- 
sions of the securities laws; that it must be a 
debt instrument rated in the highest catego- 
ry by at least two nationally recognized sta- 
tistical ratings organizations, pursuant to 
such rules and regulations as the Commis- 
sion may adopt in the public interest or for 
the protection of investors; that there must 
be public information available concerning 
the issuer and the guarantor; and that the 
guarantor is among those responsible for 
the accuracy of the offering documents. 


October 9, 1986 


The Commission has approved sending 
this letter. One Commissioner also requests 
that a potential revision to part (i) of the al- 
ternative set forth at Tab B be forwarded. 
That revision (enclosed at Tab C) would 
subject the insurer, but not the issuer, to 
certain disclosure and filing requirements. 

The views expressed herein do not neces- 
sarily reflect those of the Administration. 
{See Section 111 of Pub. L. No. 93-495, 88 
Stat. 1500 (Oct. 28, 1974).] A copy of this 
correspondence is being sent to the Office 
of Management and Budget. The Commis- 
sion will promptly provide any views re- 
ceived from OMB. 

The Commission's staff and I will be 
pleased to answer any questions and lend 
any assistance you desire. 

Sincerely, 
Joun SHap. 


LEGISLATIVE ALTERNATIVE No. 1—SEC 
RULEMAKING 


Sec. 208. (a) Section 3 of the Securities 
Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77c] is amended by 
adding after paragraph (c) the following 
paragraph: 

“(d) The Commission may, having due 
regard for the public interest and the pro- 
tection of investors, by its rules and regula- 
tions, and subject to such terms and condi- 
tions as may be prescribed therein, add to 
the securities exempted as provided in this 
section, any note, bond, debenture, evidence 
of indebtedness, or collateral trust certifi- 
cate, or any guarantee of any of the forego- 
ing, which is guaranteed as to the payment 
of interest, principal, and premium, if any, 
and any other amounts when due, pursuant 
to an insurance policy described in Section 
3(a)(8) of this title. In any action under Sec- 
tion 12(2) of this title, both the corporation 
issuing the insurance policy and the issuer 
of the guaranteed security shall be included 
among those persons deemed to have sold 
the guaranteed security.” 

(b) Section 304(a)4) of the Trust Inden- 
ture Act of 1939 [15 U.S.C. 77ddd(a)(d)] is 
amended by adding after Subsection (B) the 
following paragraph: 

“(C) any security exempted from the pro- 
visions of the Securities Act of 1933, as 
amended, pursuant to Subsection 3(d).” 


LEGISLATIVE ALTERNATIVE No. 2—STATUTORY 
EXEMPTION 


Sec. 208. (a) Section 3(a) of the Securities 
Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. T7c(a)] is amended by 
striking the period at the end of paragraph 
(11), inserting “; and” in lieu thereof, and 
adding the following thereafter: 

“(12A) Any note, bond, debenture, evi- 
dence of indebtedness, or collateral trust 
certificate, or any guarantee of any of the 
foregoing, which is guaranteed as to the 
payment of interest, principal, and premi- 
um, if any, and any other amounts when 
due, pursuant to an insurance policy de- 
scribed in Section 3(a)(8) of this title; pro- 
vided that: 

(i) both the issuer of such guaranteed se- 
curity and the corporation issuing such in- 
surance policy, for at least the twelve 
months immediately preceding the first 
date upon which such guaranteed security is 
bona fide offered to the public, have timely 
filed all reports (including at least one 
annual report) that would be required by 
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Ex- 
change Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 
780(d)], and 

(ii) the guaranteed security is rated at the 
time of the first bona fide sale of such secu- 
rity in the highest rating category by at 





October 9, 1986 


least two nationally recognized statistical 
rating organizations, pursuant to such rules 
and regulations as the Commission may 
adopt in the public interest or for the pro- 
tection of investors. 

(B) In any action under Section 12(2) of 
this title, both the corporation issuing the 
insurance policy described in Clause (A) of 
this paragraph (12) and the issuer of the 
guaranteed security shall be included 
among those persons deemed to have sold 
the guaranteed security. 

(b) Section 304(a)(4)(A) of the Trust In- 
denture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 
TTddd(a)4)(A)) is amended by deleting “or 
(11)” and inserting in lieu thereof “(11), or 
(12)". 


ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSED 
SEcTION 3(a)(12) Ai) 

(i) the corporation issuing such insurance 

policy has filed with the Commission such 
information as would be required to register 
a security under section 12 of this title and, 
since the filing of such information, such in- 
formation as would be required pursuant to 
section 13 of this title in respect of a securi- 
ty registered pursuant to section 12 of this 
title. 
e@ Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, the 
Government Securities Act of 1986 is 
much needed legislation which I sup- 
port. 

The health and integrity of the 
market for the obligations of the 
United States, its agencies, and related 
entities is important for the protection 
of the savings of our citizens, and an 
important element in the ability of the 
Government to finance its debt at the 
least possible cost of them as taxpay- 
ers. 

The failures of several Government 
securities dealers, which have resulted 
in losses of hundreds of millions of 
dollars to investors since 1977, have 
raised questions about the need for 
some form of oversight, and this legis- 
lation addresses that need. 

Failures, or near failures since 1977 
include Winters Government Securi- 
ties, Inc. (1977), Hibbard & O’Connor 
Government Securities, Inc. (1982), 
Drysdale Government Securities, Inc. 
(1982), Comark, Inc. (1982), Lombard- 
Wall, Inc. (1982), Lion Capital Group, 
Inc. (1984), RTD Securities, Inc. 
(1984), ESM Government Securities, 
Inc. (1985), Bevil Bresler Schulman 
Asset Management Corp. (1985), and 
Parr Securities Corp. (1985). 

These failures occurred for a variety 
of reasons including the fraudulent 
use of customer securities and margin 
payments, improper use of accrued in- 
terest, the transfer of large losses 
from affiliates, as well as normal trad- 
ing reverses. 

A repurchase agreement is an agree- 
ment to sell securities with a commit- 
ment to repurchase the same securi- 
ties from the buyer at a future date. 
Buyers in these transactions generally 
view them as investments carrying 
little risk. In particular, the buyer in a 
repurchase agreement transfers cash 
to a seller and receives collateral—or 
has securities held on its behalf—as 


71-059 O-87-3 (Pt. 21) 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


“collateral,” and the seller agrees to 
repurchase the securities for the cash 
plus interest at a future date. 

In several of the failures since 1977, 
repurchase customers found upon the 
failure to the firm in question that the 
securities subject to repurchase had 
been in other transactions, or that the 
value of securities subject to repur- 
chase had declined. In addition, repur- 
chase customers that had provided 
excess margin lost the difference in 
value between the securities provided 
as margin for these transactions and 
the cash received. Among the more 
prominent of these failures were Drys- 
dale, Lion, ESM, and Bevil Bresler. 

The legislation which we are cur- 
rently considering establishes a re- 
sponsible foundation of regulation by 
requiring the registration of all Gov- 
ernment securities brokers and deal- 
ers; financial responsibility, record- 
keeping, and audit rules; and regula- 
tions directly affecting market safety 
such as collateralization of repurchase 
agreements. This measure also pro- 
vides for parity of treatment between 
primary dealers and other Govern- 
ment securities dealers. 

During the course of the legislative 
process it was agreed that the treasury 
should be the appropriate rulemaker, 
acting in close consultation with the 
Federal reserve, and that the Securi- 
ties and Exchange Commission and 
bank regulators should be the enforce- 
ment agencies. In this regard, the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury together with 
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve 
Board and the Chairman of the Secu- 
rities and Exchange Commission are in 
accord with the responsibilities of 
their respective department and agen- 
cies. 

More specifically, this legislation 
provides that the Secretary of the 
Treasury is invested with the author- 
ity to promulgate rules that are de- 
signed to prevent fraud on the part of 
Government securities brokers and 
dealers. 

In pertinent part, the Secretary’s 
rulemaking authority includes rules 
that: 

(1) “Provide safeguards with respect to 
the financial responsibility and related prac- 
tices of Government securities brokers and 
Government securities dealers including, 
but not limited to, capital adequacy stand- 
ards, the acceptance of custody and use of 
customers’ securities, the carrying and use 
of customers’ deposits or credit balances, 
and the transfer and control of Government 
securities subject to repurchase agreements 
and in similar transactions.” 

(2) “Require every Government securities 
broker and Government securities dealer to 
make reports to and furnish copies of 
records to the appropriate regulatory 
agency, and to file with the appropriate reg- 
ulatory agency, annually or more frequent- 
ly, a balance sheet and income statement 
certified by an independent public account- 
ant, prepared on a calendar or fiscal year 
basis, and such other financial statements 
(which shall, as the secretary specifies, be 


29913 


certified) and information concerning its fi- 
nancial condition as required by such rules.” 

(3) “Require records to be made and kept 
by Government securities brokers and Gov- 
ernment securities dealers and shall specify 
the periods for which such records shall be 
preserved.” 

A great deal of careful consideration 
on the part of a number of Govern- 
ment agencies as well as interested 
parties has gone into the drafting of 
this legislation. The regulatory appa- 
ratus that has been established is de- 
signed to be streamlined and limited in 
nature to address the problems that 
have been identified. I am aware of no 
opposition to this measure, and the 
fact that consensus has been achieved 
is no small tribute to the drafters and 
principal authors. 

In conclusion, I want to acknowledge 
the chairman of the Senate Securities 
Subcommittee, as well as the Chair- 
man of the House Committee on 
Energy and Commerce and the Chair- 
man of the House Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications, Consumer Pro- 
tection and Finance for their work on 
this bill. Senator D’Amato and con- 
gressmen DINGELL and WIRTH are to 
be particularly commended for their 
efforts on this legislation. Their re- 
spective counsel, Tom Lykos, Consuela 
Washington and Marti Cochran are 
also to be highly commended for their 
work on the Government Securities 
Act of 1986. 

I believe that the Senate should 
enact this legislation without further 
delay.e 
@ Mr. HART. Mr. President, we are 
considering legislation of great impor- 
tance to Americans who have invested 
in Government securities. With 
prompt Senate approval, we can pro- 
vide overdue protections for small in- 
vestors whose faith in our financial 
system was badly shaken less than 2 
years ago. 

This bill was written in response to a 
crisis which shook our financial 
system. An $18 trillion market in Gov- 
ernment securities was destabilized 
when unsupervised dealers were found 
to be engaged in fraudulent and 
unsafe activities. A number of unsu- 
pervised dealers went bankrupt. Con- 
sumers lost their savings. Two banks 
in Colorado were threatened with sig- 
nificant losses. The entire banking 
system of Ohio was closed down. Con- 
fidence in our financial system was 
shaken internationaily. 

How did this occur? While broker- 
dealers in corporate and municipal se- 
curities must register with the SEC, 
and bank dealers are supervised by 
bank regulators, dealers who trade in 
Government securities operate totally 
outside the U.S. system of financial 
regulation. This is troubling because 
transactions by Government securities 
dealers now exceed $75 billion per day. 
Without supervision, frauds of the 
kind the system experienced can harm 





29914 


virtually every bank and savings insti- 
tution in this country—nearly all 
invest in these securities. 

The legislation we’re debating today 
will close this gap in financial supervi- 
sion. It requires Government securities 
dealers to register with the SEC. It 
provides enforcement powers to the 
SEC and the bank regulators. The Sec- 
retary of the Treasury will write rules 
relating to capital, financial responsi- 
bility, custody, and use of customers’ 
securities, financial statements, and 
other matters. It is a prudent ap- 
proach that will restore confidence to 
this market. 

I commend Senators CRANSTON, 
PROXMIRE, RIEGLE, and D’Amato for 
bringing this compromise legislation 
before the Senate. 

But I am also proud to support this 
legislation because it was crafted by 
the chairman of the House Subcom- 
mittee on Finance, a fellow Coloradan, 
Congressman Tim WIRTH. Congress- 
man WIRTH has been a leader in the 
House on behalf of a sound and com- 
petitive financial marketplace. He has 
worked tirelessly and with great effec- 
tiveness to see that this gap in our 
system of financial supervision is 
filled. 

On this issue, as with so many 
others, Congressman WIRTH under- 
stands that consumers and the integri- 
ty of the financial system can be pro- 
tected without burdensome regulation. 
Colorado investors, and _ investors 
across this country, owe Congressman 
WIRTH a debt of gratitude for his work 
on this legislation.e 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move 
that the Senate concur in the House 
amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the motion. 

The motion was agreed to. 

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


GREAT BASIN NATIONAL PARK, 
NEVADA 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that 
the Chair lay before the Senate a mes- 
sage from the House of Representa- 
tives on S. 2506. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid 
before the Senate the following mes- 
sage from the House of Representa- 
tives: 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate 
(S. 2506) entitled “An Act to establish a 
Great Basin National Park in the State of 
Nevada, and for other purposes’, do pass 
with the following amendments: 

(1) Page 2, line 5, strike out [fourty-four], 
and insert: seventy-six 

(2) Page 2, line 6, strike out [generally]. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


(3) Page 2, line 8, strike out (20,016, and 
dated April 1986.], and insert 20,017, and 
dated October 1986. 

Mr. HECHT. Mr. President, I am 
very pleased that the Senate is about 
to send to the President this legisla- 
tion to create the Great Basin Nation- 
al Park in Nevada. 

When the Senate passed S. 2506 a 
few weeks ago, I was confident that we 
had done an excellent job designing a 
park that took in the most impressive 
features of the Snake Range, while 
still protecting the mainstays of the 
local economy: mining and ranching. 
Another very important provision in 
the Senate-passed bill involved lan- 
guage protecting water rights in 
Nevada. Finally, the boundaries of the 
bill excluded private land from the 
44,000-acre park. Everyone who has a 
national park in their State under- 
stands the complex, chronic, and emo- 
tionally charged problems that almost 
always occur when private land is put 
inside a national park. 

One of the main reasons I intro- 
duced a modest 44,000-acre bill was 
simply because I expected the Senate 
would have to give some ground on 
the grazing issue, and a bill affecting a 
small number of acres would also limit 
any damage that would result from 
the House weakening our Senate lan- 
guage on grazing. 

I was pleased to see that the House’s 
only change to the Senate bill was in 
the acreage involved. I was also ple- 
sently surprised to see that even with 
the larger acreage, the House was will- 
ing to keep private land outside of the 
park, and accept the Senate language 
with regard to water rights and graz- 
ing. 


With the Senate language left 
intact, I feel comfortable agreeing to 
the House amendment to my bill, 
which expands the Senate bill to 
76,800 acres. 

After I had a chance to review the 
House amendment, I spoke with Inte- 


rior Secretary Hodel, and George 
Dunlop, the Assistant Secretary of Ag- 
riculture for Natural Resources and 
Environment. On the basis of these 
conversations, I am satisfied that the 
administration will support the 
amended Senate bill. 

I must compliment Congressman 
VucanovicH on her defense of the 
Senate language, and Congressman 
Vento for his willingness to be cooper- 
ative and for his efforts to help Con- 
gressman VUCANOVICH pass this bill 
through the House with an amend- 
ment that we in the Senate could 
accept. 

Mr. President, this legislation will 
add a new crown jewel to our Nation’s 
National Parks System. It will give 
Nevada its first national park. It will 
protect forever a beautiful piece of our 
Nation, and it will also protect the 
rights and way of life of the good citi- 
zens of White Pine County, NV. 


October 9, 1986 


Mr. President, I urge the Senate to 
act on this legislation, and bring to a 
close in a fair and gratifying manner 
the 60 years of debate and conflict 
that has revolved around the creation 
of this park. 

Thank you, Mr. President. 

Mr. DOLE. I move that the Senate 
concur in the House amendments. 

The motion was agreed to. 

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


NATIONAL AND COLLEGE 
DISCOVERY DAY 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to the consideration of 
House Joint Resolution 735, ‘National 
SEEK and College Discovery Day” 
just received from the House. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A resolution (H.J. Res. 735) to designate 
December 11, 1986, as “National SEEK and 
College Discovery Day”. 

There being no objection, the Senate 
proceeded to consider the joint resolu- 
tion. 

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the 
importance of education to our Na- 
tion’s youth cannot be overstated. It is 
vital to our future as a nation to offer 
educational opportunities to every stu- 
dent who wishes to pursue them from 
kindergarten through college. 

That is why I rise today to draw at- 
tention to the passage of House Joint 
Resolution 735, designating December 
11, 1986, as “National SEEK and Col- 
lege Discovery Day.’ I introduced the 
companion measure to this resolution 
in the Senate on September 24, 1986, 
in order that the Nation might come 
to know of some very special educa- 
tional programs being conducted at 
the City University of New York. 

The City University of New York 
will always have a special place in my 
life. I attended CUNY for 1 year 
before entering the Navy and though I 
could not afford an expensive private 
college at the time, I was able to expe- 
rience a full and rich college education 
through the City University system. 

CUNY is also partly responsible for 
my being a U.S. Senator. I decided to 
run for the Senate the day the City 
University system was forced to shut 
down because it couldn’t meet its pay- 
roll. Catastrophes such as these had to 
be avoided and if anyone was willing 
to work on the Federal level to pre- 
serve CUNY, I was and still am, 10 
years later, in order that as many stu- 





October 9, 1986 


dents have the same opportunity for a 
quality college education that I had. 

This quality education is indeed still 
offered today and enhanced by such 
programs as SEEK, Search for Eleva- 
tion, Education and Knowledge, and 
College Discovery. Both these pro- 
grams provide specialized remedial in- 
struction and tutorial services to 
nearly 14,000 disadvantaged students a 
year. 

By passing this resolution today, we 
encourage colleges all across the coun- 
try to follow the example of the City 
University of New York and employ 
innovative methods of meeting the 
extra needs of our Nation’s disadvan- 
taged students. I congratulate my col- 
leagues on passing this important reso- 
lution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
joint resolution is before the Senate 
and open to amendment. If there be 
no amendment to be offered, the ques- 
tion is on the third reading and pas- 
sage of the joint resolution. 

The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 735) 
was ordered to a third reading, was 
read the third time, and passed. 

The preamble was agreed to. 

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 


agreed to. 


TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY 
TO CITY OF MESQUITE, NV 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to the consideration of H.R. 
3352, dealing with Mesquite, NV, just 
received from the House. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there objection? 

Mr. BYRD. There is no objection on 
this side. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A bill (H.R. 3352) to transfer certain real 
property to the City of Mesquite, Nevada. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
bill is before the Senate and open to 
amendment. If there be no amend- 
ment to be offered, the question is on 
the third reading and passage of the 
bill. 

The bill (H.R. 3352) was ordered to a 
third reading, was read the third time, 
and passed. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to 
reconsider the vote by which the bill 
Was passed. 

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN LAND 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that 
the Chair lay before the Senate a mes- 
sage from the House of Representa- 
tives on S. 565. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid 
before the Senate the following mes- 
sage from the House of Representa- 
tives: 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate 
(S. 565) entitled “An Act to direct the Secre- 
tary of Agriculture to convey, without con- 
sideration to the Town of Payson, Arizona, 
approximately 30.96 acres of Forest Service 
lands”, do pass with the following amend- 
ments: 

Page 4, strike out lines 11 through 15, in- 
clusive, and insert: 

Sec. 4(a) Notwithstanding any other pro- 
vision of law or regulation, the Secretary of 
the Interior, acting through the Bureau of 
Land Management, is authorized and direct- 
ed to transfer title to certain land in Arizo- 
na in accordance with the terms of the 
Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the 
Disposal of Federal Lands at Lake Havasu 
City among the U.S. Department of the In- 
terior, Bureau of Land Management, the Ar- 
izona State Land Department, the Arizona 
State Parks Board and Lake Havasu City, 
dated November 25, 1985. The transfer of 
title to land along the shoreline of Lake 
Havasu shall be to elevation 450 feet above 
sea level: Provided, That the United States 
shall reserve unto itself the right to main- 
tain the shoreline and to flood up to eleva- 
tion 455 feet above sea level. 

(b) The Secretary of the Interior is hereby 
authorized and directed to process an appli- 
cation by the County of Santa Cruz, Arizo- 
na, pursuant to the Recreation and Public 
Purposes Act for the following described 
lands: Provided, That, the processing shall 
be in accordance with the Memorandum of 
Understanding among the U.S. Forest Serv- 
ice, the Bureau of Land Management and 
Santa Cruz County, dated September 17, 
1986: S%NW*% Section 5, and Lots 10 and 
11, Section 6, T. 24S., R. 14 E., G&SM. Ex- 
ecutive Order No. 1398, dated August 15, 
1911, which temporarily withdrew the above 
described land for use by the U.S. Forest 
Service for administrative purposes, is 
hereby revoked in its entirety, effective on 
the date of patent of the above described 
lands pursuant to the Recreation and Public 
Purposes Act to the County of Santa Cruz, 
Arizona. 

Amend the title so as to read: “An 
Act to provide for the transfer of cer- 
tain lands in the State of Arizona, and 
for other purposes.”’. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move 
that the Senate concur in the House 
amendments with a further amend- 
ment which I send to the desk on 
behalf of Senator McCLure and Sena- 
tor DECONCINI. 

AMENDMENT NO. 3270 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send to 
the desk an amendment on behalf of 
Senator McCiure and Senator DeCon- 
cINI, and ask for its immediate consid- 
eration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dots], for 
Mr. McC.ure and Mr. DeConcrnI, proposes 
an amendment numbered 3270. 


29915 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that further read- 
ing of the amendment be dispensed 
with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 


At the end of the House amendment 
insert the following new section 5 as follows: 

Sec. 5. Section 205 of the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
U.S.C. 1715(c)) is amended— 

(1) in the first sentence of subsection (c) 
by striking out “Lands and interests” and 
inserting in lieu thereof “Except as provided 
in subsection (e), lands and interests”; and 

(2) by adding at the end thereof the fol- 
lowing new subsection: 

“(e) Lands acquired by the Secretary pur- 
suant to this section or section 206 in ex- 
change for lands which were revested in the 
United States pursuant to the provisions of 
the Act of June 9, 1916 (39 Stat. 218) or re- 
conveyed to the United States pursuant to 
the provisions of the Act of February 26, 
1919 (40 Stat. 1179), shall be considered for 
all purposes to have the same status as, and 
shall be administered in accordance with 
the same provisions of law applicable to, the 
revested or reconveyed lands exchanged for 
the lands acquired by the Secretary.”. 

At the end of the bill, add the following 
new section: 

Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provi- 
sion of law, the Secretary of the Interior, if 
he determines it necessary and appropriate 
for the purpose of consummating an ex- 
change of lands or interests therein under 
applicable law, is hereby authorized and di- 
rected to: 

(2) revoke the withdrawal under the First 
Form by Order of the Secretary of the Inte- 
rior dated December 14, 1904, and as inter- 
preted by Order of Interpretation of the 
Secretary of the Interior dated May 19, 
1964, insofar as said withdrawal applies to 
section 31 (lots 1, 2, 3, W%E%, E%XNW%, 
SE%“SE%) T. 5 N., R. 7 E., Gila and Salt 
River Meridian, Arizona. 

Add a new section to S. 565 as follows and 
number accordingly: 

“Sec. . Notwithstanding any provision of 
law or order based thereon, the Secretary of 
the Interior, at the request of the Secretary 
of Agriculture, is authorized to take such ac- 
tions (including but not limited to the revo- 
cation of withdrawals and the issuance of 
patents) as may be necessary to facilitate 
and consummate a land exchange in Idaho 
known as the Mesa Falls Exchange, as de- 
scribed in a Land Exchange Notice by the 
Department of Agriculture published in the 
Post-Register newspaper published in Idaho 
Falls, Idaho on November 12, 1985 (p. B-5), 
if the Secretary of Agriculture decides to 
proceeed with such exchange.”. 

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, I 
have offered an amendment to S. 565, 
a bill to convey approximately 31 acres 
of Forest Service land to the town of 
Payson, AZ. The Payson legislation 
passed the Senate on August 9, 1986 
and was sent to the House, where it 
passed with amendment. Two amend- 
ments were added in the House by 
Congressman UDALL to allow two very 
important land exchanges involving 
Bureau of Land Management lands in 
the State of Arizona to be finalized. 
Those amendments, which I heartily 





29916 


endorse, authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to revoke two land classi- 
fication withdrawals in Arizona. The 
land exchanges are being held up be- 
cause of a court injunction in the Na- 
tional Wildlife Federation versus Bur- 
ford lawsuit, which challenged certain 
withdrawal revocations. The Secretary 
of the Interior has been temporarily 
enjoined from revoking certain with- 
drawals and land classifications and 
the injunction is now being applied to 
all withdrawals and classifications. In 
the case of the Arizona exchanges 
which are included in the Payson bill, 
the National Wildlife Federation and 
the Department of the Interior have 
been contacted and have no objection 
to the exchanges. One exchange in- 
volving Bureau of Land Management 
lands in the Lake Havasu Area, known 
as Pittsburg Point, would allow the 
Federal Government to virtually repay 
the State of Arizona for lands that 
were taken from the State as a result 
of the construction of the Central Ari- 
zona Project. The State land depart- 
ment of Arizona has worked long and 
hard on this exchange and feels it is 
urgent that the exchange be complet- 
ed without further delay. The other 
exchange involved some Bureau of 
Land Management lands in Santa 
Cruz County, AZ that the county 
wishes to acquire to provide space for 
the construction of a greatly needed 
county courthouse and public park. 
The BLM supports this exchange and 
it has been endorsed by the National 
Wildlife Federation. 

In order to take care of one remain- 
ing exchange in Arizona that is impor- 
tant to wildlife habitat and at the 
same time, reduce the large number of 
checkerboard forest lands, I am spon- 
soring an amendment which will au- 
thorize the Secretary of the Interior 
to revoke a reclamation withdrawal so 
an exchange of private and Forest 
Service lands in Maricopa County, AZ 
can be completed. This exchange has 
the support of the National Wildlife 
Federation, Congressman UDALL, and 
many others in the State of Arizona. 

I know of no objections to this 

amendment, Mr. President, and I ask 
that the Senate approve this amend- 
ment to S. 565. I further request that 
the Senate adopt S. 565 as amended. 
e@ Mr. SYMMS. Mr. President, I rise to 
strongly support the passage of S. 565. 
The purpose of this bill is simply to 
effect changes in ownership between 
the Federal agencies and private or 
local government entities. These 
changes should not be controversial. 
They give force of law to agreements 
already reached between the interest- 
ed parties. 

My amendment to S. 565 allows the 
Forest. Service to complete a land ex- 
change with Sunlight Development 
Co. This exchange is in the best inter- 
ests of the United States, the develop- 
ment company and several individuals 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


who own structures on Forest Service 
land under special use permits. When 
the exchange is completed these 
uneasy tenants will have title to the 
land they occupy, the Forest Service 
will have control of a particularly 
scenic and ‘vulnerable stretch of 
Hanry’s Fork of the Snake River and 
the Sunlight will be fairly compensat- 
ed for property no longer available for 
the purpose for which it was acquired. 
This exchange should have been ac- 
complished very quickly administra- 
tively. However, due to legal action in 
which the Forest Service is only indi- 
rectly involved it appears that legisla- 
tion is necessary. 

This is an almost unique transaction 
where all parties benefit. I want to ex- 
press my appreciation to my distin- 
guished colleague Senator McC.iure 
who has used his influence, as chair- 
man of the Energy Committee, to 
move this bill forward rapidly. Mr. 
President, this is good legislation and I 
urge its passage.@ 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there further debate on the amend- 
ment? If not, the question is on agree- 
ing to the amendment of the Senator 
from Idaho. 

The amendment 
agreed to. 

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


(No. 3270) was 


0 1850 


CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO THE 
ARKANSAS-MISSISSIPPI GREAT 
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION COM- 
PACT 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that 
the Chair lay before the Senate a mes- 
sage from the House of Representa- 
tives on S. 1082. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid 
before the Senate the following mes- 
sage from the House of Representa- 
tives. 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate 
(S. 1082) entitled ‘An Act granting the con- 
sent of Congress to the Arkansas-Mississippi 
Great River Bridge Construction Compact”, 
do pass with the following amendment: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause, 
and insert: 

SECTION 1. CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO COMPACT. 

The Congress consents to the Arkansas- 
Mississippi Great River Bridge Construction 
Compact, which was entered into between 
the States of Arkansas and Mississippi and 
was approved by law in the State of Arkan- 
sas on February 7, 1985, and in the State of 
Mississippi on March 19, 1985. The compact 
is substantially as follows: 


October 9, 1986 


“ARKANSAS MISSISSIPPI GREAT RIV- 
ER, BRIDGE, CONSTRUCTION COM- 
PACT 

“ARTICLE I 

“The purpose of this compact is to pro- 
mote the construction of a highway bridge 
or a combined highway-railroad bridge con- 
necting the States of Mississippi and Arkan- 
sas at, near or between Rosedale, Mississip- 
pi, and McGehee and Dumas, Arkansas, and 
to establish a joint interstate authority to 
assist in these efforts. 


“ARTICLE II 


“This compact shall become effective im- 
mediately as to the States ratifying it when- 
ever the States of Arkansas and Mississippi 
have ratified it and Congress has given con- 
sent thereto. 


“ARTICLE III 


“(a) The states which are parties to this 
compact (hereinafter referred to as ‘Party 
States’) do hereby establish and create a 
joint agency which shall be known as the 
Arkansas-Mississippi Great River Bridge 
Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘The 
Authority’). The membership of The Au- 
thority shall consist of five (5) members 
from the State of Mississippi, to be selected 
in such manner as may be provided by laws 
enacted by the Legislature of the State of 
Mississippi, and five (5) members from the 
State of Arkansas, to be selected in such 
manner as may be provided by laws enacted 
by the Arkansas General Assembly. The 
terms of the members of such Authority 
from each of the Party States, the method 
of appointing successor members, and the 
method of filling vacancies on The Author- 
ity, shall be determined by the laws of Mis- 
sissippi and Arkansas. 

“(b) The members of The Authority shall 
not be compensated for services on the Au- 
thority, but each member shall be entitled 
to actual and reasonable expenses incurred 
in attending meetings or incurred otherwise 
in the performance of his/her duties as a 
member of The Authority. 

“(c) The members of The Authority shall 
meet upon the call of the chairman and 
hold such other meetings as its business 
may require. Special meetings of The Au- 
thority may be called by the chairman or 
upon written request of a majority of the 
members of The Authority from each of the 
Party States. The Authority shall choose 
annually a chairman and vice chairman 
from its members, and the chairmanship 
shall rotate each year among the Party 
States, in order of their acceptance of this 
compact. 

‘(d) The Secretary of The Authority 
(hereinafter provided for) shall notify each 
member in writing of all meetings of The 
Authority in such a manner and under such 
rules and regulations as The Authority may 
prescribe. 

“(e) The Authority shall adopt rules and 
regulations for the transaction of its busi- 
ness; and the secretary shall keep a record 
of all its business and shall furnish a copy 
thereof to each member of The Authority. 

“(f) It shall be the duty of The Authority, 
in general, to promote, encourage, and co- 
ordinate the efforts of the Party States to 
secure the development of the Arkansas- 
Mississippi Great River Bridge at, near or 
between Rosedale, Mississippi, and McGe- 
hee-Dumas, Arkansas. Toward this end, The 
Authority shall have power to: 

“(i) Hold hearings; 

“qi) Conduct studies and surveys of all 
problems, benefits, and other matters asso- 





October 9, 1986 


ciated with the construction of the Arkan- 
sas-Mississippi Great River Bridge, and to 
make reports thereon; 

“Gii) Acquire by gift, grant or otherwise, 
from local, federal, or private sources, such 
money or property as may be provided for 
the proper performance of their function, 
and to hold and dispose of the same and to 
expend such monies as is necessary to 
defray the cost of establishing and operat- 
ing The Authority; 

“(iv) Cooperate with other public or pri- 
vate groups, whether local, state, regional, 
or national, having an interest in the bridge 
construction; 

“(v) Formulate and execute plans and 
policies for emphasizing the purpose of this 
compact before the Congress of the United 
States and other appropriate officers and 
agencies of the United States; 

“(vi) Negotiate with one or more railroads 
in the State of Mississippi and the State of 
Arkansas and with the appropriate Federal 
authorities for the construction of the Ar- 
kansas-Mississippi Great River Bridge as a 
combined highway-railroad bridge. If neces- 
sary, The Authority may enter into a con- 
tract with one or more railroads and/or the 
appropriate agencies of the United States to 
borrow funds for the construction of the 
railroad portion of the bridge, to be reim- 
bursed, including all costs of principal, in- 
terest and other costs in connection with 
such indebtness, by revenues derived from 
rental fees, grants, or other charges, with 
such indebtedness to be secured solely by a 
pledge of such revenues; and 

“(vii) Exercise such other powers as may 
be appropriate to enable it to accomplish its 
functions and duties in connection with the 
construction of the Arkansas-Mississippi 
Great River Bridge as a highway bridge or a 
combined highway-railroad bridge, and to 
carry out the purposes of this compact. 

ARTICLE IV 


“The Authority shall appoint a secretary, 
who shall be a person familiar with the 
nature, procedures, and significance of the 
bridge construction and the informational, 
educational, and publicity methods of stim- 
ulating general interest~in such develop- 
ments, and who shall be the compact admin- 
istrator. The term of office of the secretary 
shall be at the pleasure of The Authority 
and such officer shall receive such compen- 
sation as The Authority shall prescribe 
from monies provided to The Authority 
under Article III(f)iii). The secretary shall 
maintain custody of The Authority's books, 
records, and papers, which shall be kept by 
the secretary at the office of The Authority, 
and shall perform all functions and duties 
and exercise all powers and authorities 
which may be delegated to the secretary of 
The Authority. 

“ARTICLE V 


“Nothing in this compact shall be con- 
strued so as to conflict with any existing 
statute, or to limit the powers of any Party 
State, or to repeal or prevent legislation, or 
to authorize or permit curtailment or dimi- 
nution of any other bridge project, or to 
affect any existing or future cooperative ar- 
rangement or relationship between any fed- 
eral agency and a Party State. 

“ARTICLE VI 


“This compact shall continue in force and 
remain binding upon each Party State until 
the Legislature or Governor of each or 
either state takes action to withdraw there- 
from; provided that such withdrawal shall 
not become effective until six (6) months 
after the date of the action taken by the 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Legislature or Governor. ‘Notice of such 
action shall be given to the other Party 
State by the secretary of state of the Party 
State which takes such action.”. 
SEC. 2. FEDERAL JURISDICTION 
RETAINED. 

Nothing in the compact approved by sec- 
tion 1 shall be construed as impairing or in 
any manner affecting any right or jurisdic- 
tion of the United States. 

SEC. 3. RESERVATION. 

The right to alter, amend, or repeal this 
Act is expressly reserved. 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise 
today in support of S. 1082, as amend- 
ed by the House, a bill to authorize 
the States of Arkansas and Mississippi 
to create an interstate compact for the 
purpose of building a highway-railroad 
bridge across the Mississippi River. I 
would like to commend my friends and 
colleagues, Senators Pryor, STENNIS, 
and COCHRAN, as well as our Repre- 
sentatives from Arkansas and Missis- 
sippi in the House, for their efforts in 
connection with this important legisla- 
tion which will provide for a vital link 
between our great States. 

The Arkansas-Mississippi Great 
River Bridge Authority to be estab- 
lished under the compact will coordi- 
nate and promote the efforts of the 
two States to construct an auto and 
train bridge between Rosedale, MS, 
and a point near McGehee, AR. The 
new bridge will be a positive and essen- 
tial ingredient in ongoing efforts to at- 
tract new industry to our region of the 
country. 

Mr. President, the people in Arkan- 
sas and Mississippi have worked long 
and hard on this project, focused on 
revitalizing the economies in our 
State, and I ask the Senate today to 
give its stamp of approval to this com- 
pact so that these State officials and 
local citizens can move forward with 
their construction plans. I would note 
that this body has previously given its 
unanimous approval to this piece of 
legislation and we need now only agree 
to a minor, technical amendment 
made by the House to correct an error 
in the compact language. 

In addition, Mr. President, I am 
pleased to be able to point out that 
this legislation will not require the 
Federal Government to spend one 
dime. It will instead create an author- 
ity that will coordinate local, State, 
and Federal agencies in planning for a 
bridge that will be a commercial boon 
to southeast Arkansas and western 
Mississippi. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move 
the Senate concur in the House 
amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the motion. 

The motion was agreed to. 

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to 
table the motion to reconsider. 


29917 


The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


GEORGIA WILDERNESS ACT OF 
1986 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Agricul- 
ture Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of H.R. 5496, the 
Georgia Wilderness Act, and I ask for 
its immediate consideration. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is 
no objection to the discharge of the 
measure from the Agriculture Com- 
mittee, and there is also no objection 
to proceeding to its immediate consid- 
eration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A bill (H.R. 5496) to designate certain Na- 
tional Forest System lands in the State of 
Georgia to the National Wilderness Preser- 
vation System, and for other purposes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, the Senate will proceed 
to its immediate consideration. 

The Senate proceeded to consider 
the bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
bill is before the Senate and open to 
amendment. If there be no amend- 
ment to be proposed, the question is 
on third reading and passage. 

The bill (H.R. 5496) was ordered to 
be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to 
reconsider the vote by which the bill 
Was passed. 

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


SALUTE TO SCHOOL 
VOLUNTEERS DAY 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Judiciary 
Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of Senate Joint Resolu- 
tion 407, Salute to School Volunteers 
Day, and I ask for its immediate con- 
sideration. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is 
no objection to discharging the Com- 
mittee on the Judiciary from further 
consideration of the joint resolution 
and no objection to its immediate con- 
sideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 407) designat- 
ing November 12, 1986, as Salute to School 
Volunteers Day. 

The Senate proceeded to consider 
the joint resolution. 





29918 


The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
joint resolution is before the Senate 
and open to amendment. If there be 
no amendment to be proposed, the 
question is on the engrossment and 
third reading of the joint resolution. 


S.J. Res. 407 


Whereas the success of America’s schools 
stems from the competence and dedication 
of their instructional staffs, combined with 
the commitment of students, parents, and 
other community members; 

Whereas citizen volunteers are a vital 
component of an effective educational expe- 
rience, assisting professional educators to 
deliver quality instructional services; 

Whereas many States and communities 
have demonstrated that citizen volunteers 
in the classroom enhance, extend, and 
enrich student learning as they contribute 
to the work of dedicated professional educa- 
tors; 

Whereas numerous communities encour- 
age groups, such as business and civil 
groups, to create mutually beneficial work- 
ing partnerships with their schools, thus of- 
fering positive support from the community 
which, in turn, both encourages staff and 
benefits the students; 

Whereas the Congress recognizes that 
four million unpaid citizen volunteers in 
thousands of classrooms coast to coast con- 
tribute daily to the enhancement of the 
quality of instruction in our schools and 
thus, to the development of an educated 
citizenry; and 

Whereas the magnitude, quality, and self- 
lessness of these contributions of America's 
citizen school volunteers merit the highest 
appreciation and gratitude: Now, therefore, 
be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That November 12, 
1986, is designated as “Salute to School Vol- 
unteers Day”, and the President is author- 
ized and requested to issue a proclamation 
calling on the people of the United States to 
observe such day with appropriate ceremo- 
nies and activities. 


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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


NATIONAL CHINA-BURMA-INDIA 
VETERANS ASSOCIATION DAY 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Commit- 
tee on the Judiciary be discharged 
from further consideration of Senate 
Joint Resolution 359, to designate Na- 
tional China-Burma-India Veterans 
Association Day, and I ask for its im- 
mediate consideration. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is 
no objection to the committee dis- 
charge and no objection to its immedi- 
ate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 359) to desig- 
nate March 17, 1987, as “National China- 
Burma-India Veterans Association Day." 

The Senate proceeded to consider 
the joint resolution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
joint resolution is before the Senate 
and open to amendment. If there be 
no amendment to be proposed, the 
question is on the engrossment and 
third reading of the joint resolution. 

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 359) 
was ordered to be engrossed for a third 
reading, was read the third time, and 
passed, as follows: 


S.J. Res. 359 

Whereas all veterans are to be recognized, 
honored, and thanked for making sacrifices 
in order to make the United States a free 
and peaceful Nation; 

Whereas the China-Burma-India Veterans 
Association is composed of men and women 
who most admirably served in the China- 
Burma-India theatre of operations during 
World War II, and the members of such As- 
sociation deserve the right to preserve the 
recollections, comradeships, and experiences 
of Americans who have served in the Orient; 

Whereas all Americans should become 
better acquainted with the situations and 
problems of the Far East; and 

Whereas members of the China-Burma- 
India Veterans Association deserve the right 
to pay tribute to and preserve the memory 
of fellow veterans who died in defense of 
the United States and to maintain a proper 
standard of dignity and honor among all 
veterans of World War II: Now, therefore, 
be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That March 17, 
1987, is designated as “National China- 
Burma-India Veterans Association Day” and 
the President is authorized and requested to 
issue a proclamation calling upon Americans 
to observe such day with appropriate activi- 
ties. 


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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


BILL PLACED ON CALENDAR— 
H.R, 4731 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Com- 
merce Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of H.R. 4731, the 
Recreational Boating Safety Act, and I 
ask that it be placed on the calendar. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is 
no objection to the request of the dis- 
tinguished majority leader. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 


October 9, 1986 


AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY 
OF AGRICULTURE TO ISSUE 
CERTAIN PERMANENT EASE- 
MENTS FOR WATER CONVEY- 
ANCE SYSTEMS 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Energy 
Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 2921, the “ditch 
right-of-way” bill, and I ask for its im- 
mediate consideration. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is 
no objection to the committee dis- 
charge and there is likewise no objec- 
tion to the immediate consideration of 
the bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A bill (H.R. 2921) to authorize the Secre- 
tary of Agriculture to issue permanent ease- 
ments for water conveyance systems, in 
order to resolve title claims arising under 
Acts repealed by the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976, and for other 
purposes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, the Senate will proceed 
to its immediate consideration. 

The Senate proceeded to consider 
the bill. 

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, as dis- 
charged, this Act, H.R. 2921, would au- 
thorize the Secretary of Agriculture to 
issue permanent easements for certain 
water conveyance systems upon re- 
quest of the owners, who are solely ag- 
ricultural and livestock watering users, 
in order to resolve title claims, which 
claims arise under acts repealed by the 
Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976 [FLPMA]. The bill is in- 
tended to provide an optional method 
of confirming the status of certain irri- 
gation systems which were constructed 
on Federal lands prior to the enact- 
ment of FLPMA, and to transfer ad- 
ministration of pre-FLPMA rights-of- 
way across National Forest System 
lands from the Department of Interior 
to the Department of Agriculture. 

There exist on Federal lands ditches, 
canals, reservoirs, and other systems 
for the conveyance of water to the ul- 
timate consumers. Many of those sys- 
tems have existed under claim of right 
for long periods of years prior to the 
passage of the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976. The 
committee has been acquainted with 
cases where despite this long estab- 
lished usage under claim of right, 
there is inadequate documentation or 
nonexistent of the right. In some cases 
it is difficult to demonstrate that the 
owners and users of these water con- 
veyance systems had fulfilled the 
record keeping requirements of the 
General Land Office and successor 
agencies so as to establish clearly the 
right to continued, peaceable enjoy- 
ment of these rights-of-way. When the 





October 9, 1986 


matter first came to the attention of 
our committee, we urged the agricul- 
tural interests and the Department of 
Agriculture to work together to devel- 
op a mutually agreeable statutory so- 
lution to the problem. The bill before 
us is the result of that effort. 

In testimony before our committee, 
however, other concerned Federal 
lands users pointed out that the bill is 
so narrowly drawn that it is sure to 
create problems for the very intended 
beneficiaries of the legislation. For ex- 
ample, many ditches and ditch rights- 
of-way are owned in common by co- 
tenants in the ditch, or by the share- 
holders in mutual ditch and reservoir 
companies, or other entities, public 
and private in nature, formed for the 
delivery of water to consumers off the 
Federal lands. The water rights car- 
ried in such ditches are generally, 
under the appropriation doctrine pre- 
vailing in the public lands States of 
the West, marketable without con- 
straint from the other co-tenants or 
shareholders in the ditch system. It 
will lead to absurd results if a perma- 
nent easement obtained under H.R. 
2921 and valid only so long as the use 
of the water is “solely agricultural” 
were then terminated because one, or 
several, of the common owners exer- 
cised their right to alienate their prop- 
erty interest in water rights to nona- 
gricultural users. Amendments were 
proposed to cure this problem, and to 
assure that a change in the end use of 
water would not destroy the benefits 
of the legislation. Such a change in 
end water use places no greater 
burden on the actual usage of Federal 
lands. 

A further concern expressed to the 
committee has to do with the conse- 
quences of the transfer of administra- 
tive jurisdiction over existing rights- 
of-way from the Department of Interi- 
or to the Department of Agriculture. 
Owners of these rights-of-way ques- 
tion whether the Department of Agri- 
culture may use its new administrative 
powers to seek forfeiture of rights-of- 
way granted under the Act of March 3, 
1891, (26 Stat. 1095, as amended by the 
Act of May 11, 1898, 30 Stat. 404), 
where the end use of waters carried on 
such rights-of-way are no longer used 
for the main purpose of irrigation, but 
instead have, through the operation of 
the free market system, undergone 
conversion to municipal and related 
beneficial uses pursuant to State law. 

A further area of concern devolving 
from the proposed transfer of jurisdic- 
tion over existing rights-of-way to the 
Department of Agriculture was stated 
to be the deviation in the administra- 
tion of pre-FLPMA rights-of-way 
under the long-settled principles, deci- 
sions, policies and regulations devel- 
oped by the Department of Interior. 
Particular concern was advanced that 
those established principles continue 
to apply. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Amendments were proposed to lay to 
rest these concerns. One _ specific 
amendment would have deleted this 
transfer of jurisdiction from the bill 
until such time as all of the effects of 
the transfer can be studied and dis- 
cussed fully before the Congress. 
These proposed amendments would 
also maintain existing conditions, poli- 
cies and procedures of the Department 
of Interior in order to maintain rights 
of grantees. 

The committee inquired of the De- 
partment of Agriculture for its views 
on these points. The response is ap- 
pended to this report. In it, we were 
again requested to refrain from 
amendments to the bill. With respect 
to the narrowness of the “solely agri- 
cultural’ standard by which eligibility 
for the new category of rights-of-way 
has been defined, the Department has 
assured the committee that it will 
devote a good faith effort, in coopera- 
tion with concerned water users, to de- 
velop amendments for consideration 
by the Congress in a subsequent ses- 
sion to cure the problems flowing from 
the narrowness of the eligibility stand- 
ard. This broadening will enable 
market forces to allow a multiplicity 
of uses of the water rights associated 
with rights-of-way on Federal lands. 

With respect to the prospect of a de- 
partmental construction of the act of 
March 3, 1891, as amended by the Act 
of May 11, 1898, whereby the holders 
of grants thereunder would face loss 
of their rights-of-way by reason of a 
change in the end use of the water 
carried to purposes other than primar- 
ily agricultural irrigation, the commit- 
tee has been assured that no such con- 
struction of the statute is advanced by 
the Department. Re-permitting with 
its attendant substantial costs and un- 
certainties for such existing convey- 
ance systems is not intended by the 
Department or by Congress. Accord- 
ingly, no amendments to preclude 
such a construction are required. With 
respect to the potential disruption on 
pending administrative matters, the 
Department of Agriculture has as- 
sured the committee that it will con- 
tinue to employ the applicable rules, 
policies, and regulations of the De- 
partment of the Interior. Holders of 
existing rights-of-way shall continue 
to have the full use of the estate 
granted in accordance with the terms 
of the grant and applicable law. These 
include the right to cure defects dis- 
covered during administration, wheth- 
er they be minor or require an applica- 
tion to amend the granted rights-of- 
way. No administrative action will pre- 
clude the full enjoyment of the grant- 
ed rights-of-way nor alter the nature 
of the interest granted. No require- 
ment for re-permitting is intended by 
the Department. 

With these representations of the 
Department in mind, we determined to 
accede to the request to refrain from 


29919 


amendments, to discharge the bill 
without amendment, and to defer 
amendments until we have considered 
further the suggested areas of amend- 
ment to H.R. 2921 described in the 
letter from the Department and the 
testimony before the committee. In so 
doing, we rely on the Department’s 
representation that until Congress has 
had a full opportunity to consider pro- 
posed amendments, no action to divest 
users who would qualify for the bene- 
fits of H.R. 2921 but for their inability 
to qualify as “solely agricultural * * *” 
will be undertaken by the Depart- 
ment. We fully expect the Department 
of Agriculture to take care to avoid 
any action that will diminish or reduce 
the rights conferred under a right-of- 

way granted prior to October 21, 1976, 

including any deviation or amend- 

ments required subsequent to the 
original grant. 

We expect the Department to work 
with holders of rights-of-way to pre- 
serve the full extent of rights vested 
prior to FLPMA, and to develop any 
necessary amendments to the act se- 
curing holder these benefits. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent that a letter received from the 
Department of Agriculture dated Oc- 
tober 1, 1986, be printed at this point 
in the REcorp. 

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
OPPICE OF THE SECRETARY, 
Washington, DC, October 1, 1986. 

Hon. MALcoLm WALLOoP, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, 
Reserved Water, and Resources Conser- 
vation, Committee on Energy and Natu- 
ral Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
DC. 

Dear SENATOR WALLop: At the September 
23, 1986, hearings on H.R. 2921 before the 
Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, the 
Colorado Water Congress testified to the 
need for amendments to the bill. You asked 
for the Department of Agriculture’s views 
on these suggested amendments. 

In our view, the concerns expressed relate 
to three somewhat different issues. The 
first concern expressed was that the limita- 
tion in H.R. 2921 to “solely agricultural or 
livestock watering purposes” unnecessarily 
constricted the benefits of the legislation. 
The legislation has the purpose of recogniz- 
ing the rights of a certain class of ditch 
owners who cannot document a right of way 
issued prior to October 21, 1976. It was 
pointed out that many ditches on the Feder- 
al lands have a multiplicity of owners, any 
one of whom under State law may change 
the ultimate use of his share of the water 
right carried in the ditch to other than agri- 
cultural irrigation purposes. Many such 
changes have occurred over the past 90 
years and many are occurring today. Thus it 
was observed that intended beneficiaries of 
this bill may lose any entitlement under it 
from the operation of State sanctioned 
market systems in water rights by or among 
co-users of ditches. 

The Department understands the desire 
of the Subcommittee to avoid amendments 
now, considering the lack of time remaining 





29920 


in the session. We acknowledge that further 
amendments, carefully drawn and consid- 
ered, would be appropriate to cure these sit- 
uations. The end use of water off the Feder- 
al lands, as it may change over time, casts 
no greater burden on the Federal property 
to carry the water to its place of use. The 
Department contemplates administrative 
procedures under H.R. 2921 which obviate 
much of this concern, particularly a proce- 
dure whereby easements allowed by H.R. 
2921 may be automatically converted for 
permits under FLPMA. The Department 
will work with your committee and other 
concerned persons to develop and support 
appropriate administrative action or statu- 
tory amendments for the consideration of 
Congress in a future session. In that way, 
relief from uncertainty can now be provided 
for certain irrigators and stockmen without 
creating unintended implications for other 
water users. In a succeeding Congress the 
full, necessary consideration of the scope of 
the amendments can be achieved. The De- 
partment reemphasizes that H.R. 2921 does 
not create any implication attributable to 
any pre-existing rights of way, the owners 
of which may elect not to avail themselves 
of the benefits of H.R. 2921. 

Second, concerns were expressed at the 
hearing that the Department of Agricul- 
ture, under the jurisdictional authority pro- 
posed to be transferred to it as part of H.R. 
2921, contemplates asserting forfeitures 
against those holders of rights of way issued 
pursuant to the Act of March 3, 1891 (26 
Stat 1095) as amended by the Act of May 11, 
1898 (30 Stat. 404), whose end use of water 
off the public lands is no longer for the pri- 
mary purpose of irrigation. 

Third, concerns were expressed that 
rights of way previously granted by the Act 
of February 15, 1901 (31 Stat. 790), and the 
Act of February 1, 1905 (33 Stat. 628), will 
not be administered by the Department of 
Agriculture in accordance with the settled 
procedures and laws that have developed 
over the past 85 years during which the ad- 
ministration of such rights of way have 
been subject to the jurisdiction of the De- 
partment of the Interior. To resolve these 
concerns, amendments to H.R. 2921 were 
suggested which would preclude administra- 
tive changes to the detriment of holders of 
pre-FLPMA rights of way. 

For reasons which follow, the Department 
does not believe that such amendments are 
now appropriate or required. The construc- 
tion placed on the Act of 1891, as amended, 
by the Department for the rights of way it 
will administer does not prejudice or dimin- 
ish the rights of grantees thereunder. We do 
not assert that the end-use of water, which 
may change from irrigation to municipal or 
other beneficial uses recognized under State 
law, in and of itself occasions a forfeiture of 
such rights of way. 

The Department is fully aware of the de- 
cision of the United States Court of Appeals 
in City and County of Denver v. Bergland, 
695 F.2d 465 (1982). Concern has been ex- 
pressed that with its acquisition of adminis- 
trative jurisdiction, the Department will di- 
minish the entitlements of rights of way 
holders under existing grants. The Depart- 
ment disavows any such intention. The De- 
partment will be careful to avoid any action 
that will reduce the rights conferred under 
pre-FLPMA grants, and will process pending 
application for amendment and other pend- 
ing administrative matters in accordance 
with the applicable regulations, policies, and 
procedures of the Department of the Interi- 
or. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


The Department must of course maintain 
its authority to assure that holders of rights 
of way on Federal Lands use those lands in 
sound ways. However, we do not assert that 
pre-FLPMA rights of way for water convey- 
ance and storage systems must be subjected 
to a repermitting process. The Department 
recognizes that long-standing uses ought 
not be diminished by insignificant defects in 
survey or description made many years ago, 
or a change in the end use of the water off 
the Federal lands. 

We hope that this letter has adequately 
clarified the Department of Agriculture’s 
position on concerns that have been raised 
related to H.R. 2921. 

Sincerely, 
Dovuctas W. MacCLeery, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Natural Resources and Environment. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. President, I 
rise to lend my support to the passage 
of H.R. 2921 sponsored by Congress- 
man MIKE Stranc of Colorado. I wish, 
however, to make certain that the un- 
derstandings that have been arrived at 
in discussions with the Department of 
Agriculture and the Forest Service re- 
garding its administration of ditch 
rights of way on national forest lands 
are clear and unequivocal. 

I strongly support the basic objec- 
tives of H.R. 2921, but share the con- 
cerns about the limited scope of the 
bill and possible unintended effects of 
its passage that were expressed by the 
representatives of the Colorado Water 
Congress at the hearing on September 
23, 1986. Subsequent to the hearing, 
extensive discussions Of H.R. 2921 
were held between the representatives 
of the Colorado Water Congress and 
Mr. Douglas MacCleery, Deputy As- 
sistant Secretary of Agriculture for 
Natural Resources and Environment, 
regarding the administration of the 
bill, should it be enacted. There was 
also extensive discussion regarding the 
administration of all other rights of 
way which would result from the 
transfer of administrative jurisdiction 
over existing rights of way from the 
Department of the Interior to the De- 
partment of Agriculture. As a result of 
those discussions, Mr. MacCleery has 
written a letter to Senator WALLopP de- 
scribing the Department's views and 
policies on the administration of ditch 
rights of way on national forest lands. 

With the receipt of the letter from 
Deputy Secretary MacCleery and its 
incorporation into the record by Sena- 
tor WaLiop, I have been advised by 
the Colorado Water Congress that 
most of the major concerns that stem 
from the passage of this bill have been 
alleviated. But, because there continue 
to be serious reservations expressed to 
my office by municipal and agricultur- 
al water users with rights of way on 
forest lands, I want to make it clear 
that my support of this bill is contin- 
gent upon the good-faith effort by the 
Department of Agriculture and the 
Forest Service to carry out the policies 
and objectives outlined in the Mac- 
Cleery letter. I regard this legislation 


October 9, 1986 


as only one step in the process of re- 
solving these ditch rights of way issue 
and I accept the representations in the 
letter that the Forest Service does not 
claim the power and will not under- 
take or embark on a policy of re-per- 
mitting of pre-FLPMA rights of way. 

Passage of this specific legislation to 
cure a unique problem in no way im- 
plies or should be construed as an 
intent by Congress to restrict or pre- 
clude further oversight amendments 
to address other problems. Congress 
has no intention to provide by implica- 
tion or exclusion any directive to the 
Department of Agriculture or other 
Federal agencies that applies in an ad- 
verse way to any other water use, ease- 
ment, access, or permit on or utilizing 
lands of the United States. 

Key commitments by the Depart- 
ment expressed in Deputy Secretary 
MacCleery’s letter are, and I quote: 
“* * * we do not assert that pre- 
FLPMA rights of way for water con- 
veyance and storage must be subjected 
to a re-permitting process. The De- 
partment recognizes that longstanding 
uses ought not be diminished by insig- 
nificant defects in survey or descrip- 
tion made many years ago, or a change 
in the end use of the water off Federal 
lands.”” In addition, the Department 
has committed to assist to, and I quote 
from the letter, “* * * develop and 
support appropriate amendment for 
the consideration of Congress * * *” to 
cure situations not covered by H.R. 
2921. 

I fully recognize, as does the Depart- 
ment and other water experts who 
have studied the rights of way prob- 
lem, that much remains to be done 
before a long term, stable resolution 
or the rights of way problem can be 
achieved. Most important, we cannot 
allow the administration of ditch 
rights of way on public lands to dimin- 
ish or damage longstanding water 
rights that form the basis of the 
economies of Western States. 

It is absolutely essential to the water 
systems of the West that all pre- 
FLPMA ditch rights of way be fully 
protected, either by confirmation of 
the continued validity of these pre-ex- 
isting rights of way, or by issuing new 
permits in perpetuity. It is also essen- 
tial that no cost be attached to the 
permitting for agricultural uses. Many 
of these agricultural ditches are as old 
as the Forest Service, and the econo- 
mies of agricultural use of water 
cannot sustain the extra burdens of 
fees for ditch rights of way. At the 
same time, it is well recognized that 
water users have the obligation to 
maintain these rights of way in a 
manner that will protect adjoining 
forest lands from damage. 

In conclusion, I want to express my 
appreciation to Senator Wa.uiop for 
his efforts to resolve this very complex 
and difficult problem. His understand- 





October 9, 1986 


ing of water and the history of its de- 
velopment in the West give him 
unique qualifications to deal with the 
issues we now confront. I appreciate 
the leadership the distinguished Sena- 
tor from Wyoming provides in water 
issues so crucial to the West. I look 
forward to working closely with him to 
develop future legislation that may be 
required to finally resolve the ditch 
right of way issue. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
bill is before the Senate and open to 
amendment. If there be no amend- 
ment to be proposed, the question is 
on third reading and passage of the 
bill. 

The bill (H.R. 2921) was ordered toa 
third reading, was read the third time, 
and passed. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to 
reconsider the vote by which the bill 
Was passed. 

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I inquire 
of the distinguished minority leader if 
he is in a position to confirm the fol- 
lowing executive calendar nomina- 
tions: Calendar No. 1065, Paul A. 
Russo; Calendar No. 1103, Robert B. 
Barker. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, both of 
those calendar numbers have been ap- 
proved on this side by all Members 
and we are ready to proceed. 

Mr. DOLE. I thank the minority 
leader. 


EXECUTIVE SESSION 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
now go into executive session to con- 
sider the nominations just identified 
and that the nominations be consid- 
ered en bloc and confirmed en bloc. 

There being no objection, the Senate 
proceeded to the consideration of ex- 
ecutive business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
nominations are considered en bloc 
and confirmed en bloc. 

Mr. DOLE. I move to reconsider the 
vote by which the nominations were 
considered and confirmed en bloc. 

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 

The nominations considered and 
confirmed en bloc are as follows: 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Paul A. Russo, of Virginia, to be Ambassa- 
dor Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of 
the United States of America to Barbados, 
and to serve concurrently and without addi- 
tional compensation as Ambassador Ex- 
traordinary and Plenipotentiary of the 
United States of America to the Common- 
wealth of Dominica, Ambassador Extraordi- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


nary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
States of America to Saint Lucia, Ambassa- 
dor Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of 
the United States of America to Saint Vin- 
cent and the Grenadines, Ambassador Ex- 
traordinary and Plenipotentiary of the 
United States of America to Antigua and 
Barbuda, and Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
America to St. Christopher and Nevis. 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Robert B. Barker, of California, to be 
Chairman of the Military Liaison Commit- 
tee to the Department of Energy. 

PAUL RUSSO, AMBASSADOR TO BARBADOS 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am 
pleased that the Senate has confirmed 
Paul A. Russo as the new U.S. Ambas- 
sador to Barbados. He has solid gov- 
ernmental experience at the highest 
levels, having completed outstanding 
work for President Reagan in the 
White House as Special Assistant for 
Political Affairs and as a Deputy Un- 
dersecretary at the Department of 
Labor, to name but two of Mr. Russo’s 
recent responsibilities. 

The Senator from Kansas. has 
known the new Ambassador for a 
number of years and can attest to his 
hard work ethic and integrity. Barba- 
dos and its nearby island nations play 
a key role in the Caribbean for the 
United States in both their economic 
and strategic importance, and I am 
confident he will serve his country 
well. 

Mr. Russo is a graduate of Ohio 
State University who has compiled a 
superb career in politics and Govern- 
ment. He will continue to do the same 
good work in his new assignment in 
the Barbados. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the President 
be immediately notified that the 
Senate has given its consent to these 
nominations. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 


LEGISLATIVE SESSION 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move 
that the Senate resume legislative 
business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 


WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Commit- 
tee on Energy and Natural Resoures 
be discharged from further consider- 
ation of H.R. 2826, amending the Wild 
and Scenic Rivers Act, and that the 
Senate turn to its immediate consider- 
ation. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall 
have to object at this time. I hope the 
matter can be cleared before the end 
of the session and we shall make every 
endeavor to do that. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec- 


tion is heard. 


29921 


Mr. DOLE. I thank the distin- 
guished minority leader. 

Mr. President, does the Senator 
from Alaska seek recognition? 

Mr. MURKOWSKIL. I thank the ma- 
jority leader. 


ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS 
SETTLEMENT ACT 


Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 
ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate turn to the immediate consid- 
eration of H.R. 4162, Calendar Item 
No. 1083. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I regret 
that I have to object on behalf of sev- 
eral Senators. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
objection is heard. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 
wonder if the minority leader has any 
idea or if he feels that this might be 
cleared prior to the end of the session? 

Mr. BYRD. I understand that there 
is a substitute for the measure. It has 
been printed in the Recorp and is 
being studied by various Senators. Per- 
haps it can be cleared before the end 
of the session. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my 
friend, the minority leader. I do wish 
to assure him for the record that I 
shall make every attempt, as will my 
senior colleague, Mr. STEVENS, I am 
sure, to meet with any Senators on the 
minority side who object to the pro- 
posed bill. I shall try to answer any 
questions that they may have. 

I do thank the minority leader for 
his consideration on this matter at 
this time. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank 
the distinguished Senator. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I 
wonder if it is in order that somehow 
or other, we be given a list of bills that 
are going to be cleared for the consent 
calendar for the balance of the ses- 
sion? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Chair has no such list. 

Mr. STEVENS. I am in a conference 
committee. It is a continuing confer- 
ence committee now that I think will 
be continued right up until the end of 
the session. It is awfully difficult to be 
here at the same time that bills are 
coming and going. I know it is an ex- 
treme burden on the staff, but I think 
that in view of the timing of the wind- 
ing down of this session, it is fair that 
we have some information concerning 
the bills other Members are seeking to 
clear. 

I note with some respect that there 
are a series of measures that pertain 
to our State that are not being 
cleared. It happens, in my judgment, 
that they are being objected to by the 
same Senators. Since we are in this 
unanimous consent mode, I felt that 
perhaps we might be able to obtain in- 
formation concerning matters that 





29922 


other Senators may be seeking unani- 
mous consent on so I might be present 
to lodge an objection when it is appro- 
priate. 

Is there some way we can ask for ad- 
vance notice of items that are cleared? 
I note that we no longer have the rule 
that matters appear on the calendar 
for 1 day, which pertained in all prior 
Congresses where I was involved in 
management on the floor. It is not 
easy to follow these matters under the 
current procedures. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Chair has no such list and does not 
have access to such list. He regretfully 
states that he cannot be of assistance 
to the Senator from Alaska. 


0 1900 


Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the 
Senator from Alaska will yield on this 
question—and I defer to the minority 
leader—if it is a policy or procedure to 
have available the information relative 
to the number of Senators who might 
have a hold or, as I understand it, the 
information available currently on 
H.R. 4162 does not give the name of 
the individual Senator and the diffi- 
culty is the inability to respond to that 
Senator. I wonder if I could direct this 
to the President for a ruling, a ques- 
tion specifically as to whether or not if 
we cannot get the name of the individ- 
ual Senator with the hold, whether we 
can get an indication if there is more 
than one. I will ask that of the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Chair would tell the junior Senator 
from Alaska that there is no procedur- 
al status, and the Chair is not able to 
provide the Senator from Alaska with 
such information and respectfully sug- 
gests that the junior Senator from 
Alaska address the question to the mi- 
nority leader inasmuch as he has indi- 
cated the objection. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the 
Chair. 

I assume there is not much more 
that the minority leader could impart 
as far as information as to whether 
there might be more than one hold or 
not on this matter? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Mr. President, as I 
indicated earlier, there is an objection 
on the part of several Senators, or var- 
ious Senators, I do not remember the 
word that I used, but there is more 
than one objection. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the mi- 
nority leader, and I assume the proce- 
dure then is to informally do the best 
you can. 

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I think that is cor- 
rect. I am sure that the staff on the 
distinguished Senator’s side of the 
aisle will continue to work with staff 
on this side of the aisle and will at- 
tempt to clear the item. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me reassure 
the minority leader of our willingness 
to work with those who have questions 
on this legislation. I appreciate the 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Senator’s courtesy and I thank the 
Chair. 

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk pro- 
ceeded to call the roll. 


SENATOR MATHIAS DEPARTS 


Mr. PELL. Mr. President, it is with a 
real sense of impending loss that I 
note the retirement from this body of 
the distinguished, unique, and able 
senior Senator from Maryland, Mr. 
MATHIAS. 

“‘Mac” Maruias is one of those rare 
people in public life who has never let 
the trappings of office overwhelm his 
true nature. His grace and good humor 
are constant qualities that he brings 
to every occasion, thereby making 
even the most daunting task seem 
easier. 

For me, he has become a true friend 
and wise counsel, as well as an ally in 
many a good cause. 

It has been my special good fortune 
to have him as a colleague on the 
Committee on Foreign Relations 
where his perception and sense of fair- 
ness have contributed greatly to the 
balance of the committee. 

I particularly commend him for his 
work on the South African sanctions 
bill, where his leadership was critical 
in ensuring that the committee take a 
strong stand in opposition to apart- 
heid. 

As chairman of the Subcommittee 
on International Economic Policy, 
Senator MATHIAS was among the first 
to sound the alarm about the threat to 
international stability posed by the 
burgeoning debt of underdeveloped 
countries. 

He also has taken a keen interest in 
our relationship with our NATO allies. 
For many years, he served as chair- 
man of the Senate delegation to the 
North Atlantic Assembly, and he is 
currently finishing up a year of service 
as the Assembly president. His expert 
knowledge, diplomatic skill, and per- 
sonal grace have greatly strengthened 
the United States-European interpar- 
liamentary relationship in support of 
NATO. 

On the Committee on Rules and Ad- 
ministration, where he succeeded me 
as chairman, Senator Matias has 
presided with notable equanimity and 
fortitude over the often-vexing prob- 
lems involving internal management 
of the Senate. 

Telephone procurement, Capitol se- 
curity, computer services, campaign fi- 
nance regulation, oversight of the 
Smithsonian Institution and the Li- 
brary of Congress and a host of other 
matters have received calm and pa- 
tient consideration under the chair- 


October 9, 1986 
manship of the Senator from Mary- 
land. 


By all odds, the most historic 
achievement of Chairman Marutias’ 
tenure at the helm of the Rules Com- 
mittee is the smooth, and I might say 
beneficial, transition of the Senate to 
the television age. 

I must admit that I myself came 
only late and with reluctance to sup- 
port TV coverage of Senate proceed- 
ings. But Senator MATHIAS was per- 
haps more farsighted than some of the 
rest of us in recognizing some time ago 
not only that the Senate owed it to 
itself and to the Nation to adapt to 
the times, but that the institution 
would not suffer from doing so. I be- 
lieve our experience to date has amply 
confirmed his judgment. 

“Mac” Maruias will be remembered 
fondly for many things but perhaps 
most of all for his sense of scholarship 
and erudition. To the wonderment of 
us all, he is never at a loss for an ap- 
propriate literary allusion to sum up 
an occasion. 

In the words of one of his most fre- 
quent sources of inspiration, Dr. 
Samuel Johnson, he is indeed ‘‘a Lord 
among wits.” 

Notwithstanding Dr. Johnson's abid- 
ing prejudice against Scotland, 
CHARLES McCurpy Maruias, Jr., is 
probably just the man Dr. Johnson 
had in mind when he said: 

“Much may be made of a Scotsman 
if he be caught young.” 

The Senator from Maryland was 
indeed caught young. He started 
public life as an assistant State attor- 
ney general at the tender age of 31 
and has been at it ever since. He first 
entered elective office in 1958 and has 
been reelected time and again, proving 
that Maryland respects his independ- 
ent style and political courage. He has 
served his State with great distinction 
and while many of us are sad to see 
him leave the Senate, everyone would 
agree that he richly deserves a respite. 

I only hope that he maintains his 
contacts and friendship with all of us 
he leaves behind in the Senate. 

I yield the floor. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 
call the roll. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
GRASSLEY). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. 


ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that there now be 
a period for the transaction of routine 
morning business not to extend 
beyond the hour of 8 p.m. 





October 9, 1986 


The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 


RELIEF OF THE MERCHANTS 
NATIONAL BANK OF MOBILE, AL 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that 
the Chair lay before the Senate a mes- 
sage from the House of Representa- 
tives on S. 593. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid 
before the Senate the following mes- 
sage from the House of Representa- 
tives: 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate 
(S. 593) entitled “an Act for the relief of the 
Merchants National Bank of Mobile, Ala- 
bama’”, do pass with the following amend- 
ment: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause, 

and insert: 
That the Secretary of the Treasury is au- 
thorized and directed to pay, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, the sum of $809,609, to the Mer- 
chants National Bank of Mobile, Alabama, 
for compensation for losses sustained during 
the period January 1, 1976, through Decem- 
ber 31, 1978, concerning the issuance and 
cancellation of a Government loan guaran- 
tee and the subsequent issuance of a second 
loan guarantee on reduced terms, resulting 
from actions and misrepresentations of the 
Defense Logistics Agency of the Depart- 
ment of Defense and its fiscal agent, the 
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. 

Sec. 2. (a) The payment made pursuant to 
the first section of this Act shall constitute 
full settlement of the legal and equitable 
claims by the Merchants National Bank of 
Mobile, Alabama, against the United States, 
covered by this Act. 

(b) No part of the amount appropriated in 
this Act in excess of 10 per centum thereof 
shall be paid or delivered to or received by 
any agent or attorney on account of services 
rendered in connection with such claim, and 
the same shall be unlawful, any contract to 
the contrary notwithstanding. Violation of 
the provisions of this subsection is a misde- 
meanor punishable by a fine not to exceed 
$1,000. 

Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I rise 
in support of the amended version of 
S. 593, a bill for the relief of the Mer- 
chants National Bank of Mobile, intro- 
duced by Senator HowELL HEFLIN and 
myself on March 6, 1985. Passage of 
the bill would conclude a congression- 
al reference proceeding that began in 
the U.S. Senate more than 6 years ago. 
On October 31, 1985, the original bill 
was considered by the Judiciary Com- 
mittee and was unanimously reported 
to the full Senate for consideration. 
On December 6, 1985, the Senate ap- 
proved the original bill by voice vote. 
Today, the House approved an amend- 
ed version of the bill. 

The bill complements the legislation 
that was introduced by Senator 
Her.in in the 96th Congress (S. 2052), 
and referred in November 1979 by 
Senate Resolution 291 to the Chief 
Commissioner of the U.S. Claims 
Court. 

The reference sought the court’s 
consideration of whether the Mer- 
chants National Bank of Mobile [the 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


bank] was legally or equitably entitled 
to compensation for losses sustained in 
connection with a defective Federal 
loan guarantee issued by the Depart- 
ment of Defense. After a lengthy trail 
before a hearing officer, and argument 
before a review panel, the U.S. Claims 
Court, through its chief judge, has ad- 
vised the Senate that the bank has an 
equitable claim for $809,609, and that 
payment of the amount would not 
constitute a gratuity. 

The losses sustained by the bank 
relate to loans made to a Government 
contractor in Mobile, AL, which was 
attempting to perform two contracts, 
awarded by the Defense Logistics 
Agency in 1976, to assemble combat 
rations for the military. In the early 
stages of the contracts, lengthy delays 
and mishandling of materiel by the 
Government, generated substanial un- 
forseen costs to the contractor. To 
assist the contract in securing financ- 
ing for the costs, the Agency approved 
a loan guarantee to the bank pursuant 
to the Defense Production Act V-Loan 
Guarantee Program. 

When the bank had advanced virtu- 
ally the entire guaranteed sum— 
almost $2 million—the Agency abrupt- 
ly cancelled the guarantee because it 
discovered that no funds had been ap- 
propriated to support the guarantee 
agreement. Nevertheless, stressing the 
importance of the combat rations con- 
tracts to the defense effort, the 
Agency pledged its full assistance to 
Merchants Bank and the contractor to 
encourage them to proceed with the 
contracts. The Agency even drafted 
legislation to allow the issuance of a 
suitable replacement guarantee. Based 
upon these assurances, the bank 
agreed to continue supporting the 
Government’s contractor. 

Soon thereafter, appropriate lan- 
guage was included in the 1978 DOD 
Appropriations Act to make available 
$5 million for the express purpose of 
authorizing new loan guarantee agree- 
ments. At this point, the bank applied 
for a new v-loan guarantee consistent 
with the assurances it had received 
from the Defense Logistics Agency. 
Notwithstanding the availability of 
suitable loan guarantee authority and 
the assurances that the Agency would 
do everything possible to restore the 
guarantees upon which the bank had 
relied, the Agency refused the applica- 
tion. Instead, it offered a guarantee 
substantially less favorable than the 
first, and only after requiring the 
bank to extend an additional half-mil- 
lion dollars in unguaranteed credit to 
the Government's contractor. 

Meanwhile, the Agency acknowl- 
edged that its handling of the con- 
tracts had substantially increased the 
cost of performance. Consequently, it 
enlarged the credit requirements of 
the contractor. Because the second 
loan guarantee was wholly insufficient 
to support these credit requirements, 


29923 


and since the Bank could not prudent- 
ly extend further credit in light of its 
alreay substantial unguaranteed expo- 
sure, the contractor was forced to 
close its doors and file for bankruptcy 
in 1978. Both before and after the 
bankruptcy petition was filed, the 
bank expressed its willingness several 
times to join with the Agency in coop- 
erative financing arrangements that 
would save the company. The Agency 
refused to entertain these suggestions, 
and in April 1978 the contractor was 
adjudged bankrupt. 

In extending credit for the perform- 
ance of the Government contracts, the 
bank understandably relied upon rep- 
resentations and assurances of the De- 
fense Logistics Agency. When the first 
guarantee was suddenly cancelled, the 
bank again relied upon the assurances 
of senior Agency officials that, pend- 
ing enactment of new guarantee au- 
thority, a replacement loan guarantee 
would be established in an amount 
sufficient to protect the bank. When 
the Agency ultimately refused to 
stand by those assurances, the result- 
ant credit limitations left the contrac- 
tor facing bankruptcy and caused the 
bank to suffer losses of nearly $1.7 
million. 

Because the bank’s losses were pri- 
marily the result of its reliance upon a 
guarantee that exceeded the authority 
of the responsible Government offi- 
cers, it was apparent that a successful 
legal cause of action for the recovery 
of these losses was extremely unlikely. 
Where Government officials act 
beyond the scope of their authority, 
the obstacles to maintain a legal cause 
of action to recover from the United 
States are virtually insurmountable. 
For that reason, S. 2052 was intro- 
duced in the 96th Congress and was re- 
ferred by Senate resolution to the 
court of claims for consideration. 

After a lengthy trial, which filled 
2,000 transcript pages, Judge Spector, 
a senior judge of the claims court, on 
April 30, 1984, issued an exhaustive 65- 
page report in which he recommended 
that Congress authorize payment to 
Merchants Bank of $809,609 in full 
settlement of all its legal or equitable 
claims against the United States. The 
report concluded that the Govern- 
ment was responsible for a series of 
wrongful acts, including several unful- 
filled assurances upon which the bank 
had relied in extending credit to the 
contractor. Judge Spector also found 
that the bank’s cooperation with the 
Government and its contractor was in 
part motivated by the Agency’s insist- 
ence that continued production under 
the contract was urgently required to 
support national defense needs. 

Government counsel took exception 
to many of the findings, and a three- 
judge review panel of the claims court 
considered yet another round of briefs 
and oral argument from the parties. 





29924 


The resulting 22-page report of De- 
cember 6, 1984, confirmed Judge Spec- 
tor’s conclusions and recommended 
that the chief judge transmit to the 
Senate its conclusion that Merchants 
Bank has an equitable claim against 
the Government for $809,609. Copies 
of the decisions of both judge Spector 
and the review panel were referred to 
the Secretary of the Senate by the 
chief judge of the claims court on De- 
cember 19, 1984. 

The bill would give effect to the con- 
clusions rendered after careful adjudi- 
cation by the claims court. It does not 
compensate the bank for all of the 
losses it has suffered in supporting 
this Government contractor. Indeed, 
the bank has never sought total com- 
pensation from the United States for 
its losses, nor does it seek to recover 
the painful costs generated by some 5 
years of watching this congressional 
reference proceeding take its long and 
careful course. 

The bill would confirm the efficacy 
of some of the longstanding traditions 
of a congressional reference, traditions 
founded in part upon a simple recogni- 
tion that there should be an avenue by 
which the Government can be held ac- 
countable for its mistakes and ex- 
cesses. Accountability is particularly 
important when, as in this case, losses 
are suffered expressly because of the 
trust and reliance that was placed 
quite naturally in a Government 


agency responsible for the national de- 


fense. 

Mr. President, the House version of 
the bill contains language which 
makes clear that no part of the 
amount appropriated in the bill in 
excess of 10 percent thereof could be 
paid or delivered to any agent or attor- 
ney of the bank on account of services 
rendered in connection with the claim. 
The purpose of this language is to pro- 
hibit any agent or attorney of the 
bank from receiving funds due from 
the bank on a contingent fee or suc- 
cess fee basis as a result of its repre- 
sentation of the bank; the language 
makes clear that payments by the 
bank to any agents or attorneys on a 
contingent basis in excess of 10 per- 
cent of $809,609 are unlawful. The sec- 
tion is not intended to apply to tradi- 
tional hourly arrangements made by 
the bank for attorneys in connection 
with representation of the bank in 
handling this congressional reference 
claim through the detailed process set 
out in title 28, United States Code, sec- 
tions 1492, 2509. This additional lan- 
guage is acceptable to Senator HEFLIN 
and myself. 

Mr. President, the bill involves a 
unique, unprecedented set of facts, 
and will provide compensation only to 
the Merchants National Bank of 
Mobile for its own proven losses. 

I urge my colleagues to again sup- 
port equitable compensation for the 
Merchants National Bank of Mobile 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


by concurring with the House amend- 
ment and passing the bill. 

Thank you, Mr. President. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move 
that the Senate concur in the House 
amendments. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the motion 
of the Senator from Kansas. 

The motion was agreed to. 

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


NAVY RABBI JOINS ICELAND 
TEAM 


Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as the 
President departs for the summit 
meeting in Iceland with Soviet leader 
Gorbachev, the Nation’s Jewish com- 
munity prepares to observe one of the 
most important dates on the Jewish 
religious calendar, the high holiday of 
Yom Kippur. 

For this reason the President has 
asked Rabbi Arnold Resnicoff, a Navy 
chaplain stationed at the Naval Chap- 
lains School in Newport, RI, to fly to 
Iceland with President Reagan and 
conduct Yom Kippur services for the 
President’s staff. 

This is not the first time that Rabbi 
Resnicoff has been a part of momen- 
tous events. In 1983, the rabbi cared 
for the injured and dying in the after- 
math of the terrorist bombing of the 
Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. 
The President took note of Rabbi Res- 
nicoff’s actions in Beirut and asked 
him to prepare a report on the terror- 
ist attack and subsequent rescue 
effort. 

Mr. President, the Providence Jour- 
nal recently reported on Rabbi Resni- 
coff’s participation in the Iceland 
summit and I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the article, entitled 
“Navy Rabbi To Join Iceland Team,” 
be printed in full in the Recorp. 

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


Navy Ragsi To Jorn IcELAND TEAM 


NEwPoRT.—Rabbi Menachem Resnicoff 
and his family immigrated to America 
nearly a century ago, in flight from the per- 
secution that haunted Jews in their native 
Russia. 

Today, his grandson will complete the 
journey that his grandfather began more 
than 80 years ago, Rabbi Arnold Resnicoff, 
a Navy chaplain, will fly to Iceland to lead 
Yon Kippur services for President Reagan's 
summit staff. 

“I'm only sorry that my father is not alive 
to see this, that one generation after they 
escaped to America, one of our family will 
lead a service at a meeting with Russia,” 
Rabbi Resnicoff said from his office at the 
Naval Chaplains School in Newport. 


October 9, 1986 


“My grandfather used to thank God that 
there was a country like America. It was 
that feeling he bequeathed to me.” 


ONLY CHAPLAIN AT SUMMIT 


Rabbi Resnicoff isn't sure why he was 
chosen to be the only chaplain at the pre- 
summit between Mr. Reagan and Soviet 
leader Mikhail Gorbachev that begins 
Friday. All he knows is that the White 
House asked the Armed Forces Chaplain 
Board to select a rabbi, and the Navy’s chief 
of chaplains picked him. 

Perhaps someone in the administration re- 
membered the Navy chaplain who cared for 
the dying and wounded in the aftermath of 
the 1983 terrorist bombing of a Marine bar- 
racks in Beirut, Lebanon. 

Mr. Reagan asked Rabbi Resnicoff to 
write an account of the attack and the 
rescue effort that followed. The President 
later read the report during a national con- 
vention headed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. 

“My first feeling was one of pride in 
America,” Rabbi Resnicoff said of his trip to 
Iceland. “(It's) the thought that someone in 
Reagan's staff felt comfortable bringing in 
religion as a matter of course, that this was 
an important time of the year.” 

The summit falls during the high holy 
days of the Jewish religion. Yom Kippur— 
the day of atonement—is the holiest day in 
the Jewish year, capping a period of reflec- 
tion, study and prayer. 

Rabbi Resnicoff believes there is a certain 
lovely irony to the timing of these two 
“events.” 

“Jews believe they can learn from the 
past,” he explained. ‘“‘We're telling ourselves 
as individuals, as a people and as a nation 
that we should learn from past actions and 
break out of unhealthy cycles.” 

Someone recently asked Rabbi Resnicoff 
what he would say if he met the Soviet 
leader. 

“What would I say to Gorbachev if I could 
stand in front of him in the uniform of a 
U.S. Navy officer with the Ten Command- 
ments—the symbol of a Jewish chaplain—on 
my sleeve? I would not have to say another 
word, My uniform says it all.” 

Rabbi Resnicoff joined the Navy because 
of his father’s love of America. But it was 
his experience in the Navy that led him to 
become a rabbi. It was in Vietnam's Mekong 
Delta that he began to lead services for 
fellow Jews. 

He said he returned to the Navy after 
completing his rabbinical studies for two 
reasons. “Loyalty. If it hadn't been for the 
Navy, I wouldn't have become a rabbi. And 
second, almost never did I see a rabbi in the 
Navy.” 

The rabbi isn’t sure what he will say in his 
sermon on Sunday, the beginning of Yom 
Kippur. He said he might draw on the his- 
toric message of Yom Kippur—the notion 
that people can learn from their mistakes. 

The idea I got from my father is you can 
make things better or worse. Just as individ- 
uals can make a difference, so can nations. 
A nation is not an evil thing. It can either 
be a force for good or for suffering. 

“I believe it’s my responsibility not only to 
be a good individual but to be a good citi- 
zen.” 

What hopes does Rabbi Resnicoff have 
for the first meeting of the two superpower 
leaders? 

“It may be impossible, but if Russia could 
understand that America does not negotiate 
based only on what’s good for us (and that) 
we really care about individual liberties and 





October 9, 1986 


human rights, that would be a step for- 
ward.” 

The only thing Rabbi Resnicoff regrets is 
not being able to spend Yom Kippur with 
his wife and daughter. But after 10 years in 
the Navy, the rabbi has grown accustomed 
to missing holidays with his family. 

If his father were alive today. Rabbi Res- 
nicoff thinks he would be thrilled with the 
honor bestowed on his son. 

“For my father, I know there would be 
tears on his cheeks. He'd say that he’s only 
sorry that his father wasn’t alive to see 
this.” 


MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE 
RECEIVED DURING THE RECESS 


ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTIONS SIGNED 
Under the authority of the order of 
the Senate of January 3, 1985, the Sec- 
retary of the Senate, on October 8, 
1986, during the recess of the Senate, 
received a message from the House of 
Representatives announcing that the 
Speaker has signed the following en- 
rolled joint resolutions: 

H.J. Res. 748. Joint resolution making fur- 
ther continuing appropriations for fiscal 
year 1987, and for other purposes; 

H.J. Res. 749. Joint resolution waiving the 
printing on parchment of certain enrolled 
bills and joint resolutions during the re- 
mainder of the 2d session of the 99th Con- 
gress; and 

H.J. Res. 750. Joint resolution making fur- 
ther continuing appropriations for fiscal 
year 1987, and for other purposes. 


MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE 


ENROLLED BILL SIGNED 


At 10:55 a.m., a message from the 
House of Representatives, announced 
that the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Fo.ey] had signed the following en- 
rolled bill: 

H.R. 2005: An act to extend and amend 
the Comprehensive Environmental Re- 
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
1980, and for other purposes. 

The enrolled bill was subsequently 
signed by the President pro tempore 
(Mr. THURMOND]. 

ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

SIGNED 

At 2:29 p.m., a message from the 
House of Representatives, delivered by 
Mr. Berry, one of its reading clerks, 
announced that the Speaker has 
signed the following enrolled bills and 
joint resolution: 

H.R. 3526. An act to provide for the settle- 
ment of certain claims respecting the San 
Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona; 

H.R. 4021. An act to extend and improve 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 

H.R. 4952. An act to amend title 18, 
United States Code, with respect to the 
interception of certain communications, 
other forms of surveillance, and for other 
purposes; and 

H.J. Res. 678. Joint resolution to designate 
October 1986 as “Crack/Cocaine Awareness 
Month.” 

The enrolled bills and joint resolu- 
tion were signed by the President pro 
tempore (Mr. THurmonp]. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


At 5:05 p.m., a message from the 
House of Representatives, delivered by 
Ms. Goetz, one of its reading clerks, 
announced that the House agrees to 
the amendment of the Senate to the 
amendments of the House to the bill 
(S. 2129) to facilitate the ability of or- 
ganizations to establish risk retention 
groups, to facilitate the ability of such 
organizations to purchase liability in- 
surance on a group basis, and for 
other purposes. 

The message also announced that 
the House agrees to the amendment of 
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4350) to 
amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 
and for other purposes; with amend- 
ments, in which it requests the concur- 
rence of the Senate. 

The message further announced 
that pursuant to section 301 of Public 
Law 99-371, the Speaker appoints as 
members of the Commission on Educa- 
tion of the Deaf, the following from 
private life on the part of the House: 
Ms. Patricia A. Hughes of Seattle, WA, 
Mr. David J. Nelson of Washington, 
DC, Mr. William Page Johnson of 
Jacksonville, IL, and Ms. Nanette 
Fabray of Pacific Palisades, CA. 

The message also announced that 
the House has passed the following 
bill, in which it requests the concur- 
rence of the Senate: 

H.R. 5445. An act to amend chapter 96 of 
title 18, United States Code. 

The message further announced 
that the House has agreed to the fol- 
lowing concurrent resolutions, in 
which it requests the concurrence of 
the Senate: 

H. Con. Res. 404. A concurrent resolution 
expressing the sense of the Congress that 
the Soviet Union should immediately pro- 
vide for the emigration of Naum Meiman 
and Inna Kitrosskaya-Meiman and for the 
resolution of all divided family and emigra- 
tion cases; and 

H. Con. Res. 406. A concurrent resolution 
expressing support for President Reagan in 
his October 11-12 meeting with General 
Secretary Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, 
and for other purposes. 


MEASURES REFERRED 


The following bills, previously re- 
ceived from the House of Representa- 
tives, were read the first and second 
times by unanimous consent, and re- 
ferred to indicated: 

H.R. 103. An act to require the Secretary 
of the Interior to permit trapping in the 
Ozark National Scenic Riverways Area; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Re- 
sources. 

H.R. 235. An act to authorize the estab- 
lishment of the Jimmy Carter National His- 
toric Site in the State of Georgia, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources. 


The following bill was read the first 
and second times by unanimous con- 
sent, and referred as indicated: 

H.R. 5445. An act to amend chapter 96 of 
title 18, United States Code; to the Commit- 
tee on the Judiciary. 


29925 


The following concurrent resolutions 
were read, and referred as indicated: 


H. Con. Res. 404. Concurrent resolution 
expressing the sense of the Congress that 
the Soviet Union should immediately pro- 
vide for the emigration of Naum Meiman 
and Inna Kitrosskaya-Meiman and for the 
resolution of all divided family and emigra- 
tion cases; to the Committee on Foreign Re- 
lations. 

H. Con. Res. 406. Concurrent resolution 
expressing support for President Reagan in 
his October 11-12 meeting with General 
Secretary Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Foreign Relations. 


MEASURES PLACED ON THE 
CALENDAR 


The Committee on Commerce, Sci- 
ence, and Transportation was dis- 
charged from the further consider- 
ation of the following bill, which was 
placed on the calendar: 


H.R. 4731, An act to amend chapter 131 of 
title 46, United States Code, relating to the 
Federal recreational boating safety pro- 
grams, and for other purposes. 


ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT 
RESOLUTIONS SIGNED DURING 
RECESS 


Under the authority of the order of 
the Senate of January 3, 1986, the fol- 
lowing enrolled bills and joint resolu- 
tions were signed on October 8, 1986, 
during the recess of the Senate, by the 
President pro tempore [Mr. TuHurR- 
MOND]: 


H.R. 3773. An act to amend the Steven- 
son-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 
1980 to promote technology transfer by au- 
thorizing Government-operated laboratories 
to enter into cooperative research agree- 
ments and by establishing a Federal Labora- 
tory Consortium for Technology Transfer 
within the National Bureau of Standards; 

H.R. 4718. An act to amend title 18, 
United States Code, to provide additional 
penalties for fraud and related activities in 
connection with access devices and comput- 
ers, and for other purposes; 

H.R. 5362. An act to extend the authority 
of the Supreme Court Police to provide pro- 
tective services for Justices and Court per- 
sonnel; 

H.R. 5548. An act to amend the Export- 
Import Bank Act of 1945; 

H.J. Res. 635. Joint resolution to designate 
the school year of September 1986 through 
May 1987 as “National Year of the Teach- 
er” and January 28, 1987, as ‘National 
Teacher Appreciation Day”; 

H.J. Res. 748. Joint resolution making fur- 
ther continuing appropriations for fiscal 
year 1987, and for other purposes; 

H.J. Res. 749. Joint resolution waiving the 
printing on parchment of certain enrolled 
bills and joint resolutions during the re- 
mainder of the second session of the Ninety- 
ninth Congress; and 

H.J. Res. 750. Joint resolution making fur- 
ther continuing appropriations for fiscal 
year 1987, and for other purposes. 





29926 


EXECUTIVE AND OTHER 
COMMUNICATIONS 


The following communications were 
laid before the Senate, together with 
accompanying papers, reports, and 
documents, which were referred as in- 
dicated: 

EC-3820. A communication from the 
Comptroller General of the United States, 
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report enti- 
tled “Financial Audit: Commodity Credit 
Corporation's Financial Statements for 1985 
and 1984”; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry. 

EC-3821. A communication from the As- 
sistant Secretary of Agriculture (Science 
and Education), transmitting, pursuant to 
law, the Renewable Resources Extension 
Program Five Year Plan for 1986-1990; to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry. 

EC-3822. A communication from the Sec- 
retary of Transportation, transmitting, pur- 
suant to law, a recommendation with re- 
spect to a supplemental appropriation for 
the Pollution Fund administered by the 
U.S. Coast Guard; to the Committee on Ap- 
propriations. 

EC-3823. A communication from the Di- 
rector of the Office of Management and 
Budget, Executive Office of the President, 
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on 
the reapportionment of the appropriation 
for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc.; 
to the Committee on Appropriations. 

EC-3824. A communication from the As- 
sistant Secretary of State (Legislative and 
Intergovernmental Affairs), transmitting, 
pursuant to law, a report on certain proper- 
ties to be transferred to the Republic of 
Panama in accordance with the Panama 
Canal Treaty and related agreements; to the 
Committee on Armed Services. 

EC-3825. A communication from the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
(Logistics and Communications), transmit- 
ting, pursuant to law, a report on the con- 
version of the refuse collection function at 
Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska to per- 
formance by contract; to the Committee on 
Armed Services. 

EC-3826. A communication from the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Ad- 
ministration), transmitting, pursuant to law, 
notice of the intention of the Defense Logis- 
tics Agency to exercise the provision of law 
concerning examination of records by the 
Comptroller General; to the Committee on 
Armed Services. 

EC-3827. A communication from the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Ad- 
ministration), transmitting, pursuant to law, 
notice of the intention of the Defense Logis- 
tices Agency to exercise a provision of law 
concerning the examination of records by 
the Comptroller General; to the Committee 
on Armed Services. 

EC-3828. A communication from the Gen- 
eral Counsel of the Department of Com- 
merce, transmitting, purusant to law, the 
comments of the Department of S. 991, the 
Marine Fisheries Program Authorization 
Act of 1985; the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation. 

EC-3829. A communication from the Sec- 
retary of Transportation, transmitting a 
draft of proposed legislation to authorize oc- 
cupancy of substandard family housing 
units by members of the Coast Guard on 
the same basis as members of the other 
Armed Forces; to the Committee on Com- 
merce, Science, and Transportation. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


EC-3830. A communication from the As- 
sistant Secretary of the Interior, transmit- 
ting a draft of proposed legislation to 
amend the Public Law 99-396 exception to 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources. 

EC-3831. A communication from the Sec- 
retary of the Interior, transmitting, pursu- 
ant to law, the annual report under the 
Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 for 
calendar year 1985; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources. 

EC-3832. A communication from the 
Chairman of the Advisory Council on His- 
toric Preservation, transmitting, pursuant 
to law, a report entitled “The National His- 
toric Preservation Act of 1966: An Assess- 
ment of Its Implementation Over Twenty 
Years”; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources. 

EC-3833. A communication from the 
Acting Secretary of State, transmitting, pur- 
suant to law, a report on the situation in El 
Salvador; to the Committee on Foreign Re- 
lations. 

EC-3834. A communication from the As- 
sistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, De- 
partment of State, transmitting, pursuant 
to law, a report on international agree- 
ments, other than treaties, entered into by 
the United States in the sixty day period 
prior to October 3, 1986; to the Committee 
on Foreign Relations. 

EC-3835. A communication from the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Op- 
erations and Director, Office of Manage- 
ment, Department of Health and Human 
Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, an 
annual report on the PHS Commissioned 
Corps Retirement System for fiscal year, 
1985; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs. 

EC-3836. A communication from the 
Chairman of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, 
an annual report of the Securities and Ex- 
change Commission on the Government in 
the Sunshine Act, for calendar year 1985; to 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs. 

EC-3837. A communication from the Ad- 
ministrator of the General Services Admin- 
istration, transmitting, pursuant to law, an 
annual report of personal property fur- 
nished to non-federal recipients for fiscal 
year 1985; to the Committee on Governmen- 
tal Affairs. 

EC-3838. A communication from the As- 
sistant Secretary of the Interior (Indian Af- 
fairs), transmitting, pursuant to law, a plan 
for the use and distribution of the Rincon 
Band of Mission Indians judgement funds; 
to the Select Committee on Indian Affairs. 

EC-3839. A communication from the 
Chief Justice of the United States, transmit- 
ting, pursuant to law, reports of the Pro- 
ceedings of the Judicial Conference of the 
United States, held in Washington, D.C. on 
March 12 and 13, 1986, and the Special Ses- 
sion held on June 30, 1986; to the Commit- 
tee on the Judiciary. 

EC-3840. A communication from the 
Treasurer of the Jewish War Veterans, USA 
National Memorial, Inc., transmitting, pur- 
suant to law, an annual audit report for 
fiscal year ended March, 31, 1986; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. 

EC-3841. A communication from the 
Treasurer of the Navy Wives Clubs of Amer- 
ica, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 
annual audit report for the year ended 
August 31, 1986; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. 


October 9, 1986 


EC-3842. A communication from the Di- 
rector of the National Science Foundation, 
transmitting to law, a report on the re- 
search facilities needs of U.S. universities; to 
the Committee on Labor and Human Re- 
sources. 

EC-3843. A communication from the Sec- 
retary of Education, transmitting, pursuant 
to law, final regulations for the Carl D. Per- 
kins Scholarship Program; to the Commit- 
tee on Labor and Human Resources. 

EC-3844. A communication from the Sec- 
retary of Education, transmitting, pursuant 
to law, final regulations for debt collection; 
to the Committee on Labor and Human Re- 
sources. 

EC-3845. A communication from the Sec- 
retary of Transportation, transmitting a 
draft of proposed legislation to amend the 
Railway Labor Act; to the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources. 

EC-3846. A communication from the 
Acting Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to 
law, the interim report on the 504 Develop- 
ment Company Pilot Program; to the Com- 
mittee on Small Business. 


REPORTS OF COMMITTEES 


The following reports of committees 
were submitted: 

By Mr. ROTH, from the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs: 

Special Report entitled “Child Pornogra- 
phy and Pedophilia” (Rept. No. 99-537). 

By Mr. CHAFEE, from the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, without 
amendment: 

S. 893: A bill to create the Florida Panther 
National Wildlife Refuge in the State of 
Plorida (Rept. No. 99-538). 

By Mr. LUGAR, from the Committee on 
Foreign Relations, without amendment: 

H.J. Res. 67: A Joint resolution calling for 
a wildlife sanctuary for humpback whales in 
the West Indies. 


EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF 
COMMITTEES 


The following executive reports of 
committees were submitted: 

By Mr. HELMS, from the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: 

Peter C. Myers, of Missouri, to be a 
Member of the Board of Directors of the 
Commodity Credit Corporation. 

(The above nomination was reported 
with the recommendation that it be 
confirmed, subject to the nominee’s 
commitment to respond to requests to 
appear and testify before any duly 
constituted committee of the Senate.) 


INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND 
JOINT RESOLUTIONS 


The following bills and joint resolu- 
tions were introduced, read the first 
and second time by unanimous con- 
sent, and referred as indicated: 

By Mr. WEICKER (for himself and 
Mr. BumPrenrs): 

S. 2914. A bill to extend through fiscal 
year 1988 SBA Pilot Programs under section 
8 of the Small Business Act; considered and 
passed. 





October 9, 1986 


By Mr. RIEGLE: 

8S. 2915. A bill to deny most-favored-nation 
treatment to imports from Yugoslavia; to 
the Committee on Finance. 

By Mr. BOSCHWITZ: 

S. 2916. A bill to amend the Internal Reve- 
nue Code of 1986 to retain a capital gains 
tax differential, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance. 

By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. 
Dore, Mr. Kasten, Mr. LAxatt, Mr. 
Nickies, Mr. Denton, Mr. HEtnz, 
Mr. McCiure, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. 
Weicker, Mr. WILson, Mr. Moyni- 
HAN, Mr. Proxmire, Mr. GLENN, Mr. 
Nouwn, Mr. Zortnsky, Mr. DeCon- 
crnt, Mr. Curtes, Mr. METZENBAUM, 
Mr. Gore, Mr. Hotiincs, Mr. Dixon, 
Mr. Levin, Mr. Pryor, and Mr, STEen- 


NIs): 

S.J. Res. 426. Joint resolution to designate 
the week of October 19 through 25, 1986, as 
“National CPR Awareness Week"; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. 


SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT 
AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS 


The following concurrent resolutions 
and Senate resolutions were read, and 
referred (or acted upon), as indicated: 

By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. 
Conen, Mr. Boren, Mr. Lucar, Mr. 
Kennepy, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mr. 
Leany, Mr. BrapLtey, Mr. MurKow- 
SKI, and Mr. Ror): 

S. Res. 503. Resolution relative to Dr. 
Abby Nkomo, chairman of the Atteridge- 
ville/Saulsville Civic Association; considered 
and agreed to. 

By Mr. WALLOP (for himself and Mr. 
Simpson): 

S. Res. 504. Resolution relating to United 
States-Japan ash trade; to the Committee 
on Finance. 

By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Ken- 
NeDY, Mrs. Hawkins, Mr. MoynrHAN, 
Mr. Srmon, Mr. Starrorp, Mr. Met- 
CHER, Mr. Jonnsron, Mr. Boren, Mr. 
Matsunaca, and Mr. SARBANES): 

8S. Con. Res. 167. Concurrent resolution to 
express the sense of Congress regarding effi- 
cient and compassionate management of the 
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) 
Program; to the Committee on Finance. 


STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED 
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 


By Mr. RIEGLE: 

S. 2915. A bill to deny most-favored- 
nation treatment to imports from 
Yugoslavia; to the Committee on Fi- 
nance. 

STATUS OF IMPORTS FROM YUGOSLAVIA 

Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I am 
today offering a bill that deals with a 
problem that has arisen where an 
American citizen has been tried by a 
court in Yugoslavia and sentenced to a 
7-year prison term for activities that 
this American citizen carried out in 
the United States—activities of a 
proper political sort. Expressing his 
views here in the United States is the 
reason he has been jailed, tried, and 
now convicted to a 7-year term in 
Yugoslavia. 

The man in question, Pjeter Ivezaj, 
is a U.S. citizen from Sterling Heights, 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


MI. I am greatly distressed by this de- 
velopment, as are others in my State. 
Certainly his family is greatly dis- 
tressed, as are others who have fol- 
lowed this case, because of what is ob- 
viously improper conduct by the Gov- 
ernment of Yugoslavia. 

This afternoon, my colleague in the 
House of Representatives from Michi- 
gan, Congressman WILLIAM Broom- 
FIELD, who is the senior Michigan Re- 
publican in the House and ranking Re- 
publican on the Foreign Affairs Com- 
mittee, filed a bill that is exactly the 
same as the one I will now file, con- 
taining the cosponsorship of the 18 
House Members in both parties from 
the State of Michigan, as well as sever- 
al dozen other colleagues in the House 
of Representatives. 

What the bill would do is, if passed, 
suspend the most-favored-nation trad- 
ing status with Yugoslavia until such 
time as this illegal detainment of an 
American citizen comes to an end and 
this, and any other similarly incarcer- 
ated individual, is released. 

This is a very serious matter. I say to 
the officials of Yugoslavia that this is 
unacceptable behavior and conduct 
toward citizens of this country and 
toward our country, and I, for one, 
feel strongly that unless this matter is 
resolved quickly and properly, we 
ought not to be seeing Yugoslavian 
goods of any sort coming into the 
United States, because this is just un- 
acceptable and intolerable conduct be- 
tween our Nations. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent to have printed in the Recorp the 
text of the bill and two articles from 
the Detroit News and the Detroit Free 
Press relating to this matter. 

There being no objection, the text of 
the bill and articles were ordered to be 
printed in the Recorp, as follows: 

S. 2915 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, 

SEC. 1. DENIAL OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREAT- 
MENT. 


Nondiscriminatory treatment (Most-Fa- 
vored Nation treatment) shall be denied to 
any product of Yugoslavia that is entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse for consump- 
tion, in the customs territory of the United 
States on or after the 10th day after the 
date of enactment of this Act unless prior to 
that 10th day, the President determines and 
reports to the Congress that the Govern- 
ment of Yugoslavia has released all citizens 
of the United States who the President 
finds have been imprisoned or otherwise de- 
tained in the custody of government au- 
thorities in Yugoslavia without adequate 
justification and that the Government of 
Yugoslavia has ceased to implement any 
policy or program which results in such un- 
justified imprisonment or detainment of 
United States citizens. 

SEC. 2. DURATION OF DENIAL. 

In the event that the denial of nondis- 
criminatory treatment (Most-Favored- 
Nation treatment) to any product of Yugo- 
slavia required under section 1 of this Act 
takes effect, such denial shall continue in 


29927 


effect until such time as the President de- 
termines and reports to the Congress that 
the Government of Yugoslavia has released 
all citizens of the United States who the 
President finds have been imprisoned or 
otherwise detained in the custody of govern- 
ment authorities in Yugoslavia without ade- 
quate justification and that the Govern- 
ment of Yugoslavia has ceased to implement 
any policy or program which results in such 
unjustified imprisonment or detainment of 
United States citizens. 
Yucostavs Convict AMERICAN 
DETROIT AREA MAN GETS 7-YEAR TERM 
(By Roddy Ray) 

Pjeter Ivezaj, a U.S. citizen from Sterling 
Heights, was sentenced Wednesday to seven 
years in prison by a panel of judges in Yugo- 
slavia for participating in peaceful anti- 
Yugoslav activities in this country. 

The sentence prompted outrage in Wash- 
ington and at the Ivezaj family’s home. His 
lawyer in Yugoslavia entered an immediate 
appeal. 

“Please help us,” his father, Leka, a 56- 
year-old Chrysler Corp. worker, said 
through an interpreter. The family had de- 
clined previously to be interviewed for pub- 
lication, fearing their statements would ad- 
versely affect the outcome of Ivezaj's trial. 

“IT was told that I should button my lips, 
so to say,” said his brother Frano, 28. “I’ve 
buttoned my lips enough. Now I intend to 
take this matter to the court of world opin- 
ion. If U.S. citizenship has any value, which 
I believe it does, now is the time for the U.S. 
government to make a move.” 

Ivezaj, 30, of Albanian descent, was arrest- 
ed in August after flying to Yugoslavia with 
his wife and daughter to visit relatives, 
family members said. He has been a natural- 
ized U.S. citizen for 10 years and has worked 
as a bilingual technician with the Detroit 
Public Schools. 

A statement released Wednesday by the 
U.S. Embassy in Belgrade said the charges 
apparently stemmed from his “alleged mem- 
bership in an alleged Albanian-American 
student organization and participation in an 
‘Anti-Yugoslav’ demonstration” in Washing- 
ton in 1981. 

“The U.S. Government will continue to 
press vigorously for Mr. Ivezaj’s release. We 
have informed senior Yugoslav officials of 
our outrage that an American citizen could 
be arrested and tried for . . . exercising his 
constitutional rights in the United States. 
We have also informed Yugoslav govern- 
ment officials that actions such as these can 
only harm bilateral relations between Yugo- 
slavia and the United States,” the statement 
said. 

In Washington, U.S. Rep. William Broom- 
field of Birmingham, the ranking Republi- 
can on the House Foreign Affairs Commit- 
tee, joined with four other congressmen in 
drafting a letter asking Secretary of State 
George Shultz to revoke Yugoslavia’s fa- 
vored-nation trade status. 

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee to in- 
vestigate Ivezaj’s “deplorable case.” 

Broomfield, whose district includes Ster- 
ling Heights, and Levin said U.S. diplomatic 
officials expressed optimism that Ivezaj’s 
sentence would be overturned. 

Ivezaj’s trial began Friday and ended 
Monday. The news of his sentence appar- 
ently hit hardest at home, when the family 
took the 8:45 a.m. telephone call from his 
wife, Juliana, in Titograd, Yugoslavia. Juli- 
ana Ivezaj, who is pregnant, attended the 
trial with other family members, including 





29928 


Ivezaj’s mother, Pashka, 55. Juliana Ivezaj 
told relatives in the United States that her 
husband was forbidden to face her or other 
supporters in the Titograd courtroom. 

“Everything had gone through my mind 
about what might have happened,” said 
Frano Ivezaj, as he sat among about a dozen 
family members and reporters at the well- 
kept, single-story brick ranch home. “I 
thought he would be found not guilty. Or I 
thought he would be sentenced to 50 days, 
which he alreacy has served. And the third 
possibility, I didn’t want to think about it, 
that he would be found guilty.” 

In a gesture of typical Albanian hospital- 
ity, the family poured cognac for visitors. 

Associated Press quoted unnamed sources 
in Yugoslavia as saying the five-judge panel 
at the Titograd district court charged Ivezaj 
with participating in demonstrations ‘‘in De- 
troit, Chicago and Washington” that were 
“directed against the Yugoslav constitution- 
al system and were aimed at toppling the so- 
cialist government,” 

Tanjug. the official Yugoslav news 
agency, quoted Judge Sreten Ivanovic as 
saying the trial proved Ivezaj had been a 
member of an Albanian-American student 
organization in Detroit since 1978, AP re- 
ported. The judge said the group includes 
political emigres from Albania and Yugo- 
slavia and promotes anti-Yugoslav activity, 
it reported. 

Frano Ivezaj said his brother had attend- 
ed a meeting of such a group about 10 years 
ago, but “he thought it was a social organi- 
zation, and he quit when he found out they 
were political." He said Ivezaj had attended 
the Washington demonstration but no 
other. 

Said Nua Ivezaj, 22, a cousin: “We just 
want Pjeter back.” 


(From the Detroit News, Oct. 9, 1986) 
YuGos.avs Convict Ivezas 
(By Diane Katz and Lou Fintor) 


WASHINGTON.—A seven-year prison sen- 
tence imposed on a suburban Detroit man 
by a Yugoslav court has prompted threats 
from lawmakers to sever U.S. relations with 
the European nation. 

After learning that Pjeter Ivezaj, 30, of 
Sterling Heights, was convicted Wednesday 
of crimes against the state, congressmen 
vowed to rescind trade agreements and 
expel Yugoslav diplomats unless he is re- 
leased. 

Ivezaj, a naturalized U.S. citizen, had been 
accused of participating in an anti-Yugoslav 
demonstration in Washington in 1981. 

But U.S. Ambassador John Scanlan, 
during telephone calls from Yugoslavia to 
Michigan Rep. William Broomfield, R-Bir- 
minghan, and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., ex- 
pressed optimism that Ivezaj could be freed 
soon. 

“The ambassador is very optimistic that 
the case will be satisfactorily resolved, and 
in a matter of days,"’ Levin said during a 
speech Wednesday on the Senate floor, 
“That optimism is based upon discussions 
our ambassador has had with Yugoslav offi- 
cials at the highest levels.” 

Ivezaj, a language technican for the De- 
troit public schools and computer science 
student at Wayne State University, was con- 
victed by a five-judge panel in Titograd on 
two charges of violating Article 136 of the 
Yugoslav criminal code. That statute pro- 
hibits membership in anti-government 
groups and hostile acts against the state. 

The verdict followed two days of testimo- 
ny during which Ivezaj, represented by a 
Yugoslav lawyer, affirmed his innocence. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


When the court pronounced sentence, 
Ivezaj burst into tears, observers told his 
family in Metro Detroit. 

According to Yugoslav authorities, Ivezaj, 
who is Albanian, had joined an outlawed Al- 
banian-American student group in Detroit 
and participated in an anti-government 
demonstration at the Yugoslav Embassy. 

Although Ivezaj holds U.S. citizenship, 
Yugoslav officials still consider him a citizen 
of their country. Ivezaj remains in custody 
in a jail outside Titograd. But under Yugo- 
slav law, he will not begin serving his sen- 
tence until an appeal is heard. That proce- 
dure is under way, authorities said. 

During a briefing Wednesday for the 
House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on 
Human Rights, lawmakers threatened to 
cancel export-import loans to Yugoslavia, 
rescind trade agreements and expel Yugo- 
slav diplomats from the United Nations in 
New York and their embassy here unless 
Ivezaj is released. 

“The American people are fed up with the 
Yugoslavs’ disregard for the most basic 
rights of American citizens at the same time 
our government is helping bail out the 
Yugoslav economy,” Broomfield said. 

Broomfield, along with Michigan Rep. 
Dennis Hertel, D-Harper Woods, and several 
members of the House Foreign Affairs Com- 
mittee, sent letters Wednesday to President 
Reagan and Secretary of State George 
Shultz, urging them to support trade sanc- 
tions. The letters also recommend that a 
travel advisory be issued to warn Americans 
about the risk of arrest and detention in 
Yugoslavia. 

Also angered by Ivezaj’s plight, Rep. 
Philip Crane, R-Ill., called Yugoslav agents 
“creeps and slimebags” for their surveil- 
lance here of U.S. citizens who then are 
prosecuted in Yugoslavia. 

Ekrem Bardha of West Bloomfield, chair- 
man of the Albanian-American Republican 
Clubs of America, appealed to lawmakers at 
the briefing to press for Ivezaj's release. 

“Can the United States, the leader of the 
free world, permit a foreign Communist 
country to dictate to American citizens 
which of their constitutional rights they 
can or cannot exercise?” Bardha asked. 

And Michigan's two senators, Levin and 
fellow Democrat Donald Riegle, requested a 
review of U.S. relations with Yugoslavia in a 
letter to Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind, Lugar 
is chairman of the Foreign Relations Com- 
mittee. 

The State Department and U.S. Embassy 
officials in Belgrade, the Yugoslav capital, 
also condemned the court action and 
warned that the case could harm diplomatic 
relations between the two countries. 


By Mr. BOSCHWITZ: 
S. 2916. A bill to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to retain a cap- 


ital gains tax differential, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance. 


CAPITAL GAINS TAX DIFFERENTIAL 

Mr. BOSCHWITZ. Mr. President, I 
will introduce a bill this evening with 
respect to capital gains. I was a very 
enthusiastic supporter, Mr. President, 
of the tax bill that passed here in the 
Senate and passed by such an over- 
whelming majority and if I haye one 
exception with it, and really I have 
several, but one major exception, it is 
the treatment of capital gains. 


October 9, 1986 


Capital gains, which in my State of 
Minnesota prior to the new tax law, 
hada maximum rate of 22.8 percent, 
now under this new tax law has a max- 
imum rate of 39 and 40 percent and as 
a result there is great penalty put on 
capital and the accumulation of cap- 
ital and the investment of capital, and 
it makes it much more difficult, of 
course, for small businesses, large busi- 
nesses, to invest or to get capital to 
either to begin or to expand their fa- 
cilities. 

Of course, the reason that has oc- 
curred, Mr. President, was that al- 
though rates were higher under the 
old tax law there was an exclusion. 
Under the old tax law there was a 60 
percent exclusion so that if you made 
a $1,000 gain only $400 of it was taxed, 
60 percent was excluded, and the $400 
that was left was taxed at 50 percent 
or 20 percent of the entire gain. 

Now, without the exclusion, 28 per- 
cent applies to the entire gain and also 
the State tax applies to the entire gain 
as well because many of the States 
follow the Federal rule. 

The bill that I will be introducing 
will change that by once again bring- 
ing the exclusion into play. There 
would be two holding periods, Mr. 
President, rather than the one holding 
period of the old law. 

One holding period would be for 1 
year and then there would be a 40-per- 
cent exclusion. This would bring the 
overall rate down to about where it 
was or slightly above where it was 
when both the State and the Federal 
rates are included. 

Then, in the event that a taxpayer 
were to hold the asset for more than 3 
years, there would be a 60 percent ex- 
clusion. This would bring the tax rates 
down very, very substantially to about 
16 percent of the whole as opposed to 
about 23 percent under the old law. 

The capital gains rates, Mr. Presi- 
dent, in other nations are either non- 
existent or they are certainly lower 
than the capital gains rates of the 
United States. In fact, they are lower 
than they used to be and certainly 
enormously lower than they presently 
are under the new law. 

Also, Mr. President, under the new 
law of higher capital gains rates, 
nearly 40 percent as I said in our 
State, there is no assurance that more 
revenue will inure to the benefit of the 
Federal Government. As a matter of 
fact, there is a good deal of evidence to 
suggest that if you raise the capital 
gains rates in the manner that we are 
now doing that the revenue to the 
Federal Government would go down. 

Studies that have been done by 
Martin Feldstein and his associates at 
Harvard University would suggest that 
at a rate of 16 percent the Federal 
Government will collect the most 
money and if there is a 3-year holding 
period with a 60-percent exclusion 





October 9, 1986 


under present rates it would indeed 
amount to approximately 16 percent. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent to have printed in the Recorp my 
outline in support of the proposal and 
a table prepared by the American 
Council for Capital Formation. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
ReEcorp, as follows: 


OUTLINE IN SUPPORT OF THE BOSCHWITZ 
Two-Trerep CapiTaL GaIns PROPOSAL 


1. Mr. President, I am an enthusiastic sup- 
porter of the “Tax Reform Act of 1986”. 
Nevertheless, I very much disagree with the 
new law’s treatment of capital gains. 

2. While tax rates are lowered substantial- 
ly—the top bracket tax rate is reduced from 
50 percent to 28 percent—the tax rate on 
long-term capital gains increase substantial- 
ly: 

a. The top federal rate on long-term cap- 
ital gains increases from 20 percent (50 per- 
cent top x 40 percent subject to tax) to 33 
percent (top marginal rate under the new 
law). That's a 65 percent increase! 

b. But that only tells half the story. We 
must also look at the combined state and 
federal tax on long-term capital gains: 

(i) Current law: The top combined rate is 
in Arkansas and North Carolina—$235 per 
$1,000 of gain. In California and New York, 
tied for third highest, the maximum com- 
bined federal/state tax is $228 per $1,000 of 
gain. 

(ii) Under a new law, the combined feder- 
al/state tax in New York will go as high as 
$422 per $1,000 of gain. That’s an 85 percent 
increase, and will give New York the highest 
combined rate in the country. There will be 
four states (and also the District of Colum- 
bia) where the combined federal/state tax 
on $1,000 of long-term capital gains will 
exceed $400. In no state will the maximum 
combined rate be less than $330. Again, the 
maximum under current law is $235 per 
$1,000 of gain. 

3. Such increase is unwise. 

a. Consider: For the wealthiest taxpayers, 
the top federal tax rate on long/term gains 
will go from 20 percent to either 28 percent 
or 33 percent. At most, a 65 percent in- 
crease. 

However, for a middle-income family with 
$32,000 of taxable income, the top federal 
tax rate on long-term capital gains will in- 
crease from 11.2 percent (28 percent margin- 
al rate x 40 percent subject to tax) to 28 
percent. A 150 percent increase! 

And that’s not the only way middle- 
income taxpayers will be hurt by an in- 
crease in the capital gains tax rate. For 
many of these taxpayers, their single largest 
capital gain often comes from the sale of an 
asset—such as a farm or a business—which 
they have held for years. In many cases the 
asset represents a substantial portion of 
their net worth. An unexpected and very 
substantial increase in their capital gains 
rate could be very difficult for these people 
to bear. 

Indeed, in many cases the capital gain 
being taxed is not real economic gain, but 
merely “inflationary gain’ which does not 
add to personal wealth. When we remove 
the capital gains exclusion, the taxpayer 
will no longer have any cushion against in- 
flationary gain. 

b. Such a substantial increase in the cap- 
ital gains rate will reduce venture capital 
that leads to new businesses, new jobs, new 


technology, new R & D. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Certainly new business will continue to be 
created, but fewer new businesses and 
projects will be created. Many innovative 
but risky projects will not go forward. The 
preference will be to invest in less risky, div- 
idend paying securities as opposed to risky, 
growth oriented ventures. 

In fact, our competitors seem to agree 
about the importance of preferential treat- 
ment for capital gains. According to the 
American Council for Capital Formation, 11 
industrialized countries including Japan, 
Taiwan, West Germany, Hong Kong, Italy 
and South Korea impose no taxes on long- 
term capital gains, and Canada’s maximum 
tax is only 17 percent. 

4. Accordingly, I am introducing legisla- 
tion to provide a two-tiered capital gains ex- 
clusion for individuals, In the case of assets 
held more than one year but less than three 
years, the exclusion would be 40 percent. As 
a result, the top combined federal/state tax 
would be $254 on $1,000 of gain. That would 
be higher than current law ($235), but cer- 
tainly not anywhere near $422 per $1,000. 

For assets held three years or more, the 
exclusion would be 60 percent. That would 
mean a top combined rate of $179 per $1,000 
of gain. Investors would really have an in- 
centive to invest in longer term, higher risk 
ventures. 

5. The available evidence suggests that 
this bill, standing alone, could be “revenue 
neutral’: 

a. Capital gains collections are not only a 
function of the rate applied, but equally im- 
portant, of the amount subject to tax. Pro- 
fessor Lawrence Lindsay of Harvard Univer- 
sity has estimated that each 1 percent in- 
crease in the maximum rate on long-term 
capital gains above 20 percent results in 5 
percent fewer realizations. If true, collec- 
tions from the wealthy will not increase by 
raising rates. In fact, the experience demon- 
strates that reducing the rate on long-term 
capital gains does not reduce collections. 
(See attached chart) 

b. In fact, the Treasury Department Cap- 
ital Gains Report (September 1985) con- 
cludes: “any effort to raise substantial reve- 
nue by increasing capital gains tax rates... 
is likely to be ineffective.” Recent work on 
this issue by Dr. Martin Feldstein and by 
Professor Lawrence Lindsay of Harvard Uni- 
versity also suggests that such an amend- 
ment is by itself “revenue neutral”. 


CAPITAL GAINS TAX INCREASES RESULT IN REDUCED 
REVENUES—CAPITAL GAINS TAX CUTS RESULT IN IN- 
CREASED REVENUES 


(percent) 





Sao 


SSW BOSSA 
SOS OOH HH NaORmneD 


RVBRBVRSSSSSSSaSRRD 





Source: American Council for Capital Formation. 


Mr. BOSCHWITZ. So, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that is the essence of the bill 


that I will introduce and I will submit 


29929 


this evening and ask that it be re- 
ferred to the appropriate committee, 
and I ask unanimous consent that the 
bill be printed in the Recorp. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
bill of the Senator from Minnesota 
will be received and appropriately re- 
ferred. 

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


S. 2916 


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AMENDMENTS RELATING 
TO TAXATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. 

(a) In GENERAL.—Subtitles A and B of title 
III of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (relating 
to individual and corporate capital gains 
treatment) are hereby repealed as of the 
close of December 31, 1986. 

(b) ConrorMING AMENDMENT.—The Inter- 
nal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied 
and administered as if such subtitles A and 
B (and the amendments made by such subti- 
tles A and B) had not been enacted, 


SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN DEDUCTION FOR CAPITAL 
GAINS WITH RESPECT TO CAPITAL 
ASSETS HELD FOR MORE THAN 1 
YEAR BUT LESS THAN 3 YEARS, 

(a) In GeneraLt.—Section 1202 of the In- 
ternal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to de- 
duction for capital gains) is amended— 

(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as 
follows: 

“(a) DEDUCTION ALLOWED.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—If for any taxable year a 
taxpayer other than a corporation has a net 
capital gain, there shall be allowed as a de- 
duction from gross income an amount equal 
to the sum of— 

(A) 60 percent of the lesser of— 

“(i) the net capital gain, or 

“(ii) the qualified net capital gain, plus 

“(B) 40 percent of the excess (if any) of— 

“(i) the net capital gain, over 

“di) the amount of the qualified net cap- 
ital gain taken into account under subpara- 
graph (A).”, and 

(2) by amending subsection (c) to read as 
follows: 

“(c) QUALIFIED Net CapiTaL Gatn.—For 
purposes of subsection (a), the term ‘quali- 
fied net capital gain’ means the amount of 
net capital gain which would be computed 
for any taxable year if, in determining net 
long-term capital gain for such taxable year, 
only capital assets held by the taxpayer for 
at least 3 years at the time of the sale or ex- 
change were taken into account.’’. 

(b) INCREASE IN HOLDING PERIOD REQUIRED 
FOR LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN TREATMENT.— 
Subsection (e) of section 1001 of the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 1984 is amended by strik- 
ing out “1988” and inserting in lieu thereof 
“1987". 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) Section 57(a) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 (relating to items of tax pref- 
erence) is amended by adding at the end 
thereof the following new paragraph: 

(8) CAPITAL GAINS.— 

“(A) Inpivipuats.—In the case of a tax- 
payer other than a corporation, an amount 
equal to the net capital gain deduction for 
the taxable year determined under section 
1202. 

“(B) PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.—For purposes 
of subparagraph (A), gain from the sale or 
exchange of a principal residence (within 





29930 


the meaning of section 1034) shall not be 
taken into account. 

“(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN INSOLVENT 
TAXPAYERS.— 

“(i) In GENERAL.—The amount of the tax 
preference under subparagraph (A) shall be 
reduced (but not below zero) by the excess 
dif any) of— 

“(I the applicable percentage of gain 
from any farm insolvency transaction, over 

“(ID the applicable percentage of any loss 
from any farm insolvency transaction which 
offsets such gain. 

“Cil) REDUCTION LIMITED TO AMOUNT OF IN- 
sOLVENCY.—The amount of the reduction de- 
termined under clause (i) shall not exceed 
the amount by which the taxpayer is insol- 
vent immediately before the transaction (re- 
duced by any portion of such amount previ- 
ously taken into account under this clause). 

“(ili) FARM INSOLVENCY TRANSACTION.—For 
purposes of this subparagraph, the term 
‘farm insolvency transaction’ means— 

“(I) the transfer by a farmer of farmland 
to a creditor in cancellation of indebtedness, 


or 

“(II) the sale or exchange by the farmer 
of property described in subclause (I) under 
the threat of foreclosure, 
but only if the farmer is insolvent immedi- 
ately before such transaction. 

“(Civ) InsoLvent.—For purposes of this sub- 
paragraph, the term ‘insolvent’ means the 
excess of liabilities over the fair market 
value of assets. 

“(v) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For purposes 
of this subparagraph, the term ‘applicable 
percentage’ means that percentage of net 
capital gain with respect to which a deduc- 
tion is allowed under section 1202(a). 

“(vi) FarMLAND.—For purposes of this sub- 
paragraph, the term ‘farmland’ means any 
land used or held for use in the trade or 
business of farming (within the meaning of 
section 2032A(e)5)). 

“(yii) Farmer.—For purposes of this sub- 
paragraph, the term ‘farmer’ means any 
taxpayer if 50 percent or more of the aver- 
age annual gross income of the taxpayer for 
the 3 preceding taxable years is attributable 
to the trade or business of farming (within 
the meaning of section 2032A(e)5))."’. 

(2) Subparagraph (B) of section 170(e)(1) 
of such Code (relating to certain contribu- 
tions of ordinary income and capital gain 
property) is amended by striking out “40 
percent” and inserting in lieu thereof “100 
percent minus the percentage described in 
subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 
1202(a)(1), whichever is applicable”. 

(3) Paragraph (4) of section 691(c) of such 
Code (relating to deduction for estate tax) is 
amended by striking out “section 57(a)(9)" 
and inserting in lieu thereof “section 
57(aX8)”. 

(e) Errective Date.—The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to taxable 
years beginning after December 31, 1986. 


By Mr. WARNER (for himself, 


Mr. Doe, Mr. KASTEN, Mr. 
LaxALT, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. 
Denton, Mr. HEINZ, Mr. 
McC ore, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. 
WEIcKER, Mr. WItson, Mr. 
Moyninan, Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. 
GLenn, Mr. Nunn, Mr. Zorin- 
sky, Mr. DeConctnr, Mr. 
CHILES, Mr. METZENBAUM, Mr. 
Gore, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. 
Drxon, Mr. Levin, Mr. Pryor, 
and Mr. STennts): 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


S.J. Res. 426. Joint resolution to des- 
ignate the week of October 19 through 
October 25, 1986, as “National CPR 
Awareness Week”; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary. 

NATIONAL CPR AWARENESS WEEK 

@ Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today 
I am joined by 12 of my colleagues in 
introducing a Senate joint resolution 
declaring the week of October 25 
through 31, 1986, “National CPR 
Awareness Week.” I hope that you will 
all join in my efforts to encourage 
CPR training by cosponsoring this res- 
olution. 

Heart attacks are the leading cause 
of death in the United States. As 
many as 1.5 million people will suffer 
a heart attack in 1986, and of these 
victims, almost half will not survive. 
Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation is a 
simple first aid procedure which could 
prevent many heart attack deaths. It 
is a tragedy that most people do not 
know how to perform CPR, and are 
thus helpless to aid heart attack vic- 
tims whose lives depend on immediate- 
ly administered first aid. As a tremen- 
dously successful life-saving proce- 
dure, it is of vital importance to maxi- 
mize public participation in CPR 
training. 

“National CPR Awareness Week”’ is 
an ideal way to increase public recog- 
nition of the importance of CPR train- 
ing. Last year’s resolution was success- 
ful in bringing attention to the avail- 
ability of CPR training, and ultimately 
in saving lives. Please join me in this 
worthwhile effort by cosponsoring the 
second annual “National CPR Aware- 
ness Week.”@ 


ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS 
S. 1456 
At the request of Mr. LAUTENBERG, 
the name of the Senator from Nevada 
(Mr. LAXALT] was added as a cosponsor 
of S. 1456, a bill to recognize the Army 
and Navy Union of the United States 
of America. 
S. 2479 
At the request of Mr. TrisBLe, the 
names of the Senator from Virginia 
(Mr. WARNER], and the Senator from 
Texas (Mr. BENTSEN] were added as 
cosponsors of S. 2479, a bill to amend 
chapter 39 of title 31, United States 
Code, to require the Federal Govern- 
ment to pay interest on overdue pay- 
ments, and for other purposes. 
8. 2536 
At the request of Mr. Kennepy, the 
name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
INOUYE] was added as a cosponsor of 
S. 2536, a bill to provide for block 
grants to States to pay for the costs of 
immunosuppressive drugs for organ 
transplant patients. 
8S. 2651 
At the request of Mr. DreConcrn1, 
the name of the Senator from Michi- 
gan (Mr. RrIecLe] was added as a co- 


October 9, 1986 


sponsor of S. 2651, a bill to reduce 
Federal liability for the relocation of 
certain Navajo Indians through the 
exchange of certain lands between the 
Hopi and Navajo Indian Tribes, and 
for other purposes. 
8. 2770 
At the request of Mr. Gorton, his 
name was added as a cosponsor of S. 
2770, a bill to amend the Farm Credit 
Act of 1971 to provide the opportunity 
for competitive interest rates for the 
farmer, rancher, and cooperative bor- 
rowers of the Farm Credit System, 
and for other purposes. 


Ss. 2808 

At the request of Mr. Kennepy, the 
name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
InovYE] was added as a cosponsor of 
S. 2808, a bill to amend title XI of the 
Social Security Act to require hospi- 
tals participating in the Medicare and 
Medicaid Programs to establish proto- 
cols for organ procurement, to estab- 
lish standards for organ procurement 
agencies, and for other purposes. 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 112 

At the request of Mr. Doze, his 
name was withdrawn as a cosponsor of 
Senate Joint Resolution 112, a joint 
resolution to authorize and request 
the President to call a White House 
Conference on Library and Informa- 
tion Services to be held not later than 
1989, and for other purposes. 


SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 407 

At the request of Mr. Cures, the 
name of the Senator from Maine [Mr. 
MITCHELL] was added as a cosponsor of 
Senate Joint Resolution 407, a joint 
resolution designating November 12, 
1986, as “Salute to School Volunteers 
Day.” 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 419 

At the request of Mr. Moyrnrnan, the 
name of the Senator from Nevada 
(Mr. LaxaLtT] was added as a cosponsor 
of Senate Joint Resolution 419, a joint 
resolution to designate December 11, 
1986, as “National SEEK and College 
Discovery Day.” 

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 164 

At the request of Mr. D’Amarto, the 
names of the Senator from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Boren], the Senator from Arizo- 
na (Mr. DeConcrn1], the Senator from 
New Jersey (Mr. LAUTENBERG], and the 
Senator from California [Mr. Cran- 
STON] were added as cosponsors of 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 164, a 
concurrent resolution expressing the 
sense of the Congress concerning the 
Soviet Union’s continued interference 
with postal communications between 
the United States and the Soviet 
Union. 





October 9, 1986 


SENATE _CONCURRENT RESOLU- 
TION 167—REGARDING  EFFI- 
CIENT AND COMPASSIONATE 
MANAGEMENT OF THE SOCIAL 
SECURITY DISABILITY INSUR- 
ANCE [SSDI] PROGRAM 


Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. KEen- 
NEDY, Mrs. HAWKINS, Mr. MOYNIHAN, 
Mr. Simon, Mr. StTarrorp, Mr. MEL- 
CHER, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. BoOREN, Mr. 
MatsunaGaA, and Mr. SARBANES) sub- 
mitted the following concurrent reso- 
lution; which was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Finance: 


S. Con. Res. 167 


Whereas Congress established the Social 
Security Disability Insurance [SSDI] Pro- 
gram in 1956 to improve the quality of life 
for disabled Americans; 

Whereas the decision of the Social Securi- 
ty Administration to require an increased 
caseload for SSDI examiners and expand 
the continuing disability review process 
caused several hundred thousand recipients 
to be removed improperly from the SSDI 
rolls during the period of 1981 through 
1983; 

Whereas the widespread termination and 
denial of benefits for eligible disabled Amer- 
icans during such period created undue 
hardship for countless deserving individuals; 

Whereas more than 60 percent of the re- 
cipients who appealed a decision to termi- 
nate or deny benefits were ultimately suc- 
cessful in reversing the decision; 

Whereas the substantial increase in the 
number of appealed cases drained millions 
of dollars from the Social Security Trust 
Pund; 

Whereas Congress passed (with only one 
dissenting vote) the Social Security Disabil- 
ity Benefits Reform Act of 1984 in order to 
end the inconsistent and frequently arbi- 
trary manner in which the Social Security 
Administration was applying disability 
standards, as well as to restore public faith 
and confidence in the SSDI program; 

Whereas since enactment of such Act, 
there has been, as intended by Congress, a 
marked improvement in the SSDI review 
process and the beginning of a restoration 
of public confidence in the program; and 

Whereas recent budget proposals by the 
Social Security Administration for the fiscal 
year 1987 indicate that there will be an in- 
crease in the SSDI workload for many 
states, thus threatening a return to the 
chaos that existed prior to the 1984 Act: 
Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep- 
resentatives concurring), That it is the 
sense of Congress that— 

(1) the Social Security Administration 
should not— 

(A) reduce the staff of state Disability De- 
termination Services or increase the work- 
load of SSDI examiners to levels that would 
prevent adequate case development in ac- 
cordance with the standards established in 
the Social Security Disability Benefits 
Reform Act of 1984, or 

(B) initiate any other action that would 
impair the ability of examiners to determine 
eligibility for benefits in accordance with 
the requirements of such Act; and 

(2) the Social Security Administration 
should place higher priority on assisting 
states in both complying with the 1984 re- 
forms and improving the accuracy with 
which SSDI eligibility is determined. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


@ Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, 2 years 
ago today the Congress passed the 
Social Security Disability Benefits 
Reform Act of 1984, an act designed to 
establish a more fair and equitable 
Social Security Disability Insurance 
[SSDI] Program. On this anniversary 
I stand before you and ask my col- 
leagues the simple questions, have we 
yet witnessed the implementation of 
the efficient and equitable National 
Disability Reform Program that was 
intended by Congress; has the Social 
Security Administration [SSA] provid- 
ed States adequate staff and resources 
to implement the 1984 reforms; has 
the SSA provided the States adequate 
time and guidance necessary to ensure 
that a balanced and equitable SSDI 
system is in place? 

Mr. President I have asked these 
questions to Vocational Rehabilitation 
Administrators and Directors of Dis- 
ability Determination offices through- 
out the country, and their response 
has been “‘no.” No—there is not an ef- 
ficient National Disability Reform 
Program in place; no—the Social Secu- 
rity Administration has not provided 
them with adequate staff and re- 
sources to implement the 1984 re- 
forms; and no—sufficient guidance and 
time has not been offered to the 
States to provide balanced and equita- 
ble services as mandated by the 98th 
Congress. 

Are we close to achieving the kind of 
SSDI system that Congress envisioned 
when they passed the Social Security 
Disability Reforms Act in 1984? I 
think we all recognize the fact that we 
are beginning to achieve the goals that 
Congress intended—the goals of a fair 
and compassionate National Disability 
Reform Program. 

It is for this reason, Mr. President, 
that I am today, submitting a concur- 
rent resolution which calls upon the 
Social Security Administration to 
work with the States and offer them 
the necessary assistance to carry out 
what Congress intended when they 
passed the 1984 reforms. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I raise this issue on the second 
anniversary because I am deeply con- 
cerned with the implementation of the 
1984 reforms. 

Recently the Social Security Admin- 
istration informed Disability Determi- 
nation Service Offices nationwide, 
that they can expect an increase in 
the determination caseload—in some 
cases an increased workload of up to 
50 percent. According to the SSA, the 
reasoning behind this increase is so 
that the system may become more ef- 
ficient. This action carries with it dis- 
asterous implications. The notion of 
increasing the workload of examiners 
at an overwhelming rate in the name 
of efficiency is vaguely reminiscent of 
what occurred in 1980 prompting Con- 
gress to pass the 1984 SSDI reforms. 
During that period the Social Security 
Administration implemented the 


29931 


housecleaning reforms with such 
fervor, that the local SSA offices were 
unprepared: Employees were not prop- 
erly trained, the offices were not ade- 
quately staffed, and the consequences, 
Mr. President, were truly disastrous. I 
recall one case where an individual in 
a full body cast was told he could 
work; in another case an individual 
who was completely blind from a 
recent accident had his disability bene- 
fits terminated. In the name of effi- 
ciency we did not get a fair and equita- 
ble SSDI system but instead we wit- 
nessed a Federal program thrown into 
administrative disarray and chaos 
which resulted in the denial of bene- 
fits of countless deserving disabled 
Americans. 

Let us recall for a moment how 
during the period from 1981 through 
1983 over 450,000 individuals were 
thrown off of the SSDI rolls. To date 
over 60 percent of these deserving dis- 
abled Americans have had their SSDI 
benefits reinstated. Today we are just 
beginning to witness a restored public 
faith and confidence in the SSDI Pro- 
gram. Because of the new thorough 
review process the number of cases 
being appealed has dramatically de- 
creased. 

In my own State for example the 
number of appeals has dropped by 
roughly two-thirds. In some States the 
number of appealed cases going to ad- 
ministrative law judges is so low, they 
are hiring their ALJ's out to neighbor- 
ing States. This signals to me not only 
a system that is beginning to work, but 
a system that is also saving the tax- 
payer millions of dollars in unneces- 
sary appeals. 

I am fearful, Mr. President, that the 
recent directive by the Social Security 
Administration to the local SSA of- 
fices to increase their productivity 
threatens a return to the chaos that 
occurred prior to the enactment of the 
1984 reforms. I think it is safe to say 
that the regulations resulting from 
the 1984 reforms are commendable. 
The evidence clearly indicates a step 
in the right direction toward a fair and 
equitable system. I have before me a 
summarized list of 13 excellent new 
provisions that have evolved from the 
1984 reform for State examiners to 
follow in making disability determina- 
tions, and I ask unanimous consent 
that this list be inserted into the 
Recorp at the conclusion of my re- 
marks. These new changes undeniably 
represent a more thorough review 
process and a significant improvement 
in the system as a whole. 

However, at a time when we have de- 
veloped a more labor intensive review 
process it makes absolutely no sense to 
me, that in the name of efficiency, we 
increase the caseload of examiners, 
particularly adding this burden on top 
of a national hiring freeze already im- 
posed by the SSA in May. It seems ob- 





29932 


vious to me that this will make it ex- 
ceedingly difficult for States to suc- 
cessfully administer fair and equitable 
SSDI Programs. 

Let me give you an example of a 
tragic incident that occurred this week 
in my home State of Massachusetts 
which is the result of the new direc- 
tive to increase caseloads. A constitu- 
ent of mine who had been diagnosed 
with leukemia, was hospitalized near 
his home for several weeks, more re- 
cently he was moved to a Boston hos- 
pital for a bone marrow transplant; he 
was denied disability benefits. It is un- 
conscionable to think that a case- 
worker determined that this man lying 
in a hospital bed in Boston is able to 
work. The caseworker explained his 
action by stating quite simply that he 
did not have the time ‘to wait for the 
medical records, he was behind in his 
cases and was under pressure to move 
the case along. How degrading is a 
system that tells the family of a termi- 
nally ill man that he is fully capable 
of working and not eligible to receive 
disability benefits? Is this what Con- 
gress had in mind when they passed 
the 1984 reforms? Is this what the 
Commissioner of SSA had in mind 
when she directed local offices to in- 
crease workloads in the name of effi- 
ciency? I would like to believe that it is 
not. 

In closing let me underscore one cen- 
tral point. At a time when new regula- 
tions are just beginning to improve the 
overall review process, it seems espe- 
cially unjustified to increase work- 
loads while restricting the number of 
examiners. Mr. President, the resolu- 
tion that I am introducing today is not 
designed to point the finger at the 
SSA and say that their actions are 
necessarily wrong. The resolution that 
I am introducing today, is designed to 
ultimately send a very clear message 
to the Commissioner of the Social Se- 
curity Administration and that is— 
Congress is watching. If regulations 
and directives are sent to the States 
which undermine the intentions of 
Congress when the 1984 reforms were 
passed, Congress will not allow hun- 
dreds of thousands of disabled Ameri- 
can citizens to endure the same suffer- 
ing or degradation which they en- 
dured from 1981 through 1983. 

I hope that this concurrent resolu- 
tion will. clear both sides of the aisle 
and pass this evening, thus expressing 
our disapproval to the Social Security 
Administration regarding any efforts 
to undercut the intentions of Congress 
when they passed the Social Security 
Disability Benefits Reform Act of 
1984. 

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

List OF CHANGES 


1. Consultative Examination (C/E) follow- 
up protocol requiring examiners and/or 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


physicians to make follow-up calls to treat- 
ing sources before a C/E can be scheduled. 

2. Comprehensive Medical Improvement 
Standard requiring comparative analysis 
and case reconstruction. 

3. Implementation of new Medical Listings 
requiring more specific clinical and labora- 
tory information for certain disability popu- 
lations. 

4. Comprehensive Mental Impairment 
Listings, Regulations, and Guidelines re- 
quiring the completion of a lengthy PRFT 
by Agency physicians. 

5. Requirements for obtaining activities of 
daily living information in claims alleging 
mental impairments. 

6. Requirements for using Work Evalua- 
tions in Mental Impairment and other 
claims. 

7. Elimination of non-severe findings re- 
sulting in RFC and vocational factor analy- 
sis for all claims (Many States). 

8. Implementation of more comprehensive 
procedures for evaluating substance abuse. 
In many states, approximately fifty percent 
of the claimants allege substance abuse 
which not requires comprehensive follow- 
up. 

9. Proposed requirement for completing 
reationales by examiners in all cases. 

10. Implementation of procedures increas- 
ing and improving the documentation re- 
quirements. 

11. Consideration of the combined affect 
of multiple non-severe impairments in eval- 
uating disability. 

12. Development of complete medical his- 
tory for at least the past twelve months. 

13. Completion of the medical portion of 
the Case Review by a qualified psychiatrist 
or psychologist for cases involving mental 
impairments.e 


SENATE RESOLUTION 503— 
RELATIVE TO DR. ABBY NKOMO 


Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. 
Boren, Mr. Lucar, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. 
DURENBERGER, Mr. LEanHy, Mr. Brap- 
LEY, Mr. MURKOWSKI, and Mr. RotTH) 
submitted the following resolution; 
which was considered and agreed to: 

S. Res. 503 


Whereas, Dr. Abby Nkomo, Chairman of 
the Atteridgeville/Saulsville Civic Associa- 
tion, Vice Chairman of the Pretoria Council 
of Churches and an active member of the 
Methodist Church, has been detained by 
the South African police for an extended 
period without charge or trial; 

Whereas, Dr. Nkomo has been a vocal ad- 
vocate of peaceful change in South Africa; 

Whereas, Dr. Nkomo has been in solitary 
confinement since his incarceration on June 
12, 1986, and has been denied adequate med- 
ical attention including medication for dia- 
betes; 

Whereas, Dr. Nkomo has been separated 
from his family and permitted infrequent 
visits by his wife during which the couple 
suffers harassment from prison guards; 

Whereas, Dr. Nkomo and his family have 
been harassed for more than twenty 
months, including the gasoline bombing of 
his home and car, the sabotage of the doc- 
tor’s clinics, and telephone threats on their 
lives; 

Whereas, the police have refused to inves- 
tigate any of these threats or incidents; 

Whereas, the police detained the doctor's 
daughter Suzan for 47 days and threatened 
his wife Marjorie with arrest: Now, there- 
fore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of 


October 9, 1986 


the Senate that Dr. Nkomo is representative 
of the majority of South Africans who seek 
peaceful change and with whom the South 
African government should be engaged in 
dialogue rather than persecution; 

That the government of South Africa be 
encouraged to enter into dialogue with mod- 
erate forces within that country so that 
positive action can be taken to bring an end 
to apartheid policies; 

That Dr. Nkomo has been subjected to an 
unreasonable and reprehensible deprivation 
of his civil rights; 

That Dr. Nkomo is representative of thou- 
sands of similar victims currently detained 
under the state of emergency regulations; 

That Dr. Nkomo’s family has been the 
victim of continual, excessive harassment by 
the police authorities of South Africa caus- 
ing severe emotional and financial loss; 

That the actions of the South African 
government toward Dr. Nkomo aré con- 
demned as an obstruction to prospects for 
peaceful change in South Africa; 

That the United States Government and 
its representatives should emphasize to offi- 
cials of the Republic of South Africa our na- 
tion’s resolve that all individuals in that 
country be afforded due process and that 
their civil liberties be protected. 


SENATE RESOLUTION 504—RE- 
LATING TO UNITED STATES— 
JAPAN SODA ASH TRADE 


Mr. WALLOP (for himself and Mr. 
Simpson) submitted the following res- 
olution; which was referred to the 
Committee on Finance: 


S. Res. 504 


Whereas, the United States merchandise 
balance of trade deficit with Japan reached 
the unprecedented level of $49.8 billion in 
1985, and is expected to reach $60-65 billion 
in 1986—accounting for almost one-third of 
the entire United States deficit with the 
world; 

Whereas, the principles of free trade pro- 
vide for trade flows between nations on the 
basis of each nation’s comparative advan- 
tage; 

Whereas, Japan has extensive access to 
the United States market for products in 
which Japan has a comparative advantage; 

Whereas, United States soda ash export- 
ers lack access to the Japanese market for 
soda ash in which the United States has a 
comparative advantage; 

Whereas, highly competitive U.S. soda ash 
exports to Japan have been restricted by 
anticompetitive practices by Japanese soda 
ash producers; 

Whereas, Japan's Fair Trade Commission 
found that a secret cartel of Japanese soda 
ash producers had in fact been illegally re- 
stricting imports of U.S. soda ash, but im- 
posed no sanctions against the Japanese 
producers; 

Whereas, U.S. soda ash sales in Japan are 
stagnating, and there is clear evidence that 
U.S. soda ash sales are still being restricted 
by continuing anticompetitive activities of 
Japanese soda ash producers and their af- 
filiated trading companies; 

Whereas, Japanese government antimo- 
nopoly laws, antitrust enforcement prac- 
tices, and antitrust penalties are proving in- 
adequate to prevent such anticompetitive 
and restrictive Japanese practices; 

Whereas, efforts by the U.S. Government 
to obtain meaningful improvement in 
market access for competitive United States 





October 9, 1986 


soda ash exports, including securing the 
elimination of anticompetitive or restrictive 
Japanese practices, have so far proven un- 
successful; 

Whereas, the merchandise balance of 
trade deficit with Japan and the soda ash 
trade problem with Japan have the poten- 
tial of undermining the entire range of bi- 
lateral relations between the United States 
and Japan; and 

Whereas, action by the United States is 
appropriate—(1) to enforce United States 
rights under trade agreements to which 
Japan is a party, and (2) to obtain the elimi- 
nation of anticompetitive Japanese prac- 
tices that restrict U.S. exports of soda ash in 
the Japanese market; Now therefore be it 

Resolved by the Senate, That it is the 

sense of the Senate that the President 
should take all appropriate and feasible 
action within his power to obtain the elimi- 
nation of such anticompetitive or restrictive 
foreign practices. 
e@ Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, before 
the 99th Congress ends, I want to 
submit a resolution directed toward 
Japan’s unwillingness to address ille- 
gal trade practices that prevent the 
competitive sale of domestic soda ash 
in the Japanese market. 

The resolution requests that the 
President act decisively to eliminate 
anticompetitive foreign practices that 
restrict competitive United States ex- 
ports of soda ash to Japan. Of course, 
if a solution to this problem is not in 
sight when Congress reconvenes, I will 
reintroduce a similar resolution seek- 
ing Senate support to dismantle bar- 
riers that limit American sales of soda 
ash in the multimillion-dollar Japa- 
nese soda ash market. 

This case has become symbolic of 
Japan's unwillingness to implement 
fair trade practices with the United 
States. To date, all efforts by U.S. 
Government officials and the U.S. 
soda ash industry seeking a solution to 
this problem have been unsuccessful. 

Soda ash is a basic commodity used 
in glassmaking and other industrial 
procesess. The largest natural deposits 
in the world are found in my home 
State of Wyoming. Because of these 
superb natural deposits, the soda ash 
industry can produce higher quality 
soda ash at a far lower cost than any 
other such industry in the world, in- 
cluding that of Japan. This competi- 
tive edge has been enhanced by U.S. 
producers’ investments in energy-effi- 
cient production processes. 

Our soda ash industry has made sub- 
stantial efforts to expand its sales in 
Japan. It has established soda ash 
warehouse facilities in Japan and cur- 
rently maintains a $5 million invento- 
ry in Japan—more than the domestic 
Japanese producers—to assure custom- 
ers of its long term commitment to the 
market. U.S. producers have estab- 
lished relationships with Japanese 
trading companies to market and dis- 
tribute soda ash, as well as to develop 
new Japanese customers. In addition, 
U.S. firms have priced their product 
competitively, offered discounts and 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


successfully satisfied their Japanese 
customer's quality requirements. But 
despite these efforts, United States 
soda ash producers have failed to com- 
petitively penetrate the Japanese soda 
ash market. 

After making every diligent effort, 
why has the United States soda ash in- 
dustry failed to gain fair access to the 
Japanese market? In 1983, after nu- 
merous complaints, the Japan Fair 
Trade Commission conducted an inves- 
tigation and found that an illegal 
cartel of Japanese soda ash producers 
was restricting imports of United 
States soda ash. No sanctions or no 
fines were imposed on the Japanese 
producers, although shortly after the 
JFTC discovery, United States sales.of 
soda ash increased. However, sales lev- 
eled off again in 1984, and since that 
time, U.S. sales have shown virtually 
no growth and currently remain stag- 
nated. 

In February 1986, in a white paper 
released by American Natural Soda 
Ash Corp. [ANSAC], entitled “Japa- 
nese Market Barriers in Soda Ash,” 
U.S. firms reported renewed instances 
of anticompetitive behavior by Japa- 
nese producers. In light of this new 
evidence, I joined members of the 
Senate Finance Committee, as well as 
Senator Srmpson in dispatching a 
letter to Prime Minister Nakasone 
urging corrective action if anticom- 
petitive practices were shown to con- 
tinue. To date we've received no re- 
sponse. Mr. President, I ask that our 
letter, dated June 6, 1986, be printed 
in the ReEcorp at the conclusion of my 
remarks. 

I became so frustrated with Japan’s 
failure to take any action that I trav- 
eled to Japan last summer. I met with 
Japanese Cabinet members and urged 
them to open Japan’s market. I also 
hosted Japanese Ambassador Nubuo 
Matsunaga in my home State of Wyo- 
ming where we toured the soda ash 
mines. I must admit I was hopeful our 
efforts to negotiate a solution would 
result in a commitment from the Japa- 
nese Government when its representa- 
tives met in August with United States 
trade officials at a bilateral trade 
meeting in Hawaii. However, the re- 
ports emanating from that meeting 
are deeply disappointing. I understand 
that Japan agreed to a government- 
sponsored meeting between United 
States suppliers and Japanese buyers. 

It is my sincere hope, Mr. President, 
that the Japanese Government will 
soon take the necessary steps to 
ensure that United States soda ash 
producers enjoy full access to the Jap- 
anese markets. However, but if all ef- 
forts by the U.S. Government to nego- 
tiate a solution to this problem fail, 
strict enforcement of U.S. trade laws 
to resolve the soda ash problem would 
be an appropriate response. 


29933 


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

U.S. SENATE, 
Washington, DC, June 6, 1986. 
Hon. YASUHTRO NAKASONE, 
Prime Minister, Government of Japan, 
Tokyo, Japan. 

DEAR PRIME MINISTER NAKASONE: We have 
become increasingly concerned over Japa- 
nese unfair trade practices that impede U.S. 
exports of soda ash, the raw material used 
in glass manufacture and other industrial 
processes. Despite past and present govern- 
ment and industry efforts to address the 
barriers, U.S. exporters continue to have 
limited access as a result of anticompetitive 
actions by Japanese soda ash producers and 
their affiliated trading companies. You have 
been a strong advocate of fair trade princi- 
ples. We believe the soda ash case deserves 
your close attention. 

U.S. soda ash production, based on the ex- 
istence of the world’s largest deposits of a 
natural mineral ore from which soda ash 
can be manufactured at half the cost of Jap- 
anese soda ash, allows the U.S. to be the 
world’s lowest cost producer. American soda 
ash has been an overwhelming success in 
other world markets where fair access has 
been available. 

The problem in Japan stems from weak 
enforcement of Japan’s Antimonopoly Act 
that continues to allow the four Japanese 
soda ash producers, in concert with consum- 
ers and several major trading. companies, to 
protect the Japanese market from import 
competition. 

At the urging of the U.S. Government, the 
Japan Fair Trade Commission {JFTC] in 
1982 began an investigation into allegations 
of anticompetitive practices of these produc- 
ers. In March 1983, the JFTC issued a deci- 
sion finding that an illegal producers cartel 
was restricting imports of U.S. soda ash. 
The JFTC ordered this anticompetitive ac- 
tivity to cease but imposed no fines and did 
not specifically direct the producers to cease 
pressuring domestic consumers to limit 
their purchases of imported soda ash. 

Though U.S. exports increased in the year 
following the JFTC decision, they have lev- 
eled off to approximately 16 percent of Jap- 
anese market share in the past two years. 
We and the U.S. industry are convinced U.S. 
exports would increase substantially if our 
exporters were able to operate in a competi- 
tive environment where supply and demand 
are allowed to have effect. 

The U.S. industry's goal of fair access to 
Japan has strong support from the Adminis- 
tration and many leaders in Congress who 
have been outspoken on this issue. The in- 
dustry recently has responded through the 
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
{USTR) to comments on this issue by MITI. 
We believe there is a compelling case for the 
JFTC to conduct a thorough investigation 
of the industry and to take corrective action 
if anticompetitive practices are shown to 
continue. In December 1985, the JFTC in- 
formed USTR it was monitoring its 1983 de- 
cision. We are convinced this is not suffi- 
cient action in light of the overriding inter- 
national competitiveness of U.S. soda ash 
and the inability of U.S. exporters to com- 
pete fairly for sales to Japanese customers. 

Our nations are making progress in 
achieving fair access in trade. We urge you 





29934 


to give this case strong attention and we 
look forward to your response. 


Sincerely, 

Malcolm Wallop, John H. Chafee, 
George Mitchell, John C. Danforth, 
David L. Boren, Alan K. Simpson, 
Steve Symms, John Heinz, William V. 
Roth, Jr., U.S. Senators.e 

@ Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, today 
I join with my fine senior colleague, 
Senator Wat.op, in introducing a reso- 
lution that directs the President to 
take all actions possibly available to 
him in order to eliminate Japanese 
unfair trade practices and anticom- 
petitive activities that impede United 
States exports of competitive United 
States soda ash into Japan. 

The United States soda ash industry 
enjoys an enormous natural resource 
advantage that permits it to produce 
soda ash by means not available to 
Japan. United States manufacturers 
are so efficient that American produc- 
ers can produce, ship, and pay Japa- 
nese duties and still be competitive 
with Japanese soda ash producers in 
quality, service and price. In fact, 
those Japanese producers must import 
most of the raw materials and energy 
needed to make soda ash. 

The commitment of United States 
soda ash producers is extensive and 
substantial—including the establish- 
ment of several distribution and mar- 
keting channels in Japan; the estab- 
lishment of seven bulk warehouses in 
the cities of Osaka, Kawasaki, Tachi- 
bana, Yokkaichi, and Chiba; the main- 
tenance in Japan of inventories of 
United States soda ash in excess of $5 
million; and extensive United States 
industry export promotion efforts, in- 
cluding the sponsorship of multiple 
trade mission tours for Japanese cus- 
tomers and distribution personnel to 
Green River, WY, and Trona, CA, the 
major locations in this country where 
soda ash is produced. 

American soda ash sales in Japan 
have not increased since 1983. There is 
clear evidence that the continued stag- 
nation of United States soda ash sales 
reflects the continuing restrictive and 
anticompetitive activities of Japanese 
soda ash producers and their affiliated 
trading companies. 

I believe very strongly in the concept 
of free trade and comparative advan- 
tage. However, while the United States 
has opened its markets to products in 
which Japan has a comparative advan- 
tage, Japan has not opened its mar- 
kets fully to products in which this 
country has a comparative advantage. 
We do not have and have not had a 
free market in soda ash in Japan. 

The unprecedented growth in the 
size of the Japanese trade surplus with 
the United States and the rest of the 
world has made it imperative for 
Japan to liberalize access to its 
market. It is time that Japan fully ac- 
cepts, the responsibilities that accom- 
pany its role in the international mar- 
ketplace. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


While it is very late in the session 
and it would be difficult for my friends 
and colleagues in the Senate to rush 
this to consideration, I earnestly trust 
that by introducing the resolution 
now, both Senator WALLop and I have 
placed the Congress on notice that we 
intend to vigorously pursue this reso- 
lution—or similar  legislation—very 
early in the 100th Congress.e 


AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED 


RELEASE OF RESTRICTIONS ON 
CERTAIN PROPERTY 


TRIBLE AMENDMENT NO. 3265 


Mr. DOLE (for Mr. TRIBLE) proposed 
an amendment to the bill (S. 2852) to 
authorize the Secretary of Transporta- 
tion to release restrictions on the use 
of certain property conveyed to the 
Peninsula Airport Commission, Virgin- 
ia, for airport purposes; as follows: 

On page 2, add after line 21 the following 
new paragraphs: 

(3) Any release granted by the Secretary 
of Transportation under subsection (a) of 
this section may not apply to more than 7.5 
acres of real property. 

(4) The Peninsula Airport Commission 
may not lease or convey any interest in any 
of the property which the United States 
conveyed to such Commission by the deed 
described in subsection (a), to any person or 
business concern other than the City of 
Newport News, Virginia. 


KOREAN WAR VETERANS 
MEMORIAL 


McCLURE AMENDMENT NO. 3266 


Mr. DOLE (for Mr. McCuure) pro- 
posed an amendment to the bill (H.R. 
2205) to authorize the American 
Battle Monuments Commission to es- 
tablish a memorial to honor members 
of the Armed Forces of the United 
States who served in the Korean con- 
flict; as follows: 

1. On page 3, line 5, of H.R. 2205 as report- 
ed by the Committee on Energy and Natu- 
ral Resources, strike “Senate on September 
10, 1986 (S. Rept. 99-421)” and insert in lieu 
thereof ‘House of Representatives on Sep- 
tember 29, 1986”’. 

2. On page 3, line 20, of H.R. 2205 as re- 
ported by the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, strike “Senate on Sep- 
tember 10, 1986” and insert in lieu thereof 
“House of Representatives on September 29, 
1986”. 


ADDITIONAL LEASES IN THE EL 
PORTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE 


McCLURE AMENDMENT NO. 3267 


Mr. DOLE (for Mr. McCLurRe) pro- 
posed an amendment to the bill (H.R. 
1390) to authorize additional long- 
term leases in the El Portal adminis- 


October 9, 1986 


trative site adjacent to Yosemite Na- 
tional Park, CA, and for other pur- 
poses, as follows: 

1. On page 4, line 12, after the word “‘sub- 
lease,” insert the following: ‘‘the process to 
be used in establishing fees for such leases 
and subleases,”. 

2. On page 6, line one, delete “Sec. 6.” and 
insert in lieu thereof: “Sec. 2.”. 

1. On page 6, after line 7, add the follow- 
ing new section 3: “Sec. 3. Notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
the Interior shall, within six months of the 
enactment of this Act, complete the ex- 
change of all lands in four isolated federal 
parcels within the boundaries of Inks Creek 
Ranch, Tehama County, California, as de- 
scribed in Exhibit A of the July 25, 1986, 
letter of intent to exchange issued by the 
District Manager, Ukiah District Office, 
Bureau of Land Management.”. 


FRANCIS SCOTT KEY MEMORIAL 


McCLURE AMENDMENT NO. 3268 


Mr. DOLE (for Mr. McC.Lure) pro- 
posed an amendment to the bill (S. 
2370) to allow the Francis Scott Key 
Park Foundation, Inc., to erect a me- 
morial in the District of Columbia, as 
follows: 

1. On page 4, line 25, of S. 2370 as report- 
ed by the Committee on Energy and Natu- 
ral Resources, strike “Senate on September 
10, 1986 (S. Rept. 99-421)” and insert in lieu 
thereof ‘House of Representatives on Sep- 
tember 29, 1986”. 


LOWER COLORADO WATER 
SUPPLY ACT 


McCLURE (AND METZENBAUM) 
AMENDMENT NO. 3269 


Mr. DOLE (for Mr. McCture, for 
himself and Mr. METZENBAUM) pro- 
posed an amendment to the bill (H.R. 
5028) entitled the “Lower Colorado 
Water Supply Act,” as follows: 

Page 4, line 8, strike the period and insert: 
“on a current basis.” 

Page 4, line 8, following the period insert: 
“(4) The Secretary has transmitted to Con- 
gress the final planning report/environmen- 
tal assessment on the Lower Colorado 
Water Supply Project.” 

Page 4, line 23, following “struction” 
insert: “through September 30, 1993” 

Page 5, line 16, insert the following new 
section and renumber the existing section 4 
as section 5: 

“SEC. 4. CONTRIBUTION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS. 

“The Secretary is authorized to accept 
monetary contributions from the City of 
Needles and other incorporated cities for 
the construction of project features of the 
Lower Colorado Water Supply Project allo- 
cated to the provision of water supplies to 
the City of Needles and other incorporated 
cities; Provided, that, such contributions 
shall be credited towards the reimbursable 
costs to be repaid by the City of Needles 
and other incorporated cities pursuant to 
the contracts entered into pursuant to Sec. 
2 of this Act. Such contribution by the City 
of Needles and other incorporated cities 
shall be contributed during the construction 
of the appropriated project features and 





October 9, 1986 


shall constitute twenty percent of the costs 
of such project features allocated to the 
City of Needles and other incorporated 
cities for repayment. 


CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN 
LANDS 


McCLURE (AND DECONCINI) 
AMENDMENT NO. 3270 


Mr. DOLE (for Mr. McCuure, for 
himself and Mr. DeConcrn1) proposed 
an amendment to the amendment of 
the House to the text of the bill 
(S. 565) to direct the Secretary of Agri- 
culture to convey, without consider- 
ation to the town of Payson, AZ, ap- 
proximately 30,96 acres of Forest Serv- 
ice lands; as follows: 

At the end of the House amendment 
insert the following new section 5 as follows: 
Sec. 5. Section 205 of the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
U.S.C. 1715(c)) is amended— 

(1) in the first sentence of subsection (c) 
by striking out “Lands and interests” and 
inserting in lieu thereof “Except as provided 
in subsection (e), lands and interests’; and 

(2) by adding at the end thereof the fol- 
lowing new subsection: 

“(e) Lands acquired by the Secretary pur- 
suant to this section or section 206 in ex- 
change for lands which were revested in the 
United States pursuant to the provisions of 
the Act of June 9, 1916 (39 Stat. 218) or re- 
conveyed to the United States pursuant to 
the provisions of the Act of February 26, 
1919 (40 Stat. 1179), shall be considered for 
all purposes to have the same status as, and 
shall be administered in accordance with 
the same provisions of law applicable to, the 
revested or reconveyed lands exchanged for 
the lands acquired by the Secretary.”. 

At the end of the bill, add the following 
new Section: 

Section. . Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the Secretary of the Interi- 
or, if he determines it necessary and appro- 
priate for the purpose of consummating an 
exchange of lands or interests therein under 
applicable law, is hereby authorized and di- 
rected to: 

(2) revoke the withdrawal under the First 
Form by Order of the Secretary of the Inte- 
rior dated December 14, 1904, and as inter- 
preted by Order of Interpretation of the 
Secretary of the Interior dated may 19, 
1964, insofar as said withdrawal applies to 
Section 31 (Lots 1,2,3,W%E%, E%*NW% 
SE%“SE%) T.5 N., R. 7 E., Gila and Salt 
River Meridian, Arizona. 

Add a new section to S. 565 as follows and 
number accordingly: 

Sec. . Notwithstanding any provision of 
law or order based thereon, the Secretary of 
the Interior, at the request of the Secretary 
of Agriculture, is authorized to take such ac- 
tions (including but not limited to the revo- 
cation of withdrawals and the issuance of 
patents) as may be necessary to facilitate 
and consummate a land exchange in Idaho 
known as the Mesa Falls Exchange, as de- 
scribed in a Land Exchange Notice by the 
Department of Agriculture published in the 
Post-Register newspaper published in Idaho 
Falls, Idaho on November 12, 1985 (p. B-5), 
if the Secretary of Agriculture decides to 


proceed with such exchange.” 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES 
TO MEET 


COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Commit- 
tee on Armed Services be authorized 
to meet during the session of the 
Senate on Thursday, October 9, in 
open later to become closed executive 
session, in order to continue the nomi- 
nation hearing of William A. Clink- 
scales, to be Director of the Selective 
Services. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 


ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 


THE NOMINATION OF JIM R. 
BILLINGTON TO SERVE AS A 
MEMBER OF THE FARM 

ADMINISTRATION 


@ Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, yester- 
day, the Senate confirmed the nomi- 
nation of Jim R. Billington to be a 
member of the Farm Credit Adminis- 
tration Board. Jim Billington is a long- 
time friend and distinguished Oklaho- 
man. 

Jim Billington is a farmer and 
rancher from southwestern Oklaho- 
ma, raising wheat, cotton, and feed 
grains and maintains a cow-calf oper- 
ation. He has been an agricultural 
leader for many years. He first served 
as president of the Oklahoma Wheat- 
growers from 1977 until 1979. His hard 
work and dedication to the organiza- 
tion gained him the presidency of the 
National Association of Wheatgrowers, 
in which capacity he served from 1981 
to 1982. He presently serves as presi- 
dent of the National Association of 
Wheatgrowers Foundation, the educa- 
tional arm of the National Association 
of Wheatgrowers. 

In addition to his work with the 
Wheatgrowers Association, he served 
as a board member of the Federal 
Grain Inspection Service advisory 
committee between 1982 and 1984. 

Jim Billington will be an asset to the 
Farm Credit Administration Board not 
only from the standpoint of his exten- 
sive knowledge of agriculture, but also 
from his vast knowledge of agricultur- 
al credit. Jim has served as a president 
and chief exective officer of a bank 
and a production credit association. He 
has also served as an examiner for the 
Federal Intermediate Credit Bank, 
Ninth Farm District, Wichita, KS. 

We have waited a longtime for the 
administration to nominate the third 
member of the Farm Credit Adminis- 
tration Board. For several months, the 
Board has operated with only two 
members. There are many of us who 
feel very strongly about getting the 
third member on the Board as soon as 


possible. 


29935 


Mr. President, I am very proud of 
Jim’s accomplishments for agriculture 
and for our State. I enthusiastrically 
commend him to serve as a member of 
the Farm Credit Administration 
Board.@ 


CONCERNING THE SAFETY PRO- 
GRAM OF TINDLE MILLS, INC. 


e@ Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, 
truck safety is a serious problem on 
our Nation’s highways. Heavy truck 
accidents kill 5,000 people each year. 
Truck accidents reported to the De- 
partment of Transportation were 18 
percent higher in 1984 than in 1983 
and rose another 6 percent in 1985. 

There are some companies that are 
taking steps to stop this disturbing 
trend. For example, Tindle Mills, Inc., 
of Springfield, MO, pays drivers on a 
per-mile basis for every mile driven 
without an avoidable accident. 

Tindle has shown that safety pays 
for both the company and its drivers. 
In a 28-month stretch, Tindle’s drivers 
accumulated almost 1.5 million miles 
without an accident. Its drivers have 
received $70,000 in bonuses since the 
program began in 1979. 

I congratulate Tindle on its succcess- 
ful program and urge other companies 
to profit from its example.e 


THE GOVERNMENT MANAGE- 
MENT REPORT ACT OF 1986—S. 
2004 


@ Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am 
pleased to present for the Senate’s 
consideration S. 2004, a bill which pro- 
vides for the President of the United 
States to submit an annual report, 
with his budget, on the major activi- 
ties undertaken and planned to im- 
prove the management of the execu- 
tive branch of Government. The bill 
also requires the Comptroller General 
to prepare for Congress a statement 
analyzing such report within 90 days 
of its submission. 

In 1984, the Congress mandated in 
the Deficit Reduction Act a report by 
the President on how he had respond- 
ed to recommendations made by out- 
side organizations, including the Grace 
Commission, to improve Government 
management. A report issued by OMB 
in 1985 not only addressed the legisla- 
tive requirement, but also informed 
the Congress of other efforts being un- 
dertaken, especially Reform 1988: the 
President’s Management Improvement 
Program. OMB issued a second report, 
“Management of the U.S. Govern- 
ment, Fiscal Year 1987,” with this 
year’s budget documents. 

OMB has advised my Committee on 
Governmental Affairs that it plans to 
continue reporting annually on man- 
agement at the time the budget is 
issued, but we have no assurance 
beyond the agency’s promise that this 





29936 


report will be issued in future years, 
and Congress has no voice in deciding 
what the report will contain. The Defi- 
cit Reduction Act required only a 
single report. S. 2004 ensures that 
Congress will receive such a report 
every year. In addition, it outlines the 
specific subjects on which the Presi- 
dent would report, including the provi- 
sion of a summary of major manage- 
ment improvement initiatives and a 
discussion for each initiative of its pur- 
pose, the progress and problems in im- 
plementation, and the impact on 
agency operations. 

The report required by S. 2004 
would not be another document to be 
quietly forwarded to Congress and end 
up collecting dust in committee staff- 
ers’ in-boxes. Rather, I see this report 
as the basis for annual hearings before 
the Governmental Affairs Committee 
on the state of Government manage- 
ment, any Presidential management 
legislative initiatives, and what is 
being done to ensure that our Govern- 
ment has the leadership, the systems, 
and the organization to meet the chal- 
lenging times ahead. 

The bill keeps the reporting require- 
ments as simple and flexible as possi- 
ble, but improves the usefulness of in- 
formation available to Congress for 
overseeing executive branch manage- 
ment improvement activities. It also 
assures that the President’s report will 
cover all management activities and 
present, insofar as possible, a balanced 
summary of both the problems and ac- 
complishments in management. 

In his February 26, 1986, testimony 
before the Governmental Affairs Com- 
mittee, Comptroller General Charles 
A. Bowsher said, “History tells us that 
implementing management initiatives 
effectively has often proven illusive. 
Sustained attention is needed from 
OMB and the line agencies.” He said 
S. 2004 is a means for establishing a 
process to help sustain executive 
branch commitment and for providing 
a forum for congressional oversight. 

In its comments on S. 2004, the 
Office of Management and Budget 
welcomed the opportunity to provide a 
report on the administration’s initia- 
tives, but expressed concern about the 
overly prescriptive requirements con- 
tained in the bill. Following the hear- 
ing, the committee staff met with 
OMB officials to clarify the nature of 
these concerns. 

To respond to these concerns, the 
committee adopted an amendment re- 
moving language on page 3 of the bill 
pertaining to costs, benefits, efficiency 
improvements, and so forth, and in- 
serted in lieu thereof a requirement 
that the President submit for each ini- 
tiative a description of “any signifi- 
cant and identifiable impact of the ini- 
tiative on agency operations."’ The 
committee report on S. 2004 noted 
that such description should include 
information on costs, savings, efficien- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


cies, and service delivery improve- 
ments only where appropriate. 

To accommodate another OMB con- 
cern, the committee in its report on S. 
2004 requested that GAO minimize its 
information and documentation re- 
quests on OMB, but also stated that 
OMB should be forthcoming in meet- 
ing those information needs. Finally, 
the report made clear that the Presi- 
dent need report only on his “‘major 
management improvement initia- 
tives"—as currently specified in the 
bill—not the ‘‘detailed report on all 
Government-wide problems and 
issues” described in OMB’s comments 
on the bill. 

Three years ago, OMB instituted a 
management review process, parallel 
to the budget process, wherein OMB 
officials meet annually with the man- 
agement staff of each of the 20 or so 
largest Federal agencies to discuss an 
agenda of management reforms for 
the coming year. Following these 
meetings, the agencies submit manage- 
ment plans for OMB review and ap- 
proval. These plans then are the blue- 
prints for agency action the following 
year. The annual hearings triggered 
by the report required by S. 2004 
would not set up so systematic a proc- 
ess, but they would give Congress an 
opportunity, similar to that exercised 
by OMB with executive agencies, to 
ensure that appropriate actions are 
being taken to see that the Federal 
Government is managed in the 
manner the Nation expects and de- 
serves. 

On June 25, 1986, the Governmental 
Affairs Committees ordered S. 2004 re- 
ported to the full Senate by unani- 
mous vote. I strongly urge my col- 
leagues’ support of this measure in a 
similar manner. 


REAUTHORIZE SUPERFUND 


e@ Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there 
are disturbing reports that the Presi- 
dent is considering a veto of the Su- 
perfund bill passed by Congress last 
week. I cannot think of a more mistak- 
en action that could be taken. 

The Superfund Program addresses a 
dangerous threat to the health of 
Americans in thousands of communi- 
ties across our Nation. Public support 
for Federal action on this issue is un- 
questioned: Any debate on the Super- 
fund Program does not question the 
need for Federal action, but how far it 
should go. 

The Superfund Program has not yet 
reached its potential in resolving the 
threats of abandoned hazardous waste 
dumps. The cleanup of thousands of 
sites lies ahead, an operation expected 
to take decades. And there is much 
more to be understood about the safe 
containment and destruction of toxic 
wastes. While the job ahead is impos- 
ing, the Superfund Program provides 
the framework and resources to do it. 


October 9, 1986 


But the progress we are making in 
hazardous waste management would 
be lost in the event of a Presidential 
veto. The Superfund Program has 
hobbled along this year on temporary 
funding, resulting in delays and cut- 
backs of critical cleanup efforts. Now, 
the research, technology, expertise, 
and manpower that comprise this pro- 
gram are in grave jeopardy, posing an 
enormous cost in time and resources, 
and risking the public’s health and 
safety. 

There are some provisions of the bill 
that environmentalists would like to 
see improved, that manufacturers 
would like to see changed, that the oil 
industry has reservations about. The 
important point is that a strengthened 
Superfund Program will be in place 
and the $8.5 billion in costs will be dis- 
tributed in a fair manner. This is a far- 
reaching bill on a complex issue that is 
the product of bipartisan compromise. 
Hazardous waste cleanup is a shared 
responsibility; the dangers of toxic 
waste expose all of us to risk. 

It is ironic that several times this 
year the Administrator of the Envi- 
ronmental Protection Agency has 
made clear the problems a shutdown 
of the Superfund Program would 
cause. He knows that the severe dis- 
ruption that would occur could take 
years to recover. He has appealed to 
the President to sign this legislation 
but his plea so far has been ignored. 
Three former Administrators of the 
EPA—Russell Train, Doug Costle, and 
William Ruckelshaus—have written to 
President Reagan urging him to sup- 
port Superfund. The Senate passed 
the conference report by the over- 
whelming vote of 88 to 8; the House 
acted by an equally wide margin. Mr. 
President, all of these people, experts 
and politicians alike, are not wrong. 
There is an urgent need to act and the 
American people are demanding that 
we do so. 

The risks that hazardous waste sites 
pose to so many Americans require 
that the Superfund Program not be al- 
lowed to end. It is perhaps the most 
important environmental legislation of 
the past decade. The decision is now in 
the President’s hands. There is only 
one right decision and that is to sign 
the Superfund bill.e 


THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED 
AND CORRUPT ORGANIZA- 
TIONS ACT 


@ Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, 
on October 3, 1986, I introduced S. 
2907, a bill to amend the Racketeer In- 
fluenced and Corrupt Organizations 
Act, more commonly known as 
“RICO.” Earlier this week, the House 
passed an almost identical bill by the 


vote of 371 to 28. Because of the inter- 
est in this measure, I ask that the text 
of S. 2907 be printed in the REcorp. 





October 9, 1986 


The text follows: 
S. 2907 


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PATTERN OF ILLICIT ACTIVITY. 

(a) CHAPTER 96 HeEapInc.—The heading for 
chapter 96 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by striking out “RACKETEER IN- 
FLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZA- 
TIONS” and inserting in lieu thereof ‘““PAT- 
TERN OF ILLICIT ACTIVITY”. 

(b) Section 1961.—Section 1961 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking out ‘‘rack- 
eteering” the first place it appears and in- 
serting “illicit” in lieu thereof; 

(2) in paragraph (5), by striking out “rack- 
eteering” each place it appears and insert- 
ing “illicit” in lieu thereof; 

(3) in paragraph (7), by striking out “rack- 
eteering” each place it appears and insert- 
ing ‘‘criminal” in lieu thereof; and 

(4) in paragraph (8)— 

(A) by striking out ‘racketeering’ the 
first place it appears and inserting “illicit 
activity” in lieu thereof; and 

(B) by striking out “racketeering” the 
second place it appears and inserting “crimi- 
nal” in lieu thereof. 

(c) Section 1962.—Section 1962 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by striking 
out “racketeering” each place it appears and 
inserting “illicit” in lieu thereof. 

(d) Section 1963.—Paragraph (3) of sec- 
tion 1963(a) of title 18, United States Code, 
is amended by striking out “racketeering” 
and inserting “‘illicit’’ in lieu thereof. 

(e) SEcTIon 1968.—Section 1968 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a), by striking out “a 
racketeering investigation” and inserting 
“an illicit activity investigation” in lieu 
thereof; 

(2) in subsection (b), by striking out “‘rack- 
eteering” each place it appears and insert- 
ing “‘illicit activity” in lieu thereof; 

(3) in subsection (c), by striking out “rack- 
eteering” each place it appears and insert- 
ing “illicit activity” in lieu thereof; and 

(4) in subsection (f)— 

(A) by striking out “racketeering” the 
first and fifth place it appears and inserting 
“criminal” in lieu thereof; and 

(B) by striking out ‘racketeering’ each 
other place it appears and inserting ‘“‘crimi- 
nal" in lieu thereof. 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1964 RELATING 
TO CIVIL SUITS. 

Subsection (c) of section 1964 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows: 

“(ch 1) Any person injured in his business 
or property by reason of conduct in viola- 
tion of section 1962 of this chapter may sue 
any person who engaged in that conduct 
and, with respect to such conduct, was con- 
victed of an illicit activity or of a violation 
of section 1962 in any appropriate United 
States district court, and shall recover 
threefold the damages he sustains and the 
cost of the suit, including a reasonable at- 
torney’s fee. 

“(2) If the business or property of the 
United States or a State, including any de- 
partment, agency, or Government corpora- 
tion of the United States or a State, is in- 
jured by conduct in violation of section 1962 
of this chapter— 

“(A) the Attorney General of the United 
States or the chief legal officer of the State; 
or 

“(B) in the case of a political subdivision 
of a State, the chief legal office of such sub- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


division, if the State has authorized him to 
bring such action 


may sue any person who engaged in that 
conduct in any appropriate United States 
District Court and shall recover threefold 
the actual damages that the government 
sustained by reason of such injury and the 
cost of the suit, and a reasonable attorney's 
fee. 

“(3M Ai) Except as provided in para- 
graphs (1) and (2), any person injured in his 
business or property by reason of conduct in 
violation of section 1962 of this chapter 
(subject to the definition of pattern of illicit 
activity provided in subparagraph (B) of 
this paragraph) may sue any person who en- 
gaged in that conduct in any appropriate 
United States district court, and shall recov- 
er the actual damages such injured person 
sustains, the cost of the suit, and reasonable 
attorney’s fee: Provided, that in the case of 
plaintiffs eligible for punitive damages 
under division (ii), a prevailing plaintiff 
shall recover a reasonable attorney’s fee. 

“(ii) In addition to the recovery provided 
by division (i), the trier of fact shall award 
punitive damages up to twice the level of 
actual damages to a person if— 

“(I) such person is a natural person; 

“(II) neither Federal nor State securities 
laws make available an express or implied 
remedy for the type of illicit activity in 
which the person bases his claims; 

“(III) the injury occurred in the purchase 
or lease of a product, property, service, 
credit, or investment for personal or house- 
hold use or investment; and 

“(IV) the defendant’s conduct was in 
wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights. 


The amount of punitive damages recover- 
able under this division, if any, shall take 
into account— 

“(aa) the degree or culpability of the de- 
fendant; 

“(bb) the vulnerability of the victim; 

“(cc) any history of similar conduct by the 
defendant; 

“(dd) the benefits derived from the unlaw- 
ful conduct by the defendant; 

“(ee) the number of persons victimized; 
and 

“(ff) any other factor the court deems to 
be an equitable consideration bearing on the 
appropriate amount of punitive damages. 

“(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the 
term ‘pattern of illicit activity’ requires at 
least two acts of illicit activity— 

(i) one of which occurred not more than 
five years after the prior act; 

“ ii) each of which is not so closely related 
in time and place to the other that together 
the acts constitute a single transaction; and 

“ii (for actions based on section 1962(c)) 
each of which is related to the affairs of the 
enterprise. 

(4) A civil action under this subsection 
may not be commenced— 

“(A) later than three years after the time 
the cause of action accrues or the conduct 
causing injury to the plaintiff terminates; or 

“(B) two years from the date of the crimi- 
nal conviction required for an action to be 
brought under paragraph (1) of this subsec- 
tion, 
whichever is later. The statute of limita- 
tions is tolled during the pendency of a gov- 
ernment civil or criminal action relating to 
the course of conduct upon which the claim 
is based. 

“(5) In an action under this subsection the 
plaintiff must aver with particularity as to 
each defendant the facts supporting the 
claim.”. 


29937 


SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

(a) GENERAL Ruite.—The amendments 
made by this Act shall apply to any action 
initiated after the date of enactment. 

(b) Exception.—In any pending action 
under section 1964(c) of title 18, United 
States Code, in which a person would be eli- 
gible to recover only actual damages and at- 
torney’s fees under paragraph (8) of section 
1964(c) as added by this Act, if this Act has 
been enacted prior to the commencement of 
that action, that person may recover only 
actual damages and attorney's fees unless— 

(1) there has been a jury verdict or district 
court judgment, establishing the defend- 
ant’s liability, or settlement has occurred; or 

(2) the court determines that such limita- 
tion of recovery would result in manifest in- 
justice.e 


SUPERFUND REAUTHORIZATION 


e@ Mr. MURKOWSKIL. Mr. President, I 
rise today to express my strong sup- 
port for the Superfund Reauthoriza- 
tion bill. I voted for the Senate Super- 
fund Reauthorization bill over a year 
ago. I voted for the conference com- 
mittee report on this bill last week. 

This bill represents nearly 3 years of 
extraordinary effort by many people. 
It is a carefully developed compromise 
of many competing interests. It is 
overwhelmingly supported by the 
Members of Congress and the public. 

The reason for this support is obvi- 
ous. Superfund is perhaps the most 
important environmental protection 
program we have. Its purpose is to ad- 
dress the very serious problems posed 
by hazardous waste. Toxic fumes in 
the air we breath, risk of fire and ex- 
plosion, and poisons in the water we 
drink are all the results of the improp- 
er disposal of the residues of our 
chemical dependent society. 

The ill-effects of toxic wastes are not 
limited to the contamination of our 
environment, however. People are the 
ultimate victims of these chemicals. 
People who drink them or inhale 
them; or children who are exposed to 
them while playing in a playground or 
abandoned field. These people face a 
much greater risk of contracting 
cancer and other crippling or fatal dis- 
eases. 

Mr. President, I think everyone 
should take a moment to consider 
what will happen if Superfund is not 
reauthorized. 

The program has already been on a 
shoestring budget for over 15 months. 
Despite two interim funding measures 
during the past year, cleanup activities 
at more than 200 toxic waste sites na- 
tionwide have been significantly de- 
layed. If the program is not reauthor- 
ized now, these cleanups will cease en- 
tirely. 

The long-term result, however, is 
much more serious. Failure to reau- 
thorize Superfund now means the 
death of this program. There is no 
saving it with some interim, stop-gap 
funding measure. 





29938 


What does termination of the pro- 
gram mean? It means that cleanup of 
perhaps 10,000 or more very dangerous 
hazardous waste dumpsites will be de- 
layed indefinitely. Any delay in clean- 
ing up these sites translates directly 
into greater pollution of the environ- 
ment and more and more people ex- 
posed to serious health risks. 

This Nation’s toxic waste problem is 
a time bomb. We created it and it will 
not go away by itself. The longer we 
wait to correct the problem, the more 
dangerous the situation becomes. 

Mr. President, no one doubts the se- 
rious nature of this Nation’s toxic 
waste problem and the need for Super- 
fund. The disagreement between 
President Reagan and the Congress 
concerns how we pay for this program. 
I believe that the funding mechanism 
hammered out by the conference com- 
mittee is a fair and reasonable ap- 
proach. We are dealing with a national 
problem which affects all Americans. 
It is a problem for which we are all, in 
one way or another, responsible. And, 
therefore, the solution to that prob- 
lem is something that we all should 
pay for by one means or another. 

Mr. President, the American people 
strongly support Superfund and I be- 
lieve they are willing to pay for it. 
More importantly, the American 
people want their elected public offi- 
cials to stop arguing about what the 
program should look like and get on to 
the job of cleaning up toxic wastes. I 
suggest that we do that.e 


BUDGET SCOREKEEPING 
REPORT 


e Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 
hereby submit to the Senate a revised 
budget scorekeeping report for this 
week, prepared by the Congressional 
Budget Office in response to section 
308(b) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, as amended. This report 
also serves as the scorekeeping report 
for the purposes of section 311 of the 
Budget Act. 

The report follows: 

U.S. ConcrEss, 
CONGRESSIONAL BupceT OFFICE, 
Washington, DC, October 9, 1986. 
Hon. Pete V. DoMENICI, 
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. 
Senate, Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. CHAIRMAN: The attached report 
shows the effects of Congressional action on 
the budget for fiscal year 1987. The estimat- 
ed totals of budget authority, outlays, and 
revenues are compared to the appropriate 
or recommended levels contained in the 
most recent budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 
120. This report meets the requirements for 
Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. 
Res. 32 and is current through October 8, 
1986. The report is submitted under Section 
308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Con- 
gressional Budget Act, as amended. 

Since my last report Congress has com- 
pleted action on the Superfund Amend- 
ments and Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2005, 
and the Federal Technology Transfer Act, 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


October 9, 1986 


SUPPORTING DETAIL FOR CBO WEEKLY, SCOREKEEPING 
REPORT, U.S. SENATE, 99TH CONG., 2D SESS., AS OF 
OCT. 8, 1986—Continued 


[tn mithions of dollars) 


H.R. 3773, changing budget authority, 
outlay and revenue estimates for 1987. 
With best wishes, 
Sincerely, 
Rupo.px G. PENNER. 


CBO WEEKLY SCOREKEEPING REPORT FOR THE U.S. SENATE, 
99TH CONG. 2D SESS., AS OF OCT. 8, 1986 


un 


H 
| 


ili 
oF 
al 


{i 


2 The current statutory debt limit is $2,111 billion. 


itt EH] 


(4,557) 
6 
1,566 
66,780 


(4,557) .... 
6. 

1,539 

63,728. 


633,996 734,468 


995,000 


1987 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 
120). cee ee 


apf srt ploy ist 


Fal 


* Interfund transactions do not add to budget totals. 
? Less than $500,000 
Note. —Numbers may not add due to rounding. 


j 








October 9, 1986 


NAKASONE'S REMARKS 


@ Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, Japa- 
nese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Naka- 
sone has now publicly apologized to 
the American people for the very un- 
fortunate comments he made about 
minority groups in the United States. I 
know that this episode—and all of the 
coverage and heavy criticism that has 
surfaced from it—are of great and 
deep personal anguish to the Prime 
Minister. And I believe that he is 
being most sincere in his apology. 

Please know that I do not intend to 
defend the remarks in any way. Racist 
remarks—alleged or real—are highly 
offensive to me. Yet, I do feel that Na- 
kasone is truly distraught over the re- 
marks that may have brought pain to 
individuals and groups in this country. 

There were and are indeed times in 
my life when I wished “I could have 
said that differently’’—or not at all. I 
would suggest that many of us had 
similar experiences. Prime Minister 
Nakasone has indeed erred—and ad- 
mitted that error of judgment. 

His specific remarks seemed very un- 
characteristic to me—although I note 
some suggestion that the remarks may 
have been misinterpreted. Yet over 
the past 2 years I have had the fine 
opportunity of three personal visits 
with Prime Minister Nakasone. Those 
were arranged by the U.S. Ambassador 
Mike Mansfield, our former majority 
leader. Mike Mansfield was one of my 
“idols” in politics, serving with re- 
markable distinction my neighboring 
State of Montana. Mike and my father 


Milward, served together in the U.S. 
Senate. They were fine friends and re- 
spected each other greatly. It was 
Mike Mansfield who shared with me 
the stature of the man—Nakasone. 
Funny place here—in this Washington 


government. Only several short 
months ago we in Congress and in the 
media were hoping and praying that 
this remarkable man would be able to 
lead his government again and we 
would be the beneficiary of that and 
many glowing things were written of 
him and of his legislative skills and 
abilities and his compassion, for he is 
aman of solid integrity and honor. 

Let us just say for now—without 
reading a lot of “stuff” into the situa- 
tion how much we appreciate having 
the apology. It is tough to apologize. 
We all know how very personally 
tough it is to admit that we are wrong 
or to admit that we just did not quite 
“mean it that way.” Prime Minister 
Nakasone has had the great courage 
to apologize. I am one who accepts 
that apology in the spirit in which it is 
tendered. It takes guts to do that and I 
always admire that trait. Let me also 
commend the Japanese Ambassador, 
Nobuo Matsunaga, a fine and sincere 
man who has anguished greatly in this 
situation. He has been a strong force 
in resolving the matter. He deserves 
great credit. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Let me take this moment to ask to 
submit for the record a column writ- 
ten by Nathaniel B. Thayer, in the 
Tuesday, September 30, 1986, edition 
of the Washington Post. This article, 
penned by an American who has 
worked closely with Prime Minister 
Nakasone provides us with a most in- 
teresting and valuable insight that 
might give us a better perspective of 
this very painful episode. 

The United States and Japan have 
many, many issues confronting our 
fine countries. My dear friend and col- 
league from Wyoming, MALco_m 
Wat.op, and I are deeply disturbed 
about the Japanese Government's 
treatment of trade in soda ash and 
beef cattle and coal. There is this tre- 
mendous and very serious trade imbal- 
ance between our two countries. Both 
of us need a very monumental and 
good faith effort in order to resolve 
that imbalance. I would earnestly 
trust that Mr. Nakasone’s apology 
might properly lay this recent and 
highly publicized episode to rest in 
order that we can be about our critical 
business of honestly discussing and 
conscientiously negotiating our differ- 
ences with the nation of Japan. We 
have much to do together. We must be 
about it. Continually elevating this in- 
cident like a target on a firing range 
diverts us from an objective that is 
one of overwhelming national interest. 
We should put this behind us and 
press on. 

The article referred to follows: 

(From the Washington Post, Sept. 30, 1986] 
(By Nathaniel B. Thayer) 
NAKASONE IS NOT A RAcIST 

I have known and argued with Yasuhiro 
Nakasone for 25 years. A few years back, I 
helped him put an autobiography into Eng- 
lish. I am now working on a political biogra- 
phy of him. I see him regularly, the last 
time just 10 days ago. I feel confident I 
know what he thinks. He is not a racist. 

Nakasone got to be and has stayed on as 
Japan's prime minister by doing first things 
first and doing them fast. That explains his 
summoning the press in the middle of the 
night and giving it a handwritten apology to 
the American people for comments he made 
about U.S. minority groups. That apology, 
he hoped, would allow him to get on with 
his “political commitment to strengthen the 
friendship between our two peoples.” But 
he was also aware that it would serve to con- 
firm the charges of racism that many Amer- 
icans leveled against him for his speech to 
young Liberal Democratic Party workers in 
the Shizuoka foothills of Mount Fuji. 

The problem with the Shizuoka speech 
seems to rest with Nakasone's penchant for 
mixing English phrases into his Japanese 
sentences. I’ve listened to a voice clip from 
the speech. He says that Japan has an “‘in- 
telligent society.” The quotation is the part 
of the sentence in English. In a following 
sentence, he says its level is low in the 
United States, and attributes that to the 
blacks and Hispanics. The Japanese foreign 
office has said that he was talking about 
education and literacy. 

I agree that Nakasone was talking about 
education. But I think he was talking about 
something beyond just literacy. I think he 


29939 


was talking about intellectual integration, 
though that term is mine not his. I think 
Nakasone was talking about the ability of a 
nation to recognize its general welfare, for- 
mulate its goals and then act on them. He 
could just as easily have been talking about 
established America’s inability to bring its 
minorities into the mainstream of society as 
about the minorities themselves. He was 
condescending. He is contrite. That ac- 
counts in part for his speed in issuing an 
apology. 

The last time I met with Nakasone, he 
handed me a pamphlet of a speech he had 
given to a seminar of other party workers in 
the mountains at Karuizawa on Aug. 30. In 
it, he speaks of a philosophy of accommoda- 
tion. He quotes from the 13th-century Japa- 
nese Buddhist sage Dogen, who found divin- 
ity in all living matter. He recalls the Asian 
idea that all men are brothers. He speaks of 
respect for human values. 

The Karuizawa speech is not Nakasone at 
his best but Nakasone as usual. It’s a better 
measure of his thinking than the Shizuoka 
speech. 

What are the attitudes of other Japanese 
toward the West? That question was ex- 
plored in five national polls between 1950 
and 1970. In the first two, a plurality of the 
Japanese felt inferior to Westerners. In the 
next two, a plurality of the Japanese felt su- 
perior to Westerners. In the fifth poll, only 
the Japanese who felt Westerners and Japa- 
nese were the same were on an upward 
curve. 

But while Japanese intellectuals write of 
learning from China, since it is the histori- 
cal source of much Japanese culture, polls 
show this attitude is not accepted by other 
citizens. More common is the attitude that 
China has something to learn from Japan. 
And while South Korea ranks above North 
Korea in Japan's estimation neither is liked. 

A Japanese diplomat, writing under the 
pen name Satoru Nagasaka, has said, “Japa- 
nese will accord Koreans equal social status 
when their nations have achieved an eco- 
nomic status equal to Japan. Europeans and 
Americans imposed the same condition on 
Japan.” The book received a literary prize. 

Japanese spend little time worrying about 
their own minorities, although from time to 
time powerful Japanese writers have come 
to their defense. Police fear of North 
Korean spies and illegal immigrants has 
greatly affected treatment of Koreans in 
Japan. Keidanren, the organizaton of eco- 
nomic organizatons, has committees to 
study every possible problem in the Japa- 
nese economy, but it has no committee to 
study employment problems among the 
Burakumin, a caste that is subject to vari- 
ous forms of discrimination. 

The great intellectual theme of the 1970s 
and 1980s has been the “internationaliza- 
tion” of Japan. But it is fair to say that 
most Japanese see their society as quite dif- 
ferent from others. Some Japanese see this 
difference as a blessing, others as a burden. 
Nakasone sees it as both. It is not always 
easy to tell which thought is uppermost in 
his mind when he talks of Japan’s future.e 


GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY 


@ Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. President, 
yesterday the Senate passed Senate 
Joint Resolution 308, a resolution des- 
ignating March 25, 1987 as “Greek In- 
dependence Day: A National Day of 
Celebration of Greek and American 





29940 


Democracy.” This resolution also asks 
the President to issue a proclamation 
calling upon the people of the United 
States to observe the designated day 
with appropriate ceremonies and ac- 
tivities. 

This resolution passed the House of 
Representatives last week. It is an 
amended version of an earlier Senate 
resolution sponsored by Senator Sprc- 
TER and myself, which designated 
March 25, 1986 as Greek Independ- 
ence Day. That resolution passed the 
Senate on March 25, 1986. 

Since we last considered this resolu- 
tion, Greece has taken a number of 
steps which have improved the climate 
of American-Greek relations. That im- 
provement was confirmed by Secre- 
tary of State Shultz, who said, upon 
his return from Greece, that there has 
been a “real turn for the better’ in 
United States-Greek relations. 

For example, in May, Greece ex- 
pelled Libyans associated with terror- 
ism, and in July cut the size of the 
Libyan ‘“diplomatic’’ delegation in 
Athens. The United States and Greece 
have cooperated in the training of 
anti-terrorist personnel, and _ the 
Greek maritime industry has become a 
leader in anti-terrorist procedures. 

In March, Secretary of Defense 
Weinberger reported to Congress that 
Greece was No. 1 among all NATO na- 
tions in the 1971-84 period in its in- 
crease in total defense spending for 
NATO security. It was also No. 1 in 
1984, the last year for which figures 
are available, in the percentage of its 
gross domestic product spent on 
NATO defense. 

I'd also like to speak about why 
March 25, 1987, has been designated as 
Greek Independence Day. March 25, 
1987, marks the 166th anniversary of 
the beginning of the revolution which 
freed the Greek people from the Otto- 
man Empire. It is fitting that we cele- 
brate this day together with Greece in 
order to reaffirm the common demo- 
cratic heritage of Americans and 
Greeks. 

The ancient Greeks forged the very 
notion of democracy, in which the ulti- 
mate power to govern was vested in 
the people. As Aristotle said, ‘If liber- 
ty and equality, as is thought by some, 
are chiefly to be found in democracy, 
they will best be attained when all 
persons alike share in the government 
to the utmost.” Because the concept of 
democracy was born in the age of the 
ancient Greeks, all Americans, wheth- 
er or not of Greek ancestry, are kins- 
men of a kind to the ancient Greeks. 
Indeed, our own Founding Fathers 
drew heavily upon the political and 
philosophical experience of ancient 
Greece in forming our representative 
democracy. 

Constitutional democracy has made 
the American way of life possible. It 
established the precious freedoms of 
speech, religion, and assembly which 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Americans cherish, and which are so 
fundamental to American democracy. 
For that contribution alone, we owe a 
heavy debt to the Greeks. The 
common heritage which we share has 
forged a close bond between Greece 
and the United States, and between 
our peoples. And it is reflected in the 
numerous contributions made by 
present day Greek Americans in New 
Jersey and across the country to our 
American culture. 

I thank my colleagues for passing 
this resolution as a tribute to these 
contributions, past and present, which 
have greatly enriched American life. I 
look forward to even closer United 
States-Greek ties in the months and 
years ahead.e@ 


RETIRING SENATORS 


e@ Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at 
the close of the 99th Congress, the 
U.S. Senate will lose some of its most 
distinguished Members. It has been an 
honor for me to serve with them. 

Senator Paut Laxa.t has the unique 
gift of effectively advocating a cogent 
point of view while remaining the 
friend even of those whose views are 
different. His unique role as a bridge 
between the administration and the 
Senate is irreplaceable. All of us who 
have counted Pau. LAXALT among our 
friends will feel his absence acutely. 
He has been a unique resource for us, 
as well as for the President. 

Senator CHARLES MATuHras has also 
occupied a special niche in this institu- 
tion. The people of Maryland have 
long revered him for his independence 
and integrity, and rightly so. He is one 
of those Senators who not only have 
the courage of their convictions, but 
who manage to make it a pleasure 
either to agree or to disagree with 
them. The respect in which Mac Ma- 
TH1As is held cannot be overstated. He 
has helped keep alive the tradition of 
Abraham Lincoln in the Republican 
Party, and the Senate will be poorer 
for his absence. 

Senator BarRRy GOLDWATER has 
much in common with Senator Ma- 
THIAS in terms of adherence to princi- 
ple. His steadfastness has earned him 
the admiration and affection of mil- 
lions of people who agree with him on 
the issues, and millions of others who 
do not. In the Senate, he has built his 
reputation on many talents, but most 
of all on his consistency, and on his 
willingness to express his opinion even 
when a consistent application of prin- 
ciple leads him to a somewhat unor- 
thodox position. Not only has Senator 
GOLDWATER written about the The 
Conscience of a Conservative, but he 
has lived life as a conservative with a 
conscience. I know of no higher com- 
pliment that could be paid to any po- 
litical figure. 

The relationships of friendship and 
respect that we enjoy here in the U.S. 


October 9, 1986 


Senate fortunately are not limited to 
one side of the aisle. Senator RussE.u 
Lone will be remembered as a major 
figure in the history of the Senate. 
Some Senators make their reputations 
through their orations on the floor; 
others make their reputations through 
their quite effectiveness in getting 
things done. Senator Lone is famous 
for the depth and breadth of his 
knowledge in critical areas of public 
policy such as the tax laws. Both as 
chairman of the Finance Committee 
and as its ranking minority member, 
his influence has been incalculable. 
Indeed, few Senators have affected 
the daily lives of all Americans as 
much. I join in wishing him every suc- 
cess in his next endeavors. 

Senator Tom EacGLeton has served 
with great distinction in the U.S. 
Senate for 18 years after a remarkable 
career as attorney general of Missouri 
and the prosecuting attorney of St. 
Louis. Senator EaGLeton is well known 
for his candor and his incisive com- 
ments which go to the heart of any 
subject under discussion. In meetings 
at the North Atlantic Treaty Assem- 
bly, his comments would go to the 
heart of controversial issues affecting 
the United States and our NATO allies 
and still leave the friendliest of feel- 
ings with his diplomatic approach. We 
will all miss Tom in the Senate. 

Senator Gary Hart has helped focus 
our attention on the issues of the 
future. Both inside and outside the 
Senate, he has worked hard to give 
the younger generation of our citizens 
an effective voice in national policy. 
Most of my contacts with Senator 
Hart have been in the Senate gym. In 
those less formal settings, he provides 
real insights into complex issues with 
a very few words. He made an admira- 
ble showing in the 1984 Presidential 
sweepstakes, and we shall all watch 
our departed colleague as 1988 ap- 
proaches. 

All of us who remain in the Senate— 
and I sincerely hope to be one of 
them—will be held at a high standard 
by the public’s recollections of these 
retiring Senators. They will remain a 
living challenge to us as we face the 
difficult issues remaining before this 
country in the years ahead.e@ 


IN COMMEMORATION OF MI- 
NORITY ENTERPRISE DEVEL- 
OPMENT WEEK 


e@ Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, 
October 5-11, 1986, has been designat- 
ed as Minority Enterprise Develop- 
ment Week. 

I am pleased to take note of the im- 
portance of the contributions of mi- 
nority entrepreneurs to our economy. 
I know from personal experience how 
it feels to start a new business and 
watch it grow. Many risks and prob- 
lems face the aspiring entrepreneur. 





October 9, 1986 


However, the pride and self-esteem 
which accompany success and accept- 
ance in the marketplace make it well 
worth the effort. 

Successful business activity is the 
basis for our country’s economic 
growth. And, economic well-being in 
our minority communities will in- 
crease as entrepreneurial opportuni- 
ties expand. The challenge for Gov- 
ernment is to provide assistance and 
opportunities for the many talented 
and ambitious minority citizens who 
wish to establish or enlarge their own 
businesses. This assistance can range 
from sharing information to setting 
aside portions of Federal contracts for 
minority enterprises. 

Mr. President, I would like to ad- 
dress set-asides for a moment. Atten- 
tion has focused on set-asides recently, 
as some have called for their elimina- 
tion. I strongly support set-asides as 
one method of providing an opportuni- 
ty for minority enterprises to gain 
equal footing in bidding for Govern- 
ment-funded contracts. Set-asides 
have a long history of bipartisan sup- 
port in the Congress and have been 
upheld in executive and judicial deci- 
sions. While I do not dispute that 
there have been some abuses of the 
program, this does not justify termi- 
nating the program. Rather, these 
problems should be addressed. 

I am pleased to salute the minority 
entrepreneurs around the country. I 
stand ready to do everything I can to 
help them flourish and to increase 
their numbers.@ 


NAUM AND INNA MEIMAN: A 
SPECIAL PLEA 


e@ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the 
Reagan-Gorbachev presummit meet- 
ing begins tomorrow. Although there 
are many pressing and important 
issues to discuss, the importance of 
human rights cannot be exaggerated. 
Human rights are the basic ingredient 
of a civilized society. We have a re- 
sponsibility to do all that we can to 
help everyone attain the freedom that 
they deserve. 

I would like to make a special plea 
for my Soviet friends Naum and Inna 
Meiman. They have been trying to 
emigrate for more than 10 years. 
Naum has always been a vocal leader 
attempting to bring human rights to 
all Soviet citizens. He was an instru- 
mental member of the Helsinki Watch 
Group. His quest for human rights has 
now become a matter of life or death. 
His wife Inna suffers from cancerous 
tumors on her neck. After the removal 
of four tumors, the Soviet doctors de- 
cided that there is nothing move they 
can do for her fifth and most recent 
tumor. Fortunately, there is experi- 
mental treatment available to her in 
the West. I only hope that the Soviets 
allow Inna to receive this necessary 
treatment before it is too late. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


I strongly urge the Soviet Union to 
allow Naum and Inna Meiman to emi- 
grate to Israel.e 


HUMAN RIGHTS IN EAST TIMOR 


e Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, 
since the 1975 invasion and occupation 
of East Timor by the Indonesian mili- 
tary, as many as 200,000 of a popula- 
tion of 650,000 East Timorese men, 
women, and children have perished. 
As William Buckley wrote in the Na- 
tional Review last May, “It is worthy 
of comparison with Pol Pot’'s bloody 
reign over Cambodia, not only for the 
devastation inflicted, but also for the 
lack of attention, in the world commu- 
nity, paid to the holocausts."" For 
those of us concerned about interna- 
tional human rights, the repression 
and brutality carried out in East 
Timor since 1975 stands out as one of 
the great crimes of our time. 

When we talk about 200,000 people, 
3 men seem almost trivial. But they 
are not, Mr. President. Today I bring 
to the attention of my colleagues 
the troubling case of three East 
Timorese law students who were re- 
cently arrested in Jakarta. They are 
the subjects of two Amnesty Interna- 
tional “Urgent Actions,” and they may 
represent an entirely new dimension of 
Indonesia’s disregard for East Timor 
and its population at a time when the 
situation on the small island seemed to 
be improving. 

Antonino Goncalves, Joao Freitas de 
Camara, and Francisco Fernandes Car- 
valho have all been arrested by the In- 
donesian military in Jakarta during 
the past several weeks. Since the ar- 
rests, the Indonesian authorities have 
refused to reveal information about 
where these students are being held. 
The Indonesian Government recently 
informed United States Embassy offi- 
cials that the students were charged 
with stockpiling guns in their homes 
in the East Timor town of East Timor, 
but details of the charges have yet to 
be released: Amnesty International is 
concerned that these men may be the 
victims of torture, as have many East 
Timorese in the past. 

These arrests and the potential of 
torture are troubling, and I have made 
my concerns known to the Govern- 
ment of Indonesia. But there is more. 
Although the East Timorese have en- 
dured incredible hardships and myste- 
rious arrests at the hands of the mili- 
tary in their native land, rarely if ever 
have there been reports of such ar- 
rests outside East Timor. Now we have 
witnessed three such arrests in several 
weeks. 

Mr. President, being straightforward 
with Indonesian officials about our 
concern for the many thousands of 
East Timorese who continue to be 
denied even the most basic human 
rights can only serve to strengthen our 
relationship with that nation of great 


29941 


strategic interest to us. Being straight- 
forward with Indonesian authorities 
about our concern for these students 
can only serve to help them and stem 
what could be a most dangerous tide 
before it threatens an entire popula- 
tion and endangers Indonesia's ties 
with the United States as well.e 


HONORING SENATOR STAFFORD 
AND REPRESENTATIVE WAX- 
MAN ON THE 10TH ANNIVERSA- 
RY OF MECA 


@ Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, some 
of my colleagues recently attended an 
event commemorating the 10th anni- 
versary of the Manufacturers of Emis- 
sion Controls Association and honor- 
ing our colleagues, Senator RoBERT 
STAFFORD, and Representative HENRY 
Waxman, for their role in shaping our 
Nation's clean air laws. 

The development of an environmen- 
tally clean automobile was placed on 
the country’s urgent agenda in 1970, 
and there were many people in and 
outside the auto industry who said the 
standards we set in law were too re- 
strictive, the deadlines too ambitious, 
cleanup technology too far in the 
future. 

The doubters were proven wrong, 
and due to advances in catalytic con- 
verters and other cleanup technol- 
ogies, our Nation's air is cleaner today. 
Despite substantial increases in motor 
vehicle mileage, our cars are more effi- 
cient, and the engineers have turned 
their minds and research money to the 
problem of pollution from larger vehi- 
cles and diesel engines. 

MECA was formed 10 years ago to 
give Congress and other policymakers 
the benefit of its technical expertise. 
The MECA companies have shown 
that technology-forcing legislation like 
the Clean Air Act can and does yield 
important gains in pollution control, 
and that there is a profit in the busi- 
ness of a clean environment. 

This event honored two legislators 
whose commitment to clean air is un- 
questioned, irreplaceable, and histori- 
cally significant—Senator Bos Srar- 
FORD and Congressman HENRY 
Waxman. They presided over the com- 
mittee and subcommittee of jurisdic- 
tion on clean air issues at a time when 
the Clean Air Act was under extreme 
pressure. Their defense of the Clean 
Air Act looked beyond questions of 
party loyalty and put the public inter- 
est foremost. At times, in 1981 and 
1982, each must have felt like a lonely 
voice in the wilderness. But while they 
worked alone, each in his own way, 
each in his own arena, together they 
turned aside efforts to roll back our 
clean air laws. And since 1983, both 
have authored and advanced legisla- 
tion to extend and improve the Clean 
Air Act. 





29942 


The battle is not over yet. We need 
to get more pollution control from 
mobile sources, and we will look again 
to the MECA companies and others to 
guide our policies. We also need legis- 
lation to stop acid rain, address the 
problems of our upper atmosphere 
and protect our citizens from toxic air 
pollution. 

The unfinished agenda is a long one. 
But it should not overshadow the gen- 
uine contribution to public health and 
welfare of the MECA companies in 
cleaning up the Nation’s automobiles. 

It was fitting, Mr. President, that 
the Honorable Paul Rogers, former 
Congressman from Florida, HENRY 
Waxman’s predecessor as chairman of 
the Health and Environment Subcom- 
mittee, and the veteran of so many 
Clean Air Act battles, presented 
MECA’s first Awards for Excellence in 
the Preservation of the Environment. 

Mr. President, as long as men and 
women of the character, strength, and 
perseverance of Bos STAFFORD and 
Henry WaxMan serve in Congress, 
that goal will continue to be national 
policy. 

I ask, Mr. President, that Mr. 
Howitt’s remarks at the 10th anniver- 
sary MECA reception be printed in the 
REcorp at this point. 

The remarks are as follows: 

REMARKS OF JOHN HowrtTt, MECA PREsI- 
DENT, AT AWARDS CEREMONY HONORING 
Senator STAFFORD AND CONGRESSMAN 
WAXMAN 
Good evening. My name is John Howitt. I 

am President of the Manufacturers of Emis- 

sion Controls Association. 

I would like to take this opportunity to 
welcome everyone and to thank you for 
joining us this evening to mark MECA's 
10th anniversary and to honor two distin- 
guished gentlemen for their outstanding ef- 
forts to protect our environment. 

I believe most of you are familiar with 
MECA but for the benefit of those who are 
not, let me briefly introduce the Association 
and explain the origin of the environmental 
awards. MECA is a non-profit association of 
leading manufacturers of motor vehicle 
emission control equipment. The association 
was created ten years ago to serve as a 
source of technical information on emission 
control for public officials and others. Since 
the early days, we have grown considerably 
and now 16 companies participate in MECA 
activities. 

The U.S. Motor Vehicle Pollution Control 
Program is probably the greatest environ- 
mental success story of the past two dec- 
ades. The credit for the success of that pro- 
gram belongs to many of you who are in 
this room this evening. It’s something I be- 
lieve all of us can take great satisfaction in. 
I know our companies—some of whom have 
been involved in the development of emis- 
sion control since the early 1960’s—are 
proud to have played a role in this environ- 
mental success. 

As we looked back over the past decade 
while planning for our 10th anniversary, we 
concluded that it would be very appropriate 
to honor an individual or individuals who 
have made and are making a substantial 
contribution to the preservation of this na- 
tion’s environment. It is our hope to contin- 
ue this awards program by recognizing, on a 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


biennial basis, other public officials and in- 
dividuals from the private sector who have 
served our environment well. 

We felt the Steubben rendition of the 
American Bald Eagle in flight over the 
Earth a fitting award, for the eagle symbol- 
izes the strength and beauty of our natural 
environment—a national resource and treas- 
ure worth preserving. 

At this time, it is my great pleasure to in- 
troduce the gentleman who has honored us 
by agreeing to present these environmental 
awards—the Honorable Paul G. Rogers. 

This gentleman certainly needs no intro- 
duction to most of you in the room who will 
remember his Herculean efforts in champi- 
oning major environmental legislation of 
the 1970's. 

Paul Rogers served 24 years in the U.S. 
House of Representatives and eight of those 
years as Chairman of the House Subcom- 
mittee on Health and the Environment. Vir- 
tually every major health law in effect 
today bears the Rogers’ mark. 

Some of the more prominent pieces of en- 
vironmental and health legislation which 
bear the Rogers’ name are the Clean Air 
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Na- 
tional Cancer Act, the Health Manpower 
Training Act, the Heart, Blood Vessel, Lung 
and Blood Act, the Research on the Aging 
Act, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Con- 
vention and Control Act of 1970, the Medi- 
cal Device Amendments of 1970, the Emer- 
gency Medical Services Act, the Health 
Maintenance Organization Act, and the Ra- 
diation Health Safety Act. 

Paul Rogers is a partner in the law firm of 
Hogan and Hartson in Washington, DC, and 
has continued his keen interest in conserva- 
tion and the environment. In 1982, the Na- 
tional Academy of Sciences awarded him its 
Public Welfare medal in recognition of his 
“distinguished contributions in the applica- 
tion of science to the public welfare.” 


TAIWAN 


@ Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise 
today to take note of the recent an- 
nouncement by President Chiang 
Ching-kuo of his proposal to end mar- 
tial law on Taiwan. This, I believe, is a 
most welcome development. I was in 
Taiwan in August of this year and had 
the opportunity to visit with the Presi- 
dent. We discussed, among other 
things, the long-term evolution of eco- 
nomic and political developments on 
Taiwan. I believe that it is inevitable 
that a nation which develops economi- 
cally—as Taiwan has done so strong- 
ly—will develop pressures to expand 
participation in political life. This is 
what is occurring on Taiwan and I am 
pleased that the Government is pre- 
pared to take the step of terminating 
martial law and loosening restrictions 
on personal freedoms. 

Mr. President, I would note, too, 
that October 10 is Taiwan's national 
day. President Chiang Ching-kuo’s an- 
nouncement has thus occurred at a 
most appropriate time of celebration. 

I am confident that I join all col- 
leagues in congratulating Taiwan and 
in looking forward to further develop- 
ments in the coming months and 
years.@ 


October 9, 1986 


MUNICIPAL GARDENS 


@ Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in May 
1986, the Municipal Gardens Amateur 
Basketball Team, made up of 13 and 
14 year-olds from the Indianapolis 
region, won the Indiana AAU Junior 
Olympic Championship. 

Under the astute leadership of Tom 
“Red” Taylor, they defeated an excel- 
lent Washington, DC, team to capture 
the 1986 National AAU Junior Olym- 
pic Championship. This team—with 
some changes over the years—has won 
the National AAU Junior Olympic 
title 3 of the last 4 years. 

In the week-long tournament, held 
in beautiful Orlando, FL, the Munici- 
pal Gardens team defeated teams form 
California, Oklahoma, Iowa, Georgia, 
West Virginia, and Washington, DC. 

This outstanding team consisted of 
the following members: Damon Dailey, 
who was named the tournament’s 
most valuable player; Lloyd Carr, 
Marc Dickison, Jeff Gradek, Elliot 
Hatcher, Chuck Huffman, Kyle Ken- 
worthy, Paul Lee, Eric Montrose, Tom 
a Steve Mozingo, and Troy Ter- 
rill. 

Coach Taylor, who works as the vice 
president treasurer at Ivy Technical 
College, has been coaching at Munici- 
pal Gardens for the past 17 years. In 
that time, his team have won five AAU 
Junior Olympic National Champion- 
ships and finished runner-up another 
three occasions. He also led his teams 
to 16 Indiana State AAU Junior Olym- 
pic Championships. This exceptional 
leadership and ability is indicative of 
the talent both Coach Taylor and his 
teams exhibit. 

Indiana is proud of these achieve- 
ments and wish the Municipal Gar- 
dens teams continued success.@ 


10TH ANNIVERSARY OF UKRAIN- 
IAN PUBLIC GROUP TO PRO- 
MOTE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
HELSINKI ACCORDS 


@ Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, I join 
the other members of the Helsinki 
Commission and my colleagues in the 
Senate in saluting the 10th anniversa- 
ry of the heroic Ukrainian Public 
Group to Promote Implementation of 
the Helsinki Accords, the Ukraine’s 
Helsinki monitoring group. 

The group was formed spontaneous- 
ly on November 9, 1976, a decade ago. 
In those 10 years the Ukraine Helsinki 
monitors have performed the same 
noble task as similar groups in 
Moscow, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ar- 
menia have—to bear moral witness to 
the continuing Soviet violation of its 
solemn international commitments on 
human rights. 

For us in the West, the signing of 
the Helsinki Final Act in 1976 marked 
the end of one long series of diplomat- 
ic negotiations to frame the act, and 
the opening of another to review im- 





October 9, 1986 


plementation of the Final Act’s 
human rights provisions. For the cou- 
rageous members of the Ukraine moni- 
toring group, the ceremony in Helsinki 
marked the beginning of years of in- 
tensified persecution, detention, 
arrest, torture, and, for some, death in 
Soviet labor camps. 

The 37 members of the Ukraine 
monitoring group have paid the price 
for their moral witness. All but 1 have 
been imprisoned, with 16 in prison or 
exile today. Three have become mar- 
tyrs to the principles of basic human 
rights and Ukrainian national identity, 
suffering death in Soviet labor camps. 

The Soviets employ all of the stand- 
ard instruments from their toolkit of 
expression. Ukrainians who join the 
Helsinki group are accused of common 
crimes and shipped off to harsh 
regime labor camps. They are sent 
into exile in the West. Their sympa- 
thizers are incarcerated in mental hos- 
pitals. Their homes are searched, their 
documents seized, they are followed, 
detained and tortured, their communi- 
cations monitored, their privacy de- 
stroyed. The hypocrisy of Soviet offi- 
cialdom is never more brazen than in 
its persecution of a group whose only 
purpose is to ensure respect for 
human rights, rights that Moscow has 
pledged itself to observe. 

The Ukrainian monitoring group has 
shown extraordinary courage in the 
face of the brutal repression of the 
Soviet authorities. In this they have 
carried on a proud tradition of Ukrain- 
ian nationalism that has resisted russi- 
fication and cultural genocide for gen- 
erations. From the days of the inde- 
pendent Ukrainian Republic at the 
time of the Russian Revolution, to the 
struggle of the Ukrainian Insurgent 
Army against the Nazis and the Sovi- 
ets in World War II, the Ukraine has 
seized every opportunity to assert its 
rights against the great powers that 
have denied it self-determination. 

The Soviets have unknowingly paid 
tribute to the indomitable spirit of 
Ukrainian nationalism in persecuting 
Yuriy Schukevych, son of Roman Shu- 
khevych, commander of the Ukrainian 
Insurgent Army during the Second 
World War. Yuriy has spent 34 of his 
52 years in prison or exile, all for re- 
fusing to renounce his father, who led 
Ukrainian guerrillas against the 
double occupation of the Nazis and 
the Soviet Red Army. 

Shukhevych managed to join the 
Helsinki group in 1979, despite his twi- 
light life in the Soviet gulang. Today, 
he has begun to show the physical dis- 
ability of those who are consigned to 
the living hell of Soviet labor camps— 
blindness, ulcers, and heart disease. 
His body is failing, but his very life 
stands as a testament to the spirit of 
human dignity and national identity 
of the Ukrainian people. 

The rollcall of heroism on behalf of 
universal principles of human rights 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


and national rights of the Ukrainian 
people goes on and on. It is a melan- 
choly list, for all of those on it are 
either exiled from the land they love 
or degraded, imprisoned, and tortured 
at home by the Soviet authorities. 
Some have paid the ultimate price, 
giving their lives in defense of their 
ideals. 

By adopting Senate Concurrent Res- 
olution 154, we make the smallest of 
gestures in saluting those whose cour- 
age cannot be adequately described. 
But we must let the people of the 
Ukraine, the members of the Ukraini- 
an Helsinki monitoring group, know 
that their struggle is not conducted in 
the darkness, as Moscow might wish. 
It is waged in the glaring light of 
world opinion, world opinion that does 
not forget, does not give up, does not 
surrender the hope that the struggle 
is not in vain. When we vote for this 
resolution, we reaffirm our bond with 
those who daily suffer for the princi- 
ples of freedom we are fortunate to 
enjoy here in the United States.e 


THE NEW GOVERNMENT OF 
PRESIDENT AQUINO 


@ Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the 
publisher and editor-in-chief of the 
Philippine News, the largest Filipino- 
American newspaper in the United 
States, Mr. Alex A. Esclamado, has 
written a most perceptive and moving 
article about the new government of 
President Aquino. The articie ap- 
peared in the San Francisco Examiner 
on September 24, 1986. It presents the 
case for assistance to that government 
very persuasively, especially the argu- 
ment that it is the national interest of 
the United States that we help democ- 
racy survive in the Philippines. I ask 
that Mr. Esclamado’s article be print- 
ed in the Recorp at the appropriate 
place. 

The article follows: 

Stronc SuPPorT FOR AQUINO 
(By Alex A. Esclamado) 

When the Filipino people succeeded in re- 
gaining their freedom in a most dramatic 
revolution last February, freedom-loving 
peoples around the world cheered them on. 
In center focus was Corazon C. Aquino, wife 
of the fallen hero, Senator Benigno S. 
Aquino Jr. 

There were doubts in many minds wheth- 
er she had the ability to lead a devastated 
nation. The most stinging indictment of her 
supposed lack of competence to handle the 
Herculean job of the presidency of the Phil- 
ippines was made by The New York Times 
editorial board. 

The Times had interviewed Aquino imme- 
diately after her victory. Candidly and un- 
guardedly, acting like the sincere housewife 
she used to be, always giving center stage to 
her dynamic husband, she expressed her 
personal doubts about her ability to govern. 
She answered questions with the sincerity 
and openness characteristic of her personal- 
ity. 

Obviously, no politician of her newly-ac- 
quired stature would have dared to display 
such candidness. Predictably, the Times ar- 


29943 


ticle was devastating. The image created of 
Corazon Aquino was of a president who had 
no experience, who admittedly had to take 
crash courses in government and leadership 
under special tutors—tutors who, as many 
feared, could take advantage of her political 
naivete, 

Today, barely seven short months after 
she assumed the powers of the presidency, 
Americans are being given the opportunity 
to size up, at close range, a diminutive 
housewife-turned president of 55 million 
people. 

What is her performance rating? I can 
only sum up what she has already done in 
such a short time: 

She has restored freedom to the Filipinos. 
This is clearly demonstrated by the reinsti- 
tution of press freedom. There are 26 news- 
Papers and magazines in the Philippines 
today each trying to find fault with her gov- 
ernment. 

She is dismantling the corrupt political 
machinery of the past regime. Local, provin- 
cial and national officials who for 20 long 
years were the vital instruments of power of 
a totally corrupt administration are being 
replaced. One can appreciate the enormity 
of the undertaking and the tremendous im- 
plications it has on political stability. 

She is restructuring the framework of the 
nation through the formulation of a new 
constitution that embodies the Filipinos’ 
high aspirations of a truly democratic 
system. She has announced that elections 
will be held under the new constitution soon 
after it is ratified. 

With a duly elected Congress that pro- 
vides the checks to the presidency and local 
officials receiving fresh mandate from the 
people, together with an independent judici- 
ary, full political stability shall be achieved. 

She has personally implemented the laud- 
able policy of reconciliation with the rebel 
and insurgent elements of the Philippine so- 
ciety which flourished from the brutal re- 
pression and unconscionable corruption of 
the past regime. She released all political 
prisoners including Communist leaders. 

Aquino has traveled to the dangerous 
southernmost region of the country to meet 
the leader of the Moslem rebels with whom 
she has struck a ceasefire agreement. She 
has flown to the almost inaccessible jungles 
of northern Luzon to “smoke the peace 
pipe,” so to speak with one of the most enig- 
matic of rebels. 

She is in the process of negotiating peace 
with the New People’s Army, the Commu- 
nist-backed insurgents, whose cause and 
numbers flourished under the injustices and 
inequities of the Marcos dictatorship. 

As Aquino pointed out in her speech 
before Congress, the communist insurgency 
started with only 500 armed soldiers when 
martial law was declared in 1972. It had 
grown to over 16,000 when the Marcos 
regime ended in February. 

No president of the Philippines before her 
has accomplished these daring personal 
feats in the first 200 days of his term. At an- 
other time before hers, these things would 
only be attempted by a man in a man’s 
world. 

Now she has come to the United States to 
solve the most difficult problem of her gov- 
ernment: the revival of the Philippine econ- 
omy. There is no need to belabor here how 
much devastation has been inflicted by 
Imelda and Ferdinand Marcos upon the Fili- 
pino nation; much has been written about 
it. 

Not only have they stolen a major chunk 
of whatever there was to steal from the 





29944 


country, they have also plunged the land 
hopelessly into debt. As Aquino has said, it 
is a $26 billion obligation of a people who 
never received the benefits of the debt. 

President Aquino came to appeal to the 
United States for three forms of assistance: 

To increase the level of U.S. aid to the 
Philippines so that the democracy that her 
people have valiantly regained in a phenom- 
enal revolution may be preserved. 

She was right in her speech to Congress 
when she pointed out that the Philippine 
revolution was the cheapest revolution ever: 
For in how. many places have Americans 
been embrolled in conflicts to promote de- 
mocracy and have failed at tremendous cost 
of American lives and financial resources? 

To urge American investors to resume 
their business activities in the Phillippines 
and to encourage new business ventures. 

To make the burden lighter for the impov- 
erished Filipino who must honor a huge for- 
eign debt from which "he never benefitted.” 

The bottom line is: To what extent is 
America willing to help the Aquino govern- 
ment? How much is America willing to pay 
to help keep the Philippines on the side of 
freedom? 

Doubts about Aquino’s personal compe- 
tence and ability to govern the Philippines 
should be erased by the time her plane 
lands in Manila to the rousing welcome of 
her proud people. She will return to her 
country finding it very much intact and well 
under her full control. Indeed, her visit will 
have been a definite diplomatic and sub- 
stantive success. 

She will also leave the United States with 
the strong support of the Filipino-American 
community throughout the country. Every- 
where she went—Washington, D.C., New 
York, Boston and San Francisco, Filipinos 
welcomed her as their new heroine, a person 
full of sincerity, decency and talent. She has 
become the personification of the Filipinos’ 
love and commitment to the immutable 
ideals of freedom and patriotism. 

This is the real Corazon C. Aquino that I 
know: intelligent, strong-minded, sincere. 
No one can manipulate her. No one can dic- 
tate to her. While she needs advice from ex- 
perts, she is clearly the Boss. There is no 
doubt that she can lead the Philippines to 
the greatness that it deserves. 

How much must we help to make her suc- 
ceed? I say enough to make her win the 
battle to preserve democracy in the Philip- 
pines! 

I am an American by adoption, a Filipino 
by birth. I have seen how the United States 
has failed the Filipinos at certain crucial 
moments in the long history of Philippine- 
American friendship. 

Democrats and Republicans alike, gave 
the Marcoses free rein, enabling them to de- 
stroy the moral and material well-being of 
the Filipino people. 

I believe it is time for America to do jus- 
tice and make amends to their Filipino 
friends who love Americans more than any 
other people in the world. 

What is an equitable price, then, for main- 
taining democracy in the Philippines? 

If the primary interest in the Philippines 
is the maintenance of U.S. strategic military 
bases there, then let the U.S. pay the price 
to maintain them. Assuming that the big- 
gest threat to U.S. bases are the Commu- 
nists, then let us spend now what it takes to 
defeat the Communists in the Philippines. 
How? 

As President Aquino eloquently stressed, 
communism cannot be defeated by sheer 
military power. There must be an allevi- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


ation of the poverty of the people to remove 
their cause for rebellion. 

Recently, Washington sent experts to the 
Philippines to determine how much it would 
cost to transfer the military bases in the 
Philippines to other areas, like the Mari- 
anas Islands. The figure was $10 billion and 
the resultant facility would not be even half 
as effective as the present facilities. 

In response to the appeal of President 
Aquino, I submit that the United States 
adopt a Marshall Plan-type of commitment 
to the Philippines. The amount shall be 
equal to what would be spent to transfer the 
military bases elsewhere programmed over 
five years. The $2 billion annual budget may 
be placed in the Defense budget as “rental” 
for the military bases in the Philippines or 
for the maintenance thereof. The amount 
shall then be considerably reduced after the 
five-year period. 

The fund should not be termed “foreign 
aid.” This fund would enable President 
Aquino to effectively implement social ame- 
lioration projects to enhance the economic 
life of the Filipinos. The Communists then 
will lose their mass base and will eventually 
be defeated, thus the threat to the military 
bases will disappear. 

And when the military bases issue is 
brought before the Filipino people for deci- 
sion in a plebiscite in 1991 when the current 
treaty expires, I am certain that an over- 
whelming majority will vote for their reten- 
tion. 

We must help Aquino’s government suc- 
ceed. The $2 billion annual budget which I 
propose is only at parity with Egypt. It is 
very much less than our present support to 
Israel of over $3 billion. The Reagan admin- 
istration is reported to be considering an aid 
package for Pakistan at the level of $900 
million. I say, in the scale of strategic im- 
portance and commitment to democracy, 
the survival of Philippine democracy should 
be ranked as equally important to America 
as the survivial of democracy in Egypt, 
Israel or Pakistan. 

If the United States cannot help democra- 
cy survive in the Philippines where all con- 
ditions are favorable how can she be expect- 
ed to win a battle for Democracy anywhere 
else in the world? Is there a better country 
to invest in democracy and freedom?e 


FREIDA MAE DAWKINS 


@ Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I 
ask my colleagues in the Senate to 
join me in honoring the former execu- 
tive director of the East Chicago, IN, 
Civil Rights Commission who passed 
away on November 2, 1985. 

Freida Mae Dawkins, a native Hoo- 
sier from Mount Vernon, IN, was born 
July 23, 1917. She moved to East Chi- 
cago, IN, upon her marriage to Henry 
A. Dawkins. Her energy was immedi- 
ately seized upon by the Zion Mission- 
ary Baptist Church. Her work in the 
church was outstanding. She was also 
involved in many other church organi- 
zations, such as: past president of the 
Matron’s Department with the Indi- 
ana State Baptist Convention, past 
president of the Zion Baptist Mission- 
ary Church Society, past president 
and director of the Gospel Chorus of 
the Zion Baptist Church and past 
president of the East Chicago Singing 


October 9, 1986 


Convention which included churches 
in Hammond and East Chicago, IN. 

This remarkable, woman, after rais- 
ing her two daughters, Henretta and 
Patricia, decided to return to school 
herself and complete a program in 
practical nursing. She graduated from 
the Purdue University Calumet Col- 
lege of Practical Nursing and went on 
to serve for 12 years at the Methodist 
Hospital in Gary, IN. 

The strength and solid character of 
this great lady could be seen in her 
civic and social activities. She was a 
charter member of Club Reginas 
which provided scholarships to needy 
college students; chairperson. of the 
board of directors of the Project Area 
Committee; she organized and incorpo- 
rated the Unity for H.E.L.P. which al- 
lowed the Food Fair to remain open; 
was a chairperson for city employees 
to the Lake County area United Way 
Campaign 1976-77; was on the board 
of directors for the Tri-City Mental 
Health Program; served on the first 
board for the St. Catherine Credit 
Union; was the president of the Indi- 
ana State Consortium of Local/State 
Civil Rights Agencies from 1981-82; 
served as a board member to the East 
Chicago NAACP; and was a member of 
the Lily of the Valley Chapter 41 of 
the Twin City Lodge also located in 
East Chicago. 

This untiring Hoosier is typical of 
many who give freely of themselves so 
that the lives of others may be en- 
hanced.e@ 


ABORTION AND INFORMED 
CONSENT: MASSACHUSETTS 


e@ Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I 
urge all my colleagues to read Debbie’s 
letter describing her experience with 
two abortions. Abortion is one of the, 
if not the, most serious violations of 
human rights that one person can in- 
flict on another. It is the deliberate 
destruction of the offspring of a 
human being—which is without a 
doubt a human being. 

But to literally add insult to injury, 
abortionists are degrading women and 
endangering the health of the moth- 
ers by not adequately informing them 
of the risks and nature of abortion. 
Pregnant women, 4,100 of them each 
day, are procuring abortions, and most 
of them will not know the basic facts 
regarding the gestation of their infant, 
or the type of abortion procedure to 
be used. 

It is imperative that S. 2791, my bill 
requiring informed consent before 
abortion, be enacted into law in order 
to protect the emotional and physical 
health of this Nation’s women. I ask, 
in particular, my colleagues from Mas- 
sachusetts to heed the plea of Debbie, 
their constituent, and support in- 
formed consent before abortion. 





October 9, 1986 


I ask that Debbie’s letter be printed 
in the REcorD. 

The letter follows: 

Aucust 15, 1986. 

Dear SENATOR HumpuREyY: My first abor- 
tion was illegal at the age of 18. That didn’t 
stop the doctor from asking me if I wanted 
an abortion. That was all the counseling I 
received. 

It is tragic that the counseling most 
woman considering abortion receive is so 
near-sighted. Those who counsel women at 
abortion clinics are simply interested .in 
rushing scared women and girls into abor- 
tions which many will regret later. It may 
take months, even years, but once the real- 
ization of what abortion is and does sets in, 
women. suffer devastating emotional crises 
and find it very hard to forgive themselves 
for the role which they had in killing their 
own children. 

The tragedy of killing an unborn child by 
abortion is compounded by the physical 
harm done by abortion to many women who 
undergo. the procedure, I myself suffered 
from a very bad infection after my abortion, 
an infection which spread throughout my 
body. Other women I know have been 
forced to have total hysterectomies or 
simply rendered barren as the result of ex- 
tensive scarring—all because of an abortion 
to which they never gave informed consent. 
Abortion is a very dangerous procedure for 
the mother and child, both physically and 
psychologically. 

I, along with many others, became hate- 
ful, angry, bitter and resentful after the 
abortion. I dwelled on the baby’s due day 
for years. My next abortion later was legal 
and the counselling wasn't any better. I 
wanted to make up for the first baby I 
killed. In turn I killed this one also. It sad- 
dens me to see how tough and “pro-choice” 
I became after the second abortion. The 
first one devastated me and, in order to 
handle my feelings, I had to become hard 
and put up a wall. I didn't know how to deal 
with murder. 

Can you imagine how it feels years later 
to see pictures of aborted babies? I thought 
I would die, seeing what I'd done! I am 100% 
pro-life now. Women should be told all the 
facts about abortion. ‘““What you don’t know 
can hurt you!” It kills babies physically and 
women spiritually. 

We, the women who have had abortions, 
know the physical and emotional pain left 
in abortion’s wake. It is and has been our 
struggle to deal with abortion’s aftermath, 
now it is our struggle to tell others the 
truth about abortion. Please help us in this 
effort. 

Sincerely, 
Dessie SOTIRKYS, 
Massachusetts.@ 


SOVIET PRISONERS OF 
CONSCIENCE 


@ Mr. D’AMATO. Mr. President, we 
are grateful for the recent release of 
Dr. Yuri Orlov, founder of the Moscow 
Helsinki Group, from internal exile. A 
renowned Soviet scientist. Dr. Orlov 
was a member of the Armenian Acade- 
my of Sciences and conducted re- 
search at some of the finest institutes. 
During the early 1970’s Orlov began to 
speak out on behalf of Soviet political 
prisoners. In 1973 he wrote a state- 
ment in defense of fellow scientist and 
human rights advocate Dr. Andrei 


71-059 O-87-4 (Pt. 21) 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


Sakharov. Orlov was a founding 
member of the Moscow chapter of Am- 
nesty International and became the 
driving force behind the Moscow Hel- 
sinki Group. The group, whose mem- 
bers included Dr. Elena Bonner, Sak- 
harov’s wife, and Anatoly Shchar- 
ansky, was organized following the 
signing of the Helsinki Final Act to 
document Soviet human rights viola- 
tions. Orlov was arrested, charged 
with anti-Soviet agitation and propa- 
ganda, and sentenced to 7 years in 
strict regimen camp plus 5 years inter- 
nal exile. During his term of imprison- 
ment, Orlov was subjected to long pe- 
riods of solitary confinement. While in 
internal exile, he was harassed repeat- 
edly by the authorities, denied the 
right to correspond with his ‘wife, 
Irina, and even attacked by thugs in 
the remote Siberian village of Kobyai. 

Orlov’s release serves to remind us 
that there are many other Soviet pris- 
oners of conscience who languish in 
the gulag. Earlier this year, Dr. Andrei 
Sakharov, a Nobel Peace laureate, sent 
a special appeal to Soviet General Sec- 
retary Gorbachey asking for the re- 
lease of prisoners of conscience in the 
U.S.S.R. Sakharov, an outspoken advo- 
cate of human rights, was banished to 
the closed city of Gorky by Soviet au- 
thorities in 1980. In 1984, Dr: Bonner, 
a founding member of the Moscow 
Helsinki Group, was arrested, charged 
with anti-Soviet slander, and sen- 
tenced to 5 years internal exile. To- 
gether, they live in isolation, cutoff 
from contact with the West and under 
constant surveillance by the KGB. 

Mr. President, as chairman of the 
Commission on Security and Coopera- 
tion in Europe, I urge my colleagues to 
voice their concern over Soviet human 
rights violations. It is particularly im- 
portant that, on the eve of the Rey- 
kjavik meeting and the opening of the 
Vienna CSCE followup meeting in 
early November, we demonstrate our 
continued concern for Soviet prisoners 
conscience and others denied basic 
human rights. 

Mr. President, I ask that a copy of 
Dr. Sakharov’s appeal and a list of im- 
prisoned Helsinki monitors be includ- 
ed in the Recorp at this time. 

The appeal follows: 

ANDREI SAKHAROV'S APPEAL FOR PRISONERS 

OF CONSCIENCE 
PREFACE 

On February 20, 1986, I sent a letter to 
General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev 
urging the release of prisoners of con- 
science. The return receipt indicates that it 
was received by the General Department of 
the Central Committee on March 3rd. 

When I wrote the letter, I did not know 
that Anatoly Schcharansky had been freed. 
I was extremely glad to receive news of this 
humanitarian act. It shows that the world- 
wide release of prisoners of conscience is 
necessary and feasible. 

Prisoners of conscience have, however, 
been excluded from all amnesties in the 
USSR, placing them on a par with criminals 


29945 


convicted for especially grave felonies. The 
recent amnesty, celebrating the 40th anni- 
versary of the victory over Nazi Germany 
passed over prisoners of conscience who 
would otherwise have qualified as veterans 
or invalids of World War II. This illustrates 
the magnitude of the ideological barriers 
blocking the release of prisoners of con- 
science. But I still believe in the ultimate 
triumph. of reason and justice! 

I attach exceptional importance to the 
fate of political prisoners.. Taking into ac- 
count my earlier appeals to Mikhail Gorba- 
chev, to the Chairman. of. the Supreme 
Soviet Andrei Gromyko, and to the Chair- 
man of the KGB Vitaly Chebrikov, I consid- 
er it my right and duty to make my. letter 
public and ask the press to print it, but not 
before September 3, 1986.' 

ANDREI SAKHAROV, 
Nobel Peace Laureate. 

Gorky, March 1986. 

PEBRUARY 19, 1986. 

Dear MIKHAIL SERGEYEVICH: First of all, 
let me express my appreciation that my 
wife, Elena Bonner, received permission to 
travel abroad to visit her mother, children 
and grandchildren, and to obtain medical 
treatment. I assume that this permission, so 
important for us, was made possible by your 
personal intervention. 

I hope that your intervention may help to 
resolve another problem which deeply con- 
cerns me. It is also humanitarian in nature, 
but it is more complicated, and it has broad- 
er, national significance. 

I am referring to the fate of prisoners of 
conscience, the term adopted by Amnesty 
International to describe persons detained 
for their beliefs or for actions motivated by 
their beliefs, provided that they have not 
used or advocated violence. The term “pris- 
oner of conscience” is thus more narrowly 
defined than the term “political prisoner.” 

In your interview published in L’'Human- 
ite on February 8, 1986, you asserted: “Now, 
about political prisoners, we don’t have any. 
Likewise, our citizens are not prosecuted for 
their beliefs. We don’t try people for their 
beliefs.” 

Mikhail Sergeyevich, it is true that the 
Criminal Codes of the Russian and other re- 
publics do not use the term “political pris- 
oner”. Articles 190-1, 70 and 142 of the 
RSFSR Criminal Code and the correspond- 
ing articles in the Codes of the other Soviet 
republics are not called political.* This may 
provide formal justification for saying that 
we don’t have political prisoners, and that 
no one is prosecuted for his beliefs, but your 
advisors have misled you as to the real state 
of affairs. They may have done so uninten- 
tionally, influenced by their preconceptions. 
It is for you to decide whether this makes 
things any better. 

Article 190-1 makes it an offense to circu- 
late fabrications known to be false which 
defame the Soviet state or social system. A 
commentary on the criminal Code published 
by Yuridicheskaya literatura states that 


‘In a letter to Gorbachev written on June 29, 
1985, Sakharov stated his “wish to cease public ac- 
tivities (apart, of course, from exceptional cases) 
and to concentrate on scientific work.” Sakharov 
was then on an extended hunger strike seeking per- 
mission for his wife to go abroad for medical treat- 
ment. 

2 Article 190-1: The circulation of fabrications 
known to be false which defame the Soviet state or 
social system. Article 70: Anti-Soviet agitation and 
propaganda. Article 142: Violation of laws on sepa- 
ration of church and state and church and school. 





29946 


“the circulation of fabrications . . . is not a 
crime under Article 190-1 if the person cir- 
culating them does not know them to be 
false.” In all the cases with which I am fa- 
miliar, however, the courts have completely 
ignored this issue posed by legal experts and 
common sense; they have avoided any dis- 
cussion as to whether the defendant had 
knowingly circulated lies or had been ex- 
pressing his or her sincere beliefs. In fact, 
the latter has been true. The absence of any 
proof of conscious intent is crucial under 
the law. It means that people have in reality 
been convicted in court for their beliefs. 

My wife Elena Bonner is one victim of this 
illegitimate practice; I have written you in 
detail about her case. 

The interpretion by the courts of Article 
70 of the RSFSR Criminal Code is equally 
unjust. (This article is taken almost word- 
for-word from Stalin’s Criminal Code. It was 
one of the points in the notorious article 
58. . .) 

In all the cases known to me, honest, self- 
less people have been convicted under Arti- 
cles 70 and 190-1 for the circulation of in- 
formation which they firmly believed to be 
true and which in most instances was in fact 
true. (The information included objective 
news about, unjust trials, psychiatric abuse 
and other repressions; the important right 
to choose freely one’s place and country of 
residence, to leave any country and to 
return to one’s own country; the persecu- 
tion of religious believers; and—of particular 
importance—conditions in places of deten- 
tion, which are often incompatible with 
human dignity.) Despite the diatribes in our 
press, their motives in the overwhelming 
majority of cases were honorable—they 
were striving for justice, for openness and 
for the rule of law. People do not sacrifice 
themselves because of greed or vanity, for 
base or insignificant aims! 

Article 70 speaks of “agitation or propa- 
ganda carried on for the purpose of subvert- 
ing or weakening the Soviet regime or of 
committing particular, especially dangerous 
crimes against the state, or the circulation 
for the same purpose of slanderous fabrica- 
tions. . .” In the cases known to me no one 
convicted under Article 70 had or could 
have had the purpose of subverting or weak- 
ening the Soviet regime or of committing a 
crime against the state. The courts have 
never attempted to prove that Article 70 de- 
fendants had such intentions. In both Arti- 
cle 70 and Article 190-1 cases, the courts 
substitute the endless repetition of empty, 
ritualistic formulas for a discussion of real 
issues, and sometimes, as in my wife’s case, 
they resort to outright forgery. That may 
be the reason that the defendant's right to 
an open trial has been violated in every 
single case known to me of prosecutions 
under these articles. The courts have been 
packed with specially selected audiences; 
friends and sometimes relatives of the de- 
fendants were kept out by police cordons, 
even when the judge pronounced the ver- 
dict. Wrongdoing shuns the light of day. 

Trials under Articles 70 and 190-1 clearly 
constitute prosecution because of the de- 
fendants’ beliefs. 

That is also true of many prosecutions 
under Article 142. It is formally concerned 
with the separation of church and state, but 
it is often used to punish nonviolent reli- 


gious activity. 
I am greatly disturbed by the revival of 


the cruel and unjust practice of trying pris- 
oners again and again while they are serving 
their sentences. Prisoners of conscience ‘“‘re- 
sisting reeducation’”—which means those 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


who remain unbroken and defend their be- 
liefs—can be tried using summary proce- 
dures and sentenced to new terms of impri- 
soment on the basis of inspired denuncia- 
tions by their fellow convicts or charge di- 
rectly initiated by the camp authorities. 

I shall name a few of the prisoners of con- 
science known to me. 

My friend, Anatoly Marchenko, has been 
sentenced under Article 70 to 10 years im- 
prisonment and 5 years internal exile. (He 
was the victim of several prior unjust trials.) 
The main charge at his most recent trial in- 
volved his letter to the late Academician 
Petr Kapitsa asking him to protest my ille- 
gal exile to Gorky.* 

(In regard to myself, let me simply repeat 
here that I consider the measures taken 
against me to be unjust and unlawful. I am 
ready to answer for my actions, like other 
prisoners of conscience, but I alone should 
bear the responsibility. It must not be shift- 
ed onto my wife or anyone else.) 

Ivan Kovalev and his wife Tatiana Osi- 
pova, were convicted under Article 70 for 
public statements they made as members of 
the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group and as 
private individuals. The plight of this young 
couple, separated for many years, illustrates 
the illegality and cruelty of the persecution 
of prisoners of conscience. An affidavit 
about Kovalev issued by the camp authori- 
ties states that he was repeatedly confined 
in a punishment cell and subjected to other 
penalties because he did not change his be- 
liefs. What idiots the camp overseers are! 
During Tanya Osipova’s pretrial investiga- 
tion, her interrogator threatened that she 
would not receive needed medical care and 
thus would never be able to bear children 
unless she cooperated and altered her be- 
liefs. A year ago, Osipova was sentenced to 
an additonal two-year term after a camp 
trial. 

Yuri Orlov, a corresponding member of 
the Armenian Academy of Sciences, Victor 
Nekipelov, a poet, and Anatoly Shcharansky 
are other convicted Helsinki Group mem- 
bers. Nekipelov had been previously sen- 
tenced for his poetry; a court ruled that it 
contained slanderous philosophical ideas. 
Nekipelov is an exceptionally decent, intelli- 
gent and compassionate person. Now he is 
seriously ill. 

I want to make a particular point about 
the Shcharansky case. No one should object 
to the exposure and prosecution of spies— 
that is the job of the state security organs. 
However, the charge against Shcharansky 
that he gathered information about refuse- 
niks for publication (!) in an American news- 
paper has nothing in common with espio- 
nage. 

Tatiana Velikanova, Alexei Smirnov, and 
Yuri Shikhanovich were convicted for edit- 
ing “A Chronicle of Current Events.” (My 
friend Sergi Kovalev, a distinguished biolo- 
gist and the father of Ivan Kovalev, served 
a ten-year sentence on the same charge.) 
Tatiana Velikanova exemplifies the best 
traits of prisoners of conscience: absolute in- 
tegrity, a desire to act openly and devotion 
to justice. From 1968 until 1982 “A Chron- 


* Marchenko is the author of “My Testimony,” an 
account of the post-Stalin labor camps. On August 
4, 1986, in a letter smuggled out of Chistopo!l Prison 
to the Vienna Conference, Marchenko announced a 
hunger strike demanding an end to the abuse of 
prisoners, punishment of the guards who banged 
his head on the cement floor of his cell, a visit with 
his wife, and an amnesty for all political prison- 
ers. . His “Open Letter to Academician P. L. Ka- 
pitsa” was printed in On Sakharov, Knopf, New 
York, 1982, pp. 31-37. 


October 9, 1986 


icle of Current Events” published objective 
information on the human rights situation 
in the USSR without editorial comment. Its 
history is the embodiment of the ideals of 
many self-sacrificing individuals. 

Sergei Khodorovich was tried for adminis- 
tering a fund which assists political prison- 
ers and their families. The fund is support- 
ed by contributions of Soviet citizens and by 
royalties from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's 
books. 

Smirnov and Khodorovich were severely 
battered during pretrial detention by pris- 
oners who were assigned to their cells for 
that purpose. The beating continued for 
many days. I do not know if other prisoners 
of conscience have suffered similar torture. 

Mustafa Dzhemilev has repeatedly been 
tried for his defense of the Crimean Tatars’ 
right to return to their homeland. 

Mart Niklus was sentenced to ten years 
labor camp and five years internal exile for 
Helsinki Watch Group activity in Estonia 
and for signing a collective letter demanding 
the repudiation of the secret articles of the 
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. (Juri Kukk, who 
also signed the letter, died in a labor camp.) 
One has to meet Niklus, an ornithologist 
and a true scientist, an absolutely honest 
and sensitive person, to appreciate the full 
cruelty and injustice of his sentence. 

Merab Kostava was sentenced to exile in 
1978 for his attempts to preserve the cultur- 
al and historical heritage of the Georgian 
people. In contrast to his codefendant, Kos- 
tava refused to repent and was tried again 
on trumped up charges. I sent a telegram 
about this to Eduard Shevardnadze at the 
time. I do not want to condemn Kostava’s 
codefendant; Shevardnadze disparaged him 
in a speech by saying that he was “not a 
chevalier.” Every individual has his own 
problems and code of behavior in extreme 
situations. But Kostava, to borrow Shevard- 
nadze’s phrase, is certainly a chevalier and a 
true son of Georgia. 

I know everyone on this list except for two 
individuals, and absolutely trustworthy 
friends know those two well. Even if there is 
no general amnesty for prisoners of con- 
science, I ask you to release all those named 
above. I vouch for the good character, civic 
responsibility, integrity and altruism of 
every one of them. 

I do not have recent information on these 
cases. One or two may have been released 
by now, but I rather doubt it.* 

Unquestionably, prosecution for one’s be- 
liefs or for actions motivated by them is a 
relatively rare occurrence now. There is no 
comparison with the deplorable Stalin era. I 
believe that the existence of prisoners of 
conscience in our country is a legacy of the 
intolerant, dogmatic ideas of those years, 
ideas that still affect the thinking and ac- 
tions of some government officials. £ 

I know personally some thirty prisoners of 
conscience. The figure of 200 prisoners, 
which you cited in another connection, 
probably is a significant portion of the total 
number. Additional prisoners of conscience 
are confined in prison psychiatric hospitals. 
Others have been convicted on fabricated 
criminal charges, such as hooliganism, re- 


* Anatoly Shcharansky was released in Berlin on 
February 11, 1986, in connection with an East-West 
spy swap. On September 30, 1986, Secretary of 
State Shultz announced that Yuri Orlov would be 
released from internal exile and allowed to depart 
the USSR by October 7; the release was arranged 
during discussions between Soviet Foreign Minister 
Shevardnadze and Shultz about the case of Gen- 
nadi Zakharov. 





October 9, 1986 


sisting arrest, parasitism, and attempted 
rape. I suppose, however, that even with 
these additions, the number of prisoners of 
conscience is not very great, although I 
cannot supply exact figures. 

There should not be any prisoners of con- 
science at all in a just society. 

We can do little to affect the fate of pris- 
oners of conscience in other countries, 
except through the example we set. We can, 
however, free our own prisoners of con- 
science. (Amnesty Internationa! works with 
some success on this problem in all coun- 
tries.) 

Release them and get rid of this painful 
issue. There are so few prisoners of con- 
science in relation to our population, but 
their release would have real humanitarian, 
moral, political and, I dare say, historical 
significance. It would substantially increase 
our country’s prestige. It would make all 
international contacts easier. It would ad- 
vance the openness of our society, interna- 
tional confidence and the cause of peace. It 
would gain the support of a significant part 
of the Soviet intelligentsia. It could change 
the psychological atmosphere in our coun- 
try, and thereby open the way for a solution 
of the problems facing us. It would bring 
happiness at last to the prisoners’ families 
after many years of undeserved suffering. 
And this wise, humanitarian act would cer- 
tainly evoke a positive response throughout 
the world. 

—E ask you to take steps to secure the re- 
lease from prisons, labor camps, and exile of 
all prisoners of conscience convicted under 
Articles 901-1, 70 and 142 of the RSFSR 
Criminal Code and the corresponding arti- 
cles of other republics, as well as those con- 
fined in special psychiatric hospitals (their 
release would not depend on the complete 
absence of mental illness) and those convict- 
ed on trumped up criminal charges. 

Mikhail Sergeyevich! I hope you will ask 


your assistants to acknowledge receipt of 
this letter and, if possible, let me know your 
reaction to my request. I assign exceptional 
importance to the fate of prisoners of con- 
science. 
With respect and hope, 
ANDREI SAKHAROV. 


In a telephone conversation with his rela- 
tives in Newton on September 1, Dr. Sak- 
harov stated that he had not received a 
reply to his letter. He asked that Viktoras 
Petkus, who was sentenced in July 1978 to 
ten years imprisonment and five years exile 
for his participation in the Lithuanian Hel- 
sinki Group, be added to his list of Article 
70 prisoners of conscience. 

Additional information on the prisoners 
mentioned in this letter is available from 
Cronid Lubarsky (Wolfratshauser Str. 68/ 
III, Munich), who publishes the biweekly 
USSR News Brief and the annual List of Po- 
litical Prisoners in the USSR. 

THIRTY-NINE IMPRISONED MEMBERS OF THE 
HELSINKI Monrrorinc GRouPS IN THE 
USSR anp LITHUANIA (UppaATE: Oct. 1986) 

MOSCOW HELSINKI GROUP 
Sentenced 


1. Elena Bonner—sentenced on August 17, 
1984 to five years of internal exile for “anti- 
Soviet slander.”—currently living in Gorky, 
RSFSR, with husband, Dr. Andrei Sak- 
harov. 

2. Ivan Kovalev—sentenced on April 2, 
1982 to five years of strict regimen camp 
plus five years internal exile for “anti-Soviet 
agitation and propaganda.” 

3. Anatoly Marchenko—sentenced on Sep- 
tember 4, 1981 to ten years of special regi- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


men camp plus five years of internal exile 
for “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” 

4. Viktor Nekipelov—sentenced on June 
13, 1980 to seven years in labor camp and 
five years of interna! exile for “anti-Soviet 
agitation and propaganda.” (Sentenced in 
October 1982 to prison for three years.) 

5. Tatiana Osipova—Sentenced on April 2, 
1981 to five years general regimen camp and 
five years of internal exile for “anti-Soviet 
agitation and propaganda.” Re-sentenced in 
camp to five years strict regimen camp in 
May 1985 for “habitual disobedience to the 
demands of camp authorities”. 

6. Feliks Serebrov—sentenced on July 21, 
1981 to four years strict regimen camp plus 
five years exile for “anti-Soviet agitation 
and propaganda.” Also a member of the 
Psychiatric Working Group. (Sentenced in 
1977 to one year in camp). 


UKRAINIAN HELSINKI GROUP 


7. Mykola Horbal—sentenced April 10, 
1985 to eight years strict regimen camp plus 
three years exile for “anti-Soviet agitation 
and propaganda.” (Sentenced on January 
21, 1980 to five years of camp for “resisting 
a representative of authority” and attempt- 
ed rape). 

8. Iosif Zisels—sentenced on April 10, 1985 
to three years strict regimen camp for “anti- 
Soviet slander.” (Sentenced in 1979 to three 
years camp for “anti-Soviet slander.”’) 

9. Vitaly Kalynychenko—sentenced on 
May 18, 1980 to 10 years in special regimen 
camp and five years of internal exile for 
“anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” 

10. Ivan Kandyba—sentenced on July 24, 
1981 to 10 years special regimen camp plus 
five years exile for ‘anti-Soviet agitation 
and propaganda.” 

11. Yaroslav Lesiv—sentenced on Novem- 
ber 15, 1981 to five years of strict regimen 
camp for “possession of narcotics.” (In 1980, 
he got two-years term for “possession of 
narcotics."’) 

12. Levko Lukyanenko—sentenced on July 
20, 1978 to 10 years in special regimen camp 
and five years of internal exile for ‘‘anti- 
Soviet agitation and propaganda.” 

13. Myroslav Marynovych—sentenced on 
March 29, 1978 to seven years in strict regi- 
men camp and five years of internal exile 
for “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” 

14. Mykola Matusevych—sentenced on 
March 29, 1978 to seven years in strict regi- 
men camp and five years of internal exile 
for “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” 
(Sentenced in October 1980 to prison). 

15. Mykola Rudenko—sentenced on July 1, 
1977 to seven years in strict regimen camp 
and five years of internal exile for “anti- 
Soviet agitation and propaganda.” 

16. Vasyl Striltsiv—sentenced in October 
1981 to six years in camp on unknown 
charges. (In 1979, he got two year term for 
“violation of internal passport laws."’) 

Died in Camp 

Oleksy Tykhy—sentenced on July 1, 1977 
to 10 years in special regimen camp and five 
years of internal exile for “anti-Soviet agita- 
tion and propaganda” and illegal possession 
of firearms. (Died in camp from malnutri- 
tion on May 6, 1984). 

Yuri Lytvyn—sentenced in April 1982 to 
10 years of special regimen camp plus five 
years of exile for “anti-Soviet agitation and 
propaganda.” (In 1979, he got three year 
term for “resisting a representative of au- 
thority.”) (Died in camp, probably suicide, 
in late August 1984). 

Vasyl Stus—sentenced on October 14, 1980 
to 10 years in special regimen camp and five 
years of internal exile for ‘anti-Soviet agita- 


29947 


tion and propaganda.” (Died in camp Sep- 
tember 4, 1985, from stomach and kidney 
ailments). 
LITHUANIAN HELSINKI GROUP 
Died 

Rev. Bronius Laurinavicius—killed (by 
truck) on November 24, 1981 in Vilnius, (On 
November 21, 1981, was subject of accusato- 
ry article in Tiesa, official Lithuanian news- 
paper). 

Sentenced 


17. Viktoras Petkus—sentenced on July 13, 
1978 to three years in prison, seven years in 
special regimen camp and five years of in- 
ternal exile for “anti-Soviet agitation and 
propaganda.” (Petkus also joined the 
Ukrainian Helsinki Group in 1983). 

18. Vytautas Skuodys—sentenced on De- 
cember 22, 1980 to seven years strict regi- 
men camp and five years of internal exile 
for “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” 
(U.S. citizen. Also member of the Catholic 
Committee.) 

19. Algirdas Statkevicius—sentenced on 
August 11, 1980 to forcible psychiatric treat- 
ment after being arrested on February 14, 
1980, reportedly for ‘‘anti-Soviet activities.” 
(U.S. citizen). 

GEORGIAN HELSINKI GROUP 
Sentenced 

20. Merab Kostava—sentenced in June 
1985 to two years in camp for “malicious dis- 
obedience of the demands of the camp ad- 
ministration”. (Before completion of previ- 
ous term of five years camp). 

21. Eduard Gudava—sentenced in Novem- 
ber 1985 to four years strict regimen camp 
for “holliganism”. 

22. Tenghiz Gudava—sentenced in June 
1986 to seven years strict regimen camp plus 
three years internal exile for “anti-Soviet 
agitation and propaganda”. 

23. Valentina Pailodze—sentenced on May 
25, 1983 to eight years strict regimen camp 
plus three years exile for “giving bribes” 
and for “giving false testimony.” (In 1978, 
she got a three year term for “anti-Soviet 
slander.”) 

24. Emmanuel Tvaladze—sentenced in 
June 1986 to five years strict regimen camp 
plus three years internal exile for “anti- 
Soviet agitation and propaganda”. 

ARMENIAN HELSINKI GROUP 
Died 

Eduard Arutunyan—died of natural causes 
in late November or early December 1984. 
Arrested in November 1982, he was sen- 
tenced to three years strict regimen camp 
for “anti-Soviet slander.” (In 1979 received 
three-year camp term on these charges.) 


CHRISTIAN COMMITTEE FOR THE DEFENSE OF 
BELIEVERS 


Sentenced 
25. Father Gleb Yakunin—sentenced on 
August 20, 1980 to five years in strict regi- 
men camp and five years of internal exile 
for “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” 
WORKING COMMISSION ON PSYCHIATRIC ABUSE 
Sentenced 
26. Anatoly Koryagin—sentenced on June 
5, 1981 to seven years strict regimen camp 
plus five years of internal exile for ‘“‘anti- 
Soviet agitation and propaganda” and for 
“illegal possession of a firearm.” Sentenced 
to two additional years for “resisting camp 
authorities” in February 1986. 
Feliks Serebrov—(See Moscow Helsinki 
Group). 





29948 


GROUP FOR THE LEGAL STRUGGLE OF THE 
FAITHFUL AND FREE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS 


Sentenced 


27. Rostislav Galetsky—sentenced on 
March 25, 1981 to five years in camp plus 
five years in internal exile for “anti-Soviet 
slander” and violation of laws separating 
church and state. 


CATHOLIC COMMITTEE FOR THE DEFENSE OF 
BELIEVERS 


Sentenced 


28. Alfonsas Svarinskas—sentenced on 
May 6, 1983 to seven years labor camp and 
three years internal exile for “‘anti-state ac- 
tivities,” ‘“‘slandering the Soviet state,” and 
“encouraging believers to violate laws and 
defy authority.” 

29. Sigitas Tamkevicius—sentenced on De- 
cember 2, 1983 to six years strict regimen 
camp and four years exile for “anti-Soviet 
agitation and propaganda.” 

Vytautas Skuodys—(See 
Group). 


Lithuanian 


Died 
Father Juozas Zdebskis—died on February 
6, 1986 in a car accident under suspicous cir- 
cumstances. 


INITIATIVE GROUP FOR UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC 
RIGHTS 


30. Vasyl Kobryn—sentenced on March 22, 
1985 for ‘anti-Soviet slander” to three years 
standard regimen camp. 

31. Yosyp Terelya—sentenced on August 
20, 1985 for “anti-Soviet agitation and prop- 
aganda” to seven years camp plus five years 
exile. 


INITIATIVE GROUP FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE 
DISABLED 


32. Nikolai Pavlov—sentenced on Septem- 
ber 22, 1981 for “anti-Soviet agitation and 
propaganda” to five years exile. 

33. Vasily Pervushin—sentenced on No- 
vember 11, 1983 to an indefinite term of psy- 
chiatric detention. 


MEMBERS SENTENCED BEFORE JOINING 
Ukrainian Group 


34. Vasyl Ovsienko—sentenced in August 
1981 to 10 years strict regimen camp plus 
five years exile for “anti-Soviet agitation 
and propaganda.” (In 1979, he got a three 
years term for “resisting a representative of 
authority."’) 

35. Oksana Popovych—sentenced in 1974 
to eight years in strict regimen camp and 
five years of internal exile for ‘anti-Soviet 
agitation and propaganda.” 

36. Yuri Shukhevych—sentenced in Sep- 
tember 1972 to five years in prison, five 
years in special regimen camp and five years 
of internal exile for “anti-Soviet agitation 
and propaganda.” 

37. Danylo Shumuk—sentenced on July 7, 
1972 to 10 years in special regimen camp 
and five years of internal exile for ‘“anti- 
Soviet agitation and propaganda.” 

38. Mart Niklus—sentenced in January 
1981 to 10 years in special regimen camp 
and five years internal exile for “anti-Soviet 
agitation and propaganda.” Transferred 
from camp to prison in July 1983. (Niklus, 
an Estonian human rights activist, joined 
the Ukrainian Helsinki Group in 1983). 


Lithuanian Helsinki Group 
39. Balys Gajauskas—sentenced on April 
14, 1978, to 10 years in special regimen camp 
and five years of internal exile for ‘anti- 
Soviet agitation and propaganda.”@ 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


ICELAND INTERIM SUMMIT 


@ Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 
President Reagan and General Secre- 
tary Gorbachev will meet this week- 
end in Reykjavik, Iceland, to plan for 
their second summit. Some have writ- 
ten off this meeting as simply a politi- 
cal ploy to show that the President is 
serious about improving relations with 
the Soviets and making progress on 
arms control. I think this is neither a 
fair nor accurate characterization, par- 
ticularly since it was Mr. Gorbachev 
who proposed this presummit session 
in the first place. The President ac- 
cepted Mr. Gorbachev's invitation, 
noting that with so many grave and 
complex matters to be discussed, there 
is no such thing as too much prepara- 
tion. I agree. 

The Iceland meeting will serve to lay 
the groundwork for the second full 
summit scheduled for later this year 
or the early part of 1987. It will enable 
the two leaders to continue the proc- 
ess of dialog which was initiated at the 
Geneva Summit last November, and go 
into the second summit with a clearer 
idea of the issues we need to focus on. 
I sincerely believe these informal dis- 
cussions will contribute to a more pro- 
ductive summit. If nothing else, get- 
ting the ‘‘niceties’’ out of the way this 
weekend will allow the President and 
the General Secretary to get down to 
business as soon as possible when they 
next meet, 

The Soviet-American relationship is, 
by far, the most important and com- 
plex of the world’s bilateral relation- 
ships. Today, it is at a turning point in 
history, for while there obviously 
remain many areas of serious conflict 
between the two superpowers, there 
are important areas in which negotiat- 
ed agreements are imminent. For ex- 
ample, United States and Soviet arms 
negotiators are already very close to 
an agreement on intermediate range 
nuclear forces in Europe. We are on 
the brink of drastically reducing an 
entire class of modern nuclear weap- 
ons. There is also some promise for 
progress on issues such as chemical 
weapons and nuclear testing. 

The Iceland meeting, therefore, 
comes at a critical time in negotiations 
on several key issues of vital concern 
to our Nation. While no agreements 
are anticipated at the Iceland meeting, 
the discussions that will take place can 
lead the way for agreements at the 
second summit, and I support any 
effort that will give this process an 
extra push. I wish the President well 
on his trip.e 


” ROY WILKENS 


e Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, one of 
the great leaders of our time will be 
honored by the establishment of a 
community hall in East Chicago, IN, 
that will be named the Roy Wilkens/ 
Freida Hawkins Center. The impetus 


October 9, 1986 


behind this building is Eunice Roper- 
Allen who wanted the city of East Chi- 
cago to honor one of the Nation’s 
finest citizens. 

Roy Wilkens was born in St. Louis, 
MO, in 1901. He attended the Univer- 
sity of Minnesota where he worked as 
the night editor of the school paper, 
editor of the local black newspaper 
and participated in both the NAACP 
and Urban League in St. Paul. He 
moved to Kansas City, MO, where he 
worked for the Kansas City Call. His 
outspoken campaigns against Jim 
Crow brought his efforts to the atten- 
tion of Walter White, then Director of 
the National NAACP. 

Roy Wilkens accepted a position 
with the national chapter of the 
NAACP and moved to New York in 
1931. He served as assistant secretary, 
editor of the Crisis, and finally as ex- 
ecutive director of the NAACP. He ad- 
vocated progressive change through 
legal action and participated in every 
major civil rights achievement: work- 
ing for the integration of the US. 
Army, organizing the historic march 
on Washington, lobbying for the 1964 
Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting 
Rights Act, and the 1968 open housing 
legislation. Wilkens was among the 
first to comment on the need for 
action by the United States for the 
abolition of apartheid in South Africa. 

Above all, Roy Wilkens believed in 
the United States, the Constitution 
and the effort to allow freedom and 
equality to exist for all Americans. He 
died on September 8, 1981. C. Delores 
Tucker, former secretary of state for 
Pennsylvania, stated it correctly, “Roy 
Wilkens, you have been our Rock of 
Ages—Our Rock of Roy.” 


INTERNATIONALISM-—IS IT A 
FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE? 


e@ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, last 
summer, the Johnson Foundation 
sponsored a conference entitled “‘The 
United States and the United Na- 
tions."" The U.S. role within the United 
Nations has been the subject of exten- 
sive debate in the Congress. I continue 
to believe that the United Nations 
offers an opportunity for international 
cooperation that would simply not 
exist without this organization. While 
we should continue to debate the U.S. 
role within the U.N. we should not be 
considering in any way leaving the 
U.N. or reducing our role within that 
body. 

At the Johnson Foundation confer- 
ence, one of the papers was presented 
by Prof. Lawrence S. Finkelstein of 
Northern Illinois University. Professor 
Finkelstein addresses the fundamental 
link between foreign policy and inter- 
national cooperation, activity and par- 
ticipation in organizations like the 
U.N. His ideas are strong and persua- 
sive. 





October 9, 1986 


I hope my colleagues will take the 
time to read this article and I ask that 
it be printed in full in the REcorp. 

The article follows: 
INTERNATIONALISM—Is IT A FOREIGN POLICY 
IssuE? 

(By Lawrence S. Finkelstein, Professor of 
Political Science, Northern Illinois Uni- 
versity) 

(Based on Final Address at Conference on 
The “United States and the United Na- 
tions’’ sponsored by the Johnson Founda- 
tion, the Wisconsin Universities Summer 
Seminar on the United Nations, the Wiscon- 
sin UN Association and Wisconsin Gover- 
nor’s Commission on the UN, Wingspread, 
Racine, Wisconsin, June 26, 1986.) 

The important recent article by Thomas 
Hughes, (The Twilight of Internationalism 
Foreign Policy, Number 61, Winter 1985/86) 
illuminates a number of paradoxes in the 
evolution of American internationalism. 
The chief one is that the internationalism 
that carried the United States into coopera- 
tion with other countries across a broad 
front of issues and organizations after 
World War II differs diametrically from 
today’s internationalism. 

The old internationalism was optimistic 
about progress toward the American goals 
of peace through collective security (we had 
tamed the frontier—why not the world?), 
freedom and self-determination through the 
spread of the American dream, justice 
under the rule of law, prosperity driven by 
American genius and free enterprise, dignity 
and respect for human rights for all. 

Today's internationalism is pessimistic on 
all those counts. Collective security has 
given way to reliance on national strength— 
not the posse but the Lone Ranger. Pursuit 
of justice under law has given way to self- 
serving certainty that we are the law. 
Human rights have been subordinated to 
short term tactical objectives of foreign 
policy. We are frightened about the results 
of our own success in pursuing the earlier 
goals. The generous vision of Harry Tru- 
man's Point Four has given way to aid pre- 
dominantly geared to the aims of national 
security policy. 

The deepest insight of Hughes’ article 
though has to do with our maturity. The 
early internationalism was real enough. 
Joining the United Nations was a serious 
break with the isolationism which had 
dominated American belief until World War 
Il. But it rested on the unreliable assump- 
tion that we could afford to join the world 
because the world was ours for the shaping. 
American internationalism was at root 
American. The world would be safe for 
America because we would make it over in 
our image. When that proved wrong, we 
found it difficult to adjust to the complex- 
ity which displaced our simplicities. Hughes 
says it this way: “internationalism practices 
the sin of complexity, i.e., the truth.” He 
implies, and I agree, that we do not face the 
truth. 

That is the international setting for our 
pursuit of American purposes is inescapably 
complex. In part, our environment responds 
to us. In part, it is hostile, although it is per- 
haps more neutral than we acknowledge. 
The United Nations mirrors the complexity. 
Emphasizing the complexity does not 
intend to obscure the fact that there are 
dangers. There are forces inimical to Ameri- 
can interests. But we sometimes exaggerate 
them. And we prefer to ignore the extent to 
which our own behavior affects our environ- 
ment. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


The key question is whether we decide to 
“engage” with others—notice that I do not 
say “remain engaged’—or whether we 
pursue our separate path. That path is not 
“isolationist.” Isolationism is not the issue. 
The issue is unilateral internationalism. 

Before considering that issue as it affects 
our future, there are three points I wish to 
make about the past. Too often we forget 
that the past is part of our present and of 
our future too. 

The first point emphasizes what I have al- 
ready said—that in thinking we could shape 
the world we expected to dominate it. That 
was an unstated condition of our joining the 
world in 1945. For a while, we did in fact 
shape our world. We tend to think that was 
because we were militarily strong and eco- 
nomically powerful. We were strong and 
powerful. We like to forget though that we 
were also morally attractive. We led in di- 
rections most of the world could follow— 
toward peace, justice under a rule of law, 
prosperity, self-determination and human 
rights. Eleanor Roosevelt contributed as 
much to our leadership as did our armies, 
fleets, airforces and atomic bombs or, for 
that matter, our money. There was indeed 
an “American difference” during the era of 
our leadership. 

Second, we believed too uncritically that 
what we thought right would prevail be- 
cause we believed it right. We had trouble 
adjusting to adversity, The United States, 
we believed, had always prevailed and must 
continue to do so, (One reason the Vietnam 
experience hit us so hard was the difficulty 
we had reconciling the unmistakable evi- 
dence of defeat with our erroneous belief 
that we had always been victorious in war.) 

We had trouble with compromise too. Ob- 
viously, if we were right, no compromise was 
possible. So, we would not suffer the con- 
straints of multilateralism. From early in 
the postwar period, we chose unilateral al- 
ternatives. Some examples: the overturning 
of Mossadegh in 1952, support of the Guate- 
malan invasion in 1954, the insertion of 
American troops in Lebanon in 1957, in- 
volvement in a revolutionary plot in Indone- 
sia in 1958, the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, 
the invasion of the Dominican Republic in 
1965, the Vietnam War, the Mayaguez 
affair, and, now Grenada, Nicaragua, and 
Libya. 

The strategic objective of a world order 
gave way to short term tactics of loss-avoid- 
ance. 

The third point about the past is that we 
quit trying to lead relatively early because 
we would not risk contending with the ad- 
versity engendered by our success. We 
hoped for colonial revolution. When it 
came, we were frightened by the number of 
votes we could not control. I date this shift 
in the overall United States stance from the 
government decision in 1964—that long 
ago—that we could not afford to win the ar- 
gument over compulsory financing of UN 
peacekeeping. Tom Hughes has this right. 
That was when the United States quit 
trying to lead. Thereafter, it concentrated 
on defending our bastion of beliefs, security, 
and materia! wealth. 

Now, looking ahead, I have to synthesize 
in a few guidelines I offer hesitantly. 

The first point is implicit in what I've al- 
ready said. As a people, we tend to think 
there is a fresh dawn every day. In itself, 
that seems to me a desirable trait. All the 
same, it is arrogant to believe we can ignore 
the past. We believe there is discontinuity 
between the past and the future and that 
we can shape it. But the past counts, par- 


29949 


ticularly our own. Part of our present and 
future dilemmas is of our own creation. We 
got ourselves into Vietnam, for example, 
and that is a good part of the burden we 
carry into the future. We'd do better to rec- 
ognize that, though there are motes in 
many eyes, there’s a beam in ours too. Ina 
word, a touch of humility would help. 

Second, we must recognize that our par- 
ticipation in multilateral organizations, the 
UN for example, is not a separate item on 
the foreign policy agenda. It is imbedded in 
our overall foreign policy. We cannot expect 
to succeed in organizing and maintaining 
support our purposes need if they are to 
prevail in the UN if, outside the UN, we 
behave in a fashion inconsistent with its 
norms and standards. We cannot have it 
both ways. We cannot both claim to be the 
most ardent champion of the Charter 
which, we correctly assert, we helped shape 
because it represented us, and simultaneous- 
ly behave in ways which give the lie to our 
claims of virtue. Actions, our national lead- 
ers are wont to remind us when they refer 
to other countries, speak louder than words. 
The maxim applies to us too. 

Third, there is also a close relation be- 
tween what we seek internationally and 
what we are at home. I'll give one example, 
in some ways a minor one. United States 
policy about UN agency funding of popula- 
tion programs is a direct product of essen- 
tially religious fundamentalist convictions 
held at home. More broadly, what we are in- 
fluences, perhaps determines, how we act 
internationally. It certainly affects how 
others view us. It matters in the world, in 
short, whether we are generous, humane 
and committed to letting government work 
for people at home or, to the contrary, 
driven by an ideological resentment of gov- 
ernment. The latter inescapably puts us in a 
minority in the world. That others do not 
agree with us does not necessarily prove 
them wrong. 

Fourth, even now, our government says it 
still sees many benefits in multilateralism. 
At the same time, however, it tends to reject 
what may be multilateralism's most impor- 
tant role. That is to serve as the forum in 
which shared problems are explored with 
the serious purpose of developing ‘‘consen- 
sual knowledge” as the basis for common 
action in pursuit of agreed solutions under 
accepted rules. The UN Charter calls on it 
to be ‘a center for harmonizing the actions 
of nations.”’ That is a function to which the 
United States should pay more than lip 
service. We should welcome that role and 
seek to exploit it in the development of the 
“consensual knowledge” we need to deal 
with the problems that are not merely the 
world’s but ours as well. There is no lack of 
evidence that the United States still has 
enormous leadership opportunities when it 
knows what it wants, develops sound poli- 
cies and pursues effective tactics, above all 
showing “a decent respect to the opinion of 
mankind.” 

Fifth, we should recognize that intergov- 
ernmental organizations like the UN are po- 
litical institutions. There are important dif- 
ferences, of course, between them and na- 
tional governments. In many ways, however, 
they behave in ways which can be compared 
with how we conduct our political business 
at home. Who understands that business or 
can do better at it than we? International 
organizations, in other words, are not alien. 
Constitutionally, and in how they work, 
they mirror us. 

Sixth, I want to emphasize one implica- 
tion of what has preceded. Compromise, re- 





29950 


spect for the views and interests of others, is 
the indispensable oil of politics. Bargaining 
is its means. Let me give one very specula- 
tive example of what I mean. I tend to agree 
that, because international organizations 
consist of states which are not the same as 
the people on which national governments 
are based, the one member one vote system 
of many international organizations some- 
times works badly. It is, I think, desirable to 
consider improving it. All agree that is a for- 
midably difficult task to accomplish. 
Achieving change will require compromise 
to accommodate the varied interests that 
have to be satisfied. That is why the most 
promising idea for constitutional improve- 
ment involves a complex system for voting 
on budgets and perhaps other specified 
issues. 

That system would require three concur- 
rent majorities for passage of specified 
types of measures. One majority would re- 
spect the interest of the many smaller coun- 
tries in preserving the system of sovereign 
equality of states. It would require a majori- 
ty of the states voting. The second required 
majority would acknowledge the democratic 
principle and would count by populations. 
The third would accede to the demand of 
large, rich countries that they be protected 
against the “tyranny of the majority.” It 
would require a majority weighted by finan- 
cial measures. To complete the compromise 
package, the United States would have to 
commit itself to be “engaged" and play by 
the rules if the change should take effect. 

Summing up is not difficult. These re- 
marks reflect the conviction that we've en- 
tered a crucible period in America, compara- 
ble in many ways with the gestation time 
that produced the move of the United 
States from isolation to international com- 
mitment after World War II. As I've im- 
plied, the issues penetrate to the heart of 
the American being. What kind of country 
is this? 

My plea is that we pay attention to restor- 
ing that “American difference’ President 
Reagan refers to often but, as Hughes says, 
is succeeding in destroying. I hope, but do 
not predict, that candidates for national 
leadership in this country will be measured 
by that standard.e 


BROADCAST JOURNALISM 


@ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, broad- 
cast journalism was born 66 years ago, 
on November 2, 1920, when radio sta- 
tion KDKA in Pittsburgh broadcast 
the Harding-Cox election returns. 
Since that day, the contributions of 
broadcast journalists have become an 
integral part of our culture. Every day, 
millions of Americans learn of local, 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 


national, and world events through 
radio and television. Broadcast jour- 
nalism allows us to hear news as it is 
being made. Broadcasting informs us 
of tragedy, warns of imminent dan- 
gers, and lets us share in great tri- 
umphs. 

I ask my colleagues to join me in of- 
ficially commending the men and 
women who, through their dedication 
and commitment to fair and accurate 
reporting of the news, permit the citi- 
zens of this country to live in a free 
and informed society.e 


ORDERS FOR FRIDAY 


RECESS UNTIL 10 A.M. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that once the 
Senate completes its business today, it 
stand in recess until the hour of 10 
a.m., on Friday, October 10, 1986. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

RECOGNITION OF CERTAIN SENATORS 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, following 
the two leaders under the standing 
order, I ask unanimous consent that 
there be special orders in favor of the 
following Senators for not to exceed 5 
minutes each: Senators HAWKINS, 
PROXMIRE, and Baucus. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, following 
the special orders just identified, I ask 
unanimous consent that there be a 
period for the transaction of routine 
morning business not to extend 
beyond the hour of 11 a.m. with Sena- 
tors permitted to speak therein for not 
more than 5 minutes each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is ordered. 


PROGRAM 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, at the 
conclusion of routine morning busi- 
ness tomorrow, we will turn either to 
the House message on the drug bill, 
H.R. 5484, or the reconciliation confer- 
ence report. As I have said earlier, I 
am not certain there will be votes. 
Well, I am almost certain there will be 
votes, put it that way. There will be no 


October 9, 1986 


votes prior to noon. We will not be on 
any bill until about sometime after 11 
o'clock. 

It is the hope of the distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee, 
Senator Domenicr, and the ranking 
member, Senator Cures, that they 
will have that bill before us by noon. 
So I think there will be some rollcall 
activity tomorrow. 

Does the distinguished minority 
leader have anything else? 

Mr. BYRD. I can think of nothing. 

Mr. DOLE. I thank the distin- 
guished minority leader for his coop- 
eration. 


RECESS UNTIL 10 A.M. 
TOMORROW 


Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if there be 
no further business to come before the 
Senate, I move that the Senate stand 
in recess until the hour of 10 a.m. on 
Friday, October 10, 1986. 

The motion was agreed to; and at 
7:50 p.m., the Senate recessed until 
Friday, October 10, 1986, at 10 a.m. 


CONFIRMATIONS 


Executive nominations confirmed by 
the Senate October 9, 1986: 


DEPARTMENT OF STATE 


Paul A. Russo, of Virginia, to be Ambassa- 
dor Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of 
the United States of America to Barbados, 
and to serve concurrently and without addi- 
tional compensation as Ambassador Ex- 
traordinary and Plenipotentiary of the 
United States of America to the Common- 
wealth of Dominica, Ambassador Extraordi- 
nary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
States of America to Saint Lucia, Ambassa- 
dor Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of 
the United States of America to Saint Vin- 
cent and the Grenadines, Ambassador Ex- 
traordinary and Plenipotentiary of the 
United States of America to Antigua and 
Barbuda, and Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
America to St. Christopher and Nevis. 


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 


Robert B. Barker, of California, to be 
chairman of the Military Liaison Committee 
to the Department of Energy. 

The above nominations were approved 
subject to the nominees’ commitments to re- 
spond to requests to appear and testify 
before any duly constituted committee of 
the Senate. 





October 9, 1986 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


29951 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—Thursday, October 9, 1986 


The House met at 10 a.m. 

The Chaplain, Rev. James David 
Ford, D.D., offered the following 
prayer: 

Almighty God, may our loyalties and 
commitments be for those values that 
support all people and not just those 
actions that are beneficial to us. We 
look to You, gracious God, to speak 
through Your Word and remind us of 
our responsibility to nurture life for 
all people everywhere. As Your mes- 
sage of hope rises above the din of 
self-interest, so may our lives reflect 
Your high purpose for us in all we do. 
In Your name, we pray. 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. NIELSON of Utah. Mr. Speaker, 
pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand 
a vote on agreeing to the Speaker’s ap- 
proval of the Journal. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on 
the Chair’s approval of the Journal. 

The question was taken; and the 
Speaker announced that the ayes ap- 
peared to have it. 

Mr. NIELSON of Utah. Mr. Speaker, 
I object to the vote on the ground that 
@ quorum is not present and make the 
point 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 256, nays 
117, answered “‘present”’ 1, not voting 
58, as follows: 

CRoll No. 445) 
YEAS—256 


Boland 
Boner (TN) 
Bonior (MI) 
Bonker 
Borski 
Bosco 
Boucher 
Boulter 
Boxer 
Broomfield 
Brown (CA) 


Cooper 
Coyne 
Crockett 
Daniel 
Darden 
Daschle 
Davis 

de la Garza 
Dellums 
Derrick 
Dicks 
DioGuardi 
Donnelly 
Dorgan (ND) 
Dornan (CA) 
Dowdy 
Duncan 
Durbin 
Dwyer 
Dymally 
Dyson 
Early 


Abercrombie 
Ackerman 
Akaka 
Alexander 
Anderson 
Andrews 
Annunzio 
Anthony 
Applegate 


Coleman (TX) 
Collins 
Combest 


Eckart (OH) 
Eckert (NY) 
Edwards (CA) 
Edwards (OK) 
English 
Erdreich 
Evans (IL) 


Glickman 
Goodling 
Gordon 
Gradison 
Gray (PA) 
Green 
Guarini 
Hall (OH) 
Hall, Ralph 
Hamilton 
Hatcher 
Hefner 
Hertel 
Horton 
Howard 
Hoyer 
Hubbard 
Huckaby 
Hughes 
Hutto 
Hyde 
Jeffords 
Jenkins 
Johnson 
Jones (NC) 
Jones (TN) 
Kaptur 
Kastenmeier 
Kemp 
Kennelly 
Kildee 
Kleczka 
Kolter 
Kostmayer 
LaFalce 
Lantos 
Leath (TX) 
Lehman (CA) 
Lehman (PL) 
Leland 
Levin (MI) 


Armey 
Badham 
Bartlett 
Barton 
Bentley 
Bereuter 
Bilirakis 
Bliley 
Boehlert 
Brown (CO) 
Burton (IN) 
Chandler 
Chappie 
Cheney 
Clinger 
Coats 
Cobey 
Coble 
Coleman (MO) 


Levine (CA) 
Lipinski 
Long 

Lujan 
Luken 
MacKay 
Manton 
Markey 
Martinez 
Matsui 
Mazzoli 
McCain 
McCloskey 
McCollum 
McCurdy 
McDade 
McEwen 
McHugh 
McKinney 
Mica 
Mikulski 
Miller (CA) 
Miller (WA) 
Mineta 
Moakley 
Mollohan 
Montgomery 
Moody 
Morrison (CT) 
Morrison (WA) 
Mrazek 
Murphy 
Murtha 
Myers 


Richardson 
Rinaldo 
Robinson 
Rodino 

Roe 
Rostenkowski 
Rowland (GA) 


NAYS—117 


Conte 
Courter 
Craig 
Dannemeyer 
Daub 
DeWine 
Dickinson 
Dreier 
Emerson 
Fawell 
Fields 
Franklin 
Gallo 


. Gekas 


Gingrich 
Gonzalez 
Gregg 
Gunderson 


Schneider 
Schroeder 
Schulze 
Schumer 
Sharp 
Shelby 
Shumway 
Siljander 
Sisisky 
Skelton 
Slattery 
Smith (FL) 
Smith (1A) 
Smith (NE) 
Smith (NJ) 
Snyder 
Solarz 
Spence 
Spratt 

St Germain 
Staggers 
Stallings 
Stenholm 
Stokes 
Stratton 
Studds 
Sweeney 
Synar 
Talion 
Tauzin 
Taylor 
Thomas (GA) 
Torres 
Torricelli 
Traficant 
Traxler 
Valentine 
Vento 
Visclosky 
Volkmer 
Waldon 
Walgren 
Watkins 
Waxman 
Weaver 
Wheat 
Whitley 
Whitten 
Wirth 
Wise 
Wolpe 
Wortley 
Wright 
Wyden 
Wylie 
Yates 
Yatron 
Young (MO) 


Hansen 
Hawkins 
Hayes 
Hendon 
Henry 
Hiler 
Hopkins 
Hunter 
Ireland 
Jacobs 
Kolbe 
Kramer 
Lagomarsino 


Lewis (CA) 
Lewis (FL) 


Hammerschmidt Lightfoot 


Livingston 


Lowry (WA) 
Lungren 
Madigan 
Martin (IL) 
Martin (NY) 
McCandless 
McGrath 


Rowland (CT) 


Smith, Robert 
(NH) 

Smith, Robert 
(OR) 

Snowe 

Solomon 

Strang 

Stump 

Sundquist 

Swindall 

Thomas (CA) 


McMillan 
Meyers 
Michel 
Miller (OH) 
Mitchell 
Molinari 
Monson 
Moorhead 
Nielson 
Oxley 


Saxton 
Schaefer 
Schuette 
Sensenbrenner 
Shaw 
Shuster 
Sikorski 
Skeen 
Slaughter 
Smith, Denny 
(OR) 


ANSWERED “PRESENT”’—1 
Clay 


NOT VOTING—58 


Ford (MI) Neal 

Ford (TN) Owens 
Fowler Ritter 
Gephardt Roemer 
Gray (IL) Rose 
Grotberg Rudd 
Hartnett Savage 
Hillis Seiberling 
Holt 

Jones (OK) 
Kanjorski 
Kasich 
Kindness 
Lowery (CA) 
Lundine 
Mack 
Marlenee 
Mavroules 
McKernan 
Moore 


0 1020 


So the Journal was approved. 
The result of the vote was an- 
nounced as above recorded. 


Vander Jagt 
Vucanovich 
Walker 
Weber 
Whittaker 
Wolf 

Young (AK) 
Young (FL) 
Zschau 


Barnard 
Bateman 
Breaux 
Brooks 
Burton (CA) 


Udall 
Weiss 
Whitehurst 
Williams 
Wilson 


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE 


A message from the Senate by Mr. 
Hallen, one of its clerks, announced 
that the Senate had passed without 
amendment bills and joint resolutions 
of the House of the following titles: 

H.R. 1598. An act for the relief of Steven 
McKenna; 

H.R. 2092. An act to amend the Natural 
Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 and the 
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 
1979 to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
years 1986 and 1987, and for other purposes; 

H.R. 2182. An act to authorize the inclu- 
sion of certain additional lands within the 
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore; 

H.R. 3005. An act to direct the Secretary 
of the Interior to convey certain lands, with- 
drawn by the Bureau of Reclamation for 
townsite purposes, to the Huntley Project 
Irrigation District, Ballantine, MT: 

H.R. 3168. An act to require the Director 
of the Office of Management and Budget to 
prepare an annual report consolidating the 
available data on the geographic distribu- 


—_—— meee nee en ene ccna 


O This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., 0 1407 is 2:07 p.m. 
Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. 


a 





29952 


tion of Federal funds, and for other pur- 
poses; 

H.R. 4212. An act to provide for the reau- 
thorization of the Deep Seabed Hard Miner- 
al Resources Act, and for other purposes; 

H.R. 4492. An act to permit the transfer of 
certain airport property in Algona, IA; 

H.R. 5016. An act for the relief of Sueng 
Ho Jang and Sueng I! Jang; 

H.R. 5626. An act to make technical cor- 
rections in the Federal Employees’ Retire- 
ment System Act of 1986, and for other pur- 


poses; 

H.J. Res. 17. Joint resolution to consent to 
an amendment enacted by the legislature of 
the State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes 
Commission Act, 1920; 

H.J. Res. 438. Joint resolution to designate 
October 31, 1986, as ‘National Child Identi- 
fication and Safety Information Day”; 

H.J. Res. 517. Joint resolution providing 
for reappointment of David C. Acheson as a 
citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 
the Smithsonian Institution; and 

H.J. Res. 666. Joint resolution expressing 
the sense of Congress in support of a com- 
memorative structure within the National 
Park System dedicated to the promotion of 
understanding, knowledge, opportunity and 
equality for all people. 


The message also announced that 
the Senate had passed with amend- 
ments in which the concurrence of the 
House is requested, bills of the House 
of the following titles: 

H.R. 1426. An act to authorize and amend 
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 
and for other purposes; 

H.R. 2574. An act for the relief of the sur- 
vivors of Christopher Eney; 

H.R. 1593. An act to direct the Secretary 
of the Interior to release on behalf of the 
United States certain restrictions in a previ- 
ous conveyance of land to the town of 
Jerome, AZ; 

H.R. 4175. An act to authorize appropria- 
tions for fiscal year 1987 for certain mari- 
time programs of the Department of Trans- 
portation and the Federal Maritime Com- 
mission; and 

H.R. 5595. An act to amend title XVI of 
the Social Security Act to make necessary 
improvements in the SSI program with the 
objective of assuring that such program (in- 
cluding the work incentive provisions in sec- 
tion 1619 of such Act) will more realistically 
and more equitably reflect the needs and 
circumstances of applicants and recipients 
thereunder. 

The message also announced that 
the Senate agrees to the report of the 
committee of conference on the dis- 
agreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the amendment of the Senate to the 
bill (H.R. 4116) “An act to extend and 
improve the Domestic Volunteer Serv- 
ice Act of 1973.” 

The message also announced that 
the Senate agrees to the amendments 
of the House to the bill (S. 209) “An 
act to amend chapter 37 of title 31, 
United States Code, to authorize con- 
tracts retaining private counsel to fur- 
nish legal services in the case of in- 
debtedness owed the United States.” 


The message also announced that 
the Senate agrees to the amendment 


of the House to the bill (S. 475) “An 
act to amend the Motor Vehicle Infor- 
mation and Cost Savings Act to re- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


quire certain information to be filed in 
registering the title of motor vehicles, 
and for other purposes.” 

The message also announced that 
the Senate agrees to the amendment 
of the House to the bill (S. 1124) “An 
act to amend title 49, United States 
Code, to reduce regulation of surface 
freight forwarders, and for other pur- 
poses.” 

The message also announced that 
the Senate agrees to the amendment 
of the House to the bill (S. 1895) “An 
act for the relief of Marlboro County 
General Hospital Charity, of Ben- 
nettsville, South Carolina.” 

The message also announced that 
the Senate agrees to the amendments 
of the House to the amendments of 
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 5299) “An 
act to amend title 38, United States 
Code, to provide a 2.0-percent increase 
in the rates of compensation and of 
dependency and indemnity compensa- 
tion [DIC] paid by the Veterans’ Ad- 
ministration, and for other purposes.” 

The message also announced that 
the Senate agrees to the amendments 
of the House to the joint resolution 
(S.J. Res. 308) ‘Joint resolution desig- 
nating March 25, 1986, as ‘Greek Inde- 
pendence Day: A National Day of 
Celebration of Greek and American 
Democracy’. ”” 

The message also announced that 
the Senate has passed bills of the fol- 
lowing titles, in which the concurrence 
of the House is required: 

S. 334. An act for the relief of Bobby 
Lochan; 

S. 521. An act for the relief of Suzy Huf 
Hui Chang and Lee Lo Lin and Lee Juo Jui; 

S. 567. An act to convey Forest Service 
Land to Flagstaff, AZ; 

S. 767. An act to direct the Secretary of 
the Interior to permit access across certain 
Federal! lands in the State of Arkansas, and 
for other purposes, 

S. 977. An act to establish the Hennepin 
Canal National Heritage Corridor in the 
State of Hlinois, and for other purposes; 

S. 1026. An act to direct the cooperation 
of certain Federal entities in the implemen- 
tation of the Continental Scientific Drilling 
Program; 

S. 1076. An act for the relief of Denise 
Glenn; 

S. 1212. An act for the relief of Olga Sel- 
lares Barney and her children Christian Sel- 
lares Barney, Kevin Sellares Barney, and 
Charles Sellares Barney; 

S. 1374. An act to establish the Blackstone 
River Valley National Heritage Corridor in 
Massachusetts and Rhode Island; 

S. 1534. An act for the relief of Masayoshi 
Goda, his wife Nobuko Goda, and their chil- 
dren Maki Goda and Eri Goda; 

S. 1620. An act to establish a National 
Council on Access to Health Care; 

S. 2004. An act to require the President to 
submit to the Congress an annual report on 
the management of the executive branch of 
the Government; 

S. 2055. An act to establish the Columbia 
Gorge National Scenic Area, and for other 
purposes, 

S. 2216. An act to designate September 17, 
1987, the bicentennial of the signing of the 
Constitution of the United States, as “Con- 


October 9, 1986 


stitution Day", and to make such day a legal 
public holiday; 

S. 2536. An act to provide for block grants 
to States to pay the costs of immunosup- 
bans it drugs for organ transplant patients; 
ani 

S. 2723. An act to amend title 39 of the 
United States Code to restore limited circu- 
lation. second-class. rates of postage for 
copies of a publication mailed. to, counties 
adjacent to the county of publication, and 
for other purposes. 


ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE 
SPEAKER 


The SPEAKER. The Chair desires 
to announce that pursuant to,clause 4 
of rule I, the Speaker. pro tempore 
signed the following enrolled bill and 
joint resolution on Wednesday, Octo- 
ber 8, 1986: 

H.R. 2005. An act to extend and amend 
the Comprehensive ‘Environmental « Re- 
sponse, Compensation, and Liability. Act of 
1980, and for other purposes; and 

H.J. Res, 750. Joint. resolution making fur- 
ther continuing appropriations for fiscal 
year 1987, and for other purposes. 


APPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS OF 
COMMISSION ON. EDUCATION 
OF THE DEAF 


The SPEAKER. Pursuant to section 
301 of Public Law 99-371, the Chair 
appoints as members of the Commis- 
sion on Education of the Deaf, the fol- 
lowing members from private life on 
the part of the House: 

Ms. Patricia A. Hughes of Seattle, 
WA; 

Mr. David J, Nelson of Washington, 
DC; 

Mr. William Page Johnson of Jack- 
sonville, IL; and 

Ms. Nanette Fabray of Pacific Pali- 
sades, CA. 


DESIGNATING ROOM H-324 IN 
THE CAPITOL AS THE THOMAS 
P. O'NEILL, JR. ROOM 


Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I send 
to the desk a resolution (H. Res. 582) 
designating Room H-324, in the Cap- 
itol, as the Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. 
Room, and ask unanimous consent for 
its immediate consideration. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Moaktey). The Clerk will report the 
resolution. 

The Clerk read the resolution as fol- 
lows: 


H. Res, 582 


Resolved, That room H-324 on the third 
floor of the House part of Capitol is hereby 
designated the Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. 
Room. 


The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 


there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas? 


There was no objection. 
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, 1 strongly sup- 
port House Resolution 582, designating room 





October 9, 1986 


324 in the Capitol as the Thomas P. “Tip” 
O'Neill Room. 

For nearly 34 years Tip O'NEILL has repre- 
sented’ the Eighth Congressional District of 
Massachusetts. For the past 10 years he has 
served this Nation with distinction as the 
Speaker of the House. Tip has devoted 50 
years of his life to public service, and all 
Americans recognize the many contributions 
and accomplishments he has made in that 
time. He has been, and he continues to be, a 
tireless champion for the voiceless in our soci- 
ety. 

As he prepares to leave Washington and 
return to Massachusetts we hope that the 
coming years give him the time he deserves 
to enjoy the companionship of his family. | can 
think of no better way of honoring our beloved 
Speaker than’ by naming a room in this great 
Capitol Building after him, a room close to the 
Chamber he loved. Mr. Speaker, we will miss 
you, and we honor you today for all you have 
done, not only as Speaker of the House, but 
for your tireless work as a public servant. 

Today's edition. of the Washington” Post 
contains a timely analysis of the 10 years that 
Tip O'NEILL has sérved as Speaker of ‘the 
House. | would like to share »with my col- 
leagues the Post's editorial by inserting it at 
this point in the: RECORD: 

LEADER OF THE HOUSE 

Ten years ago, when Tip O'Neill was 
about to become speaker of the House, little 
was expected from him. The House, conven- 
tional wisdom had it, was a collection of 
committee chairmen’s baronies, the backwa- 
ter of American government, stymied by di- 
vision and incapable of action. Assorted 
theories asserted that no House could make 
a significant difference and no speaker 
could be an effective leader. 

Tip O'Neill and the House he has led have 
proved that convention wisdom wrong. Mr. 
O'Neill benefited from institutional 
changes, particularly the reform that made 
committee chairmen electable by and there- 
fore accountable to the Democratic Caucus. 
But Mr. O’Neill’s achievement owes much as 
well to intangible factors of character and 
political skill. 

He began and he ends in politics as a man 
with convictions—not expressed in the ab- 
stractions of the academy or the acronyms 
of the policy analyst, and.not always sup- 
ported by detailed recitals of facts and fig- 
ures. But no one now doubts the strength of 
his conviction that government has a duty 
to make the ordinary person's life better 
and to defend the United States without un- 
necessary bloodshed. 

To those convictions he added the energy 
to put them into effect. For some years the 
position of speaker had been a reward to el- 
derly House leaders, conferred well after 
their prime years. Mr. O'Neill, installed at 
age 63, kept in constant touch with other 
members, was available at daily press con- 
ferences, and presided from the podium and 
spoke from the floor of the House with a 
zest that has yet to wane. Always a partisan, 
he worked to weld the disparate Democratic 
Caucus together, and today House Demo- 
crats are more united on a wide range of 
issues—domestic issues, anyway—than they 
have been since the early days of Franklin 
Roosevelt's New Deal. 

Finally, Tip O'Neill has had superb politi- 
cal intuition. He has sensed when it is time 
to compromise in order to get half a loaf, 
and when it is better to hold out for the 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


whole thing. That is not always a short- 
term calculation. Mr. O'Neill has been will- 
ing to risk defeat, and the public has seen 
him—after the 1981 budget fight, for exam- 
ple—bloodied and battered but ready to 
fight another day. He staked out the Social 
Security issue for House Democrats long 
before the 1982 election and left them free 
to run on their own in 1984. It is no accident 
that the number of House Democrats has 
gone up, not down, during the Reagan presi- 
dency. 

Nor is it an accident that Tip O'Neill's 
rating in the polls has gone way up. He is 
known for saying “All politics is local,” and 
his roots in North Cambridge, Mass., are 
deep. But partly because he stands for 
something and comes from a real place, he 
has been an effective national leader. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 
the table. 


DESIGNATION OF THE THOMAS 
P, O'NEILL, JR. ROOM 


(Mr.. WRIGHT asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute.) 

Mr.. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, little 
needs be said. A very few rooms in the 
Capitol on, the House side have been 
officially designated by the House to 
honor individuals who are so much a 
part of our institution that. their 
names will forever epitomize the heart 
and soul of the United States House of 
Representatives. 

One of those people, clearly, is 
THOMAS P, “Trp” O'NEILL, Jr. As long 
as free men and women live and serve 
in this Chamber—the most democrat- 
ic, in the sense of a little “d,” of all in- 
stitutions of Government—the 
memory of THomAs P. O'NEILL, JR., 
will live and thrive and survive to in- 
spire us and future generations of 
public servants. 

Therefore, it seems appropriate to 
me, and I know all of our colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle will surely 
agree, that it is a fitting tribute for us 
this day to designate officially the 
room on the third floor of the House 
side of the Capitol-as the Thomas P. 
O'Neill, Jr. Room. 


THE THOMAS P. O'NEILL, JR., 
ROOM IN PERPETUITY 


(Mr. MICHEL asked. and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute.) 

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, may I 
simply associate myself with the very 
appropriate remarks of the distin- 
guished majority leader, the gentle- 
man from Texas [Mr. WricHT]. 

But not being privy to where the re- 
cesses of this Capitol all are, cubby- 
holes or ornate rooms and all the rest, 
might I inquire of the distinguished 
majority leader if this room, so appro- 
priately mamed for Tomas P. 
O'NEILL, is sufficiently large enough in 
size and befitting to accommodate 


29953 


what we normally expect for the 
Speaker of the House? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. MICHEL. I yield to the gentle- 
man from Texas. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, it is a 
spacious and graciolis room, ample in 
its proportions, warm in its hospital- 
ity. It is on the third floor, just oppo- 
site the Visitors’. Gallery, where the 
public may see.it; and where a sign 
may forever proclaim it as the THomas 
P. O'NEILL, Jr. Room, 

Mr. MICHEL. I definitely thank the 
gentleman for that explanation. 

Might I assure the gentleman from 
Texas, and of course, the Speaker him- 
self, that when that great day comes 
when we on the Republican side have 
a majority in this House, it shall 
remain the THomas P. O’NEILL, Jr. 
Room. 


0 1030 


EXPRESSION OF GRATITUDE 
FROM THE SPEAKER 


(Mr. O'NEILL asked and was given 
permission to address the House for I 
minute.) 

Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I want to 
tell all of you how grateful I am for 
having a room named after me in this 
building. 

I have been one who through my 
years. have always been opposed to 
people in public life naming anything 
after them until they are 10 years out 
of publie office. My own city and vari- 
ous cities and towns in my district 
have often wanted to name a housing 
project or a playground or something 
of that nature, which I have opposed, 
but being here for 34 years I am ex- 
tremely grateful. 

As Jim offered the resolution, I 
thought of a story that we hear in pol- 
itics at so many banquets when we are 
honoring some friends. You would say, 
“The city council of Cambridge today 
sent a telegram of congratulations, 
and it passed 14 to 13.” 

Looking at the gentleman from 
Georgia, I am very grateful the gentle- 
man did not ask for a rollicall vote. 

The room where the Democratic 
Whips meet is part of the whip organi- 
zational room. It is where on a Thurs- 
day morning I try to talk about a bi- 
partisan spirit. 

It is nice to have a room named after 
you in the Capitol. One of the most 
beautiful men I ever met in my life 
has a room named after him, Ernie Pe- 
tinaud. Ernie was the maitre d’ down 
at the restaurant and it is nice to join 
fine people like that. He is a beautiful 
individual. 

To all of you, you know, it has been 
about 10 days that I have been trying 
to say goodbye. The party the other 
night was something I will always re- 
member. 





29954 


I know that when I bang the gavel 
for the last time I am going to have a 
few words to say, but this is the great- 
est body in the greatest Nation that 
God ever sent to the Earth. 

Thank you. 


MESSAGE FROM THE 
PRESIDENT 


A message in writing from the Presi- 
dent of the United States was commu- 
nicated to the House by Mrs. Emery, 
one of his secretaries. 


INSTRUCTING THE CLERK TO 
MAKE CORRECTIONS IN EN- 
GROSSMENT OF H.R. 5445, 
CIVIL RICO (RACKETEER IN- 
FLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANI- 
ZATIONS) 


Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Clerk be 
instructed to make corrections in the 
engrossment of the bill (H.R. 5445) to 
amend chapter 96 of title 18, United 
States Code. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Moak.LeEy). The Clerk will report the 
corrections. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

CorREcTIONS TO H.R. 5445 

(1) In subsection (c1) proposed to be in- 
serted in section 1964 of title 18, United 
States Code, by section 2 of the bill, redesig- 
nate subparagraphs (I) through (VII) as 
subparagraphs (A) through (G) respective- 


ly. 

(2) In subsection (c)(1) proposed to be in- 
serted in section 1964 of title 18, United 
States Code, by section 2 of the bill, strike 
out the subparagraph (II) which was redes- 
ignated as subparagraph (B) by the previous 
correction and insert in lieu thereof: 

“(B) the degree of disparity in the bar- 
gaining positions of the plaintiff and de- 
fendant; 

(3) At the end of paragraph (6) of subsec- 
tion (c) proposed to be inserted in section 
1964 of title 18, United States Code, by sec- 
tion 2 of the bill, inset a closing quotation 
mark followed by a period. 

(4) Strike out paragraph (7) of subsection 
(c) proposed to be inserted in section 1964 of 
title 18, United States Code, by section 2 of 
the bill. 

(5) In subsection (c1) proposed to be in- 
serted in section 1964 of title 18, United 
States Code, by section 2 of the bill, strike 
out “to recover” and insert “and shall recov- 
er” in lieu thereof. 

(6) In section 4(b), strike out “(2B ii)" 
each place it appears and insert “(2)(B)(i)" 
in lieu thereof. 

Mr. BOUCHER [during the read- 
ing]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the corrections be consid- 
ered as read and printed in the 
RECORD. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia? 

Mr. GEKAS. Reserving the right to 
object, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is im- 
portant that the gentleman from Vir- 
ginia outline briefly for the record the 
sense of the technical corrections 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


made to the bill that we recently 
passed in this Chamber. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, will 
the gentleman yield under his reserva- 
tion? 

Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentle- 
man from Virginia. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I 
thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I would advise the gentleman and 
the Chair that these corrections are 
technically entirely. They merely con- 
form the bill to the understanding of 
the parties at interest at the time that 
the bill was being considered. Most of 
them are merely changing references 
to paragraphs that were inappropri- 
ately referenced. 

One does affect the question of pro- 
vision of attorney’s fees to prevailing 
counsel. It retains the current law that 
provides that attorney's fees to pre- 
vailing parties will be provided and re- 
tains the current language, which was 
the understanding of the parties at 
the time the bill was considered and 
passed. 

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank 
the gentleman. 

Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed the 
contents of the proposed changes, the 
technical amendments, and find them 
to be acceptable as part and parcel of 
what we intended to do in the original 
bill. 

I have talked with our respected 
leader, the gentleman from Illinois, 
who accedes to the technical amend- 
ments, so that this side is willing to co- 
operate in the unanimous-consent pas- 
sage of these technical amendments. 

Mr. Speaker, with that, I withdraw 
my reservation of objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia? 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the initial request 
of the gentleman from Virginia? 

There was no objection. 


REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION 
OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RES- 
OLUTION 406, EXPRESSING 
SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT 
IN HIS MEETING IN ICELAND 


Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Commit- 
tee on Foreign Affairs be discharged 
from further consideration of the con- 
current resolution (H. Con. Res. 406) 
expressing support for President 
Reagan in his October 11-12 meeting 
with General Secretary Gorbachev in 
Reykjavik, Iceland, and for other pur- 
poses, and ask for its immediate con- 
sideration in the House. 

The Clerk read the title of the con- 
current resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida? 


October 9, 1986 


Mr. WALKER, Reserving the right 
to object, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
right to object not because what the 
committee is attempting to do is not a 
proper thing. Obviously this House 
does want to wish the President the 
best in his trip to Iceland to meet with 
Secretary Gorbachev; but I am some- 
what concerned about language that 
has been put into the resolution, be- 
cause it seems to me that it is lan- 
guage that specifies certain things and 
conditions, while leaving out other 
things that many of us feel should be 
addressed in such a resolution. 

If, for example, we are going to 
specify that the President should talk 
about grain agreements with the Sovi- 
ets, we also, many of us, think that it 
might also be specified that he ought 
to talk about Afghanistan. 

If we are going to talk about Helsin- 
ki, we think it might be specified that 
we ought to talk about captive na- 
tions. 

We think it might be specified that 
we ought to talk about Soviet adven- 
turism in our hemisphere and Soviet 
adventurism in Africa; and yet none of 
those things are specifically in this 
resolution. Most of the references of 
that type are indirect. 

By specifying the grain agree- 
ments—— 

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, regular 
order. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
gentleman from Indiana demands reg- 
ular order. 

Is there objection to the request of 
the gentleman from Florida? 

Mr. WALKER. Reserving the right 
to object, Mr. Speaker, by specifying 
the grain agreements, I do have a 
couple questions for the gentleman. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does 
the gentleman from Indiana insist on 
regular order? 

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, regular 
order. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida? 

Mr. WALKER. Reserving the right 
to object, Mr. Speaker, is the gentle- 
man from Indiana preventing a discus- 
sion from taking place about a bill 
that is being brought to the floor by 
unanimous consent? 

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, regular 
order. 

Mr. WALKER. The gentleman does 
not want to have a discussion of the 
important provisions of this bill? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does 
the gentleman from Indiana insist on 
regular order? 

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, regular 
order. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida? 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I 
object. 





October 9, 1986 


The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objec- 
tion is heard. 


EXPLANATION OF HOUSE CON- 
CURRENT RESOLUTION 406, 
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR 
PRESIDENT IN HIS MEETING 
IN ICELAND 


(Mr. FASCELL asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute.) 

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, the res- 
olution that we were discussing a 
moment ago passed the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs unanimously. It is a 
very timely resolution, because it dem- 
onstrates the concern of Congress on 
all the issues that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania was talking about, either 
directly or indirectly, It also shows the 
unanimity of Congress in expressing 
its support for the President as he 
goes to Reykjavik, Iceland for his 
meeting with General Secretary Gor- 
bachev. 

It does emphasize some of the prob- 
lems brought up by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania earlier and it does 
so by saying that we would hope that 
there would be concrete progress 
reached at the meeting in the areas of 
human rights, trade, bilateral rela- 
tions, regional issues, and arms con- 
trol. 

I agree with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania that we made a special 
effort on the request of Members on 
both sides to emphasize the impor- 
tance of the Soviets fulfilling their 
commitment to buy grain from the 
United States, which they have re- 
fused to do. The committee felt it was 
important to emphasize the concern of 
Members on both sides of the aisle on 
that issue. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to address the 
House for 1 minute. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Fiorio]. 


REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION 
OF SENATE AMENDMENT -TO 
HOUSE AMENDMENTS TO S. 
2129, RISK RETENTION AMEND- 
MENTS OF 1986 


Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker’s table the Senate bill (S. 
2129) to facilitate the ability of organi- 
zations to establish risk retention 
groups, to facilitate the ability of such 
organizations to purchase liability in- 
surance on a group basis, and for 
other purposes, with a Senate amend- 
ment to the House amendments there- 
to, and concur in the Senate amend- 
ment to the House amendments. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The Clerk read the Senate amend- 
ment to the House amendments, as 
follows: 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


In lieu of the matter proposed to be in- 
serted by the House amendment to the text 
of the bill, insert: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the “Risk Reten- 
tion Amendments of 1986". 

SEC, 2. REFERENCES IN THE ACT. 

Whenever in this Act an amendment is ex- 
pressed in terms of an amendment to a sec- 
tion, the reference shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the Product Liability Risk Re- 
tention Act of 1981 (15 U.S.C 3901 et seq), 
unless otherwise provided. 

SEC. 3. COVERAGE OFFERED BY RISK RETENTION 
GROUPS. 

(a) EXPANSION OF COVERAGE.—Section 2(a) 
(15 U.S.C. 3901(a)) is amended— 

(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (3); 

(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as 
paragraph (1); and 

(3) by inserting after paragraph (1), as so 
redesignated, the following new paragraphs: 

“(2) liability— 

“CA) means legal liability for damages (in- 
cluding costs of defense, legal costs and fees, 
and other claims expenses) because of inju- 
ries to other persons, damage to their prop- 
erty, or other damage or loss to such other 
persons resulting from or arising out of— 

“(i) any business (whether profit or non- 
profit), trade, product, services ‘including 
professional services), premises, or oper- 
ations; or 

“(ii) any activity of any State or local gov- 
ernment, or any agency or political subdivi- 
sion thereof; and 

“(B) does not include personal risk liabil- 
ity and an employer's liability with respect 
to its employees other than legal liability 
under the Federal Employers Liability Act 
(45 U.S.C. 51 et seq.); 

“(3) ‘personal risk liability’ means liability 
for damages because of injury to any 
person, damage to property, or other loss or 
damage resulting from any personal, famil- 
ial, or household responsibilities or activi- 
ties, rather than from responsibilities or ac- 
tivities referred to in paragraphs (2)(A) and 
(2 B);”. 

(b) Derinitions.—Such section is further 
amended— 

(1) by striking “and” at the end of para- 
graph (5); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of 
paragraph (6) and inserting **; and”; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph: 

“(7) ‘hazardous financial condition’ means 
that, based on its present or reasonably an- 
ticipated financial condition, a risk reten- 
tion group is unlikely to be able— 

“(A) to meet obligations to policyholders 
with respect to known claims and reason- 
ably anticipated claims; or 

“(B) to pay other obligations in the 
normal course of business.”’. 

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO RISK RETEN- 
TION GROUPS AND PURCHASING 
GROUPS. 

(a) CHARACTERISTICS OF RISK RETENTION 
Groups AND THEIR MeEmMBERS.—(1) Section 
2(aX4) (15 U.S.C. 3901(a)(4)) is amended by 
striking “taxable as a corporation, or as an 
insurance company, formed under the laws 
of any State, Bermuda, or the Cayman Is- 
lands”. 

(2) Subparagraph (A) of such section is 
amended by striking ‘‘product liability or 
completed operations liability risk expo- 
sure” and inserting “liability exposure”. 

(3) Subparagraph (C) of such section is 
amended to read as follows: 

“<C) which— 


29955 


“() is chartered and licensed as a liability 
insurance company under the laws of a 
State and authorized to engage in the busi- 
ness of insurance under the laws of such 
State; or 

“(ii) before January 1, 1985, was chartered 
or licensed and authorized to engage in the 
business of insurance under the laws of Ber- 
muda or the Cayman Islands and, before 
such date, had certified to the insurance 
commissioner of at least one State that it 
satisfied the capitalization requirements of 
such State, except that any such group 
shall be considered to be a risk retention 
group only if it has been engaged in busi- 
ness continuously since such date and only 
for the purpose of continuing to provide in- 
surance to cover product liability or com- 
pleted operations liability (as such terms 
were defined in this section before the date 
of the enactment of the Risk Retention 
Amendments of 1986);"". 

(4) Such section is further amended— 

(A) by striking “and” at the end of sub- 
paragraph (D); and 

(B) by striking subparagraph (E) and in- 
serting the following new subparagraphs: 

“(E) which— 

“(@) has as its owners only persons who 
comprise the membership of the risk reten- 
tion group and who are provided insurance 
by such group; or 

“Gii) has as its sole owner an organization 
which has as— 

“(I) its members only persons who com- 
prise the membership of the risk retention 
group; and 

“(II) its owners only persons who com- 
prise the membership of the risk retention 
group and who are provided insurance by 
such group; 

“(F) whose members are engaged in busi- 
nesses or activities similar or related with 
respect to the liability to which such mem- 
bers are exposed by virtue of any related, 
similar, or common business, trade, product, 
services, premises, or operations; 

“(G) whose activities do not include the 
provision of insurance other than— 

“(i) liability insurance for assuming and 
spreading all or any portion of the similar 
or related liability exposure of its group 
members; and 

“(ii) reinsurance with respect to the simi- 
lar or related liability exposure of any other 
risk retention group (or any member of such 
other group) which is engaged in businesses 
or activities so that such group (or member) 
meets the requirement described in subpara- 
graph (F) for membership in the risk reten- 
tion group which provides such reinsurance; 
and 

“(H) the name of which includes the 
phrase ‘Risk Retention Group’.”. 

(b) CHARACTERISTICS OF PURCHASING 
Groups.—Section 2(aX5) (15 US.C. 
3901(a)(5)) is amended to read as follows: 

(5) “purchasing group’ means any group 
which— 

“(A) has as one of its purposes the pur- 
chase of liability insurance on a group basis; 

“(B) purchases such insurance only for its 
group members and only to cover their simi- 
lar or related liability exposure, as described 
in subparagraph (C); 

“(C) is composed of members whose busi- 
nesses or activities are similar or related 
with respect to the liability to which mem- 
bers are exposed by virtue of any related, 
similar, or common business, trade, product, 
services, premises, or operations; and 

“(D) is domiciled in any State;”. 





29956 


SEC. 5. CONCERNING SCOPE OF EXEMPTIONS RE- 
LATING TO RISK RETENTION GROUPS. 

(a) In GENERAL.—Section 3(b) (15 U.S.C. 
3902(b)) is amended to read as follows: 

“(b) The exemptions specified in subsec- 
tion (a) apply to laws governing the insur- 
ance business pertaining to— 

“(1) liability insurance coverage provided 
by a risk retention group for— 

“(A) such group; or 

*(B) any person who is a member of such 
group, 

(2) the sale of liability insurance cover- 
age for a risk retention group; and 

(3) the provision of— 

“(A) insurance related services; 

“(B) management, operations, and invest- 
ment activities; or 

*(C) loss control and claims administra- 
tion (including loss control and claims ad- 
ministration services for uninsured risks re- 
tained by any member of such group); 


for a risk retention group or any member of 
such group with respect to liability for 
which the group provides insurance.”. 

(b) PLans OF OPERATION, FEASIBILITY 
STUDIES, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.—Sec- 
tion 3 (15 U.S.C. 3902) is further amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(1)— 

(A) by striking subparagraph (D) and re- 
designating subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) 
as subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), accord- 
ingly; and 

(B) by striking all that follows after “doc- 
uments or process” in subparagraph (D) (as 
redesignated) and inserting a semicolon; and 

(2) by adding at the end of such section 
the following new subsection: 

“(d) Each risk retention group shall 
submit— 

“(1) to the insurance commissioner of the 
State in which it is chartered— 

“(A) before it may offer insurance in any 
State, a plan of operation or a feasibility 
study which includes the coverages, deducti- 
bles, coverage limits, rates, and rating classi- 
fication systems for each line of insurance 
the group intends to offer; and 

“(B) revisions of such plan or study if the 
group intends to offer any additional lines 
of liability insurance; 

(2) to the insurance commissioner of 
each State in which it intends to do busi- 
ness, before it may offer insurance in such 
State— 

“(A) a copy of such plan or study (which 
shall include the name of the State in which 
it is chartered and its principal place of 
business); and 

“(B) a copy of any revisions to such plan 
or study, as provided in paragraph (1B) 
(which shall include any change in the des- 
ignation of the State in which it is char- 
tered); and 

“(3) to the insurance commissioner of 
each State in which it is doing business, a 
copy of the group’s annual financial state- 
ment submitted to the State in which the 
group is chartered as an insurance company, 
which statement shall be certified by an in- 
dependent public accountant and contain a 
statement of opinion on loss and loss adjust- 
ment expense reserves made by— 

(A) a member of the American Academy 
of Actuaries, or 

“(B) a qualified loss reserve specialist.”’. 

(c) EXAMINATION OF FINANCIAL CONDI- 
Tron.—Section 3(a)(1E) (as redesignated 
by subsection (b)) is amended— 

(1) by striking clause (i); 

(2) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause 
(i); and 

(3) by adding at the end the following new 
clause: 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


“(ii) any such examination shall be coordi- 
nated to avoid unjustified duplication and 
unjustified repetition.”. 

(d) COMPLIANCE WITH DELINQUENCY PRO- 
CEEDING OrpeRS.—Section 3(a)(1F) (as re- 
designated by subsection (b)) is amended to 
read as follows: 

“CF) comply with a lawful order issued— 

“G) in a delinquency proceeding com- 
menced by the State insurance commission- 
er if there has been a finding of financial 
impairment under subparagraph (E); or 

“Gi) in a voluntary dissolution proceed- 
ing;”. 

(e) AppiITIONAL State Law REQUIRE- 
MENTS.—Section 3(ad(1) (15 U.S.C. 
3902(a)(1)) is further amended by adding at 
the end the following new subparagraphs: 

“(G) comply with any State law regarding 
deceptive, false, or fraudulent acts or prac- 
tices, except that if the State seeks an in- 
junction regarding the conduct described in 
this subparagraph, such injunction must be 
obtained from a court of competent jurisdic- 
tion; 

“(H) comply with an injunction issued by 
a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a pe- 
tition by the State insurance commissioner 
alleging that the group is in hazardous fi- 
nancial condition or is financially impaired; 
and 

“(I) provide the following notice, in 10- 
point type, in any insurance policy issued by 
such group: 


“ “NOTICE 


“*This policy is issued by your risk reten- 
tion group. Your risk retention group may 
not be subject to all of the insurance laws 
and regulations of your State. State insur- 
ance insolvency guaranty funds are not 
available for your risk retention group.’ "’. 
SEC. 6, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO 

PURCHASING GROUPS. 

Section 4 (15 U.S.C. 3903) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsec- 
tions: 

“(d)(1) A purchasing group which intends 
to do business in any State shall furnish 
notice of such intention to the insurance 
commissioner of such State. Such notice— 

“(A) shall identify the State in which such 
group is domiciled; 

“(B) shall specify the lines and classifica- 
tions of liability insurance which the pur- 
chasing group intends to purchase; 

“(C) shall identify the insurance company 
from which the group intends to purchase 
insurance and the domicile of such compa- 
ny; and 

“(D) shall identify the principal place of 
business of the group. 

*(2) Such purchasing group shall notify 
the commissioner of any such State as to 
any subsequent changes in any of the items 
provided in such notice. 

“(e) A purchasing group shall register 
with and designate the State insurance com- 
missioner of each State in which it does 
business as its agent solely for the purpose 
of receiving service of legal documents or 
process, except that such requirement shall 
not apply in the case of a purchasing 
group— 

“(1) which— 

(A) was domiciled before April 1, 1986; 
and 

“(B) is domiciled on and after the date of 
the enactment of this Act; 
in any State of the United States; 

“(2) which— 

“(A) before the date of the enactment of 
this Act, purchased insurance from an in- 
surance carrier licensed in any State; and 


October 9, 1986 


“(B) since such date of enactment, pur- 
chases its insurance from an insurance car- 
rier licensed in any State; 

“(3) which. was a purchasing group under 
the requirements of this Act before the date 
of enactment of the Risk Retention Amend- 
ments of 1986; and 

“(4) as long as such group does not pur- 
chase insurance that was not authorized for 
purposes of an exemption under this Act as 
in effect before the date of the enactment 
of the Risk Retention Amendments of 1986. 

“(f) A purchasing group may not purchase 
insurance from a risk-retention group that 
is not chartered in a State or from an insur- 
er not admitted in the State in which the 
purchasing group is located, unless the pur- 
chase is effected through a licensed agent or 
broker acting pursuant to the surplus lines 
laws and regulations of such State.”’, 

SEC. 7. CONCERNING AUTHORITY OF STATES TO 
ENJOUIN CERTAIN CONDUCT. 

Section 3 (15 U.S.C. 3902), as amended by 
section 5(b) of this Act, is further amended 
by adding at the end the following new sub- 
section: 

“(e) Nothing in this section shall be con- 
strued to affect the authority of any Feder- 
al or State court to enjoin— 

“(1) the solicitation or sale of insurance by 
a risk retention group to any person who is 
not eligible for membership in such group; 
or 

“(2) the solicitation or sale of insurance 
by, or operation of, a risk retention group 
that is in hazardous financial condition or is 
financially impaired.”. 

SEC. 8, ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION OF PERMISSI- 
BLE STATE AUTHORITY. 

(a) CLARIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITY RE- 
SPECTING RISK RETENTION Groups.—Section 
3 (15 U.S.C. 3902), as amended by sections 
5(b) and 7 of this Act, is further amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsec- 
tions: 

“(DC1) Subject to the provisions of subsec- 
tion (a1G) (relating to injunctions) and 
paragraph (2), nothing in this Act shall be 
construed to affect the authority of any 
State to make use of any of its powers to en- 
force the laws of such State with respect to 
which a risk retention group is not exempt 
under this Act. 

“(2) If a State seeks an injunction regard- 
ing the conduct described in paragraphs (1) 
and (2) of subsection (e), such injunction 
must be obtained from a Federal or State 
court of competent jurisdiction. 

“(g) Nothing in this Act shall affect the 
authority of any State to bring action in 
any Federal or State court. 

“th) Nothing in this Act: shall be con- 
strued to affect the authority of any State 
to regulate or prohibit the ownership inter- 
est in a risk retention group by an insurance 
company in that State, other than in the 
case of ownership interest in a risk reten- 
tion group whose members are insurance 
companies.”’. 

(b) CLARIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITY 
RESPECTING PurcHasinc Groups.—Section 4 
(15 U.S.C. 3903), as amended by section 6 of 
this Act, is further amended— 

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘and sec- 
tion 6” after “section”; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following new 
subsections: 

“(g) Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
to affect the authority of any State to make 
use of any of its powers to enforce the laws 
of such State with respect to which a pur- 
chasing group is not exempt under this Act. 





October 9, 1986 


“(h) Nothing in this Act shall affect the 
authority of any State to bring an action in 
any Federal or State court.”. 

(c) OTHER CLARIFICATION.—The Act is fur- 
ther amended by adding at the end the fol- 
lowing new section: 


“CLARIFICATION CONCERNING PERMISSIBLE 
STATE AUTHORITY 

“Sec. 6. (a) Nothing in this Act shall be 
construed to exempt a risk retention group 
or purchasing group authorized under this 
Act from the policy form or coverage re- 
quirements of any State motor vehicle no- 
fault or motor vehicle financial responsibil- 
ity insurance law. 

“(b) The exemptions provided under this 
Act shall apply only to the provision of 
liability insurance by a risk retention group 
or the purchase or liability insurance by a 
purchasing group, and nothing in this Act 
shall. be construed to permit the provision 
or purchase of any other line of insurance 
by any such group. 

“(c) The terms of any insurance policy 
provided by a risk retention group or pur- 
chased by a purchasing group shall not pro- 
vide or be construed to provide insurance 
policy coverage prohibited generally by 
State statute or declared unlawful by the 
highest court of the State whose law applies 
to such policy. 

“(d) Subject to the provisions of section 
3(a)(4) relating to discrimination, nothing in 
this Act shall be construed to preempt the 
authority of a State to specify acceptable 
means of demonstrating financial responsi- 
bility where the State has required a dem- 
onstration of financial responsibility as a 
condition for obtaining a license or permit 
to undertake specified activities. Such 
means may include or exclude insurance 
coverage obtained from an admitted insur- 
ance company, an excess lines company, a 
risk retention group, or any other source re- 
gardless of whether coverage is obtained di- 
rectly from an insurance company or 
through a broker, agent, purchasing group, 
or any other person.”. 

SEC. 9. INJUNCTIVE POWERS OF FEDERAL COURTS. 

The Act, as amended by section 8(c) of 
this Act, is further amended by adding at 
the end the following new section: 


“INJUNCTIVE ORDERS ISSUED BY UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT COURTS 

“Sec. 7. Any district court of the United 
States may issue an order enjoining a risk 
retention group from soliciting or selling in- 
surance, or operating, in any State (or in all 
States) or in any territory or possession of 
the United States upon a finding of such 
court that such group is in hazardous finan- 
cial condition. Such order shall be binding 
on such group, its officers, agents, and em- 
ployees, and on any other person acting in 
active concert with any such officer, agent, 
or employee, if such other person has actual 
notice of such order.”’. 

SEC. 10. OVERSIGHT OF IMPLEMENTATION; REPORT 
TO CONGRESS 

(a) In GENERAL.—(1) Not later than Sep- 
tember 1, 1987, and not later than Septem- 
ber 1, 1989, the Secretary of Commerce 
shall submit reports to the Congress con- 
cerning implementation of this Act. 

(2) Such report shall be based on— 

(A) the Secretary’s consultation with 
State insurance commissioners, risk reten- 
tion groups, purchasing groups, and other 
interested parties; an 

(B) the Secretary’s analysis of other infor- 
mation available to the Secretary. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


(b) CONTENTS OF THE REPORT.—The report 
shall describe the Secretary’s views concern- 
ing— 

(1) the contribution of this Act toward 
resolution of problems relating to the un- 
availability and unaffordability of liability 
insurance; 

(2) the extent to which the structure of 
regulation and preemption established by 
this Act is satisfactory; 

(3) the extent to which, in the implemen- 
tation of this Act, the public is protected 
from unsound financial practices and other 
commercial abuses involving risk retention 
groups and purchasing groups; 

(4) the causes of any financial difficulties 
of risk retention groups and purchasing 
groups; 

(5) the extent. to which risk retention 
groups and purchasing groups have been 
discriminated against under State laws, 
practices, and procedures contrary to the 
provisions and underlying policy of this Act 
and the Product Liability Risk Retention 
Act (as amended by this Act); and 

(6) such other comments and conclusions 
as the Secretary deems relevant to assess- 
ment of the implementation of this Act. 

SEC, 11. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY. 

(a) GENERAL Rvuie.—Subject to subsection 
(b), this Act shall take effect on the date of 
its enactment. 

(b) SpectaL RULE REGARDING FEASIBILITY 
Srupy.—The provisions of section 3(d) of 
the Liability Risk Retention Act of 1986 (as 
added by section 5(b) of this Act), relating 
to the submission of a feasibility study, 
shall not apply with respect to any line or 
classification of liability insurance which— 

(1) was defined in the Product Liability 
Risk Retention Act of 1981 before the date 
of the enactment of this Act; and 

(2) was offered before such date of enact- 
ment by any risk retention group which has 
been chartered and operating for not less 
than 3 years before such date of enactment. 

(c) RuLE REGARDING POLLUTION LIABIL- 
ITy.— 

(1) Section 210 of the Superfund Amend- 
ments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 is 
amended by inserting “(a)"’ following “Pol- 
lution Liability Insurance” and adding at 
the end thereof the following: 

“(b) For purposes of subsection (a) of this 
section, the powers and authorities of States 
addressed by the Risk Retention Amend- 
ments of 1986 are in addition to those of 
this Act.”’. 

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed, 
interpreted or applied to diminish the obli- 
gations of any person to establish or main- 
tain evidence of financial responsibility or 
otherwise comply with any of the require- 
ments of Federal environmental laws, in- 
cluding but not limited to the Comprehen- 
sive Environmental Response, Compensa- 
tion and Liability Act of 1980 and the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act. 

SEC. 12. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMEND- 
ME 


(a) In THE SHorT TitTie.—Section 1 (15 
U.S.C. 3901, note) is amended to read as fol- 
lows: 

SHORT TITLE 

“SEcTION 1. This Act may be cited as the 
‘Liability Risk Retention Act of 1986’.” 

(b) In SEcTION 2(b).—Section 2(b) (15 
U.S.C. 3901(b)) is amended by striking 
“product liability and product liability in- 
surance” and inserting “liability, personal 
risk liability, and insurance”’. 

(c) In  Secrion 3(aX1C).—Section 
3aX1XC) (5 U.S.C. 3902(ax1KC)) is 


29957 


amended by striking “product liability or 
completed operations”’. 

(d) In Section 4(b).—Section 4(b) (15 
U.S.C. 3903(b)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘product 
liability or completed operations liability in- 
surance, and comprehensive general liability 
insurance which includes either of these 
coverages,” and inserting “liability insur- 
ance"; and 

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking “product 
liability or completed operations insurance, 
and comprehensive general”. 

Mr. FLORIO (during the reading). 
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as 
read and printed in the REcorp. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey? 

Mr. WALKER. Reserving the right 
to object, Mr. Speaker, I do so in order 
to discuss the issue that the gentle- 
man from Florida was given a chance 
to discuss. 

I had hoped that we could have a 
discussion about the resolution that 
was being brought to us by the gentle- 
man from Florida, so that I could at 
least clarify some points. It was rushed 
through the committee—— 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
Chair intends to take 1-minute speech- 
es, so the gentleman will have his op- 
portunity. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, the 
Chair would not recognize me for a 1- 
minute speech immediately following 
the gentleman from Florida, so that 
we could have a discussion kind of in 
context about this thing. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
Chair was honoring the Speaker's 
commitment to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Fiortio]. 

We will come back to 1-minutes after 
this. 

Mr. 
object. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objec- 
tion is heard. 

The Chair will 
speeches. 


WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I 


receive 1-minute 


A PEACE SCARE 


(Mr. JACOBS asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute.) 

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I have 
no objection to people making 1- 
minute speeches here, but people who 
waited in line for an hour or so it 
seems to me are entitled to go in the 
order in which they were waiting. 

I simply wanted to say that the tax- 
payers of this country may be some- 
what puzzled that at this late date our 
national administration still is doing 
all it can to prevent a mutually verifia- 
ble arms agreement with Russia. If 
you are puzzled about that, let me give 
you a hint. It is a peace scare. There is 
no money in arms control. 





29958 


YUGOSLAVIA TURNS ITS BACK 
ON JUSTICE 


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

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Speaker, 
Yugoslavia just made a mockery of 
justice in that country. Yesterday a 
Yugoslav judge sentenced a Michigan 
resident to 7 years in prison. Congres- 
sional appeals were ignored. Today 
Congressman FAsceLL, Congressman 
YaTron, Congressman SoLomon, and 
Congressman HERTEL and myself are 
introducing legislation which would 
suspend the most-favored-nation 
status of Yugoslavia. 

After illegally detaining Mr. Pjeter 
Ivezaj, a naturalized American citizen, 
Yugoslav authorities put him in jail. 
While denying U.S. Embassy officers 
access to him, that young man was 
sentenced to a long prison term. 

If that country continues to violate 
the rights of Mr. Ivezaj, and two other 
American citizens, why should that 
Government enjoy a special trade rela- 
tionship with America? 

Our bill would suspend most-fa- 
vored-nation ([MFN] status for that 
country. That special status would 
again be granted only if Yugoslavia re- 
leases Mr. Ivezaj and two other Ameri- 


Now is clearly the time to take a 
firm stand against the illegal impris- 
onment of innocent Americans. While 


I regret that this legislation is needed, 
Yugoslav officials appear not to under- 
stand America’s concern about the vio- 
lations of the rights of these innocent 
men. Now is the time for action. 

Anyone interested in cosponsoring 
this bill should contact my office. 


EXTOLLING ACHIEVEMENTS OF 
1986 NEW YORK METS 


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

Mr. WALDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise 
today to extol the achievements of the 
1986 New York Mets. 

We in New York have waited 13 long 
years for the opportunity to fly an- 
other championship pennant over 
Shea Stadium in Queens, and finally 
our time has come. 

This season’s record of 108 victories 
and only 54 losses tied an 11-year-old 
National League record of victories 
held by the 1975 Cincinnati Reds. This 
phenomenal statistic is a tribute to the 
entire Met organization. We must ac- 
knowledge the fine job that Frank 
Cashen has done in rebuilding this 
team since 1980 when he took over the 
helm as general manager. 

We applaud Davey Johnson and the 
entire Met coaching staff for their 
outstanding leadership this season. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


It is impossible to single out individ- 
ual players for their accomplishment 
this season due to the depth and ag- 
gressive play of the entire team. 

I commend the 1986 New York Mets 
on their memorable season and look 
forward to the return of the world 
championship to its rightful home, the 
Big Apple, New York. 

Furthermore, to show my faith in 
the New York Mets in the National 
League championship series against 
the Houston Astros, I have wagered 
with my dear friend, Congressman 
Mickey LELAND, from down Houston 
way, the best seafood dinner available 
in my district if the Astros should win. 
However, when the Mets win, he has 
promised me the best barbecue dinner 
in all of Houston, TX. 


O 1045 


CHOPPING OFF THE TAIL OF 
THE DRAGON PIECEMEAL 


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

Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, 
the fundamental weakness of the 
Gramm-Rudman therapy for curing 
budget deficits is to be found in its 
failure to realize that you can’t cut off 
the tail of the dragon by bits and 
pieces, because the dragon will destroy 
you between two such tail-trimming 
sessions. We are offered the choice be- 
tween a huge budget deficit and a 
slightly trimmed budget deficit. The 
average citizen may perhaps be forgiv- 
en if he asks why in the name of 
heaven we don't have a choice be- 
tween deficit and surplus. 

The political economists in our Gov- 
ernment—Keynesians and other sup- 
porters of a governmentally managed 
economy—are able to further the po- 
litical and social revolution in behalf 
of such an economy chiefly because of 
the powers which the Government 
gained over the people when irredeem- 
able fiat currency was thrust upon 
them in 1971. 

Support by some or many of our so- 
called leaders of the use of irredeem- 
able currency, of a governmentally 
managed economy, of continuing de- 
basement of our dollar, of continuing 
budget deficits on a more moderate 
scale, and monetization of the national 
debt invovied the risk of ruining our 
money and this Nation, long before 
the Gramm-Rudman timetable runs 
out. 

The great majority of influential 
leaders in this country, who profess to 
be advocates of private enterprise and 
human freedom and sound procedures 
by our Government, either do not un- 
derstand this fact or do not face up to 
it. Instead, they utter futile words in 
opposition to big Government and 
either ride with the tide running 
toward a governmentally managed 


October 9, 1986 


economy or unwittingly further this 
movement. 

Keynes in his best days—before he 
became an advocate of a governmen- 
tally managed economy—made a pene- 
trating statement in his book, The 
Economic Consequences of the Peace 
(Harcourt, Brace and Howe, New 
York, 1920), p. 236: 

The process of debauching the curreny 
engages all the hidden forces of economic 
law on the side of destruction, and does it in 
a@ manner which not one man in a million is 
able to diagnose. 

Perhaps it is historically true that no 
order of society ever perishes, save by its 
own hand. (Ibid., p. 238.) 

Instead of trying to chop off the tail 
of the dragon piecemeal, we should go 
for its head, and chop it off with one 
stroke. This can be accomplished by 
fixing the gold content of the dollar, 
which would immediately eliminate 
the huge depreciation premium in the 
interest payments. It takes courage to 
attack the dragon head on, but we 
cannot shrink from the task of saving 
what Keynes called the order of socie- 
ty. 


STAY IN SESSION TO OVERRIDE 
THREATENED VETO 


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

Mr. KOSTMAYER. Mr. Speaker, 
yesterday the House passed the con- 
ference report reauthorizing Super- 
fund, surely the environmental vote of 
1986. A Presidential veto, however, 
threatens the program. 

If we go home now, we may soon 
have to explain to our constituents not 
how we ensured their protection, but 
why we left the job undone. 

If we go home now, the Superfund 
reauthorization may not become law. 

If we go home now, Superfund may 
fall victim to Presidential neglect, 
halting hundreds of cleanups nation- 
wide. 

If we go home now, we may come 
back in January to a new Congress, an 
unwilling victim of a pocket veto 
which would destroy 3 years of hard 
work by two Chambers and half a 
dozen committees. 

If we go home now, we may find our- 
selves not proud of what we have 
done, but ashamed of what we have 
left undone. 

Despite two. short-term funding 
measures, the failure to reauthorize 
the program has delayed planning or 
cleanup at more than 200 sites across 
the country. EPA has already notified 
Superfund contractors that they could 
be laid off in 30 days. This must not 
happen, Mr. Speaker. Stay in session, 
and when the Reagan veto comes, 
override it. 





October 9, 1986 


DO NOT USE CONTINUING RESO- 
LUTION TO DIRECT FOREIGN 
POLICY 


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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, this is the 
ninth day of the 1987 fiscal year. We 
still have no appropriation bill or ap- 
propriation bills to run this Govern- 
ment. Oh, yes, we have passed two 
temporary continuing resolutions, one 
for 8 days, another for 2 days, and we 
are about to take up another one to 
run us for another 4 days. 

Mr. Speaker, this is no way to run a 
railroad. This is no way to run the 
Government of the most powerful 
nation of the free world. We as an in- 
stitution have failed dismally in our 
responsibility of passing appropriation 
bills, of adhering to the budget process 
and meeting the deadlines we estab- 
lish for ourselves. We have failed to 
give fiscal direction to this Govern- 
ment. 

If we cannot follow the established 
appropriation and budget process, at 
the very least I urge the leadership of 
this body and of this Congress to give 
us a continuing resolution to run this 
Government for the coming year, a 
continuing resolution that does not at- 
tempt to direct the foreign policy of 
the United States at this critical junc- 
ture of United States-Soviet relations. 
Let us not send our President off to 
Reykjavik with this cloud, this doubt, 
over our Nation’s foreign policy. 

Let us pass a continuing resolution 
that does what it is supposed to do— 
fund Government operations for this 
Nation for the coming year. Then let 
us leave this city; let us leave the 99th 
Congress; but let us leave with our 
head held high. 


KEEPING SALT II CONSTRAINTS 
MAKES SENSE 


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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, President 
Reagan has said this week that the 
House of Representatives is trying to 
tie his hands on arms control issues 
before his dialog with Soviet Leader 
Gorbachev this weekend. This must be 
another vestige of the administration's 
disinformation campaign, because 
nothing could be further from the 
truth. The House is not tying his 
hands. We have made a series of pro- 
posals to the other body and to the ad- 
ministration that they have simply 
stonewalled. Rather, we are trying to 
send him over to Iceland and then on 
to the next Summit meeting in the 
best possible negotiation position. We 
are insisting that the policy the ad- 
ministration has followed since 1981— 
preserving the restraint of the SALT 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


II treaty—should be maintained as we 
seek new and more substantial arms 
reduction agreements with the Soviet 
Union. Keeping SALT II constraints 
makes sense, both from a military per- 
spective and because our allies and the 
American people believe that the 
United States should go the extra mile 
on exercising restraint on the arms 
race. The House has gone the extra 
mile. We are ready to compromise, Mr. 
President, but we are not ready to sur- 
render our constitutional responsibil- 
ities. 


HONEST ELECTIONS ARE A 
CIVIL RIGHT 


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

Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, for 
years political humorists have joked 
about Democratic Party vote stealing. 
From Tammany Hall to the Cook 
County, IL, machine to the Lyndon 
Johnson Senate race in Texas, voting 
theft by Democrats provided jokes for 
comedians. In Georgia, the Atlanta 
Journal won a Pulitzer Prize for arti- 
cles on Democratic vote theft. 

In recent years it has been estimated 
that 100,000 votes were stolen in Chi- 
cago in 1982. In Indiana a number of 
Democratic election officials have 
been indicted. In the last decade, two 
Democatic Congressmen from Louisi- 
ana have resigned under indictment, 
and one went to jail for stealing elec- 
tions. 

Recently, some Democrats have 
been defending the right of dead 
people to vote and of vacant lots to 
participate in elections. 

Purging dead voters and departed 
voters is a key to honest elections. 
Some precincts in America are as dis- 
honest as those we condemned Marcos 
for in the Philippines. Honest elec- 
tions are a civil right, and the Ameri- 
can people should demand honest elec- 
tions. 


NEW HOPE FOR DEMOCRACY IN 
TAIWAN 


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

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, 
behind the headlines, virtually out of 
sight, an old friend of America, a 
friend of new importance to America, 
is undergoing change. I speak of 
Taiwan, the Republic of China. 

Last week a new political party, the 
Democratic Progressive Party, was 
formed. The ruling KMT responded 
with genuine restraint. On Wednes- 
day, 37 years after its imposition, mar- 
tial law was lifted. So, without vio- 
lence, as we have seen in Korea, with- 


29959 


out the trauma of the Philippines, 
change is coming to Taiwan. 

It is welcome. Taiwan, the people of 
China, deserve a democracy as great as 
the economic miracle that they repre- 
sent. Now there is new hope that it 
will be realized. 


SIGN THE PLEDGE TO OPPOSE A 
TAX INCREASE 


(Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois asked and 
was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and 
extend her remarks.) 

Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois. Mr. Speak- 
er, I have joined many of my col- 
leagues in pledging to the taxpayers of 
this Nation that I will oppose any 
effort to increase marginal tax rates 
for individuals and businesses from 
the rates established in the recently 
passed tax bill. 

I am afraid that if we do not make 
this pledge, taxpayers will notice a 
rate creep and wonder whatever hap- 
pened to that tax reform bill. If the 
positive effects of the tax bill are 
going to have any impact, the rates 
must be maintained at a constant 
level. If we want to reap the promise 
of economic growth and job creation 
from tax reform we must give it a 
chance to work. 

Some Members of Congress are es- 
pousing the need for a tax increase. 
That is one reason I am signing this 
pledge. The one area that should not 
see a tax increase is the marginal tax 
rate for individuals. I cannot think of 
@ more counterproductive move for 
our economy. With passage of the tax 
reform bill, taxpayers lost deductions 
and credits in exchange for lower 
rates. To increase the rates now would 
be a breach of faith. 

I urge all my colleagues to sign this 
pledge so that taxpayers do not have 
to fear a tax increase. 


0 1055 


TARGETING AREAS OF HIGH 
UNEMPLOYMENT FOR’ GOV- 
ERNMENT WORK 


(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.) 

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, one 
of America's great injustices is that we 
have not targeted areas of high unem- 
ployment for Government work. I 
know there is some language in the 
rule such as labor surplus areas, but 
basically we never apply that particu- 
lar language when it comes to award- 
ing these contracts. 

One of the companies in my district, 
General Fireproofing, is in line for a 
GSA award. They deal with metal fur- 
nishings. No one in America can 
produce these particular products any 
better, and if we are overlooked at this 





29960 


particular time it would be a shame 
for the people of my valley. 

During World War II we met the 
surge of the industrial need, and now 
we are forgotten. General Fireproof- 
ing did not forget Youngstown, they 
did not move to the high tech areas. 
They stayed and they weathered the 
storm, and now~Congress should be 
taking every measure to give these 
particular types of contracts to areas 
of high skill and high unemployment. 

T'am asking Congress to look at our 
labor surplus laws and put some teeth 
into them. 


TOO MANY PRESIDENTS 


(Mrs. ;BENTLEY asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend 
her remarks.) 

Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, we 
have witnessed many strange things 
during this. Congress. Perhaps the 
strangest is the failure to do the job 
the Constitution, assigns to the Con- 
gress and the attempt to do the job as- 
signed to the President. 

Given that the House leadership has 
not been able or willing, to conclude 
appropriation legislation, it is outra- 
geous that it seeks to run the foreign 
affairs of the Nation. We havea con- 
tinuing resolution pending which legis- 
lates executive actions in arms control 
negotiations. 

If these. negotiations were so easy 
and. straightforward, we wouldn't 
really. need a President to set and exe- 
cute foreign policy. The success, of 
Congress in doing what it is required 
to do leaves no room for confidence in 
its ability to set policy in arms control 
or in other areas of foreign policy. 

It is time to recognize that this 
Nation is badly served by having Con- 
gress assume the role of a foreign 
policy board. We owe it to the country 
to give the President some room to do 
his job in arms control and interna- 
tional affairs in general. Let us get a 
clean continuing resolution on the 
floor, do our job and let the President 
do his. 

The safety and well being of the 
Nation must come before partisan pol- 
itics. The President deserves the 
chance to negotiate in the dangerous 
waters of international arms control 
without the heckling of 435 little 
presidents. Give us a clean continuing 
resolution. 


A BILL TO BAN SMOKING ON 
ALL DOMESTIC AIRLINE 
FLIGHTS 
(Mr. SCHEUER asked and was given 

permission to address the House for 1 

minute and to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Speaker, in an 
effort to improve the environment on 
board domestic airline flights, and pro- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


tect the health and safety of the pas- 
sengers and crew, today I am introduc- 
ing legislation to. ban smoking on all 
domestic airline flights, 

The National Research Council of 
the National Academy of Sciences re- 
cently completed an 18-month study 
at the request of Congress on the issue 
of air quality and safety in commercial 
airliner cabins. 

The Council has called for a Federal 
ban on smoking on all domestic com- 
mercial airline flights to improve the 
health and safety of airline passengers 
and cabin crews. 

The scientific-panel concluded that 
both passengers and; crew members 
were harmed by, drifting smoke in air- 
craft cabins and that cigarette smok- 
ing posed a significant fire hazard on 
board as well. 

Dr. C. Everett Koop, the Surgeon 
General of the United States, has re- 
peatedly and forcefully pointed out 
the health hazards of passive smoking. 

This bill will lessen irritation and 
discomfort to passengers, reduce po- 
tential health hazards to cabin crews, 
bring cabin air quality into line with 
standards established for other closed 
environments, and remove the _ possi- 
bility of fires caused by cigarettes. 

With 28 percent of the American 
public taking at least one trip a year, 
and with some 70,000 flight attendants 
working long hours inside smoke-filled 
planes, the time has come to do away 
with smoke on board. 

I ask my colleagues to join me in 
this comfort improving, health en- 
hancing, and life-saving effort. 


MANAGING FOREIGN POLICY 


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

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, noboby 
in this body will quarrel with the 
proposition that we should and. indeed 
must address questions of foreign af- 
fairs and international relations. 
There are serious questions that must 
be addressed, and certainly questions 
that will be addressed by the President 
in Iceland, and we’certainly are inter- 
ested. 

But the fact that we have elected to 
address these issues not. through. our 
constituted Foreign Affairs Commit- 
tees where the research and the study 
and the hearings, can be held, but 
through the continuing resolution, 
makes it very, very difficult not only 
for the President to negotiate in Ice- 
land, but for us to complete our work 
here. 

The American people are watching 


us go through a series of short-term 1- 
and 2-day continuing resolutions be- 


cause we do not seem to be able to 
fund the 1987 budget. The reason we 
cannot do that is we have tried to leg- 


October 9, 1986 


islate foreign affairs in appropriation 
bills and. in continuing resolutions. 

Our inability to adhere to our own 
rules in that regard has made it diffi- 
cult not only for us to complete our 
business, but for the President to com- 
plete his. 


INTEREST ON PASSBOOK 
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS 


(Mr. ST GERMAIN asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend 
his remarks.) 

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Speaker, I 
find it particularly disturbing that 
many banks across the country have 
begun to lower the fixed 5.5-percent 
interest rate they pay on passbook sav- 
ings accounts. This is not what the 
Congress intended when it passed leg- 
islation designed to remove this inter- 
est rate cap and thus ensure that 
small savers be paid a market rate on 
their money. 

For years, Federal law prevented 
banks from offering more than _5.5- 
percent interest on passbook savings 
accounts. In 1980, I was successful in 
pushing through a change in the law 
to authorize the phaseout of the 
unfair limitations on what consumers 
could be paid on their savings. This 
April, the phaseout became complete. 
Despite this, banks have been choos- 
ing to pay less than 5.5-percent. inter- 
est. Indeed, some banks are offering as 
little as 4 percent. 

Peanuts may be fine for elephants, 
but not for the consumer. The: small 
saver deserves a fair return on his or 
her money. Recent figures show that 
Super-NOW accounts are offering 6.41 
percent interest and U.S. savings 
bonds 7.02. 

The Congress. voted to phase out the 
ceilings on passbook savings accounts 
at the urging. of small savers who 
could not meet the then stiff mini- 
mum balance requirements for higher 
yielding money market accounts. 

Yet here we are in 1986 and small 
savers are no better off than they 
were in 1980. 

There are a few bright spots, howev- 
er. In my home State of Rhode Island, 
People’s Trust Co. is offering 5.8 per- 
cent on its savings accounts, while 
Marquette Credit Union in Woon- 
socket is offering 6.8 percent. Across 
the country, others are following suit. 

But more needs to be done. I urge all 
federally insured financial institutions 
to give consumers the best break possi- 
ble on their passbook savings ac- 
counts. Otherwise, I have no qualms 
about urging these same consumers to 


move their estimated $327 billion in 
passbook savings accounts to other 


higher yielding accounts, no matter 
how much the banking industry “doth 
protest.” 





October 9, 1986 


ON THE ROAD TO FREEDOM IN 
TAIWAN 


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

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the 
President of the Republic of China, 
Chiang Ching-kuo announced yester- 
day that his government will soon end 
martial law on Taiwan. Earlier this 
year, the first opposition party, the 
Democratic Progressive Party, was 
granted permission to operate in 
Taiwan. 

The end of martial law will mean 
the end of trials of-civilians in military 
courts, and. the. removal of some. re- 
strictions on personal freedoms. 

Mr: Speaker, the fear of Commu- 
nists and invasion by mainland China 
has evoked certain repressive practices 
in Taiwan over the last 40 years. Presi- 
dent Chiang’s decision to fight com- 
munism through greater freedom and 
democracy will prove to be the most 
powerful weapon available. 

I applaud the judgment of the Tai- 
wanese Government. Their decision is 
an example to other regimes to ob- 
serve. Taiwan, and United States- 
Taiwan relations, will be the stronger 
for it. 


DREIER AMENDMENT TO 
IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL 


(Mr. DREIER of California asked 
and: was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise 
and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. DREIER of | California. Mr. 
Speaker, today we are going to begin 
consideration of the immigration 
reform bill. There ‘is a very important 
amendment: which I am going to be 
joining my colleague from California, 
Mr. Moorweap, in. offering which 
makes this not only an immigration 
reform bill, but also an anti-drug bill 
and an anti-terrorism bill. 

The amendment the gentleman from 
California {Mr. MoorHeap] and I are 
going to. be. offering will bring about a 
50-percent. increase, inthe border 
patrol. Never before have we had a 
higher number of people flowing 
across our southern borders into the 
United States, and I believe, Mr. 
Speaker, it is very important that we 
pass this amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to join us. 


NEW RESEARCH ON CHRISTO- 
PHER COLUMBUS’ FIRST LAND- 
ING 


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

Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Speaker, who has 
ever heard of Samana Cay—and what 
does it mean anyway? 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


To understand the remarkable feat 
of Christopher Columbus almost 500 
years ago—it may mean a great deal. 

Yesterday, on the eve of our Na- 
tion’s annual observance and celebra- 
tion of Columbus Day—the results of a 
5-year investigation into Columbus’ 
trip was released. 

The main conelusion—Columbus did 
not land on. Watling Island—later 
named San Salvador. 

Instead he landed.65 miles to the 
south at Samana Cay. 

This new research does, not put into 
dispute that Columbus was.the first 
person.to discover the New World. 

If anything, it serves to enhance Co- 
lumbus and his 30-day, 3,000-mile mis- 
sion of destiny. 

In fact, the New York Times today 
said the new study serves as further 
proof that Columbus was an incredible 
seaman, 

As we prepare to celebrate Columbus 
Day,, 1986, let us ponder the extraordi- 
nary nature of Columbus’ undertak- 
ing. 

As we approach the 500th anniversa- 
ry of this historic mission, let us re- 
flect on the significance of Columbus 
to our Nation’s history. 

When we do—we will conclude that 
the issue is not so much where Colum- 
bus landed—as the fact that he did, 
and from the time he touched his, foot 
on New World soil, the world was 
never the same. 


O 1105 


PLEDGE NO TAX INCREASES ON 
AMERICAN’S SMALL BUSINESS- 
ES AND FAMILIES 


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

Mr. SWINDALL. Mr. Speaker, on 
behalf of the American family and the 
small businesses in America, and the 
budgets of the American family and 
those small businesses, I call on my 
colleagues to sign the no tax increase 
pledge. 

Until the current administration 
took office, for nearly two decades the 
American family and small businesses 
were asked to yield to the Federal 
budget. For the last several years we 
have given those businesses and the 
American family renewed hope. We 
have told them that they can begin to 
spend more of their disposable income 
for their families, and to assure them 
the type of opportunities that America 
has always stood for. 

Already, however, there is a clamor 
for a tax increase. What they are 
really saying is, ‘It’s time for the Fed- 
eral budget to take precedent once 
again over the family budget.” 

We have seen the President of the 
United States make a pledge of no tax 
increase, and in 1984, over 60 percent 


29961 


of the American people signed that no 
tax increase pledge with him. 

I ask my colleagues to please give 
consideration to the fact that it was 
America’s families and America’s small 
businesses. that made this country 
great. We cannot afford to penalize 
them by raising their taxes once again. 


THE NO TAX INCREASE PLEDGE 


(Mr. LOTT asked and was given per- 
mission to address. the. House for 1 
minute. and to revise and extend his 
remarks.) 

Mr,. LOTT. Mr.. Speaker, I am 
pleased to inform my curious col- 
leagues on the other side of the aisle 
that the administration’s October sur- 
prise is under your noses. Yes; the 
President has managed to confound 
and surprise the skeptics, to the de- 
light of the American people, by 
making good on his .pledge. in last 
year’s State of the Union Address.to 
work with Congress on a bipartisan 
tax reform bill. that would be marked 
by fairness, growth, and lower. rates. 
That historic and sweeping measure 
will be signed into law this month. 

But, I would. point out that the 
President also. pledged in that message 
that ‘‘tax reform will not be * * * a tax 
increase in disguise.’ The. tax. bill 
keeps that pledge; but we will be vio- 
lating it if we turn around next, year, 
as some on the other side have pro- 
posed, and enact a tax increase. That 
would turn October’s pleasant surprise 
into next year's big chill and future 
shock for American taxpayers. I urge 
my colleagues to sign the no tax in- 
crease pledge now and keep faith with 
your constituents. 


WE SHOULD NOT TIE THE 
PRESIDENT’S HANDS IN ARMS 
CONTROL PRIOR TO THE MINI- 
SUMMIT 


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

Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Speaker, 
my colleagues, as we meet here this 
morning, the President is on his way 
to Iceland to meet with Secretary Gor- 
bachev. I would urge that this House 
and the other body present a full .con- 
tinuing resolution with no arms con- 
trol restrictions attached thereto. We 
should not tie the President’s hands 
before the summit, and we should not, 
my colleagues, surrender the U.S. 
arms .control. bargaining position 
before the bargaining even begins. 


OPPOSE ANY EFFORT TO 
INCREASE TAX RATES 


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





29962 


Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I am 
glad to join ConnrE Mack and other 
colleagues in opposing any effort to in- 
crease tax rates. 

On the surface, this is an economic 
issue. But it goes deeper than that. It 
is, in my view, a promise we in Con- 
gress have made to the American 
people, a promise we ought to keep. 

Tax reform and tax rate reduction 
are not academic exercises—they are 
the very heart of a movement toward 
expanded freedom for all Americans, 
especially the most disadvantaged and 
the poor. 

When we passed the tax reform bill, 
the Speaker, in remarks before the 
House, said that this tax reform bill 
was one of the most effective means of 
fighting poverty he had seen in a half 
dozen years. 

With all respect, I would say it is the 
best antipoverty bill we have passed in 
a generation. So, we agree on the basic 
idea. 

There was once a time when you 
could divide the economic issues from 
the social issues. But that time has 
long since passed. 

Tax rate reduction and tax reform 
are indeed social issues as much as 
they are economic issues because they 
have an impact on every individual, 
every family. 

That is why they are so important 
and we should do all we can to keep 
tax rates low. 


HOUSE LEGISLATION GIVES SO- 
VIETS MUCH OF WHAT THEY 
WISH TO ACHIEVE AT REYKJA- 
VIK 


(Mr. SHUMWAY asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.) 

Mr. SHUMWAY. Mr. Speaker, I find 
it difficult to understand what the 
House hopes to accomplish by legislat- 
ing to the benefit of the Soviet Union. 
Our version of the controversial and 
much heralded omnibus spending bill 
contains provisions which quite literal- 
ly bestow upon the U.S.S.R. much of 
what that nation hopes to achieve at 
the negotiating table. We are propos- 
ing bans on nuclear testing, antisatel- 
lite weapons testing, and chemical 
weapons production, as well as SALT 
II compliance and a freeze on SDI 
funding. We are unilaterally granting 
to the U.S.S.R. concessions that they 
would be unlikely to win without 
giving something in return. What can 
we be thinking about? Our actions do 
nothing to serve the cause of national 
security; they do nothing to promote 
our image as a unified and strong 
nation in the Soviets’ eyes, and they 
do nothing to secure mutual, verifia- 
ble, and equitable arms reduction. 

The House is taking irresponsible 
action, action which has grave implica- 
tions. Moreover, it is action which this 
body has absolutely no constitutional 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


right to pursue. Now is the time for 
this Congress to present a unified 
front, standing squarely behind the 
President as he travels to meet with 
his Soviet counterpart. 


TYING THE PRESIDENT’S 
HANDS? 

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, you 
announced your summit while the 
House and Senate were trying to re- 
solve our differences on arms control 
policy. Our reaction has been to say, 
“Yes, we want a summit. We will not 
tie your hands. We will postpone our 
meetings and wave to you in unison 
from the water’s edge; but, Mr. Presi- 
dent, we will not abandon our princi- 
ples.” 

We have offered to put resolution of 
these arms control issues until after 
the summit, but the President has 
been unwilling to accept our offer. 
Why? Because this President does not 
really want a consensus on arms con- 
trol. He wants a showdown. He wants 
to show the right wing of the Republi- 
can Party that he is still rough and 
tough in the aftermath of the Dani- 
loff case. 

That is why the President is playing 
partisan politics with the summit. 
That is why he is making no effort to 
forge a consensus in Washington 
before he gets on the plane for Ice- 
land. 

The Democrats would like to stand 
at the water’s edge waving and wishing 
the President luck as he leaves for Ice- 
land. The problem is, the Republicans 
are not waving; they are trying to 
push the Democratic heads under the 
water. 

Mr. President, Democrats are not 
looking for a confrontation. It is you 
and your advisers. You are leaving us 
no other choice but to fight. We will 
not surrender our principles. 


JUST WHO IS ENGAGING IN 
PARTISAN POLITICS HERE? 


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

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, we just 
heard an exercise in some of the most 
partisan politics we have had on the 
floor. To come to the floor and suggest 
that the President is engaged in parti- 
san politics when he attempts to have 
a firm negotiating position when he 
goes to face Secretary Gorbachey I 
think is somewhat disingenuous. 

I think that what we need to have is 
a united country behind the President 
as he goes to negotiate and not the 
suggestion that at some point in the 
future that this House is going to 


October 9, 1986 


demand that certain portions of the 
Soviet negotiating position be adopted 
unilaterally here rather than negotiat- 
ed at summit conferences. 

I would hope that the President of 
the United States would be given the 
backing of this House and to be given 
the backing of the American people as 
a whole to do what he thinks is in the 
best interests of the country as he ne- 
gotiates with General Secretary Gor- 
bachev. 

To suggest that that is partisan poli- 
tics I think is to suggest what should 
never be. 


INSISTING ON ARMS CONTROL 


(Mr. COLEMAN of Texas asked and 
was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and 
extend his remarks.) 

Mr. COLEMAN of Texas. Mr. Speak- 
er, it is proper and indeed our duty as 
members of the Democratic Party to 
ask the President to continue to abide 
by the SALT II arms control treaty. 

We do not seek to tie his hands at 
the upcoming summit in Iceland; in 
fact, we even offer to put off all con- 
sideration of any arms control issue 
until next March. Our request to 
adhere to SALT II should only be seen 
as a reminder to the President that 
continued adherence has been his own 
policy for the last 6 years. 

SALT II is verifiable, and we do 
indeed possess the national technical 
means by which to monitor Soviet 
compliance with the treaty. It is this 
verification upon which the adminis- 
tration bases its statements that the 
Soviets are adhering to the numerical 
limits of the SALT II Treaty but possi- 
bly violating some of its subsections. 

Mr. Speaker, we wish our President 
well. We as a nation can only have one 
voice to represent us at the Iceland 
summit, and I find myself in disagree- 
ment with those on the far right who 
complain that the President should 
not even be discussing arms control 
with the Soviet Union. We do not wish 
to tie his hands. We wish him well, we 
wish him success, and we wish him 
Godspeed in the effort to end the spi- 
raling nuclear arms race. 


CONSIDERING A NEW RULE ON 
THE IMMIGRATION BILL 


(Mr. SHAW asked and was given per- 
mission to address the House for 1 
minute.) 

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, in a few 
moments we will begin debate again 
on a rule which will bring the immi- 
gration bill here to the floor of the 
House. I, along with a majority of the 
Members of this House opposed the 
last rule, the last time it came out be- 
cause it was a, what we considered an 
unfair rule; it was a gag rule, and one 





October 9, 1986 


that did not deserve the majority sup- 
port of this House. 

However, there have been a great 
deal of negotiations going on between 
members of the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lun- 
GREN], the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Mazzour], the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Ropino] and other 
Members of the House; and for the 
first time, they have brought together 
a rule that I think is acceptable and 
one that we should go forward with. 

I urge all Members to look hard at 
what we have. The alternative is to do 
nothing. Pass the rule so we can get on 
with some meaningful immigration 
reform in this country. 


O 1115 
LET’S UNTIE THE PRESIDENT'S 
HANDS 


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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speak- 
er, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
CoLeMAN] has stated that we should 
do what we have already negotiated 
and abide by the SALT II Treaty. I 
would remind the gentleman from 
Texas that the SALT II Treaty was 
never ratified by the U.S. Senate, in 
1980, a U.S. Senate that was controlled 
by the party of the gentleman from 
Texas rather than the party of Presi- 
dent Reagan. 

Furthermore, the provisions of the 
SALT II Treaty had expiration times, 
and the entire SALT II Treaty, even if 
it had been ratified, would have ex- 
pired by now. 

There is no reason on Earth why the 
President of the United States, who 
represents everyone in this country, 
Republicans, Democrats, and _ inde- 
pendents alike, should have to negoti- 
ate with the House of Representatives 
at the same time he is negotiating 
with General Secretary Gorbachev. 

Let us untie the President’s hands, 
let him do the right thing. He has 
been supported by the people of this 
country and he should be given a 
chance to fulfill that trust. 


THE PLIGHT OF CUBAN 
POLITICAL PRISONERS 


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

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, 
today we are once again scheduled to 
take up consideration of H.R. 3810, 
the immigration bill. I believe that im- 
migration reform is essential—as we 
all know, it is also very controversial. 
Negotiations on the more controver- 
sial aspects of this bill have been suc- 
cessfully completed, and we will see 
action on this bill. As an active partici- 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 


pant in the ongoing debate over immi- 
gration reform, I have consistently at- 
tempted to focus attention on several 
aspects of illegal immigration which 
have been consistently overlooked. 
Two of my amendments have been in- 
corporated into the text of the bill 
which we are considering today. Both 
of these amendments address impor- 
tant issues in immigration reform. 

The first amendment exempts 
Cuban political prisoners from certain 
visa restrictions. Presently the INS 
will not give visas to individuals who 
are trying to enter this country from a 
third country. Thus Cuban political 
prisoners who have successfully left 
Cuba and made it to another country 
such as Panama or Mexico are denied 
visas to enter this country. This action 
effectively turns these individuals 
back over to Castro—they have left 
Cuba with the goal of achieving free- 
dom in this country—and then they 
are denied that freedom. The policy of 
this administration, designed purport- 
edly to punish Castro backfires and 
the people who suffer are the Cuban 
political prisoners who so desperately 
need our help. My amendment, as part 
of the text of this bill, will no longer 
allow the INS to deny these Cuban po- 
litical prisoners entrance into the 
United States from third countries. I 
believe that this measure is a clear 
signal to this administration that they 
must take clear and decisive action to 
assist Cuban political prisoners obtain 
the freedom they so desire. 

My second amendment incorporated 
into the text of this bill is designed to 
stimulate border revitalization. It au- 
thorizes the President to negotiate 
with the Government of Mexico for 
the establishment of a free trade and 
coproduction zone in the United 
States-Mexico borderlands. A major 
reason we have such a problem with il- 
legal immigration into this country is 
because of the dire economic circum- 
stances being experienced in other 
countries. The problem is particularly 
acute in the United Statesd-Mexico 
border region, with adverse conse- 
quences for residents of both sides of 
the border. The purpose of this 
amendment is to stimulate production 
in the region on both sides of the 
border. A_ revitalized border zone 
would have several benefits—by stimu- 
lating the economy in the region it 
would provide jobs for Americans on 
the American side of the border—at 
the same time, by giving the economy 
on the Mexican side of the border a 
boost, it would help to halt the tide of 
illegal immigrants coming across the 
border in search of economic opportu- 
nity. 

I believe that immigration reform is 
of the utmost importance—stemming 
the tide of illegal immigrants into this 
country is vital. My amendments ad- 
dress several important aspects of this 


29963 


bill—I urge my colleagues’ support for 
them. 


REMOVE ARMS CONTROL LAN- 
GUAGE FROM THE CONTINU- 
ING RESOLUTION 


(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.) 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I 
know we have all slept soundly know- 
ing that the management of the arms 
control negotiations was in the hands 
of the right people: All 435 of them! 

It occurs to me that the President, 
upon successful completion of his 
meetings with Secretary Gorbachev in 
Iceland, should then arrange a summit 
with those Members of the House who 
seek to tie his hands as he sits at the 
negotiating table. 

There is no place in the continuing 
resolution for arms control language. 
The majority should realize this and 
allow the President and his negotia- 
tors to continue the business of effec- 
tive arms control. The House of Rep- 
resentatives does nothing more than 
present an appearance of discord 
before the Soviets, who naturally will 
have no need to concede in negotia- 
tions what we, the U.S. House of Rep- 
resentatives, will give to them. 
Remove the arms control language 
from the continuing resolution and re- 
store a united front when the Presi- 
dent meets with the Soviets. 


LET PRESIDENT REAGAN NEGO- 
TIATE FROM A POSITION OF 
STRENGTH 


(Mr. DAUB asked and was given per- 
mission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks.) 

Mr. DAUB. Mr. Speaker, some who 
have been watching the 1-minutes 
may wonder now just what is every- 
body talking about? I think it might 
be wise to spread upon the Recorp the 
five principal positions of the Demo- 
cratic Party with respect to negotiat- 
ing arms reduction. 

The argument today in the 1-min- 
utes is all about a nuclear testing mor- 
atorium, adherence to a nonratified 
SALT II Treaty on the sublimits, 
which is selective, fiscal restrictions on 
SDI, a moratorium on antisatellite 
testing systems, and a ban on chemical 
weapons. 

I think it is very clear that this 
President, neither in Iceland nor when 
the summit comes to the United 
States in March or April of next year, 
should not be in a position to have an- 
nounced in the newspapers unilateral 
concessions and therefore be unable to 
negotiate an arms control package by 
getting a quid pro quo, getting conces- 
sions from the Soviets. 





29964 


The Democrats would ask us to ne- 
gotiate after we have made the conces- 
sions. I think the American people 
want us to negotiate from a position of 
strength and get concessions from the 
Soviets in return for ours at the bar- 
gaining table. 


AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY 
SHOULD LEAVE OUR SHORES 
WITH ONE VOICE 


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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I think 
my colleagues who preceded me have 
made it clear that American foreign 
policy should leave our shores with 
one voice, and this House has passed a 
resolution to the effect that we should 
abide by SALT II even though we 
agree that the Soviets are substantial- 
ly violating SALT II in encrypting te- 
lemetry and building the SS-25. 

I would say simply that the attempt 
by Democrats to inject themselves 
into the arms control process as adver- 
saries to the President of the United 
States is unprecedented in American 
history and it does a disservice to na- 
tional defense. 


EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR 
PRESIDENT REAGAN IN HIS 
MEETING IN ICELAND 


Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Commit- 
tee on Foreign Affairs be discharged 
from further consideration of the con- 
current resolution (H. Con. Res. 406) 


expressing support ffor President 
Reagan in his October 11-12 meeting 
with General Secretary Gorbachev in 
Reykjavik, Iceland, and for other pur- 
poses, and ask for its immediate con-