EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS - GPO · A bill for the relief of Sophia Sanchez; ... PA'I"I'EN, RoE, Ro ......

36856 amended, and for other purposes; to the committee on Education and Labor.

By Mr. ROSENTHAL: H. Con. Res. 230. A J.""esolution to disapprove

the sale of smaJrt bombs and missiles to saudi Arabia; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

MEMORIALS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, 329. The SPEAKER presented a memorial

of the Legislature o! the State of Indiana., relative to Iran; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions of the following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mrs. SPELLMAN: H.R. 6178. A bill for the relief of John D.

Rogers; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. STANGELAND:

H.R. 6179. A bill for the relief of Sophia Sanchez; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions as follows:

H.R. 75: Mr. MADIGAN, Mr. LUNGREN, Mr. Lo'I"I', Mr. RoussELOT, Mrs. SNOWE, Mr. BUTLER, Mr. MAZZOLI, Mr. KINDNESS, Mr. REUSS, Mr. BAUMAN, Mr. FROST, Mr. SANTINI, and Mr. ATKINSON.

H.R. 76: Mr. MADIGAN, Mr. LUNGREN, Mr. Lo'I"I', Mr. RoussELOT, Mrs. SNOWE, Mr. BUTLER, Mr. MAZZOLI, Mr. BAUMAN, Mr. FROST, Mr. SANTINI, and Mr. ATKINSON.

H.R. 77: Mr. MADIGAN, Mr. LUNGREN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. ROUSSELOT, Mrs. SNOWE, Mr. BUTLER, Mr. MAZZOLI, Mr. KINDNESS, Mr. REuss, Mr. WmTH, Mr. BAUMAN, Mr. FROST, Mr. SANTINI, and Mr. ATKINSON.

H.R. 78: Mr. MADIGAN, Mr. LUNGREN, Mr. Lo'I"I', Mr. RoussELOT, Mrs. SNOWE, Mr. BUTLER, Mr. MAZZOLI, Mr. KINDNESS, Mr. REUSS, Mr. WmTH, Mr. BAUMAN, Mr. FROST, Mr. SANTINt, and Mr. ATKINSON.

H .R. 168: Mr. MADIGAN. H.R. 169: Mr. MADIGAN, Mr. WHrrEHURST,

Mr. RoussELOT, Mr. SYMMS, Mr. HYDE, and Mr. PRrrcHARD.

H.R. 172: Mr. MADIGAN. H.R. 173: Mr. MADIGAN. H.R. 174: Mr. MADIGAN. H.R. 801: Mr. KAZEN. H.R. 882: Mr. MICA. H.R. 2341: Mr. BROOMFIELD. H.R. 2400: Mr. LOWRY and Mr. YOUNG Of

Alaska. H.R. 2447: Mr. D'AMOURS, Ms. FERRARO, Mr.

GRAY, Mr. LEACH of Iowa, Mr. MoAKLEY, Mr. PA'I"I'ERSON, Mr. STOKES, and Mr. WmTH.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS H .R. 2769: Mr. RoussELOT, Mr. RoBERTS,

Mr. CLAUSEN, Mr. !CHORD, Mr. ANDREWS Of North Dakota., Mrs. HOLT, and Mr. TREEN.

H.R. 3246: Mr. NoLAN. H.R. 3252: Mr. KEMP and Mr. RAILSBACK. H.R. 3264: Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. DORNAN, Mr.

KOGOVSEK, e.Ild Mr. STANGELAND. H.R. 4358: Mr. AuCOIN, Mr. BROWN of Ohio,

Mr. CLINGER, Mr. HANCE, Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT, Mr. KEMP, Mr. LELAND, Mr. MARRIO'I"I', Mr. MINETA, Mt. MrrcHELL of New York, Ms. 0AKAR, Mr. TAUKE, and Mr. VENTO.

H .R. 4516: Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma., Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. RoBERT W. DANIEL, Jr., Mr. HUCKABY, Mr. MCDONALD, Mr. ANDREWS Of North Dakota, and Mr. GINGRICH.

H.R. 4563: Mr. CAVANAUGH. H.R. 4588: Mr. CONTE, Mr. DERWINSKI, Mr.

HORTON, Mr. MURPHY Of Pennsylvania., Mr. RAHALL, Mr. WHITEHURST, Mr. WEISS, and Mr. SIMON.

H.R. 4631: Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. SCHEUER, Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of California, Mr. OTTINGER, Mr. MCKINNEY, Mr. YATRON, and Mr. EDWARDS Of Oklahoma..

H .R. 4678: Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SABO, Mr. WILLIAMS Of Montana, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. WHrrEHURST, Mr. VENTO, Mr. LAFALCE, Mr. SIMON, Mr. DOUGHERTY, Mr. ANTHONY, Mr. PEASE, Mr. YATRON, Mr. HOLLENBECK, Mr. DOWNEY, Mr. WOLPE, Mr. STUDDS, Mr. RoE, Mr. CARR, Mr. RINALDO, Mr. BEDELL, Mr. COELHO, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. GRAY, M. HAWKINS, Mr. RICHMOND, Mr. SEmERLING, Mr. BINGHAM, Mr. MINETA, Mr. BURGENER, Mr. HUGHES, Mr. BEILENSON, Mr. NOLAN, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. McCORMACK, Mr. CORRADA, Mr. ROYER, Mr. MILLER of California, Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. D'AMOURS, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. GORE, Mr. FAZIO, Mr. 0BERSTAR, Mr. PANE'I"I'A, Mr. HEFTEL, and Mr. NEAL.

H.R. 5282: Mr. RoE. H.R. 5616: Mr. RoYBAL. H.R. 5642. Ms. HOLTZMAN. H.R. 57115: Mr. FuQUA, Mr. RrrrER, ami Mr.

LAFALCE. H.R. 5756 : Mrs. CHISHOLM. H.R. 5813: Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mr.

RUNNELS, Mr. YOUNG of F'lorida, Mr. DERWINSKI, and Mr. BOB WILSON.

H.R. 5847: Mr. IRELAND. H.R. 5862: Mr. ARCHER, Mr. BENJAMIN, Mr.

BOWEN, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. BURGENER, Mr. COLLINS of Texas, Mr. ERI.ENBORN, Mr. GUDGER, Mr. HINSON, Mr. HYDE, Mr. KEMP, Mr. KINDNESS, M!r. TREEN, Mr. WALKER, Mr. WHITEHURST, and Mr. CHARLES WILSON of Texas.

H.R. 5909: Mr. GILMAN, Mr. MINETA, Mr. COLLINS Of Texas, Mr. DICKS, Mr. BEDELL, Mr. LAGOMARSINO, Mr. MURPHY Of Pennsylvania, Mr. CARR, Mr. WOLPE, Mr. JENRETTE, Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma, Mr. BARNARD, Mr. PEPPER, Mr. SCHEUER, Mr. PATTEN, Mr. MITCHELL of New York, and Mr. BARNES.

H.R. 6062: Mr. MOTTL, Mr. BEVILL, and Mr. STUMP.

H.R. 6063: Mr. AMBRO, Mr. McDONALD, Mr. CHARLES WILSON of Texas, Mr. BEVILL, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. WHrrEHURST, Mr.

December 18, 19 '79 LAGOMARS!NO, Mr. NICHOLS, Mr. LEACH Of Louisiana, and Mr. STUMP.

H.R. 6070: Mr. PERKINs, Mr. ULLMAN, Mr. DICKINSON, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. CHAPPELL, Mr. MATHIS, Mr. MCKAY, Mr. RUNNELS, Mr. JoHNSON of Colorado, Mr. LoTT, Mr. REGULA, Mr. CHARLES WILSON of Texas, Mr. YOUNG Of Alaska, Mr. HUCKABY, Mr. MARRIO'I"I', Mr. STUMP, Mr. ANTHONY, Mr. CLINGER, Mr. LEACH of Louisiana, and Mr. WAMPLER.

H.R. 6109: Mr. BENJAMIN, Mr. PEPPER, Mr. WHITEHURST, Mr. LAFALCE, Mr. LAGOMARSINO, Mr. WINN, Mr. STANGELAND, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. REGULA, Mr. LUJAN, Mr. DouGHERTY, Mr. DERWINSKI, Mr. LUNGREN, Mr. RHODES, Mr. MAzZOLI, Mr. GUDGER, Mr. WON PAT, Mr. HYDE, Mr. RoE, and Mr. BUCHANAN.

H.R. 6149: Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. GUARINI, Mr. FORSYTHE, Mr. FLORIO, Mrs. FENWICK, Mr. HOLLENBECK, Mr. HOWARD, Mr. HUGHES, Mr. MAGuiRE, Mr. PA'I"I'EN, Mr. RoE, Mr. RoDINo, and Mr. RINALDO.

H.R. 6152: Mr. BOWEN and Mr. STAGGERS. H.J. Res. 15: Mr. MARRIO'I"I'. H.J. Res. 414: Mr. ADDABBO, Mr. DAVIS of

South Carolina, Mr. GRAY, Mr. GUARINI, Mr. KOSTMAYER, Mr. LLOYD, Mr. LoWRY, Mr. McCORMACK, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. ST GERMAIN, Mr. SEmERLING, Mr. STACK, and Mr. WmTH.

H.J. Res. 432: Mr. YATRON, Mr. HEFTEL, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, and Mr. GRAMM.

H.J. Res. 445: Mr. MARKEY, Mr. PERKINs, Mr. MrrCHELL of New York, Mr. LEACH of Louisiana, Mr. LAGOMARSINO, Mr. NICHOLS, Mr. McDADE, Mr. FORSYTHE, Mr. CLINGER, Mr. LEDERER, Mr. SABo, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. LUNDINE, Mr. DouGHERTY, Mr. FRosT, Mr. BARNES, Mr. BOLAND, Mr. GRADISON, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. STOKES, Mr. PREYER, Mr. DE LA GARZA, Mr. LENT, Mr. CHENEY, Mr. FOUNTAIN, Mr. TRAXLER, Mr. MOTTL, Mr. ADDABBO, Mr. PATTEN, Mr. QUILLEN, Mr. LoNG of Maryland, Mr. EMERY, Mr. DOWNEY, Mr. DoRNAN, Mr. MYERs of Pennsylvania, Mrs. SPELLMAN, Mr. DuNCAN of Tennessee, Mr. FARY, Mrs. SNOWE, Mr. RAILSBACK, and Mr. MATSUI.

H. Con. Res. 129: Mr. HANLEY, Mr. BURGENER, and Mr. ROE.

H. Con. Res. 225: Mr. O'BRIEN, Mr. HoPKINS, Mr. EvANS of the Virgin Islands, Mr. LEDERER, Mr. DAN DANIEL, Mr. WINN, Mr. PERKINS, Mr. APPLEGATE, Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. WHITEHURST, Mr. FORSYTHE, Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. GAYDOS, Mr. BARNES, Mrs. CHISHOLM, Mr. DERWINSKI, Mr. KOSTMAYER, Mr. GoLDWATER, Mr. ScHEUER, Mr. RoE, Mr. MARKS, Mr. MrrCHELL of Maryland, Mr. LEACH of Iowa, Mr. NOWAK, Mr. LAFALCE, Mr. SWIFT, Mr. KRAMER, Mr. DAVIS of Michigan, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. YOUNG Of Alaska, Mr. YATRON, Mr. RICHMOND, Mr. HYDE, Mr. D'AMOURS, Mr. MURPHY Of Dlinois, and Mr. PANE'I"I'A.

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, 255. The SPEAKER presented a petition of

the House of Representatives of the Republic of Cyprus, relative to disarmament; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS CAREER OF TOM BERKLEY

HON. RONALD V. DELLUMS OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, December 18, 1979

e Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I commend to my colleagues the following article, recently

published in the Oakland Post newspaper, commemorating the career of Tom Berkley.

Mr. Berkley is a man with many careers in the bay area. He is a lawyer, newspaper publisher, and director of one of the major U.S. ports. His is a career which by example has offered promise to many black and minority persons and he is a person who has always sought to positively influence the de-

velopment of minority business and political leadership. Many people in the bay area are indebted to him for his fine contributions to our community. I take great pleasure in commending this article to my collegaues:

1[From the Oakland Post, Nov. 16, 1979] FivE HUNDRED TO HONOR TOM BERKLEY

TONIGHT Mayors of six Bay Area cities and Los

Angeles have proclaimed toda.y "Thomas L.

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

December 18, 1979 Berkley Day", in honor of Post Publlsher and Editor and Oakland Port Commission President Atty. Thomas L. Berkley.

over 500 persons are expected tonight to when a gala salute to Berkley will be held at Goodman's Hall in Jack London Square in Oa.k.land.

The cities of Oakland, Berkeley, San Fran-cisco, Fremont, Hayward and Alameda have named the day in Berkley's honor and Mayor Lionel J. Wilson of oakland and Fremont Mayor Gene Rhodes will be among those at the dinner tribute tonight. Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, a col'lege friend of Berkley will be unable to attend.

Participants in tonight's salute include members of the University of California LoS Angeles 1938 Tmck Team, who will gtve a mini roast of their teammate Berkley, Mayor Wilson, Former Manhattan Burrough President Percy Sutton, Charles Paterson, vice president of World Airways, senator Nicholas Petris, Appelate Court Judge Clinton White, Oakland Port Executive Director Wally Abernathy, Rev. Haza.iah Williams, Weon Miller, Attorneys Craig Randall and Mas Yonemura. and Dr. Marvin R. Poston.

Greetings have been sent to Berkley from President Carter.

A native of Du Quoin, Illlnois, Berkley attended school in Southern California where his family moved when he was four. He is a graduate of Fullerton Junior College and the University of California Los Angeles. Berkley was a star athlete in basketball and track at Fullerton and broke records in track at UCLA. He would have participated in the Olympic Games in 1938, but they were cancelled when World War n broke out.

Berkley came to the Bay Area in 1938 to attend the University of California's Boalt Hall School of Law and graduated from UC's Hastings College of Law in 1943.

He has since had a distinguished career in many fields of endeavor, including law, politics, finance, industry, communications and human services.

Berkley established the largest int-egrated bi-lingual law firm in the United States, was co-founder and first president of Beneficial Savings and Loan Association of Oakland, cofounded the Oakland chapter of the Mexican American Political Association and founded the Inter-City Democratic Club of Northern California.

He has been an advisor to two United States Presidents and was appointed by President Carter and currently S'erves on the Minority Business Resources Center of the Department of Transportation.

He is a member of the Board of Directors of Commercial Bank of San Francisco, and the Board of Directors of the Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Company.

He is also a member of the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, the San Francisco World Trade Club, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Berkley is a former member of the Oakland Board of Education, the Board of Regents of John F. Kennedy University in Orinda and the Board of Trustees of Chlldrens Hospital Medical Center of Northern California.e

MAGNET SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAffiS

HON. WILLIAM H. GRAY Ill OF PENNSYLVANIA



• Mr. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, the magnet school concept is based on an educational program built around a particular discipline such as mathematics, science, the performing arts, and in this case,

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

international studies. The Magnet School of International Affairs-to be established in center-city Philadelphia as the first of its type in the United 'Stateswill provide a strong academic program in areas such as global economics, international politics, foreign policy, communications, world resources and cultures, as well as the contemporary global issues of population, environment, energy, food and hunger, and disarmament. Related to these academic offerings will be an intensive foreign-language component to be required for attending students.

The Magnet School of International Affairs will give its carefully selected students an opportunity to develop the skills and understandings necessary for seeing the economic, ecological, social, cultural, political, and biological relationships of an interdependent world. Students will also have opportunities to explore and develop the skills and understandings necessary for careers in diplomacy, business, commerce, communications, governmental and nongovernmental institutions of an international nature, and other related professions and fields in a transnational world.

The World Affairs Council, utilizing its experience in areas of international concerns and programs has brought together an advisory committee of internationalists to provide creative thinking on the direction and substance of this pioneering magnet school. The council will provide outside-resource people and specially prepared materials, trips, and programs for the curriculum. The resource people and the universities, agencies, and corporations represented by an advisory committee, will give guidance and support in a similar manner to the establishment of a "chair" at the university level. Outside-resource people will be an integral part of the Magnet School of International Affairs, rather than occasional visitors, and they will address national and international issues in a challenging manner to enhance the strong academic and special language programs of the school.

This Magnet School will be funded by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare through the Emergency School Aid Act, and by the School District of Philadelphia.•

TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST ZIMBABWE-RHODESIA

HON. WM. S. BROOMFIELD OF MICHIGAN



e Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to take the occasion of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's visit to Congress to commend the Prime Minister and her Government for so brilliantly setting the stage for a lasting peace in Rhodesia. The Prime Minister's adroit handling of the Lancaster talks provides a boost to Western diplomacy at a time when the free world's interests are being so seriously jeopardized elsewhere.

In recognition of the Prime Minister's

36857 achievements, I joined with the other Members of Congress in sponsoring legislation <S. 2076) calling for a termination of U.S. sanctions against Rhodesia when the British Governor, Lord Soames, assumed authority in Rhodesia to implement the London Agreement.

Governor Soames has now taken over the reigns of the transitional government, thereby signaling the end of a state of rebellion in Rhodesia against Britain, internationally recognized as the proper administering authority. As we all know, ending the state of rebellion was the goal of the international sanctions, and President Carter's decision to terminate our own trade embargo against Zimbabwe-Rhodesia acknowledges that reality. Now that the settlement effort is on the verge of ushering in an era of peace in a country sorely in need of that condition, it would be very counterproductive to maintain U.S. sanctions against the administration of a British Governor. Also, it would demonstrate a lack of confidence and support for British efforts at a very critical juncture.

In addition to my fervent hope for the speedy completion of the process agreed to by the interested parties which will result in a fair and peaceful end to the hostilities in Rhodesia, I feel a certain sense of personal satisfaction about the central thrust of S. 2076. During the House debate on sanctions legislation last June, I offered a motion to recommit with instructions which would have had the effect of ultimately keying the lifting of U.S. sanctions to the termination of sanctions by Great Britain, whose Government retains responsibility for Rhodesia under international law. Regrettably, at the time a majority of the House did not have a sufticient confidence in the diplomatic skills of our British allies, and the motion failed. It appears the sentiment of the House has now changed for the better on this matter.•

DUE COMPENSATION FOR VETERAN

HON. DON YOUNG OF ALASKA



• Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would correct a gross injustice to one of our Nation's veterans that occurred due to improper treatment and gross negligence at Keesler Air Force Hospital.

The bill states that the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Mr. Paul D. Camp, Sr., of Fairbanks, Alaska, the sum of $1,000,000 on account of his claims against the United States arising out of medical care and treatment which resulted in the amputation of his right hand and forearm. Such care and treatment, with respect to an injury to a finger of his right hand, was accorded Paul D. Camp, Sr., during the period April 1973 to June 1975 at Keesler Air Force Base, Miss. These claims of Paul D. Camp, Sr., are not cognizable under the Federal tort claims

36858 provisions of title 28, United States Code. The provisions of sections 8116 (b) and (c) of title 5, United States Code, do not apply with respect to the claims of Paul D. Camp, Sr., dealt with in this act.

Paul Camp, in April 1973, received an injury at Keesler Air Force Base that resulted in a stiff right little finger. Improper treatment of this minor injury led to his having his right arm amputated, complete uselessness of his upper right extremity---called Causalgia Major and continuous severe pain. The man is 100 percent disabled and thus cannot work.

A million dollars may sound like a lot of money. I feel it is more than justified after totaling the losses that this man has incurred due to the negligence of Keesler Air Force Hospital. He has lost years of wages and he has lost the possibility of ever making a living for his family and himself again. He has endured extreme pain and suffering and probably always will. He has lived with a disfigurement. The present and future security of his family, added to these other factors, . warrants, I think, this settlement.

I would like to submit excerpts from Mr. Camp's own summary of the events which led to his tragic situation. I am omitting the names of the doctors.

It is my opinion that I am a victim of extreme malpractice in as much as I feel that I was used by doctors to gain experience in hand surgery. I am informed that a zigzag incision known as a. Brenner's Incision is never used 1~ hand surgery but this type of incision was used on my hand.

Multiple operations were performed on my hand within a ten months period. I am told that multiple operations should never have been performed on a hand in less than one year and the time should be eighteen months. It should be noted that the tendon graph, used to replace the Hunter's Prothesis, was taken from my left leg rather than the left arm as I ha.d been told would be the case.

Even though I was losing ground, in relation to my hand and arm, I was put on a worldwide status back to duty and am thoroughly convinced that this was done to try and cover up the malpractice or the wrong doings of my operable procedures.

It is also my opinion that 1f I had been sent to Duke University as requested by my doctor in 1975, but denied by the hospital commander, I would at least have some usefulness of the hand and would have never had Causalgia Major or an amputation as I now have.

The Physical therapist at Keesler also suggested that my little finger be amputated after man.y months of physical therapy but the doctor disagreed. I feel strongly that this also would have probably saved my hand from amputation and the Causalgia Major.

It became readily apparent, after I acquired the services of an attorney, that all medical personnel backed off when it came to doing anything with my hand, in fact, with any part of my case. After the doctor left the Air Force, the other doctors did not want to become involved: in my case because of pending lawsuits I had .against the Air Force.

I have been fighting for six and• a half years to try and get some relief from the malpractice that was involved ln early 1973. As of this date I am in extreme pain most of the time. Any stress, excitement sexual ~tlvity, anxiety or whether change ~11 trigger the electrical type shocks and burning

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS sensation all the way up to the base of my skull.

I am asking the support of my colleagues for due compensation for this veteran, who through the gross negligence on the part of VA doctors, has had his life shattered.•

TELEVISION AND THE CRISIS IN IRAN

HON. JOHN' J. LaFALCE OF NEW YORK


Tuesaay, December 18, 1979

• Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, U.S. News & World Report this week carried an analysis of the role of television, particularly the U.S. networks, during the crisis in Iran. In it three problem areas were raised, as follows:

First. Providing a forum: The State Department has expressed concern that providing the Iranian authorities and the so-called students with a forum for their denunciations of the Shah will only lessen their interest in talking about the real issue, the hostages.

Second. Causing inflexibility: Diplomats worry that journalists' questions may push the Iranians into taking inflexible positions, exacerbating the problem of freeing the hostages. The State Department apparently feels, for example, that the TV interviews with Khomeini precipitated his vow that the hostages would be tried as spies.

Third. "Creating" news: The red eye of the camera has a magical influence on the crowds in front of our embassy in Tehran. Some say that when it lights

. up an otherwise docile--and generally friendly---crowd becomes "enraged." Does carrying such demonstrations accurately reflect events or does it distort them?

The importance of this issue should not be overlooked, Mr. Speaker, for the judgments of our television journalists may have a direct bearing on the resolution of this crisis. I commend this article to all our colleagues' attention:

TV's CONTROVERSIAL RoLE IN IRAN CRISIS

Day after day, night after night, television is bringing the Iranian crisis into American living rooms-and, in the view of some crt tics, prolonging the ordeal of the hostages.

Although network executive insist such attacks are unjustified, protests are growing as a result of NBC's December 10 interview with a captive marine. On the same day that U.S. Atty. Gen. Benjamin Civiletti was telling the International Court of Justice that the 50 American hostages were "in peril of their lives," 21-year-old Cpl. William Gallegos was advising NBC's viewers that "everybody's O.K."

Representative Robert Bauman (R-Md.) said the interview should merit NBC "the Benedict Arnold award for broadcast journalism." House Speaker Thomas O'Neill accused the network of falling "into the trap of Iranian propaganda." The White House stopped short of publicly criticizing NBC, but Press Secretary Jody Powell described the Iranians' display of their young captive as "cruel and cynical."

It was not just the interview with Gallegos that touched off the furor. Many also were angered that NBC transmitted a 5-minute unedited propaganda speech by a young Iranian revolutionary known only as "'Mary."

December 18, 19 79 Ford Rowan, NBC's Pentagon correspon

dent, resigned on the ground that, by failing to include an interview with u.s. officials giving their point of view, the network made itself a platform for Iranian propaganda.

Even before the Gallegos interview, state ~epartment officials were complaining about

television diplomacy." They argued that as long as the networks provide a forum ro; Iran's denunciation of the Shah, Teheran wm show little interest in talking about the hostages.

Another problem: Diplomats, hoping to find room for negotiations, fear the Iranians will be pushed into inflexible stands by journalists asking questions aimed at clarifying positions. State Department spokesman Hodding car

ter lli speculated that TV interviews precipitated the Ayatollah Khoemelni's vow that hostages would be tried as spies. Others noted that the crowd outside the captured U.S. Embassy is largely friendly and relaxed until TV cameras turn up, then is transformed into a howling mob.

Teheran militants had offered the Gallegos interview to all three TV networks on these conditions: Iranians would pick the hostage, man the cameras and censor questions, and the show-with the propaganda speech-would run unedited in prime time.

ABC and CBS refused to go along. Explained CBS News President William Leonard: "We didn't want to become a tool for them."

NBC said its decision to go ahead came only after the Iranians met a counterproposal that no questions be submitted in advance and that editing be allowed. NBC News President William Small termed the interview "an important contribution to understanding what is happening in,Iran."e

CITIES SERVICE REINVESTS MORE

HON. JAMES M. COLLINS OF TEXAS



• Mr. COLLINS of Texas. Mr. Speaker in reviewing the operating results of th~ U.S. oil companies, I was proud to see that Cities Service anticipates in 1979 that they will be spending $750 million on capital expenditures. This is more than twice their anticipated 1979 earnings. Covering the entire past 10 years expenditures to find and develop oil and ~as, expand their refinery, building pipelmes and storage, and increase their chemical and copper facilities we find Cities Service has far exceeded their profits.

It costs money to produce energy, and what the oil industry needs is more retained capital funds. To drill a well offshore can easily cost $10 million and it will probably be a dry hole. Cities Service's share of the $2.2 billion syncrude tar sands project in Canada to produce oil will cost them $400 million. Cities Service is building a gas pipeline from Wyoming, which will cost $127 million.

Remember that 80 percent of the world's existing supply of crude oil is sour. Sour crude refers to crude that is higher in sulphur content, which is environmentally undesirable. Therefore, larger investments are required of U.S. refineries to meet these environmentQl requirements.

December 18, 19 79

Bankers Trust Co. and Chase Manhattan Bank have independently estimated that for the United States to maintain current oil and gas reserve levels, the U.S. petroleum industry will need to spend an avemge of $40 billion a year through the 1980's. Cities Service is typical of the leading oil companies who have been spending twice as much on capital expenditures as their profits.

America must not become completely dependent on OPEC oil. Since price control and full regulation went on the backs on the U.S. oil companies, our U.S. oil production has dropped, since 1973, from 9.2 billion barrels a day to 7.6 billion barrels a day. Our imports of OPEC oil have risen from $3 billion in 1973 to $60 billion this year, and probably $80 billion next year.

Would it not be better to have the U.S. oil companies reinvest $40 billion each year in the United States and maintain an energy balance. When U.S. oil companies spend money, it is for U.S. pipe, U.S. jobs, U.S. transportation, and U.S. machinery.

Cities Service is an outstanding oil company. It joins with all it resources in building U.S. oil and gas reserves. Congress needs to provide more financial incentives to assist in capital formation.•

GAO SUPPORTS H.R. 2735, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1979

HON'. TOM CORCORAN OF U.LINOIS



e Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to note that the Comptroller General of the United States, Elmer B. Staats, recently testified in favor of a bill I introduced earlier this year. My bill <H.R. 2735), the "Intergovernmental Productivity Improvement Act of 1979", was introduced on March 8 and referred to the House Committees on Government Operations and Post Office and Civil Service. Companion legislation, S. 1155, was introduced on May 15 by Senator CHARLES H. PERCY, and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. This legislation would amend the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 to authorize funding for general management improvement projects for State and local governments.

Comptroller General Staats' testimony was delivered on October 3 before the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. His testimony was primarily related to S. 878, the "Federal Assistance Reform Act" and S. 904, the "Federal Assistance Reform and Small Community Act of 1979." I am an original cosponsor of S. 878's House companion legislation, H.R. 4504, introduced on June 18 by Congressman LES AUCOIN.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of our colleagues, I would like to include in the CONGRESSIO'NAL RECORD at this point the portion of Comptroller General Staats'

CXXV-2317-Part 28


October 3 testimony in which he states his strong support for H.R. 2735:

While Federal grant reform initiatives are clearly needed to improve the workings of our intergovernmental system, enhancing State and local capacity to implement grant programs is equally important. Indeed, due to the close interdependence of our levels of governments, the Felera.l Government has vital interest in improving the productivity and management capacity of State and local governments.

In a. recent report 1 we recommended an enhanced Federal role in assisting States and localities to improve their productivity, including an expanded Federal seed money grant program for management improvement efforts. Our report indicated that a. Federal seed money program could serve as a catalyst in helping State and local governments initiate new productivity programs or expand existing ones.

We are encouraged that an identical Intergovernmeta.l Productivity Improvement blll has been introduced in both the Senate and House (S. 1155 and H.R. 2735). This legislation would amend the Intergovernmental Personnel Act to provide additional llmited Federal assistance for State and local productivity improvement projects that would otherwise not be started. I strongly support this blll and urge the Subcommittee to consider it as part of your grant reform efforts.e

MAKE WINN-DIXIE FREE AT LAST

HON. PARREN J. MITCHELL OF MARYLAND



e Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, Winn-Dixie a southern supermarket chain, has become the symbol of rightwing, antilabor activity in the food industry.

For over a decade, Winn-Dixie strongly opposed the efforts of its workers to organize into unions. Many unfair labor practice cases have been decided in favor of these workers by the National Labor Relations Board. Cases stemming from Winn-Dixie's activities have even gone to the Supreme Court.

The effort to organize Winn-Dixie workers is accelerating. It is now led by the new United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, a 1.3 million member organization resulting from the merger of the former Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butch3r Workmen and the former Retail Clerks International Union. The UFCW is the largest union in the ~CIO. It has vowed to use its strength to help Winn-Dixie workers organize.

The UFCW and other unions are conducting a consumer boycott of WinnDixie because of its antiworker and anticonsumer activities. As part of that campaign, a rally was held by the AF'L-CIO Food and Beverage Trades Department in New Orleans, La., in April. One of the principal speakers was Dr. Joseph E. Lowery, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

1 "State and Local Government Productivity Improvement: What Is the Federal Role'? (GGD-104, December 6, 1978)

36859

Dr. Lowery's remarks are instructive and important. I urge my colleagues to read them.

Dr. Lowery's remarks follow: AN ADDRESS BY DR. JOSEPH E. LoWERY

We've come here to demand from America's public and private sectors a kind of sensitivity to the needs of the poor that calls for justice to roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. We cannot heal a. broken and divided world if we allow our nation to break and divide its working people by oppression, unfair working conditions, inhuman wages and the kind of persecution that Winn-Dixie is guilty of in this nation.

We have to call upon the Winn-Dixies of this country to be fair to those working people who keep the bells tingling and the cash registers ringing. We cannot allow unfair labor practices, unfair working conditions to divide this country between the haves and the have nots. Corporations must not be allowed to exploit those who work for a living. We live in a crisis period when unemployment and underemployment are choking so many of us to death. And we've come to understand that it's time now for a new coalition in this country of working people, regardless of race, color or creed. If we work for a living, we have more things that pull us together than we do things which keep us apart.

People who are enemies of working people are enemies of black people. People who are enemies of black people are enemies of poor working people, whether they're white, brown, red, yellow or black. Black folks' enemies are not poor working white people, and black folks are not the enemies of poor working white people. Our enemy is that corporation which wants to keep us divided so they can follow the old policy of divide and conquer.

Big corporations don't care any more about poor working white folks than they do poor working black folks. What they love is the green money that they can squeeze out of the labor of both black and white.

We've come to say to America that we must form a new coalition that supersedes color. Black must not have to get back. Red must be able to get ahead. Brown must be able to stick around. Yellow must be mellow and white can be alright.

And when we bring that new coalition to Winn-Dixie, Winn-Dixie will be losing Dixie unless she straightens up and flies right.

We haven't beaten Winn-Dixie yet because we haven't yet begun to fight. We've just been warming up on the sidelines. I don't want you to be like I was when I played football in college. The coach had me warming up one day. He told me right after the half, "Warm up, son." And I ran up and down the sidelines until the third quarter passed, and he said, "Keep on warming up son." And finally the fourth quarter came, and it was halfway through and he said, "Keep on warming up, son." And two minutes before the game was over he told me to go in and I collapsed as soon as I went out on the field. I had warmed up too long.

I tell you now we need to say to W.tnnDixie we've warmed up long enough. We're ready to go into the game now. We've come with the new coalition-black folks, white folks, red folks, yellow folks, all folks of goodwlll say to Winn-Dixie: Straighten up and fly right or we're going to clip your wings, so you can't fiy at all.

We've com~ to say to W1nn-Dixie that we want you to be born again. I believe in being born again. I believe that every child of God ought to be born again, and we have to say it to the corporate world that they must be born aga.ln.

When you're born again you don't do things like you use to do. That's what the

36860 old prophet in the Bible said after he had been born again, he said: "I looked at my hands and my hands looked new. I looked at my feet and my feet dld too." When Winn-Dixie is born again they're going to look at their employment policies and they'll look new. They're going to look at their wage policies and they wllllook new. They're going to look at their working conditions and they'll look new. They'll look at their pension program and it will look new, but somebody's got to help Winn-Dixie be born again.

You don't get born again by yourself. Somebody has to preach the Gospel to WinnDixie. I'm calling upon this new coalition of blacks and women, minorities and majorities, blue-eyed blondes and brown-eyed brunets, bowlegged fat folks and skinny, knockkneed, slue-footed Big John. I don't care who you are, if you love the Lord, if you love justice, if you want to see this economic crisis wiped out, I'm saying let's help Winn-Dlxie be born again.

Let's help Winn-Dixie be baptized by the Holy Ghost of justice, washed in the blood of righteousness and make a new creature out of it. So that Winn-Dixie can stand up and all of us can stand around it and we can cry out in the words of our forefathers: Free at last, free at last. We're gonna make old Winn-Dixie free at last-or it will be last to ev& be free.e

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 1979 REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND

HON. MARIO BlAGG I OF NEW YORK



• Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the 130 member Ad Hoc Congressional Committee for Irish Affairs, I wish to place into the RECORD the portion of the 1979 Amnesty International report which deals with the human rights situation in Northern Ireland. As my colleagues may remember, Amnesty International in 1978 issued a report detailing numerous human rights violations in Northern Ireland primarily directed at prisoners and prison suspects by British and Irish security forces.

Later in 1978, the British Government appointed a commission to review the Amnesty findings. The Bennett Commission in fact confirmed Amnesty's charges. The report I will place into the RECORD provides an overview of the situation in this past year.

Of special concern is the report's reference to the Royal Ulster constabulary, the main police force operating in Northern Ireland. In July of this year, I was joined by a number of my colleagues, most notably the Speaker, in filing a protest to a decision by the State Department to sell 3,500 weapons to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Our contention was that the RUC had been cited for human rights violations and the Foreign Assistance Act has strict prohibitions against providing U.S. military aid to nations or organizations with proven human rights violations. Following an amendment I offered to ban the use of State Department funds for future sales to the RUC, the Department of State itself announced an indefinite ban on


such sales "pending a full review of U.S. policy." The fact that this ban began in August and is still in effect lends credence to our earlier human rights concerns. The Amnesty report representing the most current observations confirms our concerns that much further.

Prime Minister Thatcher is presently conducting a state visit to the United States. According to press accounts she is seeking a lifting of the suspension of U.S. arms to the RUC. However first and foremost, this is a matter of U.S. law. If the United Kingdom were to make a concerted and good faith effort to improve human rights conditions in Northern Ireland, consideration should be given to lifting the suspension.

Human rights violations in Northern Ireland is no longer in issue. It is a confirmed fact and our real emphasis now should be working for their cessation and the establishment of peace and justice for all of Ireland. The Amnesty report follows: UNITED KINGDOM (OF GREAT BRITAIN AND

NORTHERN IRELAND)

Against the background of continuing political violence, Amnesty International focused its work on the rule of law in Northern Ireland, where emergency legislation affects procedures relating to arrest, detention, questioning of suspects and trials in special courts.

The Report of an Amnesty International Mission to Northern Ireland (28 November-6 December 1977) concluded that "changes in the law .relating to arrest, detention and the admissibility of statements in court have combined to reduce safeguards against improper pollee conduct" and that "the reduction of procedural safeguards regarding the admissibility of statements, the extension of the discretion of the single judge and the absence of a jury enhance the danger that statements obtained by maltreatment of suspects will be used as evidence in court".

In virtually cases, charges brought against prisoners arrested under the emergency legislation relate to the use or advocacy of violence, and none of those imprisoned has been adopted as prisoners of conscience. Although Amnesty International has continued to take an active interest in the operation of the special courts, its primary concern has been the investigation of allegations of ill treatment of suspects held by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

In April 1978, Amnesty International submitted to the government the repo.rt of its mission to Northern Ireland to investigate these allegations. The report concluded that ill-treatment of suspects by plain-clothes detectives had taken place with sufficient frequency to warrant a public inquiry. On 8 June 1978, five days before this report was published, the government announced that it had decided to appoint a committee of inquiry (Amnesty International Report 1978).

The committee consisted of Judge H. G. Bennett QC; Sir James Houghton, a retired English Chief Constable; and Professor John Marshall, a neurologist. Its mandate was: "To examine police procedures and practice in Northern Ireland relating to the interrogation of persons suspected of scheduled offences; to examine the operation of <the present procedures for dealing with complaints relating to the conduct of pollee in the course of the process of interrogation; and to report and make recommendations". It was not authorized to investigate individual allegations of ill-treatment, which the government stated s~ould be investigated through normal criminal in-

December 18, 19 79 vestigation, prosecution and trial. It took evidence from members of the public, from police, prosecution and other official agencies and from non-governmental organizations, including Amnesty International.

The Bennett Committee submitted its report to the government in February 1979. The government published it in March 1979. It largely confirms Amnesty International's concerns about the ill-treatment of suspects, the inadequacy of legal safeguards, incommunicado detention and the complaints procedure. Although the committee did not pronounce on individual allegations, it had before it medical evidence which was "detailed, extensive and from independent sources". It accepted that with regard to allegations of 111-treatment there is a concerted propaganda campaign against the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but concluded that, although some allegations were fabricated, there were others where injuries could not have been self-inflicted, or where detailed examination "led forensic medical officers to the conclusion that they were not self-inflicted". The government and the Chief Constable have consistently claimed that the injuries were self-inflicted and the allegations part of a propaganda campaign inspired by the Provisional Irish Republican Army. The committee also stated: "If, as we have found on the basis of medical evidence, tll-treatment causing injury could occur, so could ill-treatment which leaves no marks". While the committee was not in a position to assess the extent of ill-treatment, concern expressed on various occasions by the Northern Ireland Police Authority, the Northern Ireland Association of Forensic Medical Officers, and doctors working in different interrogation centres, which was recorded in the committee's report, showed that the allegations meriting concern did not relate to just a few isolated cases.

The Bennett Committee, in finding prima facie evidence of 111-treatment, examined in great detail the cUITent procedures and practices for the detention and interrogation of suspects, with a view to protecting future suspects from ill-treatment and police from false allegations. The committee's numerous recommendations are aimed mainly at strengthening internal control by uniformed officers over plain-clothes detectives.

The government accepted the committee's recommendation to install closed-circuit television in interrogation centres, though no film or sound recordings wm be made. The recommendation that suspects should have access to a solicitor after 48 hours of detention was also accepted.

Amnesty International publicly welcomed the limitation placed on incommunicado detention and the strengthening of internal control within the Royal IDster Constabulary, but expressed concern that, as internal discipline had not prevented 111-treatment in the past. the absence of a reliabLe record of interrogation was likely to continue to raise controversy. Amnesty International said that the recommendations could not be considered in isolation from the whole framework of the criminal P'"Ocess-in particular the rules of admissibility of state· ments in court.

The government requested the Bennett Committee to furnish the prosecuting authority with information on individual cases of alleged 111 treatment which were presented to the committee and criticizes Amnesty International's decision not to furnish the prosecuting authority with information on the cases in its possession. Amnesty International reiterated the view stated in its 1978 report that this would not reveal all cases of ill-treatment. Under this procedure, the Director of Public Prosecutions examines the complaints with the sole purpose of establishing whether there is sufficient evidence to instigate criminal prosecution

December 18, 19 79 against individual pollee officers. This remedy is rendered ineffective by the difficulty of securing probative evidence because there is no reliable record of the interrogations which take place while suspects are held incommunicado.

More than 300 prisoners convicted of, or awaiting trial for, terrorist offenses under the emergency legislation have continued their protests demanding "political" status. They refuse to wear prison uniform, to clean their cells or wash or use other facilities for hygiene, and have continually smeared excreta on the walls of their cells. On disciplinary grounds, they have been almost totally confined to their cells for periods of up to two years, with no exercise and no reading or writing or other occupational materials.

Following a letter to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in May 1978 in which Amnesty International asked the British government to, invite an independent inspection of conditions in the "H" blocks of the Maze Prison where the protest takes place, the government replied that in every respect the prisoners were punished in accordance with the prison rules. The government also stated that they saw no grounds for inviting Amnesty International to visit the prison but that they would give careful consideration to any similar request from other organizations. A number of restricted visits by members of parliament, Church officials and journalists have since taken place. Amnesty International has since written to the government reiterating its concerns and urging that measures be taken without delay to ensure that the prisoners receive adequate exercise and occupational facilities and do not spend long periods confined to their cells.

Amnesty International does not support the demand for a special status for any prisoner. The prisoners' refusal to accept anything less than political status and permission to organize paramilitary groups within the prison meant that Amnesty International was restricted to expressing its humanitarian concern.e

H.R. 5586

HON. STEVEN D. SYMMS OF IDAHO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE


• Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Speaker, I enclose for the benefit of the Members of this body a copy of a letter to my colleague JOHN SEIBERLING dealing with H.R. 5586, but more importantly, with the issue of wilderness enactment.

The letter aptly points out the similarities between land use in the Middle Ages and single-use management we today call wilderness. I commend it to the attention of my colleagues, in the hope that as wilderness designations face us that will result in the loss of jobs and a crippled economy, that we will stop to examine the complete effects of our actions.

The letter reads as follows: NOVEMBER 13, 1979.

Hon. JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D .C .

DEAR CONGRESSMAN SEmERLING: I urge your support of H .R. 5586-Johnson, because it is a sound environmental bill which balances the interests of many and sometimes conflicting land uses.

If you believe in the efficient ure of natural resources, including the land resource, if you believe in recycling of resources, then ra-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS tionally you must believe in the multipleuse of resources, again including land.

Locking up land use for a single purpose to the detriment of all other purposes is a throwback to the Middle Ages, except that instead of a Devine Right of Kings, we have substituted the Devine Right of Public Interest, which has become an Orwellian term for single-purpose interest.

In the Middle Ages, you were executed for killing the King's deer, even if your family was starving; or for sawing down a tree with the King's broad arrow brand on it, even if your family was freezing to death. Trespassing on the King's land was done at your peril.

I would hope that we are more enlightened today, and that we have done away with the concept of Devine Right. The process of determining Federal Forest land use was one that was totally satisfying to probably no one, but it was a process which solicited and obtained input from all interested citizens. If we don't allow that process to conclude, then by that much we are no longer a Democracy, but one establishing the Devine Right of a Special Interest.

Yours truly, R. L . SPENCER.

SUTTER CREEK, CALIF .•

HOSTAGES AND THE PRESS

HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE OF NEW YORK



• Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, a column in yesterday's Washington Star by that paper's "ombudsman," George Beveridge, cogently outlined and analyzed the problems faced by journalists trying to cover the story evolving in Iran.

Beveridge quite correctlv points out that those who will take hostages cannot be expected to have scruples about the ethical questions faced by journalists covering such stories . .Ann he also points out that each situation of this kind raises new and different ways in which those who are seeking publication of their views will try to manipulate the media as best they can.

Yet he also sets forth a rational set of guidelines for journaHsts to try to follow in crises of this kind. to wit: A journalist's "basic obligation" is "to tell the story fully without becoming a part of it." This means reporters should avoid "interference with public authorities negotiating for the release of hostages and doing nothing to increase risks to human life." And he said there should be "special restraints in contacts with the terrorists." Finally, he pointed out that the media should refuse "to serve as an unfettered conduit for the terrorists' propaganda.''

Observers may differ in their assessments of how well American television journalists have adhered to these guidelines. I personally believe that while the coverage on the whole has been good, there have been too many instances where our TV networks, wittingly or unwittingly, have been manipulated bv the terrorists in Iran and have, as a result. served as an ''unfettered conduit" for their propaganda. and have become "a part of" the situation, rather than "tellers" of it.

Mr. Beveridge's column raises many ex-

36861 cellent questions about the role of journalists in general, and particularly in a situation of this kind. I commend it to all our colleagues' attention.

The column follows: HOSTAGES AND THE PRESS

(By George Beveridge) Well before the seizure of the U.S. em

bassy in Tehran, the tide of terrorist/hostage activity around the world had produced some fairly specific areas of agreement in the press community on what constituted responsible coverage of such incidents.

The basic obligation, it was widely agreed, was to tell the story fully without becoming a part of it.

That meant, according to guidelines endorsed by a .number of news organizations, avoiding interference with public authorities negotiating for release of hostages and doing nothing to increase risks to human life. It meant exercising special restraints in contacts with the terrorists.

It meant, too, since a desire for publicity is the dominant motivation in virtually all hostage situations, refusing to serve as an unfettered conduit for the terrorists' propaganda.

A point about journalistic guidelines that many people have trouble grasping, though, is that the best of them are really little more than expressions of professional intent. In the real world, no reporter or editor can foresee the precise circumstances of any story, or W'hat new challenges will arise.

The first six weeks of the Tehran ordeal were a classic example.

Those sensible guidelines noted above were largely responsive to well-documented abuses--especially TV abuses-that arose in such prior hostage incidents as the HanafiMuslim seizures here in 1977.

To the surprise of no professionals in the news business, Tehran subjected them to wholly new pressures that virtually invited abuses.

In the absence of normal diplomatic channels, for example, negotiations in the usual sense for the hostages' release simply haven't occurred. What the television crews in Tehran reported, therefore, was what they saw, and what they saw was almost solely the revolutionaries' side of the story.

Whether the television barrages that ensued were overdone, whether the State Department's complaints of "TV diplomacy" were justified, will be argued long after the ordeal ends.

One thing that the performance indisputably illustrated, however, was the degree to which TV is peculiarly susceptible to prolonged exploitation by the captors of hostages, and its seeming helplessness to do anything about it.

Khomeini's spectacular success in maintaining that unanswered stream of antiAmerican, anti-shah invective, both to Amercan shores and to the world, was abetted, ironically, by the media's understandable fa.ilure to pursue the shah controversy aggressively while the hostages were still captive.

In a critique. Time magazine's Thomas Griffith called the phenomenon a news "brownout of self-restraint" unparalleled in American life. "While hostgges are in jeopardy." he wrote, "the only minidebate that has been allowed to erupt publiclv is over who-let-1:ihe-sha'h-in. When Carter's foreign policy again becomes fair game for partisan attack, it is doubtful that the strengths of the shah's regime can ever be asserted as full-throatedly as before."

There is a measure of irony. too, that what precipitated the first major flap over ethics in the whole press performance last week was a TV effort to advance the Teheran story beyond the material hand-fed its cameras.

36862 In accepting t he revolutionaries' tight

conditions for an interview with Marine Cpl. Gallegos, NBC undeniably surrendered journalistic rights that would never have been yielded in normal circumstances. The student revolutionaries, not the network, called the shots on prime-air time for the interview and imposed strict editing limitations. They won, too, the right to air a stridently partisan statement.

But there was also, surely, a strong dose of hypocrisy in the CBS and ABC attacks on their sister network for agreeing to the arrangement.

What about the concessions of CBS and ABC in submitting written questions, with no rights of follow-up, as a price of their earlier interviews with the ayatollah?

There are differences in the controls yielded, but they are largely differences of degree. And it is interesting, at least, that the morning after the NBC interview both CBS and ABC elected to carry brief canned interviews with Gallegos that were prepared entirely by the Iranians.

NBC is more vulnerable to criticism, it seems to me, on the complaint of its correspondent, Ford Rowan, that the network failed to include in the Gallegos broadcast a State Department response to the interview. (Rowan reportedly resigned as result of the network's decision.)

Of all the issues of journalistic integrity, in fact , Rowan's concern about the problems of telling both sides of the story as fully and fairly as possible is probably the major concern of most editors grappling with the Tehran crisis, in the print and broadcast fields alike.

A common-sense regard for the h ostages' safety clearly compels decisions of extraordinary restraint, as in any terrorist/ hostage situation. The decisions are of a sort, however, that take editors into terrain where t h e most well intentioned of guidelines are of little help.

The remarkable thing about the Tehran coverage is that so few issues of real controversy have thus far emerged. Given the circumstances, there are apt to be others.e

NEW JERSEYITE HARNESSES WIND AND SUN

HON. JAMES J. FLORIO OF NEW JERSEY



• Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker, a new feature of the Northeast Solar Energy Center's publication, Update, is to report news of people, places, and events which shape the world of solar energy in the northeast. The December issue, I am pleased to say, focused attention upon the ingenuity of my constituent, Mr. Vito Maglio, of Clarksboro, N.J.

Mr. Maglio's response to the rising costs of energy is an inspiring story which I would like to share with my colleagues. Recently, when I visited Mr. Maglio to view his solar system, and his windmill, he expressed the hope that the success of his dual system of solar and wind power would encourage others to follow his lead. Toward that objective, he is now conducting seminars and workshops.

The article from Update follows: NEW JERSEYITE HARNESSES WIND AND SUN

The biggest windmill in New Jersey is in Vito Maglio's backyard in Clarksboro.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Standing like a silent sentinel over Maglio's

29 acres in rural Gloucester County, the 60-foot tan wind turbine soon will churn out 45 kilowatts of electricity-more than double Maglio's present needs.

The windmill is not Maglio's only attempt at energy self-sutficiency. Two years ago the retired building contractor installed an elaborate solar hot water and space heating system in the house he was building for himself and his wife.

"I knew that fossil fuel was going to be expensive, so I built an aU-electric house and decided to give solar a try," he explains.

He added a carport and installed solar collectors on. its roof and a 2,000-gallon water storage tank under the driveway. He read solar and wind magazines and designed the project himself, purchasing most materials from local building supply companies (the windmill, however, was built by Energy Development Company of Hamburg, Pennsylvania) .

A tour of Maglio's basement reveals the meticulously installed solar apparatus. He will incorporate air cooling into the intricate network of piping before next summer he says. '

With the windmill now in place and ready to spin, Maglio expects to wipe out his power costs, and in fact to sell surplus electricity to the Atlantic City Electric Company.

"That's why I put up such a big machine," he explains. "I wanted to interface with the electric company. The manufacturer says t his machine generates 45,000 to 60,000 kilowatt-hours per year, and I only need 20,000 for my house."

In the future he will use some of the excess for outdoor lig<hts, his workshop a.nd other buildings on his property. He is negotiating with Atlantic City Electric to monitor the output of the machine during the coming year to determine how much electricity it will actually produce.

M8g'lio knows tlha.t he may not be entkely self-reliwnt, since wind C&ll be repla.oed 'by calm. IHJ.s array CJif eleven 12 1/2-volt industrial storage batteries shOUld hold enough eleotric1ty for at least two days, he believes.

The inventive retiree had to prepare a site plan for his loca.l zoning '8.Ild planning boards before erecting the windmiltl. He needed .a va.riance, siillCe a 35-foot structure was the maximum allowed, and lhis windmill is 60 feet.

"My nelighbors were all for it," he says. He sent letters to 20 of them telling a.bout the wind turbine and the need for a variance. The manu.f.acturer provided .a letter assuring abutters that the m.a.chine would produce no ra.dio or television interference since it runs slow'ly (60 r.p.m.), and that 1t is quiet Sit a. distance of 100 feet or more.

In fa.ct, response to Maglio's dual system has been so positive that he is holding seminars twice a month to introduce others to solar and wind energy. At the first seminar on September 15, his workshop was transformed into a classroom for several electrical and plumbing contractors, a member of the local zoning board and a representative of the electric company. The charge for attending the day-long sessions is $50.

More information may be obtained from: Vito Maglio, 5 OU:rrtden Avenue, Cla.rksboro, New Jersey 08020. Telephone: (609) -423-5080.

Maglio's next solar-related projects? Air cooling in his house, solar hot water and space heating in the workshop a.nd finally, sola.r hot wa.ter in the eight apartment Victorian ma.nsion on !h.iB land."e

December 18, 1979

THE lOOTH ANNIVERSARY OF WIEDERKEHR WINE CELLARS

HON. JOHN P, HAMMERSCHMIDT OF ARKANSAS

lN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


e Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, the new year of 1980 will mark the lOOth anniversary of the Wiederkehr Wine Cellars near Altus, Ark.

This enterprise was begun by a Swiss immigrant and is today still a family business run by the two grandsons, AI and Leo Wiederkehr.

Because many of my colleagues may not be familiar with the production of excellent wine in western Arkansas, a feature article by Tom Wood, which appeared in the Arkansas Democrat newspaper on Sunday, November 11, entitled Wiederkehrs Grows into Award-Winning Winery, is included at this point in the RECORD: WIEDERKEHRS GROWS INTO AWARD-WINNING

WINERY (By Tom Wood)

WIEDERKEHR Vn.LAGE.-Because the specifiC founding date is not known, Wiederkehr Wine Cellars, Inc. will celebrate its IOOth anniversary all year long in 1980.

This giant of the Arkansas wine industry had a modest beginning in 1880 when a Swiss immigrant, Johann Andrew Wiederkehr, made his first wine in this country and stored it in his cellar, a niche carved out of a hillside here not far from Altus.

Old Johann's first products were not grape wines. They were from other fruits raised in Arkansas-persimmon, cherry and apple.

The Wiederkehr firm, now able to store two million gallons of wine for aging, not counting a warehouse capable of holding 65,000 cases of products from the vine, actually inched its way into proininence, which now includes winning gold, silver and bronze medals in wine competitions with California, New York and other wines.

In the 1880's, the founder would make his wine and stash it in his cellar. When it was ready, he would cap crock jugs with corn cdbs, loa.d them into his hack on a Saturday night and head for Altus, then an active mining town. He'd come back with the hack empty and his pockets full.

At that time he was one of as many as 14 small wine producers. As time went on, Johann persevered and most of the other competitiors !Sided away.

His grandson, Alcuin (AI) Wiederkehr, the present chairman of the board, said no one knows where the original gra.pe stock came from. It is only known that Johann only brought pear, cherry and rose cuttings from the old country when he brought his family here.

Johann built a cabin, a cellar and a lean-to kitchen on his 80-acre start. By 1881, he was planting grapes. He and three neighbors had only one pony among them to work the vineyards. He produced an increasing amount of wine, aged it, then corked them in one, two and five-gallon jugs.

According to the grandson, production never exceeded 5,000 gallons a year until after the turn of the century, a time when the container size had increased to five- and ten-g&llon kegs, along with an occasional 50-gallon keg.

Only six Swiss-German families and one Irishman had arrived ahead of Johann. AI Wiederkehr credits energy, ingenuity and luck with his grandfather's success.

December 18, 19 79 He didn't know it was good wine country,

but all of the settlers came with the belief that Arkansas soil could grow anything. This spurred the energy and ingenuity. Luck came with the sandy loam and the location of the vineyards on a plateau between two ranges of mountains, the Bostons on the north and the Quachitas on the south.

Conditions were more temperate than the surrounding areas. The plateau was off the valley floor and afforded a view across the valley to the west, where the Subiaco Monastery watched over the terrain and the Arkansas River cut its path on the way to joining the Mississippi River.

Johann died in 1927 at age 74. His son, Herman, took over and expanded the winery. He had tenure during prohibition and the Great Depression.

Although Arkansas was considered an upstart wine region at the time, Herman began to expand his trade territory.

"He'd take the back seat out of the family car, load it up and drive to outlets in towns over the region," Al Wiederkehr said.

It was a time when Wiederkehr's made and sold sacramental and medical wines. It is even said that notorious mobster Al Capone got his hands on some Wiederkehr wines, although no shipments were made directly.

Wiederkehr's began a substantial expansion in the 1930s when prohibition began to lose ground. Growth was slow and steady. Imbibers early had taken a liking to Wiederkehr wines and often would order shipments from great distances over the country. Herman Wiederkehr, now 84 and still an executive consultant to the company, endured until the third generation-sons Leo and Al-were able to lift much of the burden.

Al Wiederkehr, with a bachelor's degree in commerce from Notre Dame University, joined his brother and they conducted experiments on 100 varieties of grapes until they finally settled most of their output on new French hybrids.

Johann, during his first years in Arkansas, had joined his fellow settlers in working out a substitute for coffee which, at most, was only passable. In those rugged days, that part of Arkansas had no coffee. Johann and the others charred peanuts and brewed their "coffee."

When the grandsons came along, a change was in the wind. Herman had expanded the wine storage area beyond the original cellar, pushed his trade routes out, signed on with beer or whiskey distributors and increased vineyard space. The grandsons followed that path, but they did more.

Al, who became a marketing expert and an exceptional merchandiser, studied law at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville in a successful effort to protect the wine industry in Arkansas. He even wrote bills which others introduced into the legislature successfully. He visited all the wine districts in France after going abroad on a scholarship.

Back home, Al designed many of the labels to go on Wiederkehr bottles. The Wiederkehr grandsons improved storage and machinery for the processing of better wine products, including destemmers and automatic pickers. Al purchased large storage trunks in the north and had them installed on the winery grounds here.

The quality and variety of wines improved and increased in output. Regional distribution was expanded and additional distant shipping be~n taking place. When Oklahoma went wet in 1960, A1 engineered the introduction of a 20 percent Concord wine and even managed to break the pattern in the codes surrounding display of wines and spirits through the use of a tri-pak, three different wines in the same package.

This enlarged display attracted a lot of attention to Wiederkehr wines. According to

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Okl!ahoma law, he said, the three wines could not be shipped into the state, but after they arrived, the retail dealer could mix them as he saw fit. The Sooners went for the Wiederkehr wines, which were higher priced than most popul81r wines but stUI competitive. During the first year of this innovation, Wiederkehr sold 15,000 bottles o! their products in Oklahoma.

Thus, the Concord wine was a turning point in expansion. The change was dramatic. That was when A1 went north to Ohicago, Detroit and Evansville, Ind., to look for storage !ac111ties. He came back with 48 tanks with the capacity of 16,000 gallons eaoh.

Arkansas wines began finding space on the shelves of the nation, in competition with Italian Swiss Colony and Gallo, then pressed on into the category of quality wines.

In the years since old Joha1!Jl. had started the trail blazing, this Swiss family clung to Swiss-German patterns and instituted an Okltober!est, .a celebration !or the harvest. The Wiederkehrs began buying quality grapes from other growers and the area of the plateau vineyards grew to occupy most o! a 2,900-acre tract.

The Wiederkehr vineyards expanded to include 560 acres of grapes, including one hardy strain that has been in production !or the last 70 years.

The family incorporated its holdings in the 1960s. Wiederkehr Wine Cellars, Inc. then had subsidiaries----,Swiss Family Vineyards Inc., Alpine Nurseries and the Weinkeller Restaurant, a quality dispenser o! Swiss-German foods. They imported a. Swiss chef and the entire family chipped in their efforts !or the expanded operation. Leo took over the restaurant, which began attracting so many people that reservations were the only assurance o:f a table in the restaurant. The Weinkeller Restaurant now occupies the cellar first hewn out of the hills by the founder , Johann Wiederkehr, before he was 40 years old.

Wiederkehr Village now consists of the winery itself, the restaurant, a wiengarten that seats nearly 400 celebrants at festive occasions and a gift shop.

People visiting Wiederkehr ViUage st111 have the opportunity to chat with Herman Wiederkehr, now 84 years old. He's frequently at the gift shop or on the grounds, Where he's on standby as a consultant.

In the past few years, Wiederkehr Wine Cellars, Inc. has stepped to the front of the wine business by winning medals for their fine wtne.

Wiederkehr finds itself in compatible circumstances, the soil and climate are friends, its products are being accepted increasingly and their overview from the heart of the valley offers beauty and peace. About two miles away is St. Mary's Church, which is celebrating its 10oth birthday Thanksgiving, oniy a month or so before Wiederkehr starts its own series of festivals .

"I am not sure, but we expect to have something going on intennittently all year long. We'll try to have something at least once a month. We may bring in a series of bands to play in the wiengarten," AI said.e

THE lOTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WEST OAKLAND HEALTH CENTER




e Mr. DELI.lUMS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge December 9, 1979, as the lOth anniversary of the founding of the West Oakland Health Center. The

36863

center has provided essential health service to the West Oakland community these past 10 years. It serves as an outstanding model for a health care delivery system that truly meets the needs of those it serves.

I would like to pay special tribute to the citizens of the West Oakland area who have given of their time and effort to make this center a success.•

CUSTOMS BROKERS: THE MIDDLE PEOPLE

HON. BARBARA A. MIKULSKI OF MARYLAND



• Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues and others, both in Government and the private sector, who are interested in significant aspects of our international trade, two articles relating to the important and basic roles played by both the U.S. CUstoms Service and the thousands of small businessmen known as customs brokers and jnternational freight forwarders.

I have had ample opportunity over some years to know of the professional, expert, and vital services rendered by the members of the Baltimore CUstomhouse Brokers and Forwarders Association. Thus, I read with particular interest an article that appeared in the summer edition of Customs Today, the official magazine of the U.S. Customs Service. Entitled "Customs Brokers: · The Middle People," the article reports an interview with William R. Casey conducted by Edward L. Kittredge of the Customs' headquarters staff. From my standpoint, one of the many significant responses made by Mr. Casey was his statement:

The most common complaint that I hear is lack of uniformity between the different Customs districts as well as the regions.

Mr. Casey is president of the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association <NCBFAA) of which the Baltimore Association is among the 23 regional and local affiliated associations throughout the country. Mr. Casey is also chairman and chief executive officer of the Myers Group, one of the most prominent customs brokerage and international freight forwarding firms. In the interview Mr. Casey explains how the unique talents of the hundreds of small businessmen that comprise the national association have helped reduce the complexities of our international commerce since the association was founded in 1897.

I am proud to say that a number of these small ~business entrepreneurs are located in my own congressional district in the port of Baltimore. Thus, I have had an opportunity to see at firsthand the high standards and professionalism of the work which they perform.

Currently, when the commerce of this Nation is undergoing increased consolidation into large-scale enterprises, small business survival depends to an ever-

36864

increasing degree on the availability of competent, personalized service by those who are experts in their field. This fact is particularly true in the specialized areas of international freight forwarding and customs brokerage. In this work, moreover, the firms are primarily small ones which employ between 10 and 50 persons.

Though the functions of the international freight forwarder and customs broker are not well known to the general public, their work is well known and respected by officials of the U.S. CUstoms Service, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board and the many other Federal agencies with which they are in frequent contact on behalf of their clients.

Many Senate and House committees have received testimony and counsel from members of the national association in efforts to help solve problems related to international trade. One such committee, on which I have the privilege of serving, is the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.

The second article which merits attention is "Pamphleteering" by Leonard M. Shayne. It is in the August issue of the American Import Export Bulletin.

The thrust of this article by a former president and chairman of the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association is that the U.S. Customs Service in recent years has been publishing pamphlets in which "the graphics and the contents have been improving. Legalese has given way to common language." Mr. Shayne, who is president of Leading Forwarders, credits Commissioner Robert E. Chasen with bringing an improved and businesslike approach to the work performed and the publications issued by the U.S. Customs Service.

The two articles are being inserted in the RECORD because they are worthy of note by my colleagues, and by all Americans interested in this country's need to develop increased, beneficial international trade.

The articles follow: CUSTOMS BROKERS : THE MIDDLE PEOPLE

Customs Today: We would llke to congrat-ulate you. Mr. Casey, on your elec·tion as president of the National CUstoms Brokers and Forwarders Association.

Casey: Thank you. Our readers would be interested in knowing

something about the history of your association; how and when was it formed?

The Association was founded in 1897 as the Customs-Clerk Association of the Port of New York and its members were customhouse brokers and clerks in the U.S. Customs Service. When it was reorganized in 1922 as the New York Customs Brokers Association, its membership was llmited to llcensed customs brokers in New York only. Over the years, licensed brokers all over the United States were permitted to join. In 1962, the group became known as the National customs Brokers and Forwarders Association.

How many members do you have? Somewhere close to 400 members. We as

sume that takes in most of the active customs brokers firms in the U.S. We'll be interested to find out, when you finish your census, how many customs brokers there are in the U.S. We do not know, and apparently Customs won't know until the census under P.L. 95-110 is completed.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS How many of your members are customs

brokers and how many are forwarders? Generally most firms are both brokers and

forwarders. They are really sister professions. The usual entry into the field is as a customs broker. And then, if a cllent wants to ship something to France the next thing you know you are learning to be an international freight forwarder .

It's a little di1Ierent in Europe where the entry into the field as a freight forwarder usually leads one to become a customs broker.

Does a freight forwarder have to have a customs brokers license then-a license given by U .S. Customs?

No, the freight forwarder is not licensed by Customs. Customs licenses Customs brokers for the import function, the Federal Marl time Administration licenses people as ocean freight forwarders on the export side, and the Civil Aeronautics Board licenses air freight forwarders .

)How do the local branches of your organization relate to the national office?

There are 23 regional associations around the country. Firms in any region may belong t o the regional association and to the national. There are firms which belong to the national and not the local. Vice versa, there are firms which belong to the regiona.l association and not to the national.

Ideally, we would like all customs brokers to join both. Each of the regional associations appoints a National Advisory Committeeman who sits in with our executive committee at meetings.

He or she participates in the decisions we make. We are reorganizing our whole system so it will become a true association of associations.

What functions do your members perform? How do they deal with Customs?

Generally customhouse brokers represent ' the importer in dealing with Customs. I'd

say that 98 percent of all imports in the U.S. go through the customhouse brokers. Typically, the brokers receive the import documents prior to the shipment's arrival.

On or after ship arrival or arriva.l of aircraft or truck or railcar, the broker presents the invoices, tbills of lading, procedure bills, and other necessary papers to Customs for exa.m.ination and release of the merchandise under the entry procedure in P.L. 95-410 or the old I.D. (immediate dellvery) system on the border.

The broker also orders the transporter to forward the merchandise from the pier or airport to the consignee.

Then 10 days later the broker presents to customs an entry summary with all documents needed to appraise and classify the merchandise, as well as to verify statistical information. Along with these papers is a check or checks representing the estimated duty.

This is, of course, over-simplified. There are many compllcated entries involving quotas, GSP, and the regulations Customs enforces for other agencies.

Upon receipt of the entry summary package, Customs immediately deposits the checks under the new cash flow program and then sends the entry package to the appropriate commodity specialist who accepts or rejects it; if he accepts it, he checks the broker's work in detail as to classification, value, and so forth.

Explain, if you wlll, the function of freight forwarders and how they interact with Customs.

Generally they interact on an export shipment. Of course, they file a shipper's export declaration, and secure export licenses if they are needed. They generally do almost the same thing a customs broker does but in reverse. Since Customs polices our export laws for many other agencies, it also reviews the documentation for exporting. In

December 18, 1979

some cases the documentation is considerable, except where the merchandise is not sensitive.

If we're acting as a forwarder as well as a customhouse broker, we have physical possession of the merchandise in that particular case. And in some instances we must have common carrier bonds as well.

So a forwarder actually works in both directions?

Yes. Most people think of a forwarder as an outbound shipper-but actually it is becoming more common now for a forwarder to work on inbound, too.

Do forwarders have anything to do with shipping goods on land?

Yes. In that case they either act as a shipper's agent or as an Interstate Commerce Commission inland forwarder. These are ICC rights that forwarders have to apply for and to be licensed by the ICC. That's not so common. We have them ourselves on the West Coast. In that case as an inland forwarder you file a tariff with ICC, you have your own house bills of lading, and you are holding yourself out as a common carrier.

Forwarders also can act as carriers-as an NVOCC-a non-vessel operating as a common carrier by ocean. They can file a tariff and issue their own bills of lading even though they do not own any vessels. In effect then, they contract with the underlying carrier and retail the underlying carrier's space-whether it is a full container or less than container load-to the importer and exporter. And the air freight forwarder does the same thing-by air.

How does your organization feel about the proposed changes in reducing the deferral period, using monthly accounts and such things?

To tell you the truth, we think reducing the deferral period would be an unmitigated disaster , for various reasons. One is that we are used to operating on the 10-day cycle now, and it takes the average efficient broker three days to prepare an entry properly.

Brokers may not even have the proper paperwork--documents come in from all over the world. Sometimes a foreign shipper will send them, or another forwarder in a foreign country-it is not just the importer who sends them.

Sometimes the shipments arrive ahead of the proper documentation. In many cases brokers do not re{!eive the proper documentation within the 10-day period. Therefore, the rejection rate by Customs would be extremely high, as would the amount of penalties for late filing.

We understand there has been talk of this for some time?

Generally the thrust for the 3-day duty payment comes from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). My understanding is that it is not a Treasury proposal but that it comes from OMB in an attempt to improve cash-flow. Here in New York we are trying the system of immediately stripping the check from the entry when it's presented at the customhouse, before going to the import specialist. That should improve the cash fiow.

But I don't know how that will be squared away with the no errors policy that Customs has on rejections. Once the check has been shipped off ahead of the entry, it's going to call for a lot of adjustments when it reaches the import specialist. It's going to call for more duty on a considerable number of entries, and it will mean that some have been overpaid. I think it is going to be difficult to get very prompt refunds on the overpayments.

But we'll soon see. Do you see any benefits or possible prob

lems that might occur with the aligning of the 7501 entry form and the international standard master form?

December 18, 1979 I have given that some hard thought. I

know the National Committee for International Trade Documentation (NCITD) has worked on that. They are the authors of the international standard master. But I can't really see where the 7501 comes in on that because the 7501 would not normally be prepared by the foreign shipper. It is prepared by the importer and signed by the importer or the importer's agent, the customhouse broker. The broker would have to pre-prepare it anyway-and would have to prepare it all over again when it came in because it would be almost impossible for the foreign exporter to have all the information necessary to prepare the 7501; that would just be one document and there are so many other documents that are sent in with the entry. Whereas, if the system were automated, the broker or importer would just have to redo that all over again anyway.

I see no harm to it. But I don't see any particular value to it either. There is the possibility that foreign shippers might put poor or misleading information on the documents which might get copied when it came through and could lead to more fraud cases. That would be the only negative thing about it.

What changes, for instance, would your organization like to see in the licensing procedure?

The primary change we would like to see in the licensing would be a national licensing system, rather than a district system. It's a district licensing system now-not even a region, but a district, and it really gets to be extremely onerous because, for example, our firm operates in about 40 different ports.

Now last year we asked for licenses in two ports. It took six or eight months to get licensed, and yet Customs knows everything they need to know about us and it's all in their files. We went through the licensing process in one port that year and turned around to another port in another district and had to go through the same thing again.

And the reason is that Customs has delegated that authority to the District Director. The District Director has to reinvent the wh.eel every time. He has to go through a complete investigation using Customs agents and everything else. If the Customs agents are chasing something a little more glamorous like contraband, they are going to put this licensing thing right at the bottom of their heap. It's extremely expensive because in order to apply for the license you need qualified people and an office, and since they just sit there for six or eight months, they can't make any money.

So we would like to see a national licensing system where if you are licensed in any district you can extend your license to any other district automatically. Then if Customs finds for some reason or another that you do not have qualified people in that district, they can then either warn you or withdraw your license in that district. But I would rather see the positive thing done.

I also think there might be input from the trade. I think, pretty generally, the exams that are now given by Customs are very adequate professionally, but we think in the matter of ethics and business practices it might be well if our association had some input, as they do in the CPA and the Bar Association and their members.

Do you see a need or desirability for your association to administer these tests rather than having the government do it?

Yes I think that's done in some countries. In fact I think the Canadians do it. I think we could take it off Customs' hands. I think Customs has always wanted to monitor it to be sure we don't let up on standards. But I think probably if the brokers and forwarders did it themselves they would make it even more difficult because they would have sort of a built-in bias to keep too many people out of the trade.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS But do you think Customs could adequate

ly police customs brokers and forwarders by some other means than testing?

Brokers are actually controlled now through the auditing function. And that's been stepped up over the past several years. You get audited fairly often.

What problems does a broker encounter in day-to-day meetings with Customs that could be changed-that we could improve without going to Congress, but simply by making regulatory changes?

The most common complaint that I hear is lack of uniformity between the different Customs districts as well as the regions. To give you an example: If you follow up an IRS tax return-a 10-40 or whatever it isin any Internal Revenue region in the country, it is the same thing, one form, one format. With Customs there's almost a separate format for each district or port. For example, we have an on-line computer system in our firm and we almost have to have a separate program for every different port. Each port wants certain information in certain spaces on the form and some want some information and don't want others.

Do you think that is because classification is subjective?

I think it's because of lack of adequate modern machinery in Customs. I hope the AMPS (Automated Merchandise Processing System) or the EIS (Early Implementation System) systems will make a difference and solve that problem. But right now, the e.bili ty of CUstoms to insure this is hampered by lack of proper machinery. They just have too much paper going around that is not automated.

You feel that the answer lies in automation?

Yes. I'd say another problem we run into occasionally is inadequate training in the cases of some of the examining officers. We've had cases where prohibited merchandise or quota merchandise has been released by a Customs officer and we have been penalized for it. But I guess that is a minor objection. The only real problems we have are the lack of uniformity.

One more question. What impressions did you take away from the recent Regional Commissioners conference you attended in California?

I can't tell you how positive it was. In all the years that I've been in this business I have never seen all of the Regional Commissioners and the new Commissioner together at one time at a meeting, and really it was just incredible to see them all out there. We just felt so extremely flattered that they would take that matter of our organization and want to work with us in that way. It was just wonderful.

PAMPHLETEERING

(By Leonard Shayne) For some years now the Customs has been

publishing pamphlets for public information on various subjects. Gradually both the graphics and the contents have been improving. Legalese has given way to common language. These pamphlets are interesting and instructive and they clarify complicated points even for professionals. I am sure the program has not been without some cost, and the budgeters must have wondered on occasion whether the output has been worth the expense. I have no quantitative arwwer for them but I do have an opinion-which is that an educated importing public makes the government's job easier. Many of the violations of our complicated import laws are purely unintentional, the result of ignorance. If even a small percentage of these violations can be prevented thru programs of public education, the Customs gains much return for its dollars.

When Robert E. Chasen became Commissioner, many were pleased that finally a busi-

36865 nessman was at the helm. We had had, in my opinion, a succession of excellent commissioners from the ranks of government, but many thought that a new point of view would prove valuable. Of course, Chasen had both a business executive and an FBI background, so there was no telling what kind of regime would follow.

If you want a key to that regime, get a copy of the Customs pamphlet for Customs Employees called "Courtesy and Service". It's a remarkable document to be issued by a tax collector and policeman, a policeman with powers to search without warrant which exceed in some ways those of any other law enforcement body in our democratic country. The chapter headings are: Step 1 Be Concerned; Step 2 Offer Prompt and Friendly Assistance; Step 3 Be Understanding and Patient; Step 4 Be Respectable and Presentable; Step 5 Be Tactful; Step 6 Practice Empathy; Step 7 Say Thank You and You Are Welcome.

The back cover says: "Simply A Matter of Courtesy In Law Enforcement".

It's a pamphlet worth reading. And a commissioner who publishes a booklet like it, is a commissioner worth having.e

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S NEED TO LEAD IN TIMES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES




• Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, on November 9 I wrote a letter to the President regarding the lack of commitment and leadership on the part of the Federal Government to help the innocent vic- . tims of the Love Canal disaster.

Mr. Speaker, as you may remember, in August of 1978 the President set a precedent by declaring a manmade environmental tragedy a national emergency, thus triggering a Federal response to the problems of the Love Canal. I applauded his efforts because I expected his declaration to bring with it the urgent and comprehensive attention that the situation demands.

However, as I note in my letter the Federal response has been minimal. At no time have the Federal agencies, either individually or collectively, assumed a leadership role. Nor have the Federal agencies learned from this tragic experience, because they have not tried to learn.

I find the Federal Government's record at the Love Canal particularly disturbing because the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that there may be as many as 2,000 more "Love Canals'' waiting to explode.

I am inserting in the RECORD today a copy of my letter to the President so that my colleagues can be aware of the frustrations I have felt over the last 12 years when trying to get the Federal Government to define its role in this and future environmental emergencies caused by the escape of toxic chemicals from abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites.

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that the time has come for the President, himself, to exert himself and to develop a responsible, comprehensive plan for the Federal Government which delineates

36866 the Federal Government's role as a whole and the role of each component agency in handling environmental disasters of this nature.

I know that many of my colleagues share my concern over the lack of a comprehensive Federal policy and a lack of 'Federal leadership in the area of hazardous waste cleanup and containment of abandoned sites. Therefore, I invite my colleagues to make their views known to the White House as I have done so that the President can understand that the American people want action.

The letter follows: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D.C., November 9, 1979. President JIMMY CARTER, The White House, Washington, D.C.

DEAtl MR. PREsmENT: As you know, the Love Ca.na.l in Niagara Falls, New York, is in my Congressional district. In August of 19'78 you determined that this area. was so dangerously cont&mina.ted by hazardous wastes that you declared the existence of e.n "emergency" under the Disaster Rellef Act, .thus underscoring the New York State Health Commissioner's finding that the Love Canal is a. "great and imminent perU to the health of the general public residing at or near the site."

I applauded your willingness to set a. precedent by deola.ring a. man-made environmental tragedy a. national emergency thus triggering a federal response to the problems at the Love Canal. However, since your declaration the federal government has not responded in the urgent, responsible, comprehensive and compassionate manner tha.t the situation demands.

In fact, Mr. President, I believe I can state without reservation that each federal agency that has been called upon to help at the Love Canal-including OMB, HEW, HUD, EPA, FDAA, and your own White House staff-has taken the position that it will do as little as possible so as to minimize its role instea.d of doing as much a.s possible to help the innocent victims of a.n environmental dlsa.ster of immense proportions.

At no time have federal agencies, either collectively or individually, a&Sumed a. leadership role. At no time have federal agencies, individually or collectively, attempted to define the federal role in this or future environmental emergencies caused by the esca.pe of toxic chemicals from abandoned hazardous waste disposal dumps.

Mr. President, the Love Canal is only the first of what may prove to be many exploding .ticking time bombs. Yet the federal government has been remiss in Lts responsibllity to the public to act it: this case and formulate an approach for handling future Love Oa.na.J.s. It has learned little from this tragic experience because it has not tried to lea.m.

Mr. President, I have seen approximately 2,000 of my constituents--500 fa.m111essuffer needlessly over the last several years because the federal government has not responded adequately even after you declared a.n emergency.

I have exercised great restraint, and have tried to work within the system and with your appointed secretaries and administrators. However, I have reached the limits of my endurance. I see no prospect of this situation resolving itself without your direct intervention and forceful leadership. The Love Canal is no longer a. matter which can be handled by Secretary Harris, Secretary La.ndrieu, Administrator Castle, Mr. Mcintyre, Mr. Watson or Mr. Macey because each of these individuals has had his or her chance and has failed to respond effectively.

Mr. President, let me explain the specifics

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS of the Love Canal situation and some of the ways in which the federal government has abrogated its responsib1llties.

THE $6 MILLION CAP

Following the "emergency" declaration on August 7, 1978, Mr. Watson held a. meeting in the White House on August 9 so that representatives of the various federal agencies involved, a.s well a.s State officials, could meet to discuss the appropriate role for each agency. The FDAA agreed to help by funding emergency construction work on the Love Canal. I, along with Senators Moynihan and Ja.vlts, helped secure Congressional approval of a. special appropriation for EPA in the amount of $4 mil11on to conduct a. demonstration project a.t the Love Canal.

However, between the time that FDAA agreed to spend money a.t the Canal and the passage of the special appropriation, OMB decided, arbitrarily and capriciously, to limit the federal involvement to no more than $6 million. This cap on federal assistance was based on no relevant information about the costs which might be incurred to remedy the environmental hazards at the Love Canal. OMB wlll not state publicly that it put this arbitrary cap on federal spending, 'but it did! When the costs mounted a.t the site and New York State came to the federal government for more assistance, OMB said "no", asserting that the federal government had done its share. In fact, the federal government has not.

EPA'S "DEMONSTRATION PROJECT" EPA was given $4 milllon by Congress to

spend a.t the Love Canal in order to conduct a. demonstration project. However, .EPA was strapped from the beginning because it had to use a. large proportion of its money to do construction work which should have been pa.ld for by FDAA, thus freeing up the EPA money to do what Congress intended it to do: provide information on how to deal with cleaning up and containing leaching hazardous waste landfills.

However, EPA did not seize the opportunity it had to make the most of its demonstration project. EPA signed a. cooperative agreement with New York State for the demonstration grant, gave its money to the State to spend, and then deferred almost completely to the State. EPA has not even attempted to monitor the project to see if the construction work has been a. success, or to see if the place Ls, indeed, a. healthier and safe place in which to live.

I have asked EPA time and time again to examine new information which has come to the public's attention supporting allegations that the construction work might need to be redesigned in various ways, and I have not received a. reply. Now the construction work has ended and it is too late. The federal government may have spent $4 million ineffectively. I sincerely hope not.

In addition to EPA's abrogation to the State, it has been remiss in organizing itself so that lt could centralize its efforts at the Love Canal. My omce, a. legislative office, has had to serve a.s a. virtual tra.mc cop for the Agency, and indeed for all the federal executive branch agencies. It is so bad that one of my staff was called by a. person in Water Enforcement a.t EPA to find out how EPA obtained its authority to spend the $4 million it was spending a.t the Love Canal. A very high-ranking EPA omcia.l did not even know the name of the person within EPA responsible for the Love Canal demonstration project.

HUD/EPA "COORDINATION"

The Cancer Assessment Group (CAG) under EPA's AssLsta.nt Administrator for Research and Development, formulated a. report for HUD to advise HUD on what policy it should consider regarding FHA mortgage insurance in the Love Canal area. I had originally contacted HUD ln February ask-

December 18, 1979 ing them to make a. policy statement on this issue. Ten months have gone by and I have yet to receive a. reply from that agency.

To make matters worse, I found out about the CAG report because a. member of my staff happened to be a.t a. meeting (to which she invited herself) which was being held a.t EPA, although it was under the auspices of HEW's task force to assess the impact of hazardous wastes on the public (a. group which had also been formed a.t my request). My sta.tr had to advise the Assistant Administrator of EPA, a.s well as its Congressional Liaison Office, of the existence of this report, its lmpllca.tlons lf released to the publlc in the form in which it had been drafted, and its irrelevance to the questions I had originally asked.

The CAG was about to forward the report to HUD with no cover letter, and without advising anyone of its existence, if I had not stepped in. Once the Legislative Liaison Office a.t EPA and the Assistant Administrator knew of its existence, it still took constant prodding from my office to have them issue a. release to the public explaining the "real" meaning of the report, actions necessitated because the draft had already been sent to the President of the Love Canal Homeowners Association.

HEW'S RESPONSE TO A HEALTH EMERGENCY The Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare has proved itself to be no better organized than EPA or HUD to handle environmental emergencies of this kind. As with those agencies, bureaus and offices within HEW don't know what each other ls doing, to say nothing of what other agencies are doing. Coordination seems to be absent from the vocabularies of the federal officials who have been asked to help with regard to the Love Canal.

For example, I asked one of the health bureaus of HEW-the Center for Disease Control-to provide physicians to help examine residents of the Love Ca.na.l area.. Initially the response was that CDC would do this, but when it counted and the request came ln, CDC reversed its position. And only when I inquired further did we learn that while CDC was unwllllng to send experts for such a. purpose, another bureau-the Health Services Administration-would do so. Why this information wasn't known and/or volunteered leaves me ba.ffied.

Again and again in my dealings with HEW officials, up to and including those from a.n agency called the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, I've essentially been told that the responsib111ty belongs elsewhere. If the Love Canal doesn't fall into the purview of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, what in the world does?

The same thing happened when I requested neutral federal experts to review the conflicting findings of the New York State Department of Health and those of a. respected, local scientist regarding health conditions of the area. residents. If I were a. federal health official, I know I'd jump a.t the opportunity to study the Love Canal, clearly a. benchmark in environmental health. But federal scientists and federal health agencies apparently don't care.

One result of the initial HEW/EPA study, which I had to instigate, was the formation of another task force. Yet it is studying theoretical problems, not reality. EPA's own estimate-that there are perhaps 2,000 dumps across the country which may present imminent and substantial health problems-should alone have been enough to spur that agency, and any other federal agencies which ought to have been involved, into action. Why did they walt for a. Congressman to demand study and action? And why, I wonder, has EPA not assigned toplevel personnel to work as part of the task force along with scientists and technicians?

December 18, 19 79 This seemingly logical step, too, has been overlooked.

OMB AND THE WHITE HOUSE Last, but certainly not least, is the role

which OMB and the White House have played in the Love Canal tragedy. As I noted earlier, OMB arbitrarily and capriciously put a $6 million cap on the federal participation at the Love Canal. This arbitrary cap is absurdity in the specific.

Just as absurd has been OMB's and the White House's role in developing legislation to deal with emergencies of this kind and prevent them in the future. Because of the Love Canal, along with EPA's findings that there were thousands of other potential "Love Canals" around the country, I had been urging your Administration to come up with a comprehensive program to deal with these issues. After much talk, but little action, I prepared my own blll, based on a "Superfund" concept, to provide a meaningful federal role in dealing with these emergencies and assisting the innocent victims of exposure to hazardous wastes.

A month later you announced that the Administration had its own "Superfund" proposal, and you sent a bill to Congress for consideration. I was gratified to hear you say at that time that this is a high priority for the Administration, yet I noted the irony of the situation where I and a number of other federal legislators had developed major legislative initiatives before your "experts" did.

Irony turned to despair, however, when I read the Administration blll as initially drafted and learned that it had two incredible omissions: First, it would have provided no funds to assist the State of New York with regard to the tens of millions of dollars it is spending to clean up the Love Canal, the tragedy which had spurred the development of the bill itself. Secondly, it contained no provision to assist the individuals and families whose health and welfare are threatened by environmental emergencies such as these.

My cajolery helped convinced EPA and OMB that a revision had to be made in the blll to include assistance for states that have met their responsibilities and tried to deal with these situations, rather than letting them fester, and I'm grateful that the Administration has agreed to that change in its proposal. However, I have yet to succeed in persuading your people that our government, of the people, ought also to care about the people and provide assistance to innocent victims of tragedies of this kind.

Mr. President, I have testified on the Hill no less than a dozen times over the last year on the need for new laws and regulations which would authorize the federal government to clean up, contain, and monitor abandoned sites as well as compensate victims for personal injury and property damage. I have also testified on the need for the Administration to implement the laws that Congress has already passed.

The Administration has been lax and indeed negligent in its efforts to promulgate regulations for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which Congress passed in 1976; it has been remiss in promulgating regulations for the hazardous discharge subsection of Section 311 of the Clean Water Act; it has been derelict in its duty to propose a National Contingency Plan for the implementation of the regulations for the hazardous discharge provision of Section 311 (something that is now six years overdue); and it has been delinquent in its duty to request funds for Section 504 of the Clean Water Act so that the federal government can exercise its present authority, limited as that is, to act in times of environmental emergencies. Mr. President, this is not a record of which one can be proud.


I have found over the last two years that I have had to attempt to orchestrate the federal bureaucracy single-handedly if I want any federal governmental action to help the people of the Love Canal.

Mr. President, I am a legislator, not a bureaucrat. I am a lawmaker, not a traffic cop. I have hired a staff to help me in my duties, not to carry out the entire Administration's. I believe the time has come for you, personally, to review the Love Canal situation and the federal government's role in environmental disasters of this nature, and to develop a responsible, comprehensive plan for the federal government which delineates the federal government's role as a whole and the role of each component agency. This matter needs your immediate, personal attention. It needs your immediate, forceful leadership. I stand ready to help should you call on me.

Sincerely, JOHN J. LAFALCE,

Member of Congress.e

IN MEMORY OF FULTON JOHN SHEEN

HON'. TOM CORCORAN OF ILLINOIS



e Mr. CORCORAN, Mr. Speaker, it was with fond memories of a time when the Government was not perceived as the source of all solutions that I learned of the passing of the Most Reverend Archbishop Fulton Sheen. For nearly 30 years, His Excellency communicated to the people of our country the interrelationship of society and religion with what can only be termed oratori::al brilliance.

The Archbishop was born on May 8, 1895, in El Paso, ill., which is located in my congressional district. Today, El Paso is still a place of neighborliness and respect for the good things that have so bountifully been granted to the members of that community. While in his youth, Archbishop Sheen moved with his family to Peoria, which is ably represented in the House of Representatives by my distinguished colleague, BoB MICHEL. After attending a secondary school in Peoria conducted by the Christian Brothers, he pursued his studies at St. Viator's College in Kankakee where he was graduated with a bachelor of arts degree. -

The obituary notice which appeared in the Post contained an interesting passage:

Called home in 1926, he was assigned for a year to a poor parish in his home town. "For all intents and purposes," he recalled, "that was to be my life and I was happy about it."

In less than a year he was assigned to teach philosophy at Catholic University. His bishop told him that the brief posting to Peoria had been a test of his humility and obedience.

"It was a great lesson to me," Bishop Sheen said.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen remembered that lesson and shared it with the American people. His ecumenical advice has meant much to those who had the fortune to hear it spoken by a man who had "no earlier recollections than a desire to be a priest." •

36867

LETTER FROM DR. DANA RAPHAEL




• Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, the following letter was sent to me by Dr. Dana Raphael of the Human Lactation Center in reply to my comments which appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of July 25, 1979. I welcome her comments and recognize her sincere desire to help solve a tragic problem. Her comments follow:

THE HUMAN LACTATION CENTER, LTD., Westport, Conn., September 7,1979.

Rep. RONALD DELLUMS, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR RONALD DELLUMS: My answers follOW to the cha.rges you read into the Congressional Record of July 25, 1979.

Ill-advised is the word for your decision to cite two sentences from a letter sent only to Members of the Board of The Human Lactation Center. You have used my words outof-context to fashion a fantasy world of conflict-of -interest situations.

You attempt, by subtle nuance, to cast doubt on my credibility because I advised an infant food company on the scientific aspects of a film. Yes, I have served as consultant anthropologist with full knowledge of my board, whenever there was an opportunity to work in behalf of women in poverty.

I helped Nestle take a somewhat self-serving film and turn it into a valid presentation of what mothers are experiencing in three different areas-a Gambian village, a Kenyan urban environment, and an East Indian community in Glasgow, Scotland. Several pediatricians and nutritionists from the United Kingdom and sectors of the developing world also were among the consultants. There was no "cloaking of our advocacy efforts" as you claim. Nestle identifies all of us quite openly at the end of the film.

Contrary to your suspicions, neither The Center nor I personally took a fee for my counsel, only travel expenses. It has been a policy of The Center not to take funds from the infant formula companies.

You imply that we deliberately published the Margaret Mead Memorial Issue of The Lactation Review to serve the infant formula companies. Not so. The staggering number of inquiries regarding the oontroversy had prompted us to contract with Mr. Edson to write an impartial history of this issue. He did so well, but neither group is satisfied. Each claims he favored the other.

My hope was that the infant food companies also would see this history of the breast/bottle controversy as a balazwed presentation of the issues and distribute it widely. I am anxious to have all our publications read because they contain information about the plight of women in developing countries that is not known nor available elsewhere. Some companies did buy several thousand copies of this issue and, I am delighted to say, are distributing them to people who have expressed concern about the fate of malnourished children in developing countries. But, not all, as y'OU would have the Congress believe. In fact, Nestle has no interest in the Margaret Mead Memorial Issue.

As for the two nutrition and health experts whom you claim resigned f"rom The Center because of our advocacy role. Let me enlighten you. Dick and Pat Je111ffe, from your home state, resigned because we could not work out the responsibilities of the West/East Coast units of The Center, and we disagreed on the role of the formula. compa.nies in solving the problems of infant

36868 malnutrition. I believe the companies are as much a part of the solution as the problems. They do not. I exchange views with these companies and work with them on a no-strings basis whenever my own expertise can be usful.

We make no claims as tx> ha.ve studied the long term effects of the use of infant formula. In fact, no group has studied the phenomenon completely to date. Even now, bids are out to begin researeh in this area (AID #2003). we have our hunches a.bout what happens, having had the extraordinary opportunity to work with mothers in over a dozen cultures. But, contrary to those who take advocacy positions, we must await thorough research and careful data amalysis before we issue any public statements which might affeot United States food policies.

I welcome your so-called "detailed critique" of The Center's vwrious publications. I cannot believe, since the judges you have chosen, including t he Jelliffes, have already admitted their biases that it could be of much value. Let me save you some time and public money. You will find, Congressman, that all our work and my public statements pursue one clear path. Our policy remains akin to what Margaret Mead cautioned when we first discussed the ramifications of working with Nestle on a. film. She said, "Make sure this is the cleMest representation of women's lot that i.t ca.n possibly be."

I have only one axe to grind-babies can't wait while we, well-fed professionals, advocates and political figures, debate who is right a.nd who said what to whom in the halls of Congress or at "by invitation only" conclaves.

Sure we all believe that brea.stfeeding is best. I have spent 25 years of my life trying to convince whomever would listen that this is so. However, we are discussing the essential nature of the additional food the infants must have after three months. Tra.gica.lly, each human baby cannot possibly have milk, no less formula. It is up to us to stop quarreling and find a substitute that can keep them healthy. Food first, please, no matter what the delivery system-breast, cups, bottles or hands.

You say you are open to further discussion of the i.ssues. I would be happy to meet with you when you return to Washington.

I request that you read this reply into the Congressional Record. I! you feel t.t is inappropriate for you to do so, please advise me. I will be glad to ask another one of your colleagues to do so.

Yours truly, DANA RAPHAEL, PH. D.,

Director.e

CONYERS BILL ADDRESSES WORKWEEK ISSUES

HON. WILLIAM H. GRAY III OF PENNSYLVANIA



• Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, just recently the Labor Standards Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor completed hearings on legislation which would combat unemployment by shortening the traditional workweek and curbing excessive overtime work.

The focus of these hearings was the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1979, H.R. 1748, introduced by Mr. CoNYERS, myself, and 13 of our colleagues.

This legislation would raise the overtime rate of pay, from time-and-a-half to double-time. Also, it would require the consent of employees in the scheduling of


overtime, and would reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to a new level of 35 hours, phased in over the course of 4years.

I commend to the attention of our colleagues the testimony of my friend, Mr. CoNYERS, at the recent hearings. Mr. Speaker, his testimony explains the purposes of this legislation, the issues which have given rise to the need for this bill, and the relationship between this bill and the larger question of how our economy can move toward the goal of full employment, as mandated by the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.

Congressman CoNYERS' testimony follows: TESTIMONY OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CONYERS

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

STANDARDS

Mr. Chairman and Members o! the House Labor Standards Subcommittee, as principal sponsor of legislation to shorten working hours and abolish compulsory overtime, I am honored to come before this Committee and be identified with a. great historical movement of American labor-the struggle of working men and women to obtain a. fair share of the fruits of their labor and to create a full employment econOiny in the nation.

A century and a. half ago, American workers were on the job from "sunup to sundown." The demand for shorter hours was at the center of all major labor events in the first half of the 19th century-the first industrial strike, the development of labor organizations, the participation of women in the labor movement. By 1860 industrial workers won the 10-hour day, yet the movement to shorten hours continued in full force as soldiers returned from the Civil War unable to find jobs. Swings in the business cycle, in particular the economic depression in the 1870s and, again, in the 1890s, rekindled the demand for shorter hours as the way to COinbat unemployment. This gave rise to one of the central principles of American labor-the need to spread work around so that labor would not be divided between those fortunate to find work and others, who through no choice of their own, were condemned to unemployment. Samuel Gompers, the founder o! the American Federation of Labor, some 90 years ago captured the essence of the shorter workweek movement when he declared: "So long as there is one man who seeks employment and cannot find it, the hours of labor are too long."

During the Great Depression one of the principal means to keep unemployment in check was the passage o! the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, which cut the workweek from 48 to 40 hours and established a. premium rate for overtime work in order to discourage excessive overtime and encourage new hirings. American labor's advocacy o! shorter hours always has been tied to the specter of massive unemployment and its efforts to build a. full employment economy.

The hearings before your Committee represent the first major Congressional inquiry into overtime and worktime issues in more than 15 years. Much has changed in this period of time. Fringe benefits have risen considerably as a. proportion of workers' earnings so that today it costs employers less to pay their existing employees overtime, despite the time-and-a-half, than it does to hire new workers.

The overtime provision of the 1938 law 1.s simply not working as it was intendednamely, to encourage new hirings. Industrial workers' productivity doubles roughly every few decades, and in the last 15 years has increased on the average 3 o/o annually-a very

December 18, 1979

respectable amount-when we take out the 3 recession years of 1969-70 and 1974 (years when the whole economy declined through no fault of production workers). During thi.s period of time the number of overtime hours worked in manufacturing continued to increase, despite the fact that aggregate national unemployment rates, particularly the jobless rates of black Americans, young people, and of minority communities in central cities, Jumped tremendously. Fifteen years ago, a. 5 or 6% jobless rate was considered a. national crisis; today, that same rate is widely regarded as normal, as the best we can do to lower unemployment.

Also during this period of time, since the last significant Congressional inquiry into worktime and overtime, technology has continued to throw out of work hundreds o! thousands of American workers and the rate of industrial plant closings has accelerated. Technology creates unemployment when it is not balanced with the need for full employment. As examples, 30 years ago, several thousand telephone operators handled 1 million long-distance calls; today, ony a few dozen operators are needed. 30 years ago, a single auto worker produced the equivalent of 8.4 cars per year; today, he or she produces 17. 30 years ago, roughly 13 million manufacturing production workers produced one-third of what the same number o! workers produce today. In other words, about 4 m1llion workers today are creating as much productive wealth as 13 m1llion created in 1948.

Shorter hours-a shorter workweek-is a. necessary and desirable response to the tremendous erosion of industrial employment that has taken place over thi.s period of time. In addition, the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 mandates the reduction in the national unemployment rate of persons 20 years of age or older to 3 % by 1983, a mere 4 years away. There is little evidence that we can reach these mandated goals simply by relying on newly generated jobs in the private or public sector. These hearings will examine the dominant approach to curbing unemployment historically-the reduction in working hours and the curbing of excessive overtime, particularly compulsory overtime, as the means to spread around employment.

The severe deoline in the industri.a.l workforce, the chronic high levels of unemployment, the excessive use by em.ployers of relatively uncostly overtime at the expense of the unemployed are some of the reasons that I introduced the Fair Labor Sta.nda.rds Amendments of 1979 (H.R. 1784) in the 95th and 96th Congress. These amendments womd raise the statutory premium on overtime work from time-and-a--half to doubletime; require employers to obtain their employee's consent in tbe scheduling of overtime; a.nd reduce by stages over a 4-yea.r period the standard workweek from 40 to 35 hours. This legislation keeps in force !or .their duration exi.sting collective bargaining agreements, and it provides fiexibility during periods of nation.aJ. emergency.

The purpose of H.R. 1784 is to stop the erosion of indu&trial employment in the nation a.nd open up new jobs that will be created-it is estimated some 8 million new jobs--when we curb overtime and shorten the workweek .to 35 hours. It does not propose anything that 1s revdlutionary or even novel. We reduced the wor:kweek f·rom 60 hours to 48 hours to 40 hours over the last one hundred yea.rs, without ha.ving to reduce wages overall, and we found tha.t business and industry benefitted. Prdductivity of workers increased. These gains made t.t possible to maintain income standards.

Numerous industries already have adopted a reduced workweek. Ga.rm.ent workers have worked a. 35-hour week for many years. Typogra.phicaa workers, electrical workers,

December 18, 19 79 and telephone operators aJ.ready a.re working a reduced workweek. In 19'7'4: telephone operators went on a 37Y:z hour week (35 hours in some States like New York). They did this without losing wages, and the telephone industry has discovered .that its employees are working more productively a.t no added cost as a result. It 1s estima.ted that American industry as a whole, on a.n annual basis, spends between $20-30 billion on absenteeiSm and job-related stress, including increased medical costs. The experience learned from those industries tha.t have moved to a redm:ed workweek 1s that on a. 35- or 37 Y:z -hour week, worker morale and productivity is higher, management is .tighter, and the whole work and productive process 1s more efficient tha.n it was before.

Opponents of a sho:rrter work week assert that reduced hours of work would contribute to inflation. There 1.s no evidence, historically, to verify this charge. Nor 1s there any evidence tha.t workers' wages a.re a cause of infiation. Actually, ma.nutaoturing wages, in real rather than infiated dollar terms, have decreased in the past decade and worker&' purchasing power has diminished. The real sources of infia.tion-complex as they are-lie in other areas: in the incredible bOost in OPEC oil prices which led .to the rise in domestic prices; in the incredible increase in interest rates, the result of Federal Reserve Board action; in a.dministered pricing in oligopollstic industries, which the real 'W3ges of working people have not kept up with.

Opponents of a shorter work week, who also, incidentally, are opponents of a full employment economy, charge that productivity would decline if working hours were reduced. History shows, however, that, just the opposi.te is true. Furthermore, industrial productivity in the United States has grown ea.oh year, not declined. It continues to grow in those industries that already have adopted a reduced workweek.

Productivity would increase considerably, furthermore, if our society ever finds the means to create a full employment economy. The 7 to 10 million Americans today who are unemployed-the figure depending on whether or not "discoura.ged workers" and workers forced to work part-time who want to work ful:ltime are included-are truly unproductive, through no fault of their own, and the tremendous social costs of unemployment a.nd the unproductivity of involuntarily unemployed workers are the real culprits behind whatever productivity probems exist in our society. American taxpayers are pa.ydng for unemployment and underemployment, and the under-utilization of our hum3/n and material resources. We would aJll be better off were we to find jobs for all persons who are able and willing to work but who cannot find it. We would all be better off were work spread around the greatest number of workers.

There is another reason that recommends reduced working hours as a means to combat unemployment. Recent participation of women, the increasing number of multipleearner households, working husbands and wives, and the reduced size of fa.miliespal.nt to the Shorter hour and shorter workweek 8.9 a sensible a.nd desira.ble method for oombatting unemployment, maintaining existing industrial employment, and creating new sources of employment. ·

The Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1979 (H.R. 1784) represents a solid method for moving toward a full employment economy, as mandated by the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act. They make a great deal of sense from the point of view of trends in industrla.l production and the changes taking place .in the workforce. For this reason, H.R. 1784 enjoys the S'Upport of the AFL-CIO, the U.A.W., 20 other national and international unions, and more tha.n 100 labor organizations across the nation. Simi-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS lar legislation has been introduced in several States. A major national grass-roots movement for a shorter workweek-spearheaded by the AU-Unions Committee to Shorten the Workweek-in two years' time has generated tremendous support both inside and outside the labor movement.

Mr. Chairman, the Labor Standards Subcommittee today is tackling work issues that have been neglected for too many years. These hearings accur at a time when conventional economic policies clearly are not working, and new ideas a.nd fresh approaches are needed to solve the nation's economic problems. The proVisions of H.R. 1784 hold the pl'omise of a new policy to combat unemployment. The hearings this week can be a. significant breakthrough in implementing at last a full employment economy.e

REPEAL OF ESTATE TAX CARRY· OVER BASIS

HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY OF IOWA



e Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. Speaker, we found out in the last 3 years that the carryover basis is not only detrimental to the maintenance of family fanns and businesses, but that it is impossible to administer.

Throughout my study of this matter I have had the able assistance of attorneys and tax planners located in the State of Iowa. Arley Wilson of Marshalltown performed yeoman's work educating me and other Members of Congress as to the impact of carryover basis. The Iowa Bar Association has also been of invaluable assistance. I would like to share with my colleagues a resolution which the Iowa State Bar Association adopted on December 7, 1979:

RESOLUTION Whereas, we understand that the Treasury

Department and Internal Revenue Service are going to attempt to substitute a bill called the "Fisher Bill," H.R. 4694, instead of repealing carryover basis, and

Whereas, because the Fisher Bill, in fact, does not In any way solve the basic problems of carryover basis and, in fact, increases them.. and

Whereas, to illustrate, Congressman Fisher is quoted (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, November 19, 1(}79, p. 33084) as saying "The bill is a reasonable, workable proposal" and provides "simple administrable rules", and

Whereas, the American Bankers Association's excellent study of the Fisher Blll (CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD, November 19, 1979. p. 33084) states:

"To assert that the Bill is either simple or administrable is a gross distortion of the true facts. One need only to read and note the length of proposed section 1023 in order to appreciate its complexity. We also disagree with the suggestion made by the Congressman that carryover basis in the form contained in the Bill will promote 'tax equity and justice'. A system that will substantially increase the cost of administering estates, that will place a higher relative burden on smaller estates than on larger estates and that is riddled with exceptions and exclusions, is not entitled to make this claim.", and

Whereas, The Iowa State Bar Association, its members, and a host of other professional groups have thoroughly studied the

36869 carryover basis problem. (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, November 19, 1979, p. 33080). All of these professional groups have concluded that carryover basis is unworkable, and

Whereas, Senator Byrd has stated the facts as well as they can be stated (CoNGRESSIONAL REcORD, November 19, 1979, p. 33080) as follows:

"Mr. President, the reason that it is lrnportant to repeal the carryover basis is that it is a totally unworkable law. It is totally unworkable. Virtually every individual who has testified on the subject so states. • • •

I have just read the number of organizations which are strongly opposed to it and feel it must be repealed. That is the only sensible thing to do, Mr. President. The only sensible thing to do is to repeal it, because it does not work, it cannot work. It cannot be complied with and it cannot be administered.", and

Whereas, the Fisher Bill would not cure any of the basic problems in carryover basis and, in fact, in many instances would make them worse.

Now, therefore, we urge our Iowa Senators and Congressmen to oppose the passage of any legislation such as the Fisher Bill and we also urge that they use their best efforts to persuade their colleagues that the only answer to carryover basis or any refinement thereof is to repeal it.e

SENIOR CITIZENS

HON. JAMES J. FLORIO OF NEW JERSEY



• Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker, Government recognition of the problems facing older citizens, and their capacity to continue to serve their communities, was highlighted by congressional passage of the Older Americans Act in 1965.

That act established a nationwide network of aging offices, concerned with meeting the economic and other needs of senior citizens. Furtlher amendments made to the 1965 act have greatly expanded the responsibilities of local aging offices. Today these offices serve as a onestop agency where older citizens can receive a daily meal; obtain help on a legal, transportation, medical or home-repair problem; or find a community-service job where their career-long talents can be put to good use.

I am particularly pleased over the remarkable strides the camden County Office on Aging has made during the last decade in meeting the needs of southern New Jersey senior citizens. Directed by Edward L. Donohue, the office serves a major portion of elderly citizens in my congressional district. I have worked closely with Mr. Donohue and his staff, and I am consistently impressed over the professionalism and efficiency the office has achieved in meeting the concerns of Camden County senior citizens.

I would like to direct my colleague's attention to the summary provided below of the 10-year service growth of the Camden County Office on Aging. Without reservation, I feel that the achievements of the office represent what a "model" area agency on aging should emulate. I look forward to continue to work with

36870 Mr. Donohue and his staff in further improving the lives of Camden County's elderly population.

The summary follows: A DECADE OF CHANGE, GROWTH AND

ACHIEVEMENT

(A Synoptic Review of the Camden County Office on Aging 1970-<1980)

As we enter a new decade on January 1, 1980, it 1s both practical and prudent toreview the past, to study t he present and to prepare for the future .

The Camden County Office on Aging has undergone more change and progress during the 1970's in serving the needs of the County's older citizens than probably any other department within Camden County's government.

In 1970, the Office on Aging had a budget . well under $100,000, whereas today, ten (10) years later, our budget, including funding from all sources (federal , state and county) exceeds $2 million.

Our scope of services has increased incredibly during the 1970's. Ten years ago, the Office on Aging was primarily an Information & Referral Agency as well as an advocate for senior citizens. Today, in addition to I & Rand advocacy, services and programs emanating from the Office as an Area Agency on Aging envelops practically every essential facet of an older person's life including: congregate nutrition sites and home delivered meals; legal aid; coordinated transportation (18 vehicles) for medical and other emergencies; housing assistance; in-home services such as health/ homemaker aides; minor home repairs/ renovations and chores; a nursing home ombudsman program for long term/ alternate care with specialized case management; multipurpose senior centers and much, much more!

Operating on a sub-grantee basis, the Camden County Office on Aging is responsible for more than 200 paid workers supplemented by over 100 trained and active volunteers to deliver all of the various services mentioned previously.

All of this has been accomplished with an additional five (5) county employees over a span of ten years (January 1970---4 county employees; January 1980-9 county employees) .

However, with all of these increased services and programs requiring extensive planning and coordination as well as exhaustive monitoring and evaluation, the salary structure of the Executive Director and his professional staff has not nearly kept pace with other County departments. Without designating specific departments for comparison, a rather perfunctory review would reveal this significant and obvious inequity, bearing in mind the importance of serving our older citizens in a professional and sincere manner.

The time has long passed when the realities surrounding the efficient and effective operation of a county office on aging (NOW an area agency on aging) must be faced and resolved. Our new decade of the 1980's hovers on the horizon, and the continued enhancement of the quality of life for Camden County's older citizen lies in our hands.

Let's hope and pray that their future years are bright and happy because those in positions of authority Care! e

A GREAT ENTERTAINER AND AN EQUALLY GREAT HUMANITARIAN-FRJANK SINATRA

HON. GUY VANDER JAGT OF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATTVES


e Mr. VANDER JAGT. 'Mr. Speaker, in recent days, media throughout the coun-


try has spotlighted Frank Sinatra's 40th year in show business. It was highlighted by a dinner and show at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas last week with the great and near great not only of screen, stage and television, but from all walks of life, paying homage.

It was a tremendously warm outpouring to a man who for over 40 years has enjoyed top billing in achieving a magical and unique entertaining hold on our country. Fortunately, the rest of America will have a glimpse of this wondrous evening as NBC has scheduled it for a 2-hour television special on January 3.

But, while millions of Americans know and recognize him as perhaps the No. 1 entertainer in the world, little is really known of his wonderful humanitarian contributions. I am pleased that a frontpage editorial from the Las Vegas Sun was recently sent to me so that I had the opportunity to read of this man's great generosity and love of people. Briefly, the editorial mentioned concerts he has given to build homes for orphans in Japan and Hong Kong and that he has endowed children's homes in several countries.

It was said that Nevada owes much to Frank Sinatra. He put Las Vegas on the entertainment map. It is probable, as more and more Americans learn of his private, less publicized work for his fellowman, that our country owes him even more.

The editorial from the December 12, 1979, edition of the Las Vegas Sun follows:

[From the Las Vegas Sun, Dec. 12, 1979] DOUBLE MAGIC: SINATRA AND LAS VEGAS

Front page editorials are usually reserved for public matters of great significance, or the memoralization of momentous historic events.

Entertainers' contributions normally have exposure in the entertainment sections of a. newspaper, as notable sports figures are found in the sports pages.

But when an entertainer, a singer, has impacted the world social order and an entire city in particular, a front page expression of gratitude would not be overstated.

Frank Sinatra will be honored with a party commemorating his 40th year in show business. The event will take place at Caesars Palace and it is also of significance that it falls on his birthday.

Why does this man merit front page editorial space in a Las Vegas newspaper?

It is the magic of the man. It is quite true that the public's reaction

to many entertainers is a will-o-the-wisp emotion-a love affair that fizzles after the first glow subsides.

Not so with the 40 years of affection and admiration that has been showered on Frank Sinatra by adoring fans.

The man with the golden voice and magnetic personality has survived all the mood changes of a fickle public. No matter what kind of music became the fad, his magic always worked with audiences all over the world. He is the master singer and when he sings the world beats a path to his door.

In 1971, when Sinatra decided to pack It all in and give up his entertainment career, he had visions of a semi-retirement wherein he could relax and enjoy life without the continual demands of show business.

It wasn't long before he realized this was not the life for him. The lure of the spotlights-the rapport with audiences who loved him-the sharing of his talent for worthy causes-an conspired tQ bring him back to the place where he belongs.

And tonight, when he is honored on his

December 18, 1979 40th year in show business, we can all be thankful that his "retirement" was only an hiatus.

Few entertainers in show business can boast the individual honors and adulation accorded Frank Sinatra. His many years in the limelight have not dimmed the brilliance of his individual star.

That, after 40 years, he is still considered the number one, entertainer in the world is a tribute to his talent and charisma.

In Las Vegas he is a legend. He almost single-handedly helped put our city on the international map and every Sinatra appearance in Las Vegas heralds a huge influx of media attention and visitors. He is synonymous with Las Vegas, and since it was his decision as to where tonight's event should take place, he does us honor to have chosen Las Vegas and Caesars Palace.

Los Angeles wanted to host the affair as did New York City. Had Sinatra decided on either

locale there could have been no arguments from any quarters. Certainly these are glamorous, populous sites with immediate access to international press. Sinatra's choice of Las Vegas was made because he has repeatedly triumphed here as a performer. His re-. turn to show business took place at Caesars Palace . He likes Las Vegas, and the city and

all its inhabitants return that affection a thousandfold.

An honorary doctorate at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas is evidence of the esteem in which he is held by our community and state.

His name is magic on a marquee and his appearance at any charitable event is assur

ance of success. Tonight we will be honoring two Sinatras-

the truly great entertainer and an equally great humanitarian.

Sinatra's dedication to humanity does not end in our country. Whether it's Nevada,

Egypt, Israel or the Far East-wherever you go, you'll most likely see a project that is

there because of Sinatra's generosity and deep love of people, especially children.

He has given concerts to build homes for orphans in Japan and Hong Kong and has endowed children's homes in several countries. In almost every country you visit, he has made contributions to orphans, the poor, the less fortunate of our society; and has given financial support to educational institutions round the world.

Frank Sinatra was born with a voice that has thrilled the world, but behind that voice is a man who recognizes that he has been doubly blessed and shares his good fortune with those who are in trouble and in need.

He is a dedicated champion of the underdog, a spokesman for the underprivileged of our society.

He has compassion for his fellows because he has been up on top and back down again , only to persevere until he again reached the top. Few entertainers have taken more blows or achieved greater success; and none has equalled the joy and delight he has brought into the lives of all who have heard him.

Nevada owes much to Frank Sinatra and the Sun joins the people of Las Vegas in letting him know what is in our hearts.

May he continue doing all these glorious things his way, because his way is our way.e

EUGENE LELAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

HON. GLADYS NOON SPELLMAN OF MARYLAND

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, December 18, 1979

• Mrs. SPELLMAN. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, it was my happy duty to ?e present at the dedication of an $8 ~lion addition to Eugene Leland Memorial

December 18, 1979

Hospital in Riverdale, Md. The first fullservice hospital constructed in Prince Georges County, Leland remains today one of the key medical facilities in my congressional district.

In an effort to enlighten my colleagues on the subject of this exemplary institution, I would like to share with them my remarks at the dedication ceremony, held Sunday, December 9, 1979.

The remarks follow: My father taught us that "work is love

made visible." If ever there was an institution which proves his point, it is this one. The number of people Leland has helped, whose lives it has touched, since its doors opened some four decades ago is incalculable-young children, heads of families, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles. Leland touches them all everytime a seriously ill patient enters its doors.

And now, with this new wing, with more beds, with better facilities, there will be even more patients-more acts of mercy, of caring-more "love made visible" through Leland Hospital and its work.

How did it all begin? It began with two special people, two brothers in medicine as well as in life, Drs. Wendell and Lawrence Malin. Without their dedication and love, there would be no Leland Memorial Hospital. Theirs is an inspiring story, a story of vision and commitment, a story well worth recalling as we mark the latest expansion of this facility.

It begins in the mid-1930s, in the depths of the Depression, with a. dream. In retrospect, it seems a far-seeing vision-a. vision of a full-fledged, self-supporting hospital in this area.

It was a revolutionary idea at that time. There were no hospitals a.t all in Prince Georges County in those days. But there are no rules of architecture for castles in the clouds, so it didn't matter that what the Malin brothers were thinking of was unprecedented.

So often, of course, such dreams remain just that--dreams-dreams which are never realized. But not so with Wendell and Lawrence Malin. They believed, a.s I do, that things don't turn up in this world until somebody turns them up. So when they saw the need for a hospital here, they went to work.

The first tangible result of the Malin brothers' dream was the purchase in 1936 of a vacant lot one block west of Highway 1.

Up to that point, Wendell Malin had been practicing medicine out of his home. He must have had a good practice. His home was bursting a.t the seams. So the lot was purchased for construction of a new home, large enough to provide care for his patients. And it wasn't long before the first building of what was to become Leland Memorial Hospital was up.

In 1938, Lawrence Malin joined his brother in the rapidly expanding practice on Queensbury Road. And four years later, in 1942, the brothers' dream was realized in full . On Labor Day that year, a. 58-bed hospital-the first in Prince Georges Countyomcially opened its doors.

A couple of years after that, the Malin brothers were paid perhaps the ultimate compliment.

Another hospital, 100-bed Prince Georges General, had just been completed. And leading physicians in the county maintained it was the example of the Malin brothers. more than any other single factor, that led to construction of the county facility. So, where just a few short years earlier there had been no hospitals, now there were twoboth in large part due to the commitment of Wendell and Lawrence Malin.

The Malins named their hospital after

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS their great uncle, Eugene Leland. But this fac111ty is as much a monument to the brothers' own spirit and dedication as it is to their relative's. It was their dream. It was their determination. It was their work which resulted in its construction. It was their continued involvement and interest which led to its steady expansion through the years.

I said before there are no rules of architecture for castles in the clouds. I know the Malin brothers would be the first to agree. A castle in the clouds-a dream come true. That's what Leland is. The Malin brothers' foresight made it all possible. And since, it has been their donation of time, their guiding hand which have caused it to flourish.

And you and I have reaped the benefits, many times over. Their work truly is "love made visible." It has made an indelible mark on this community in the form of Leland Memorial Hospital. And with this new addition we are dedicating today, that mark, that imprint, will continue to grow ever larger, ever greater.e

WHEN ARE THEY INFLUENCING?




• Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, events taking place in Iran during the past 6 weeks have become the center of worldwide attention.

The information we get about this situation must rely almost completely on journalists, for the Iranian Government, such as it is, has eschewed use of normal diplomatic channels and other means of communication within the world community. This puts a very heavy burden on the journalistic profession, and most particularly on television journalists on whom many Americans rely for much of their information about this crisis.

Making news judgments in these circumstances is extremely difficult, for as a recent analysis in Newsweek (December 24, 1979) pointed out, there is always the question of when a news story does more than just report on events and, instead, begins to influence them. This is an important question which should not be ignored, and I commend this article to my colleagues' attention.

The article follows: TV: HELD HOSTAGE?

It was the break every American reporter in Iran had been waiting for-the first chance in more than five weeks to question one of the 50 hostages held in the U.S. Embassy in Teheran. But when NBC broadcast its eighteen-minute inteqview with Marine Cpl. William Gallegos last week, it set off a storm of controversy that had been brewing for the past month-ever since then networks agreed to submit questions in advance to obtain interviews with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

During the crisis, the media-and primarily television-have been accused of everything from letting themselves be manipulated by the Iranians to subverting the diplomatic process-and even of being unpatriotic. Administration omcials have voiced contradictory complaints. Press secretary Jody Powell criticized TV reporters for failing to ask Iranians "tough question," while State Department spokesman Hedding Carter III accused correspondents of pressing so hard that they forced Khomeini and others

36871 into more extreme positions. President Carter was so "disgusted" with the NBC interview, said an aide, that he turned it off halfway through-only to have it replayed later. Republican Rep. Robert E. Bauman of Maryland suggested that "NBC should be nominated for the Benedict Arnold Award for broadcast journalism." CBS and ABC also sniped at their rival's exclusive. "I'm surprised and disappointed that NBC did it," sniffed ABS News president Roone Arledge. "It was not television's proudest moment."

CONDITIONS

Such indictments were hardly supported either by NBC's journalistic conduct or the interview itself, in which the young marine gave creditable answers reflecting the tension in which the hostages live. The charge most widely-and unfairly-leveled at NBC was that it surrendered editorial control by agreeing to conditions imposed by the student captors. In fact, NBC, CBS and ABC had all rejected initial proposals by the militants for a pooled, prime-time interview with a hostage, with questions submitted in advance, plus the opportunity for students to present a statement of their own. Unlike the other two networks, NBC took advantage of the opening to make this counterproposal: a half-hour interview in prime time conducted by NBC correspondents Fred Francis and George Lewis---.with no restrictions on questions, no questions submitted in advance and no editing by anyone but NBC. The students asked for a few minutes of air time in return. NBC agreed, but only on condition that it retain the power not to run the program at all.

The other two networks say they believe they would have relinquished editorial control by giving the militants unedited time to state their case and by acceding to demands that the program be carried in prime time. (The next morning, both CBS and ABC televised portions of a different interview with Gallegos--conducted solely by the Iranian students and so identified by the newscasts.) NBC's Pentagon correspondent Ford Rowan resigned over the interview, accusing the network of "irresponsible journalism." He was openly miffed because NBC's first telecast did not carry his own two-minute spot giving a response by State Department spokesman Tom Reston, although anchorman John Chancellor had summed up Reston's remarks.

For its part, NBC had clearly e1q>la.ined to viewers the conditions under which it got the interview. The network justified giving five minutes to the militants• spokeswoman, "Mary," on the ground that her speech showed the intensity of the students• feelings. It is hard to conceive that U.s. viewers were brainwashed by her statement--any more than they have been by the views of Foreign Minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh as frequently (and properly) televised by all three networks.

NBC's decision to run the interview raised larger questions about television dLplomacy. When are the media being manipulated? When are they influencing events they seek to cover? Although the media are keenly aware of these problems, the situation in Iran is unprecedented. Direct dipl0lll.81tic channels are nonexistent and U.S. omcials are understandably frustrated by the media's easy access to sources in Iran.

The lack of omcial communication has also created the temota.tion to enlist the press and TV a.s velhicles to present the cases of both sides. "We knew that some people would accuse us of spreading propaganda for the Iranians or of not being pro-American," said NBC's George Lewis. "But we are not here to be pro-American. We are here to tell people what is happening here."

Although the effectiveness of their message is diluted by its doctrina.lre content, the militants have shown impressive TV savvy.

36872 Like Gbotbzadeh himself, who bas been in charge of Imnia.n TV, they know the size of the U.S. prime-time audience and are masters a.t staging media. events. They have even installed three cameras and a. microwave dish inside the embassy compound to fa.c111ta.te transmission of film to the ma.ln TV station. The captors receive instant feedback by telephone from Iranians ln the U.S . about the content of press coverage-and are not above punishing those they consider out of line. 'When the students misinterpreted. a. commentary by columnist Carl Rowan on WDVM, CBS's TV aflllla.te in Washington, D.C., they briefly denied CBS access to the satellite in Teheran.

FEAR

Some journalists argue that if NBC had rejected the m111ta.nts' demand for a.lr time, the Iranians might have backed down a.nd granted an unconditional Interview. But, said NBC News president William J . Small, "experts on hostages have pointed out that the worst thing you can do ls lha.ve a. tota.l news blackout, because then the captors do more dramatic, more radical things to get attention." Walter Cronkite raised a. related concern: the fear that terrorists might someday hold hostages aga.lnst a. demand a! eJ.r time. "The alarm that ls felt by some network news executives," said Cronkite, "ls that NBC let the Ira.nia.n students get their foot into that door."

The debate over tlhe media's role ln Iran will continue long aft er the hostage crisis ends. "It's a.n old story," says Reuters State Department reporter Jeffrey Antevil . "The fact ls, TV ls there and we'd be subjected to a. lot more criticism lf we started deciding which events not to cover." When unusual circumstances arise and the media. do make exceptions to established journalistic standards, most critics believe that news organizations can fulfill their responsiblllt y by clearly explaining the conditions under which the story was obta.lned.e

DAN SMOOT TIRELESS PATRIOT

HON. LARRY McDONALD OF GEORGIA



• Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, one of the most noted Americans in our history is a gentleman from Big Sandy, Tex., by the name of Dan Smoot. He is a graduate of Southern Methodist University and has a master's degree in American history from Harvard University.

After honorably serving in the FBI for almost a decade, he changed his activities to devote full time in an effort to build an informed electorate. Over the past three decades he has authored numerous works on our constitutional republic and the threats to it; in addition he has been a noted television and radio program host as well as an active speaker for the American cause.

On November 17 of this year in Denver, Colo., Dan Smoot addressed the council dinner at the quarterly John Birch Society Council meeting. His words are giving warning to all Americans, and even more so, coming from such a noted authority on the U.S. Constitution.

For the benefit of my colleagues and all concerned Americans, his speech fol-lows :

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Almost every time Jimmy Carter does

something else atrocious--which is daily-! hear someone say: Why can't we get the kind of government we deserve? Maybe we have it. That thought frightens me. If we have sunk so low that we deserve what we have in Washington, I do not believe America. can be saved, or merits saving.

It would not be so bad-in fact, it might be fun-if we who ·believe in freedom could have it, and let all the rest go hang. But freedom is not divisible. In the end, it ls freedom or slavery-for all.

There ls no middle ground. Commentators who have dally access to a national television audience say otherwise. They rejoice at political party activity which shuns ideology, and they praise political moderates who swim ln the mainstream of American polltics and shun extreme positions which tend to overheat the voters and obscure their judgement.

There is a. mainstream ln American politics; and, for a generation, it has been sweeping our nation inexorably toward totalitarian socialism. In the past 25 years, there has been striking change ln tone, appearance, and tempo; but direction has not altered. The direction and ultimate goal of our mainstream political leadership was the same ln the 1950's under Eisenhower as it is now under Carter.

The mainstream ls so strong and wide that lt carries along, and makes use of, every political leader who, imagining that he is too shrewd to swim against lt, tries to slow down or deflect it.

Remember the late Robert A. Taft, Sr. (known in his time as Mr. Conservative Republican)? Senator Taft wrote the Public Housing Act of 1949, knowing it was unconstitutional and economically unsound. He was making a tactical maneuver-sponsoring a. little public housing law which the nation could live with, even though bad, to forestall liberals from enacting a law that would socialize the housing industry. Taft's Public Housing Act of 1949 has been the general statute of reference for the mass of socialistic legisla. tion in the broad field of housing ever since.

Remember the political struggle over socialized medicine in the last years of the Eisenhower Administration. Leftist Democrats introduced legislation to do what Franklin Roosevelt had failed to do in the thirties: Add medicare to social security. This came to be known as the King-Anderson approach to medical care-after the names of two Democrat sponsors.

Mainstream Republican leadership countered with legislation written by two other Democrats who were called conservatives: Senator Robert Kerr and Congressman Wilbur Mills. Kerr-Mills medicine proposed a complicated mess of federal grants to states for tax-financed medical care, known as medicaid.

King-Anderson medicare or Kerr-Mills medicaid? This became a. major issue between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon ln 1960. Kennedy advocated the King-Anderson approach. Nixon called that socialism. He stood tour-square for the Kerr-Mills approach, calling it the free-enterprise way. What did we get in the end? We got both: Medicare and medica.ld.

How many times have you seen mainstream conservatives ln Congress supporting the broad outlines of American foreign policy while complaining about its handling and Its consequences? Did you ever hear one of them openly demand that we abandon, ln toto, the foreign policy which every administration and every congressional majority has supported. since 1940? No. They have tried to change implementation so that our military interventions and outpourings of wealth would help foreign governments that seemed friendly toward us, instead of destroying our

December 18, 19 79 friends and helping our enemies as our foreign policy has consistently done.

Such efforts were doomed to failure . If you will take our foreign policy at face valuenot analyzing it in terms of what you know about the conspiracy, but just taking lt at face value-the best that you can call it is a. policy of evangelistic imperialism, as distinguished from conventional or rapacious imperialism. Our government has assumed the right and responslblllty of aiding, uplifting, and defending a.ny part or all of the foreign world, as, when, and where the administration ln power deems proper.

No matter how administered, a. policy of i·mperialism, whether evangelistic or rapacious, would ,be disastrous for our !Republic.

Under the Constitution, our govtlrnment has no legitimate mission to aid and defend the world. Its mission is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

History seems to indicate that a Republic which adopts a. policy of imperialism cannot remain a Republic. In the second century B.C., the last full century before the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire, Aemllius Paulus, Roman general, conquered Macedonia. From that one foreign conquest, he brought so vast a. quantity of money into the public treasury that the people of Rome paid no taxes whatever for more than 125 years. Republican Rome had a strong currency so there was none of that hidden taxation which we now call inflation. For 125 years, Romans paid no taxes. In the end, however, the imperialism which brought such lavish benefactions to Rome damaged the Roman Republic, more fatally than it damaged the foreign nations that were pllla.ged. Imperialism requires autocratic control at the top. Trading their liberty for huge infusions of something for nothing seemed like a good bargain to the people of Rome. But the infusions so corrupted the people and their armies and their rulers that the Republic died; and its successor, the Empire, rotted away from the same cause. The Roman people got what they deserved.

We can readily understand how the Romans were corrupted. They were greedy.

So are we. The political appeals to our greed have not been as direct and honest as those made ln ancient Rome and the payoff has certainly not been as real and dazzling ln our case as in the case of Rome. But greed has played a. major role in the decline of our Republic. Hundreds of unconstitutional multi-blllion-dolla.r domestic programs that are corrupting the people and bankrupting the nation are the progeny of greed-greed for office, fame, riches, and power on the part of politicians who get elected on promises to give people something to be paid for by someone else. Greed motivated the people to sell their votes for those promises.

Appeals to greed account ln large degree for public acceptance of our suicidal foreign policy, too. There wa.s a heavy mixture of high-sounding but false idealism ln the rationale advanced to win public acceptance; but most people tuned that out as routine political rhetoric, whlle listening to ldlotlc appeals to greed. For example, the cheapest way to defend our nation is to give economic and milltary aid to foreign nations, making them strong enough to help us in time of crisis; keeping their forces strong and ln readiness will cost us far less than maintaining the huge armies we would need without the certainty of their assistance. Another example: America. can no longer stand alone; without allies, we would collapse a.t the first assault; therefore, because we cannot stand up without help, we must run full tilt with scores of other nations on our back until they get strong enough to help us. Another example: many nations are too poor to buy our products; but if we will give them money to buy, then we can sell, and we will all be prosperous.

December 18, 19 79 How was it possLble to sell such nonsense

to the people of a literate nation? The policies of our government were set

by a conspiracy operating to drag America into the quagmire of one-world socialism; and massive resources were marshalled to achieve public acceptance.

But with all that, I do not believe that a majority of Americans were ever sold on the post-World War II policies of our government. The public went along in groping confusion, because there was no real opposition to the fundamentals of those policies. Leaders of the mainstream conservative opposition supported the fundamentals and broad outlines of the domestic and foreign policies set by totalitarian liberals, but caviled about detalis.

There is no moderate or middle ground in the struggle to determine the fate of the American Republic. Every political practitioner must be somewhere in the mainstream-along with people like John Connally and Howard Baker, and people like Edward Kennedy and Andrew Young--or he must stand squarely against the mainstream current, determined to turn it around and head it in the opposite direction. We have only two choices: Restore the traditional American foreign policy of benign neutrality and reestablish a free-market economy under strictly limited constitutional government, or continue on the road to doom.

There is evidence that doom awaits us. There is also evidence to the contrary.

Something fine is still alive in the American spirit.

Despite half a century of saturation bombing with the propaganda of socialism, Americans will still respond to the old American ideal of liberty, with God's help, under severely limited constitutional government. The traditions of freedom are deeply rooted and strong; and the blessings of Uberty are still green in the national memory of America. Otherwise, how can you account for the fact that , in the present Congress, we have a comforting number of real statesmenmen like Larry McDonald and 35 others, in House and Senate, who currently have 100 percent Americanist voting records? In the previous Congress, we had eighty 100 percenters, which was probably more absolutely-right men in Congress than we have ha.d in a.ny other Congress in this century.

Absolute-righters will provide the political leadership to save our country, if it is to be saved. When they fall much below absolutely-right, they are floundering around in the mainstream a.nd, by their ineffectual presence, swelling its volume.

I pin my hope on the belief that our good men in Congress are not political sports who got there by accident. They are there because the ideal of being not partially right, but absolutely right on a.ll major issues is becoming more a.nd more pervasive. And for that, I attribute a. lion's share of the credit to you-the tireless, dauntless, educated patriots of the John Birch Society. Standing stubbornly for what 1s absolutely right, you have been sowing seeds. There ha.s already been good harvest. There will be more.

To sum it up: the nation will continue to move in the direction Jane Fonda wants, or it will swing around and go the way Bob Welch is pointing. I think Bob is gaining on her.e

CHARTING SIINER'S FUTURE




• Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Speaker. on Wednesda¥, the House considered the


conference report on H.R. 595, and voted to delete the sale of silver from the measure. At that time some of the Members in favor of the sale of silver appeared to be unaware of what is actually taking place worldwide as regards silver. In hopes of remedying this gap in the knowledge of some of the Members, I am placing in the RECORD an article by Mr. H. J. Maidenberg of the New York Times on this issue. It appeared on December 10, 1979, and discusses the silver market as interpreted by Mr. Paul Sarnoff of Conticommodity of New York City, who is a distinguished commodities analyst.

The article follows: CHARTING SILVER'S FuTURE

(By H. J. Ma.idenberg) No commodity market analyst is ever at a

loss to explain a market's behavior after the fact; rare is the one, however, who can predict a. price trend for a year ahead with accuracy.

But Paul Sarnoff, New York director of research at Conticommodity Services Inc., correctly called the silver market a year ago. At that time, cash silver was selling at $5.50 an ounce, having wavered between $4.50 and $6 for several years.

Mr. Sarnoff declared at the time that silver would be $8 by mid-1979 and would undoubtedly go much higher. Also present at that interview was Norton Waltuch, Conticommodity 's chief metals trader, who recently gained widespread notice in the trade as a leading sliver bull. He said Mr. Sarnoff's forecast was far too conservative.

"Actually," Mr. Sarnoff recalled last Friday, "I agreed with Norton, but as I explained to the Northwest Mining Association meeting in Seattle yesterday, had either Norton or I said a year ago that sliver would go to $16 or $20, our employers, our clients and families would have thought we had gone stark raving mad."

Last Friday, the most widely held sliver futures contract on New York's Commodity Exchange, the near March delivery, closed at $19.37 an ounce, up 10 cents on the week and $1.23 below its record of $20.60 set earlier in the week. Eooh 1-cent move in sliver futures represents $50 per contract of 5,000 ounces.

Having explained his caution a year ago, Mr. Sarnoff was asked to look into the sliver market and say what he saw there in the year ahead. "I'll repeat what I told the mining people yesterday, but first I'd like to make some general comments," he replied.

"First and foremost, I am a fundamentalist. I follow basic supply-and-demand factors in any given market. A year ago it was clear that the recovery of sliver from coinage, which had helped bridge the growing gap between supply and demand, was coming to an end. The supply of silver-content coins was near exhaustion."

Mr. Sarnoff then noted that despite supplies of recycled silver, the nation was st111 short about 100 mill1on ounces a year and that this gap would widen. "We then calculated the soaring price of oil and other inflationary factors as well as silver's historic price linkage to gold, and we had our basic trend for silver in 19'79," he sa.ld. "I concede that I didn't expect the degrees of emotional and speculative fervor that gripped the silver market last September a.nd October."

Studying the silver situation recently, with an eye toward catching next year's price trend, Mr. Sarnoff first looked at the supply side.

"The nation will have another deficit in the silver supply-demand equation in 1980, as we have had every year since 1946," he went on. "The deficit next year will probably be another 100 million ounces. We are just as dependent on foreign silver as we

36873 are on foreign oil. Our national silver output remains at roughly 43 million ounces; usage w111 be steady at 160 mill1on, and recycled metal will provide about 20 million."

The biggest sliver exporters are Mexico, which produces about 56 million ounces a year; Peru, with 44 million, and Cana.da, with 43 million. But Conticommodity's New York research chief also discovered something far more important, he said. As he observed:

"The Soviet Union has quietly been importing large amounts of silver, and our research here and abroad strongly indicates they will be taking another 100 million ounces in 1980. Moscow buys its silver through Swiss banks, through which it sells its gold, platinum and other metals. The Soviets rarely, if ever, export silver."

Unlike the United States, the Soviet Union depends almost wholly on secondary recovery of silver found in mining baser metals. "They are not blessed with Idaho's silver valley," Mr. Sarnoff continued. "The people there also like to take pictures of their children," he noted. "Soviet usage of silver for photographic film is climbing.

"More important, Moscow is intensely interested in solar cells for the production of electricity," he went on. "The reflective materials in these solar cells are heavily slivered. And the Russians prefer using silver for missile batteries to using lithium chloride, and so forth ."

He stressed that solar cells should not be confused with the more f.amiliar solarenergy systems designed to heat homes and other buildings.

Given these situations, Mr. Sarnoff concluded:

"I sincerely believe that unless the recession gets out of control today's silver prices could well be the floor for 1980. If Soviet Union imports of silver continue a.t the 1979 rate, $25 to $30 would not be unreasonable. And if gold takes off after oil prices, then $30 would be very conservative a. year from now. In fact , I think we'll see a. 20-to-1 ratio between gold and silver late next year; it's that close now."

Last Friday, the spot December Comex gold contract closed at $426 an ounce, up $7.90 on the week. At a. silver/gold price ratio of 20 to 1, silver should be selling a.t $21.30 an ounce. The spot Comex silver controot ended at $18.76 an ounce, off 6 cents on the week.e

IVEY BROTHERS




e Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to praise the work of three men: partners in the development, implementation and, now, expansion of Ivey's Restaurant in the Eighth California Congressional District. Fred, James, and John Ivey opened Ivey's Restaurant on November 12, 1976, in the historic Jack London Square area of Oakland. Its popularity-a tribute to the dedication of these three men and the cuisine of their mother. Ms. Rosia Lee Ivey-has made it an enduring success.

I thank my colleagues for taking note of the achievement of these minority business persons. Men whose father, Fred Ivey, Sr., cultivated the soil of Arkansas and California and who themselves now bring food to the tables frequented by many hundreds. I congratulate them on entering into their fourth year in business and wish them every success for the New Year.e

36874 CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD

HON. JOHN J. RHODES OF ARIZONA



• Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker, early this month, my very good friend Richard J. O'Melia, who is a member of the Civil Aeronautics Board, was in Scottsdale, Ariz., to address a meeting of the Hickory Association, which is a cooperative of travel agents.

It was an excellent speech, describing the steps the CAB is taking to "vanish into the sunset," as my friend described it, in conformance with the Airline Deregulation Act of last year. I commend it to my colleagues and ask that it be placed in the RECORD: ADDRESS OF MEMBER RICHARD J. O'MELIA AT

HICKORY AsSOCIATION INAUGURATION BAN

QUET AND SALUTE TO INDUSTRY AsSOCIATES

Good Evening: Thank you for asking me to join with you

at your Inauguration Banquet here in beautiful Scottsdale. I wlll take just a few moments of your full program to tell you a little about what is going on of interest to travel agents at the activist Civil Aeronautics Board. I'm sure you are all well briefed because I regularly see the agency press and I must say that Travel Agent, Travel Weekly, Travel Trade and all the rest provide some of the very best coverage in the aviation industry.

It was from that press that I first heard of the travel agent movement toward cooperatives like this association. I have heard that the Hickory Association is among the most active and successful co-ops though perhaps not among the very first nor the biggest. In fact I have come out here to Arizona to find out more about this movement in our industry.

I am here today in a rather unique capacity. That is, as a Member of the most successful 41 year old agency in Washington ever to vanish into the sunset. As you know, the Airline Deregulation Act was signed into law last October 1978. As a result, our current functions wlll either termlna.te or be transferred to other agencies by December 31, 1985. That Act is a final 5-year plan for the CAB.

Within that time frame, we've been directed to make major changes in every area of our responsibllities. The new Act stresses competition and safety. It significantly changed the standards by which we make route awards. It reduced our control over fares . It broadened our jurisdiction over carrier agreements. It gave us a detailed mandate to assure essential air service to small communities. Our future and final success wm be judged by how well we administer the gradual phaseout of our current responsiblllties.

Unlike most legislation, the Deregulation Act is unified around the central theme of encouragement of competition through gradual loosening of past regulatory controls. Congress didn't hint around. Over and over, in both the text of the Act and in the accompanying conference report, lt directed us to place maximum reliance on competitive forces, to maintain a system based on competition and to encourage entry into the industry. Regardless of which section of the Act you examine , that stress on competition is apparent. The ultimate evidence that Congress has confidence that competition would benefit both the airlines and their passengers is its decision to abolish the Board and the bulk of our functions by the end of 1985.

It may have occurred to some that leaving

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS control over the transition to deregulation in the hands of an agency involved over many years in detailed regulation was quite an act of faith. I should allay any doubts. We are well on our way to deregulation, perhaps with more speed than Congress intended.

Some of the major changes were made in the route licensing area. They are primarily aimed at making it less dl.ftlcult for carriers to receive authority to serve new markets. We no longer need to make the finding that the service is required by the public convenience and necessity. Instead, the service an airline proposes must be "consistent with" that standard.

As you know, bllls are in varying states of approval in the House and Senate that would apply similar liberal standards to international route licensing. We could well have a final international aviation blll passed this year. It has been in a House-Senate Conference Committee this past week.

The new Act's treatment of fare regulation is brief and to the point. Within a specified range, carriers are free to compete for ticket sales by charging whatever fares they choose. The draft international aviation bllls contain similar proposals on fares. We at the Board take the credit, or you may say the blame, for developing this scheme. Before the Deregulation Act was passed, we issued a rule which in effect told carriers that we would not interfere if they lowered their fares up to 70 percent of the industry's standard fare level or raised their fares a. small percentage. The Deregulation Act adopted our approach and created a no-suspend zone of reasonableness for passage fares of 50 percent down and up 5 percent on certain routes.

We have seen many results of our innovation in fare policies. Hundreds of thousands of people are fiying for the first time. Airport operators say they can no longer identify separate peak periods of air travel. Businessmen no longer see each other on nearly empty planes. As you know so well, your favorite airline probably can't begin to describe all the discount fares that are now available.

We regret the inconveniences that air travellers--especially those accustomed to the more individualized treatment that the airlines offered in the old days-are now enduring. Most mornings we would rather not look at our consumer complaint statistics, which were up 40 percent during the first nine months of this year over a similar period last year. Most of that increase is traceable either to the huge growth in the number of passengers flying or to the rapid schedule changes made since last October. Changes and increases in fares are also included.

But it is equally important to keep in mind that we are not receiving any sizeable proportion of letters clamoring for those good old days of lower load factors . Instead we read reports that our encouragement of lower fares has been so satisfactory that Congress is eyeing other regulatory agencies with a view towards attempting to achieve similar results.

I know, and I can assure you that the Board and staff know, that you and all travel agents have had many problems with the multitudinous new fares that have resulted. I understand the difficulty having tried to figure out the best fare available for some of my recent travels. But as in all transitions, I think some of this confusion will subside. We are seeing some settling down now in the fare structure and I expect that increasing access to industry automated fare systems will go a long way to help.

Of course the biggest news for the travel agent today is the Competitive Marketing Investigation 1 launched by the Board in September, along with the companion order tentatively disapproving the agreements that set the levels and methods for compensating agents.2 The primary focus o! the show cause order, the "open commissions" order,

December 18, 1979 is on the commissions ce111ng set by the A1r Trame Conference carriers. Similar ceilings for international sales under the auspices of the International A1r Transport Association (lATA) were, as you well know, disapproved last summer.3 The recent show cause order parallels the lATA order.

I should point out that none of the comments received to date on the "open commissions" show cause oppose abolition of fixed commissions. Aside from comments in support, objections go either to the mechanics or the timing of moving to open commissions. Our work tracking system shows a February decision date on open commiss1ons. We may even do better than that and get lt out next month.

The Competitive Marketing Investigation is at this point very broadly defined to cover everything from rules requiring exclusive use of conference accredited agents to the standards to be used for accreditation. It involves restructuring the pricing system for air travel and can dramatically and drast1· cially alter the travel agent's role in retail marketing. It may provide new alternatives to the travel agent or airline ticket office. By that, I mean "net fares", which, to me at least, is a term that still requires further definition in the investigation.

We are reviewing right now at staff level Pan American's recent filing to sell "Group Contractor Fares" in the U.S.-Germany market and National's proposed contract bulk fares in the New York-Miami market. I guess these are our first "net fares".

In the past, we have ruled that the purchaser of blocks of tickets in circumstances 11ke National's contract bulk fares proposal amounts to an indirect air carrier holding himself out to the public as selling air transportation. Thus, under the Aviation Act, the seller at retail requires a CAB license. I suspect that is the issue that wm warrant most of the Board's attention. From what I have been hearing in Board Room discussions, "net fare" experiments are welcomed. I, myself, do not know if "net !ares" are a. good idea or not. I do know travel agents are very concerned about the concept. I also suspect that the co-ops will have a very important role in how "net !ares" will work out for the passenger, and for the travel agent industry. We have not yet reviewed these proposals at Board level but I suspect we will be seeing more of them before the Marketing Investigation gets decided.

I am glad to see that the Hickory Association has asked to participate in the Marketing Investigation, as well as in the show cause proceeding. The Board welcomes extensive agency participation in these proceedings. After all, who is in a better position than working agents to describe the effects of current ATC and LATA programs. No one can better predict the effects of modifications of these programs.

I guess I can't say much more than this about our two big cases without getting myself in trouble with our rules on ex parte communications when it comes time to make a final decision.

There is a related matter, however, that I can report on. Shortly after the Board issued the Marketing Investigation order, lATA submitted a revised United States agency resolution which contains a number of significant changes. Under the new agreement, the prohibition on paying compensation to non-accredited agents is limited to "sales agency remuneration". According to lATA, its carriers would be free to pay commissions tor non-"sales agency" selling.

The new program also creates a travel agent commissioner with functions similar to the A TC commissioner. The commissioner would have the power to review applicants denied accreditation as well as lATA's agency

1 Order 79-9--64, September 13, 1979. 2 Order 79-9-65, September 13, 1979. 3 Order 78-8-87, decided August 13, 1978.

December 18, 1979 administrator decisions to withdraw accreditation. Unlike with ATC, the lATA Commissioner would be funded jointly by agents and lATA members, rather than just by the carriers.

lATA also established new working capital and equity ratios to gauge an agent's financial standing. Finally, lATA intends to set up a joint agent/airline committee to consider and recommend changes to the agency program before they are considered by the lATA membership as a whole. That seems to me to be an excellent idea. lATA has asked that its new program be considered in the Marketing Investigation but that the Board also approve it on an interim basis in the meantime. If you have ever read ATC or lATA resolutions, you can understand that it will take us several weeks to get the new rules sorted out.

I referred earlier to the Board's 1978 decision disapproving international commission agreements. That commission system had been in effect at least 20 years. Information available to the Board from a variety of sources indicates that, on balance, open commissions have not meant radical changes for agents. I would be interested to know if your individual experience has been different.

The reports we have on commissions paid by carriers, filed under Part 253, indicate a rise of a point to a point and a half in the average commissdon paid over the old lATA ceiling with present average commissions at about 8 percent. While some carriers experimented for awhile with substantially higher commissions, some as high as 25 percent, they appear to have been in connection wdth promoting new service or have been short lived.4

Comparing either entry and exit of international travel agents under closed and open commissions, or by comparing domestic agents under fixed commissions with international agents under open commissions, shows that opening up commissions does not appear to have made the travel agent industry significantly more or less attractive to new entrants, nor made it significantly easier to stay in business. Applications for both ATC and lATA accreditation each generally dncrease from year to year. New entrants remain at a fairly constant proportion of 11 to 13 percent of existing accredited agents. Withdrawal rates disclose no discernible trend, although interestingly enough the fluctuation in the rates of exit for lATA agents appears to be less under open commissions than under closed.

The Louds Harris/Travel Weekly Biennial Survey of Agents also contains a variety of information on the effects of open commissions. Agency business broken down between domestic and international travel remains roughly two thirds domestic to one third international. This ds the same breakdown as in 1976 and 1974. This suggests that open commissions have not in fact caused a dramatic shift in travel agent marketing efforts.G This fact is also borne out by that part of the survey which indicates that over 80 percent of vacation and pleasure travellers have at least a general idea of where they want to go and that agents are only moderately successful in influencing their customers to completely abandon these plans.il On the other hand, most agents reported that they could influence the choice of a particular destination within a general area.7 This type of choice might be more susceptible to competition in commission levels.

The question of open commissions aside,

• See Order 77-8--14, August 3, 1977. ;; Table I-3, page 9 of Study. 6 Tables III-1, III-2 and III-3 at pp. 62

through 65 of the Study. 7 Table III-4, p. 166 of Study. 8 Tables I-5 and I-7, pp. 13 and 15 of Study.

CXXV--2318--Pa.rt 28

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS the Harris/ Travel Weekly Survey discloses another important development in the increase of commercial travel handled by agents.8 For a change, you might say, with all the turmoil we have been causing, the Board took action in the past year that should encourage that growth. In December we approved lifting the ban on commissions on point to point sales made on the Universal Air Travel Plan (UATP) credit card.o From what I've read in the trade press this change has been a boon to carriers and agents alike in handling commercial customers. I assume you have been heavily involved in that trend with your high propor(;ion of business travel.

The Board has made it easier to set up inplant travel agency locations, branch offices on the premises of commercial customers. Last February the Board passed on a petition filed by a travel agent and its customer, concluding that employee-sharing agreements between an agent and its customer were legal under the Federal Aviation Act. Under that decision the customer of an inplant agency can be reimbursed by the agent for providing the agent with its own employees, so long as the recompense is based on time worked, and not on the volume of sales.10

We have taken another action within the past year that tips the carrier/agent balance in favor of agents. Again, as a result of a petition by an agent, the Board, starting last October, inquired into then existing ATC practices which required conference-wide termination of an agent's appointment based on a single carrier's claim that the agent had defaulted on its obllgations.11 As a result of that review, ATC modified its rules so that now the Travel Agent Commissioner reviews individual complaints before concerted action can be taken. This eliminated altogether disputes over liab111ty for stolen tickets as a cause of conference-wide action.l.il

Again on the basis of a petition by an agent, the Board took favorable action on dishonored travel agent checks. Under ATC's new revised rules, agents are no longer required to immediately pay on demand all money owed after a check is dishonored. Rather, the agent must make good on the check which was dishonored. All other money owned is then collected under ATC's normal reporting and remitting scheduleP

I mention these few cases, which you all know about, to indicate that the Board has been listening to you and that we will continue to listen. Travel agents are uniquely situated to give the Board a view from the front lines in marketing air transportation. We welcome your individual and collectivelystated views in general and particularly in the big marketing case. Your views are absolutely necessary for the Board to make a balanced, intelligent decision in that important case.

Thank you.e

HUNGER-A SOBER REPORT

HON. ROBERT F. DRINAN' OF MASSACHUSETTS



• Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Speaker, the Christian Science Monitor has an excellent editorial praising the report of President Carter's Commission on World Hunger.

9 Order 78-12-155, December 21, 1978. 10 Order 79-2-92, February 15, 1979. u Order 78-10-31, October 5, 1978. u Order 79-8-134, August 24, 19'79.

13 Order 79-7-202, July 30, 1979.

36875

The editorial-like the President's Commission report--notes that 5 years have passed since the World Food Conference in Rome, but the results are disappointing.

The challenging editorial follows: HUNGER-A SOBER REPORT

The hostage crisis in Iran. The nuclear missile debate in NATO. These are the international topics commanding front-page attention in this week's newspapers. But it is an item of news on the inside pages which is likely to prove the most crucial to global stability over the long term. That is the report of President Carter's Commission on World Hunger stating that the world's food situation is getting worse rather than better and calling on the United States to lead a worldwide effort to eliminate hunger in the next 20 years. It hardly needs pointing out that the cost of failure to respond, because of inertia or lack of foresight, could be high. As the commission bluntly declared:

"A major crisis of world food supply--of even more serious dimensions than the present energy crisis--appears likely within the next 20 years, unless steps are taken now ... "

Summoning up the moral conscience, political wm, and perseverance needed to come to grips with the problem of food sumciency clearly should be a most pressing goal of American policy. Yet the record leaves much to be desired. It is now five years since the World Food Conference in Rome and the results are disappointing. No system of international grain reserves has yet been set up to protect countries against sudden food shortages. Good harvests in major food-producing countries in the past three years have made the food situation seem secure, but specialists warn that two consecutive bad years in such regions as China, the Soviet Union, and India could place many countries in jeopardy. Even with the good world harvests of recent years the number of the world's hungry has grown from 740 milllon to 800 milllon.

Of greatest concern to aid experts is the fact that the poor countries of the world, where population growths are highest, are sinking in their efforts to produce more food and that many are unable to pay for food imports. Robert McNamara of the World Bank notes, for instance, that a major structural change has occurred in the pattern of global grain trade. The better-off developing countries, the OPEC countries, and the USSR are today the chief customers in the grain market, with the result that the poorest of the poor are being priced out of the market.

If the problem looms large, it is not beyond solving. The commission in fact makes the reassuring statement that in the next two decades "there appear to be no major physical barriers to feeding all the world's inhabitants." The principal grain producers, notably North America, will continue to be relied upon for commercial grain sales and food grants. But the only long-term solution is to help the developing countries produce their own food and this will require more aid and investment. To double their farm output in the next 20 years will take $30 to $40 billion a year, according to estimates. Here the United States is reminded yet once again that it has fallen far behind other rich nations of the world in amount of aid given in terms of percentage of gross national product. The commission recommends the U.S. double the $1.5 billion it supplies annually in technical and economic aid to developing countries for advancing agriculture.

The other side of the coin is that the poor nations themselves must institute the social and economic reforms needed to make the foreign aid effective. Land reform, for example, is desperately needed in many areas to give farmers incentive to produce more. The poorest people in the world, according to a. Worldwatch Institute study, are not small

36876 farmers but landless laborers, sharecroppers, and marginal farmer who form the rural majority in most developing countries. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask that U.S. and other Western aid programs be made dependent on structural reforms. Pouring funds into the coffers of affluent landowners or ruling elites will not get at the root of the problem and in fact only aggravates rich-poor disparities.

In sum, the United States and other rich nations must give far more attention to the economic needs of the third world. Primary emphasis in recent decades has been placed on military assistance. But, as the presidential commission points out, the chronic hunger of over a. half billion people could lead to disastrous political instability. Iran itself is a. sharp reminder of how little military weapons count when people's aspirations for a better society appear to them threatened. If there is a. lesson to be learned from that experience, it is surely that the U.S. stands most to gainmorally and politically-by addressing above all the social and economic rather than military needs of the developing world. The commission's report on world hunger should help reorder the nation's priorities.e

I WAS THE ONLY VICTIM OF THREE-MILE ISLAND




• Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, what follows is a statement by our famed nuclear scientist, Dr. Edward Teller, the father of the H-bomb. This, in turn, is followed by a series of questions and answers in which Dr. Teller discusses safety and nuclear power. Dr. Teller is perhaps the most knowledgeable person in the world on nuclear energy and he should be listened to. The Jane Fondas of the world who experts on nothing but carefully staged theatrics should not be listened to. The items follow as they appeared in a Dresser Industfies, Inc., ad.

I WAS THE ONLY VICTIM OF THREE-MILE

ISLAND

On May 7, a few weeks after the accident at Three-Mile Island, I was in Washington. I was there to refute some of the propaganda that Ralph Nader, Jane Fonda. and their kind are spewing to the news media. in their attempt to frighten people a.wa.y from nuclear power. I am 71 years old, and I was working 20 hours a. day. The strain was too much. The next day, I suffered a heart attack. You might say that I was the only one whose health was affected by that reactor near Harrisburg. No, that would be wrong. It was not the reactor. It was Jane Fonda.. Reactors are not dangerous.

Now that I am recovering, I feel compelled to use whatever time and strength are left to me to speak out on the energy problem. Nuclear power is part of the answer to that problem, only a part, but a very important part.

I have worked on the hydrogen bomb and on the safety of nuclear reactors. I did both for the same reasons. Both are needed for the survival of a free society. If we are to a void war, we must be strong and we must help to

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS generate the progress that makes it possible for all nations to grow and prosper.

And what is the greatest present-day threat to the prosperity and even the survival of nations? A lack of energy. Both developed and developing nations are threatened.

The citizens of the United States have just begun to recognize the impact of the world's growing energy shortage. Gasoline lines, electrical brownouts and higher prices are minor irritants. They are nothing compared to what may lie ahead. In a. struggle for survival, politics, law, religion and even humanity m::ty be forgotten. When the objective is to stay alive, the end may seem to justify the means. In that event, the world may indeed return to the "simpler" life of the past, but mlllions of us will not be alive to discover its disadvantages.

When our existence is at stake, we cannot afford to turn our backs on any source of energy. We need them all. When it comes t o generating electricity, we especially need nuclear power. Contrary to what Nader and Fonda, and their friends such as Sternglass, Wald and Kendall, would have you believe, nuclear power is the safest, cleanest way to generate large amounts of electrical power. This is not merely my opinion-it is a fact . Due to the lessons learned at Three Mile Island, the nuclear way of generating electricity will be made even safer.

I have attempted to respond briefly to some of the questions which people ask about nuclear power. The problems that these questions raise are problems because of political indecision or public fear. Technically, they are nonproblems, because the dangers they imply either do not exist or else we have the know-how to solve them. I am absolutely convinced of this, after a lifetime of work as a nuclear scientist.

I was once asked how I would like for my grandson, Eric, to think of me and my life's wprk after I am gone. Eric is nine years old. He is a terrible guy-he beats me at the game of "GO." I am enormously fond of him, but I have not given much thought to what he will someday think of my life's work. I have given a. great deal of thought to whether he will be alive in the next century, and whether he will be living in freedom or in slavery. If he is living under communism, he will know I was failure.

I believe that we have reached a turning point in history. The anti-nuclear propaganda we are hearing puts democracy to a severe test. Unless the political trend toward energy development in this country changes rapidly, there may not be a United States in the twenty-first century.

The President has recognized the danger of the energy shortage. As yet, he has given only some of the answers. I think-! hopethat democracy has enough vitality to evaluate the risks and to .recognize the great benefits of nuclear power to human health and well-being, and to the survival of our free society.

Q. Can a nuclear reactor explode like an atomic bomb?

A. No. Energy cannot increase fast enough in the reactor. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for a nuclear power plant to explode like a bomb. For this to happen, the laws of nature would have to be repealed.

Q. What is the risk of nuclear power compared to other forms of producing electricity?

A. It is far safer than coal or hydroelectric power, but all three are necessary to meet our need for energy. It may sound strange to say it, because coal has been around so long, but we know more about controlling radiation than we do about controlling the

December 18, 1979 pollutive effects of burning coal. And, of course, a dam has no backup system to protect those who live below it. Indeed many of these people have lost their lives and more their homes.

Q. I live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant. What are my chances of being injured by a nuclear accident?

A. About the same as being hit by a falling meteor.

Q. What about the effect of an earthquake on a. nuclear plant?

A. At the first sign of a tremor, the reactor would shut down automatically. Also, reactors are built to withstand enormous structural damage. The only man-made structures I can think of that are more stable are the pyramids of Egypt.

Q. Is it true that we still have no satisfactory way to dispose of nuclear wastes?

A. No. Ways do exist. What we have not had is a decision by our government on which way to go. Waste disposal is a political problem, not a. technical problem.

Q . How much radioactive waste materials are produced by nuclear plants?

A. At the moment, about lZY:! percent of our electricity is generated by nuclear power. If all of it were produced this way, the wastes from these plants over the next 20 years would cover a. football field to a depth of about 30 feet . To dispose of this waste a mlle underground would add less than one percent to the cost of electricity.

Q. How dangerous is the release of lowlevel radiation from a nuclear power plant?

A. If you sat next to a. nuclear power plant for a whole year, you would be exposed to less radiation than you would receive during a. round-trip flight in a. 747 from New York to Los Angeles.

Let me put it another way: The allowable radiation from a nuclear plant is five mrems per year. In Dallas, people get about 80 mrems per year from the natural background of buildings, rocks, etc. In Colorado, people get as much as 130 mrems per year from the natural background. Therefore, just by moving from Dallas to Boulder you would receive ten times more radiation per year than the person gets who lives next to a nuclear power plant.

A mrem is an appropriate unit used to make comparisons.

Q. How much radiation were the people around Three-Mile Island exposed to during the accident?

A. Let me put it this way. Your blood contains potassium 40, from which you get an internal dose of some 25 mrems of radiation in one year. Among the people not working on the reactor, a. handful may have gotten as much radiation as 25 mrems.

Q. Should "spent" nuclear wastes be reprocessed to save the plutonium and other by-products?

A. Yes. Plutonium, for example, is as valuable as the original uranium fuel, because of its potential use to produce still more energy. In the end, reprocessing is needed to make nuclear energy abundant and lasting.

Q. Is there a danger that the plutonium produced by nuclear reactors might be stolen by terrorists and used to construct homemade nuclear explosives?

A. I believe that reactor products can be properly safeguarded from terrorists. This can be much more easily done than the guarding of airplanes. Also, any terrorist who puts his mind to it can come up with ways to terrorize a. population that are less dangerous to himself than handling plutonium. The answer is not to get rid of the reactors-let's get rid of the terrorists.

Q. Will the expansion of nuclear power by other countries enable them to produce nuclear weapons?

December 18, 1979 A. Unfortunately, yes. This is already hap

pening. Two-thirds of the reactors in operation in the free world today are outside the United States. Since we can't stop other nations from building nuclear plants or weapons, what we must do is find better solutions to international problems. An energy-starved nation is much more likely to make and use nuclear weapons as a last resort to survival. The only way to prevent that is to see to it that there is enough energy to go around, and to strengthen cooperation and confidence among the nations.

Q. What have we learned from the accident at Three-Mile Island?

A. Two things. First, that nuclear reactors are even safer than we thought. Despite many human errors and a few mechanical failures at Three-Mile Island, the damage was contained. No one was killed, or even injured. We have also learned that a lot can be done by better educated, better paid and more responsible reactor operators, and by a more efficient display of the state of the reactor by modern instrument panels.

Three-Mile Island has cost $500-million, but not a single life. We must pay for safety and, even after we have paid for it, nuclear energy is the cheapest source of electrical power. It is most remarkable that in the case of nuclear energy we are paying for our lessons in dollars, not in li ves.e

MICHAEL FEDOR OF Mll.FORD, CONN.-PEACE CORPS VOLUNTEER

HON. ROBERT N. GIAIMO OF CONNECTICUT



• Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the excellent humanitarian work that is carried on day after day by the volunteers of the Peace Corps. The Peace Corps is the only U.S. agency which provides individual Americans the opportunity to work with the people of developing nations while living as part of their communities. Throughout the globe, the United States is proudly represented in 60 countries by nearly 6,000 volunteers working on a broad range of programs, motivating people to utilize local resources in meeting their basic needs, and showing them how to become more self-reliant. Last year alone, nearly 1 million people in the Third World benefited from the work of Peace Corps members.

Every volunteer is unique in the special gifts that they bring to their job. I have become aware of the work of one of my constituents, Michael Fedor of Milford, Conn. For over a year Michael has been working and living in the city of Quito, Ecuador. His main project is to prepare mentally retarded children for their participation in the special olympics he has organized. He directs physical education and recreation programs at two special education institutions.

He also works with the children in an orphanage, where he assists them with recreation and manual activities, accompanies them on outings and picnics,


and has begun organizing activities to develop a library and obtain urgently needed clothing, supplies, and toys.

In addition to his work with children, Michael has made innumerable contacts with Ecuadorean citizens who are interested in giving moral and financial support to his activities. This has been crucial for acquiring the resources necessary to sponsor the special olympics. In the true spirit of the Peace Corps, he is attempting to recruit various Ecuadorean physical education instructors to assist him with the organization and development of the special olympics. He realizes that, if he does not help create the local capability to carry on his work once he leaves, the benefits will be short-lived.

Michael travels by bus every day to and from his work sites, which are on the outskirts of Quito in poor neighborhoods. While there are approximately 30 other Peace Corps volunteers working in special education and vocational training in Ecuador, Michael is thought by all to be a special volunteer.

What makes Michael's work extraordinary is the fact that he is blind. By example, he is showing other people with handicaps that it is possible to lead happy and productive lives. His work should make an impression upon all of u.s who sometimes blind ourselves to the conditions of the Third World poor. I commend Michael's dedication to his fellow man, and I am certain that the people of Quito will remember his efforts for a long, long time.•

JUDGE GREEN AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF ffiANIANS

HON·. HENRY J. HYDE OF ILLINOIS



• Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the Government has been stymied in its appropriate reaction to the acts of war comniitted by the so-called Government of Iran, by an ill-considered ruling of a local district court judge. The Chicago Tribune's editorial of December 13, 1979, provides a clear answer to Judge Green's unfortunate decision:

EQUAL PROTECTION OF IRANIANS

The federal court order stopping immigration checks into the status of Iranian visitors in the United States is based upon a misconception of the Constitution and ought to be reversed.

U.S. District Court Judge Joyce Hens Green ruled in Washington that singling out Iranian nationals for special scrutiny to determine whether they are complying with immigration laws amounts to a violation of their rights to equal protection of the laws.

The constitutional question, however, is not simply whether an identifiable group is being treated differently than other groups, but whether the difference in treatment reflects a valid and sufficient government interest.

36877 The emphasis in drug law enforcement on

heroin sellers as opposed to marijuana sellers, for example, would hardly be considered unconstitutional simply because it puts heroin peddlers at greater risk. That policy reflects a reasonable judgment that heroin trafficking represents a greater national danger at this time.

The decision to place priority on enforcing immigration laws with respect to nonpermanent resident alien Iranians came after the rapid deterioration of relations between the U.S. and Iran. It is hardly unreasonable for the government, responding to an act of war by another nation, to check up on that country's nationals here and deport any who are violating immigration laws. To do less would be negligent, if only because of the risk that some may be acting illegally as foreign agents.

Moreover, immigration policy has traditionally been bound up with U.S. foreign policy. The acceptance of foreign students and implementation of cultural exchanges is often a sign of strong or strengthening relations with another nation. Tolerance of infraction by a given country's visitors here-indeed, general restraint in pursuing violators because of the risk of creating 111 will in a foreign capital-has also been common.

Likewise, when relations with another country are shattered by a violent and hostile act against the United States, it is altogether proper for immigration law enforcement attention to turn to visitors from the offending state. It is significant that despite the domestic rage at Iran's behavior, of the more than 50,000 Iranian v!sitors interviewed by immigration officials after the takeover, more than 41,000 were found to be complying with the law and allowed to continue to go about their business.

Not only has the U!.S. enforcement effort in the wake of the embassy takeover in Iran been entirely legal and constitutional, it has been really quite selfrestrained.e

BEN PRESS

HON. IKE SKELTON OF MISSOURI



• Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I inform my colleagues of the recent death of a good friend- of mine, Ben Press of Independence, Mo.

Mr. Press was born on January 7, 1905 in St. Joseph, Mo. After moving to Jackson County, he became the owner of Lee's Sporting Goods in 1945. Mr. Press was an active member of the Independence Rotary Club. The club is establishing a memorial in his honor for his 25 years of service.

He was also a licensed architect and a member of the Beth Israel Abraham and Voliner Congregation.

He was a warm and congenial person, active in his community, and had scores of friends from all walks of life.

Ben Press will be m~ssed by his friends and his community. I wish to extend my sincere sympathy to his widow, Mrs. Doris Press.e

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamduong
View:	220 times
Download:	1 times

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS - GPO · A bill for the relief of Sophia Sanchez; ... PA'I"I'EN, RoE, Ro ......

Documents