SENATE-Monday, June 14, 1982

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

SENATE-Monday, June 14, 1982

13537

The Senate met at 12 noon, on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the President pro tempore <Mr. THURMOND).

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The opening prayer will be delivered by Rabbi Kenneth S. Cohen, Congregation Beth Shalom, Wilmington, Del.

Rabbi Cohen is the pastor of Steve Kaufman, President of this year's graduating class of the Capitol Page School.

Rabbi Cohen.

PRAYER

Rabbi Kenneth S. Cohen offered the following prayer:

Almighty God, we invoke your blessings upon this session of the United States Senate. Bestow upon our legislators "the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord." May they and all who govern our beloved United States of America be ever mindful of the awesome responsibilities they thus assume, to make this land an example of justice, prosperity, and freedom to all nations and peoples. May all of us be united together in the bond of brotherhood, that together we may create for our world a new era of mutual respect, harmony, and peace. May the time not be distant, 0 Lord, when the vision of your prophet will be realized: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall men learn war any more."

We ask, 0 Lord, that the deliberations and decisions made in this distinguished assembly be pleasing in Your sight, that the prayer of the Psalmist might be fulfilled:

"And let Thy graciousness, 0 Lord our God, be upon us; Establish Thou also the work or our hands for us; Yea, the work of our hands establish Thou it." Amen.

RECOGNITION OF. THE MAJORITY LEADER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

Mr. BAKER. I thank the Chair.

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

unanimous consent that the Journal of the Proceedings of the Senate be approved to date.

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

<Legislative day of Tuesday, June 8, 1982)

THE GRASSHOPPER Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, soon it

will be summer, and accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that this week's poem, "The Grasshopper," by Alfred Lord Tennyson, be printed in the RECORD.

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

THE GRASSHOPPER

I

Voice of the summer wind, Joy of the summer plain, Life of the summer hours Carol clearly. bound along. No Tithon thou as poets feign <Shame fall 'em, they are deaf and blind), But an insect lithe and strong, Bowing the seeded summer flowers. Prove their falsehood and thy quarrel,

Vaulting on thine airy feet. Clap thy shielded sides and carol,

Carol clearly, chirrup sweet. Thou art a mailed warrior in youth and

strength complete; Armed cap-a-pie Full fair to see; Unknowing fear,

Undreading loss, A gallant cavalier,

Sans peur et sans reproche, In sunlight and in shadow, The Bayard of the meadow.

II

I would dwell with thee, Merry grasshopper,

Thou art so glad and free, And as light as air;

Thou has no sorrow or tears, Thou hast no compt of years, No withered immortality, But a short youth sunny and free. Carol clearly, bound along,

Soon thy joy is over, A summer of loud song,

And slumbers in the clover. What hast thou to do with evil In thine hour of love and revel,

In thy heat of summer pride, Pushing the thick roots aside Of the singing flowered grasses, That brush thee with their silken tresses? What hast thou to do with evil, Shooting, singing, ever springing

In and out the emerald glooms, Ever leaping, every singing,

Lighting -on the golden blooms?

ORDER FOR PERIOD FOR THE TRANSACTION OF MORNING BUSINESS Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that, following the recognition of the two leaders under the standing order and the special order in favor of the distinguished Senator from Florida <Mr. CHILES), there be a period for the transaction

of routine morning business to extend not beyond 1 p.m. in which Senators may be permitted to speak for not more than 5 minutes each.

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

ORDER OF PROCEDURE Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, it is my

understanding that following morning business there will be a vote on the House amendments to S. 1210, the Environment Quality Improvement Act; is the correct?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If that measure is laid before the Senate, the vote had been ordered to occur at 1:30 p.m.

Mr. BAKER. Yes. Mr. President, it is anticipated that

the Chair will be asked to lay that message before the Senate in advance of the time provided for the vote at 1:30 p.m. today.

Is it 1:30? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

vote is ordered to occur not later than 1:30 p.m.

Mr. BAKER. Not later than 1:30 p.m. I thank the Chair.

SENATE SCHEDULE Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I might

give an overview of the legislative situation as I see it at this time.

The distinguished minority leader is not in the Chamber at this moment, and I shall confer with him when he arrives.

As all Senators know we have a very, very heavy schedule and responsibility to discharge before the Fourth of July recess which is scheduled to begin on July 2.

In addition to the Voting Rights Act, a motion to proceed to the consideration of which will be pending at some point during the day today, it is necessary in the judgment of the leadership on this side to consider a constitutional amendment dealing with the balanced budget, the urgent supplemental conference report, and presumably a conference report on the budget resolution.

In addition to those items it is anticipated that there will be a requirement for the Senate to turn to the consideration of an increase in the debt limit for the Government of the United States.

Each one of those items is an important and controversial one and may

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

13538 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 perhaps require a great amount of time.

Therefore, Senators should be on notice that they should expect active days of legislative business including votes Mondays through Fridays. I repeat, between now and the Fourth of July recess, it is anticipated Senators should assume that there will be active legislative business including votes Monday through Friday, and with the possibility of Saturday sessions, as necessary, during the period between now and the Fourth of July recess in order to address the list of items that I have just recited together with other matters as may come before the Senate.

It is anticipated that the leadership will attempt to maintain the policy of late evenings only on Thursdays during this period but in order to transact the business which we must deal with between now and the Fourth of July recess I also expect that from time to time on virtually every day between now and the 2d of July the Senate will be asked to convene at an early hour, as early as 9 a.m., and that votes will occur very early.

In terms of the meeting of committees, committees are permitted to meet, of course, for the first 2 hours after the Senate convenes. Unanimous consent will be given for committees to meet thereafter unless there is important legislative business but not past the early afternoon.

Mr. President, I will repeat that between now and the 2d of July, the date scheduled and published for the beginning of the Fourth of July recess, it would appear that these items must be dealt with:

First, the motion to proceed with the Voting Rights Act, which is now pending, and at some point the Voting Rights Act itself;

Second, the urgent supplemental conference report, which should be available this week from the House of Representatives, which must act first;

Third, a constitutional amendment dealing with the balanced budget;

Fourth, the debt limit increase as and when it reaches us from the House of Representatives;

And, fifth, the conference report on the budget resolution.

Mr. President, that is not necessarily the order in which these matters shall be dealt with but it is some suggestion of the general outline and plan for the schedule of the activities of the Senate between now and the 2d of July.

I repeat, the operating plans for the Senate in terms of days and hours of convening and concluding the activities of the Senate are such that Members should be on notice that Mondays through Fridays will be active legislative days, votes should be anticipated on each of those 5 days, and that Saturday sessions should be anticipated between now and the 2d of July as

they are necessary. The leadership will make every effort to announce that requirement as far in advance as possible.

I would urge Senators not to make plans on Saturday, however, that cannot be changed or easily rearranged during the period between now and the 2d of July.

ANTICRIME BILLS

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

Mr. BAKER. Yes. Mr. CHILES. I just listened to part

of the proposals the distinguished majority leader had mentioned, and perhaps I did not hear all of it. There are two bills, S. 2543 and S. 2572, that are on the calendar. One of the bills, S. 2543, is by myself and Senator NUNN, and S. 2572 by Senator THURMOND, Senator BIDEN, and others.

Both of those bills have to do with crime, and both have gone directly to the calendar without going to the committee, although similar legislation has already been submitted to the committee, the Judiciary Committee, and to other committees. I know there are 17 cosponsors on S. 2543, and I think there are more than that on S. 2572.

Senator NUNN and I since the 19th of May, I think, have been speaking on the floor every day about the necessity of taking up the package of bills dealing with crime, the Senate, even with its endeavors, not having passed any during this session ahead of the House, and we need to get bills passed here in order to get them through the House if we are going to have some anticrime bills working during this year.

We think it is essential that we do so. The President has proposed a package, and many of these bills are bills that are endorsed by the President.

The Attorney General has endorsed these bills and similar bills, and many of us in Congress and, of course, my State, as the majority leader knows, happens to be in a terrible plight in regard to drugs and crime.

I wonder if there is some way of getting those bills scheduled?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida. He is exactly right. These are important measures, and there is an extraordinary requirement for legislation of this type, particularly in his own State of Florida where extraordinary circumstances have exacerbated the situation considerably.

The matter has been brought to my attention more than once, and I would be happy to cooperate.

Both measures are on the calendar, as he correctly points out. I am told the committee in each case is not now prepared to proceed to their consideration, but it would be the intention of the leadership to proceed with these measures or similar measures within the reasonably near future.

Whether or not we can do it between now and the 2d e>f July would be highly problematical, but I would be pleased to do that if we can find a window for it and obtain the clearances that otherwise would be necessary.

Mr. CHILES. I thank the majority leader for that statement.

I would just point out we have probably less than 55 legislative days left between now and the time we will adjourn this year, and the fact that we do not have the impetus in the House that we have in the Senate is one of the reasons why I am pushing so hard, along with Senator NUNN and others, to try to see that the Senate acts so that we can try to build up some momentum in the House.

I think if we got a good package of bills over there, the House probably would want to do something on this subject before election time this year. But I would be afraid if we waited too long that we would not get that favorable action from the House.

Mr. BAKER. I share the Senator's concern. I wish to assure him I will cooperate with him in trying to see that we get the earliest possible consideration of these measures or similar measures. I will be glad to confer with him privately on how we can work that into the schedule.

Mr. CHILES. I thank the Senator. Mr. BAKER. I thank the Senator

from Florida.

THE DEATH OF THE KING OF SAUDI ARABIA

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn yesterday of the death of King Khalid ibn Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. He was a revered leader of a great people and he will be missed not only by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but by the Islamic world and the world community at large.

In April of last year, I had the honor to meet with King Khalid in Jidda. In keeping with the traditions of his people, he was a thoughtful and gracious host and I will remember our meeting with pleasure and affection.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the transition from King Khalid to King Fahd proceeded smoothly and without difficulty. It is a reassuring measure of the stability of the Kingdom that an orderly succession in the Government has occurred and that we can expect with confidence continuity in the policies of the Government of Saudi Arabia.

We who have worked with Fahd as Crown Prince, look forward to working with King Fahd in strengthening the relationship between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States in order to protect our mutual national interests. In a region that never ceases

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13539 to demonstrate its volatility, friends are good to have.

I am pleased to learn that Vice President BusH will be traveling to Riyadh along with a delegation including Senators PERCY and JOHNSTON. I believe it altogether fitting and proper that we pay our respects to the late King and reaffirm our relationship with his successor. I am also pleased to learn of President Mubarak's visit to Riyadh to pay his own respects. It is, of course, my hope that these two great Arab nations can overcome their past differences in a common search for peace.

RESERVATION OF LEADERSHIP TIME

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated the minority leader under the standing order may be reserved to him until some time during today.

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

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, if I have enough time remaining under the standing order, I reserve it under the same terms and conditions as that permitted to the minority leader.

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

A SALUTE TO A SACRED BANNER

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, on June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress decreed:

The flag of the United States shall be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white, with a union of thirteen stars of white on a blue field, representing a new constellation.

Our Founding Fathers knew that they were embarking on one of history's boldest adventures, and they likened their actions to setting a new constellation in the heavens. The flag that they commissioned reflected their grand conviction. Not surprisingly, for more than two centuries, our evolving flag has been America's most eloquent symbol. President Woodrow Wilson captured well our flag's significance when he wrote:

·This flag which we honor and under which we serve is the emblem of our unity, our power, our thought and purpose as a nation.

Britain has the Union Jack, France the Tricolor, and Canada the Maple Leaf banner, but perhaps no flag in the world commands the devotion, respect, and reverence among the people whom that flag represents as does Old Glory. Since American Presidents are relatively transient by most world standards, our flag enjoys an almost royal position in our society. In a culture in which ceremony and heraldry have been kept to a minimum, we have invested our flag with a compensatory

majesty and grandeur that Caesar and Napoleon might have envied.

But our flag's aura was not won by congressional fiat alone. In war and peace, the American flag has em*** BAD MAG TAPE ***bodied the hopes and ideals of the millions of American men and women who have marched and worked under it. From the American Revolution to the Vietnam war, hundreds of thousands have bled and died to preserve those hopes and ideals. In the same period, Americans young and old have venerated our flag not only as a symbol of our power but as an assurance of justice as well. Thus, Old Glory earned the respect and love of those who followed it through our history's brightest and darkest moments.

Today is our flag's birthday. In remembrance of all that the flag has shared with us throughout America's history and all that it means to us today, we salute it. But our salute extends beyond that flag itself to embrace all those in every generation who have laid down. their lives in defense of that flag, and to all those in our own time who have risked all that is dearest to them to insure that our flag continues to fly over a free land.

RECOGNITION OF SENATOR CHILES

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I understand there is a special order in favor of the Senator from Florida <Mr. CHILES) if he is prepared to execute that order at this time and, if so, I am prepared to yield to him.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Florida <Mr. CHILES) is recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes.

CRIME CONTROL ACT BAIL REFORM

Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, over the last few weeks, along with Senator NUNN, I have come to the floor of the Senate each day to speak out about crime, and about the need for the Senate to move promptly on a package of anticrime bills. On May 19, Senator NUNN and I introduced just s}ch a package of proposals, S. 2543. Since we introduced S. 2543, 17 of our colleagues have joined us as sponsors of this anticrime package. We were able to have S. 2543 placed directly on the Senate Calendar, and it now could be called up for consideration. In addition, 1 week after we introduced our anticrime package, the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator THURMOND and Senator BIDEN, introduced another package of crime-fighting proposals, S. 2572. I joined them as an original sponsor of S. 2572, and I also worked with them to have S. 2572 placed directly on the Senate Calen-

dar. Since then, over 30 Senators have joined as cosponsors of S. 2572.

So at this point, we have two crime fighting proposals on the Senate Calendar, and either one could be called up. I am pleased that these bills are on the calendar, but I am deeply concerned. I am concerned, Mr. President, because time is running our on this session of the Congress; there are as few as 53 legislative days left before we adjourn. If we are truly determined to fight crime and drug smuggling, we must act quickly to bring these bills before the Senate, pass them, and then give the House an opportunity to pass a package of crime-fighting bills.

Mr. President, from your work which you have done on the committee, the Permanent Committee on Investigations, and the other work you have done in the Senate, I know you well know exactly what I am talking about, and I know you are a cosponsor of these particular proposals about which I am talking.

Title 2 of S. 2543 is a bail reform proposal, and reforming our bail laws is a key element in any fight against crime. It recognizes that our bail laws simply have not worked when it comes to dealing with drug traffickers. Accordingly, it establishes special bail provisions for those persons who are arrested on Federal drug charges. It reverses the normal presumption that a person will go free on bail for certain types of persons who have been arrested on drug charges, such as persons with prior drug convictions or illegal aliens. For such persons, bail would not be available unless the person arrested could show special reasons justifying release on bail prior to trial.

Mr. President, we need this reform in our bail laws because today, as far as drug traffickers are concerned, our bail laws operate as a revolving door. A drug dealer is arrested, then he posts bail no matter how high it is set. Afterward, he simply never shows up for trial. The bail money that he forfeits is simply viewed as a temporary business loss, a loss that usually can be made up in a matter of months, or even weeks.

An example of the failure of today's bail laws to deal effectively with drug traffickers is shown clearly by the case of Hector Espinosa. Espinosa was arrested last year in Miami, and Drug Enforcement Administration agents seized 44 pounds of cocaine in his possession at the time of his arrest. At a price of $.100 per gram the cocaine had a street value of $2 million. Espinosa was arrested along with Isaac Kattan, one of the foremost illegal drug money laundry operators in the United States. At the bail hearing before a U.S. magistrate, both the U.S. attorney and the Drug Enforcement Administration recommended setting bail at $5 million. However, their request

13540 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 was denied, and bail was reduced to $500,000. Now, half a million dollars sounds like a tremendous amount of money to me. You would think that it would sound like a tremendous amount of money to Espinosa, who portrayed himself as an unemployed butcher from Nicaragua. Nevertheless, this supposed unemployed butcher was able to post bail in 2 days. Espinosa then challenged the legality of the search at the time of his arrest, the search that uncovered the 44 pounds of cocaine in his possession. The court upheld the legality of the search. Then, to no one's surprise, Espinosa simply disappeared.

Fortunately, this case has a happy ending. Several months later, Drug Enforcement Administration agents tracked Espinosa down and arrested him. This time, he was held without bail, and at trial he was convicted. Mr. Espinosa is now where he belongs, in prison.

Mr. President, we all should be pleased that justice finally caught up with Mr. Espinosa. But it is important to remember that he was a fugitive for months. During that time, he was free to engage in further criminal activities. Moreover, our Drug Enforcement Administration officials had to devote valuable time and resources to catch someone who they had already caught earlier. That time and effort detracted from the Drug Enforcement Administration's efforts in other cases. Finally, and sadly, while Mr. Espinosa was captured, the U.S. Marshal in Miami still is trying to locate some 300 other drug-related bail jumpers-300, Mr. President, in Miami alone.

Mr. President, we in the Senate have an opportunity to do something about this problem, and to close the revolving door situation for drug traffickers. Both S. 2543 and S. 2572 contain bail reform provisions that would help assure that drug dealers who are arrested will not be able to buy their way out of jail on bail. Both S. 2543 and S. 2572 are on the Senate Calendar. They are ready for consideration by the full Senate. But time is running out, and unless we move quickly to consider these bills, we will lose an opportunity to stop crime.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Senator NUNN is on his way to the floor and would like to speak a minute on the same subject.

<Later, the following occurred:) Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I under

stand the Senator from Florida has time remaining under his special order. I ask unanimous consent that I may use the remainder of that time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

TITLE IV, CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1982 HABEAS CORPUS-4

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the problems generated by an overburdened ju-

dicial system are part and parcel of the crime crisis which the American people face daily. We cannot hope to effectively deter crime as long as our criminals routinely view punishment as an uncertain, distant, and slight possibility at best. Unfortunately, we have reached the point where our criminals know only too well how to manipulate our criminal justice system to their benefit. Senator CHILES and I, in introducing the Crime Control Act of 1982, are proposing responsible legislative action to correct these abuses.

Our bill speaks, and rightly so, to the need for reform of our system of habeas corpus proceedings. As the law now stands, criminals have made a mockery of what was once considered the "great writ of liberty" at common law. Rather than serve to correct and prevent unjust imprisonment within our system, the writ of habeas corpus is now commonly seen as a vehicle to defer, delay, and ultimately frustrate the imposition of just arid deserving criminal punishment.

Such was the case in Bryan against State. Bryan was convicted in Florida of robbery after entering a plea of guilty in 1964. In 1979 a petition of habeas corpus was filed in Federal court even though at the time of such filing the sentence had been completely served. The State accordingly filed a motion to dismiss while Bryan alleged the prior conviction was used to enhance his Federal sentence. The Federal court denied the motion to dismiss.

Instead, the court on its own asked the parties to address the issue of laches since some 15 years had elapsed from the date of conviction to the date of filing the petition. Bryan pled unawareness of the remedy. The State indicated the lapse of time made it difficult to find witnesses, and those witnesses found could not independently recollect the events. This was evidenced by the fact that the prosecutor Wallace Allbritton <then an Assistant Attorney General) was not called as a witness since he informed the State he had no recollection of the case even after reading the case file on the matter. And the former defense counsel, Judge Rawlins, prefaced his testimony at the evidentiary hearing with the statement that he had no independent recollection and his answers were based on his review of the court record and record from the public def ender's office. The magistrate, without addressing the laches issue, recommended denial of the petition on the merits. As of this date, this case is still pending.

This case should have never been heard on the merits due to the gross delay in filing the petition. Such a case would not be heard in the future with enactment of the statute of limitation.

The point of the Bryan case, and the others which Senator CHILES and I have previously mentioned, is not that the defendants may be eventually released. More serious is the fact that these petitions, mostly frivolous and most seeking review after review after review, have turned our Federal and State courts into overcrowded judicial lotteries. We are telling all convicted felons: "Just keep on filing writs of habeas corpus, because maybe you will finally be a lucky winner and get a new trial." Surely this is not the purpose for which the writ was originally designed.

Think of the time and expense we waste in our courts every year in reconsidering facts and legal issues that have already been decided. The Crime Control Act of 1982, with its provisions to prevent further abuse of habeas corpus, has now been awaiting action on the Senate Calendar for over 2 weeks. As a responsible Congress, we cannot afford to allow our scarce judicial resources to be needlessly squandered any longer. We should act now to enact these provisions in a strong, determined, and effective effort against crime.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time.

ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business.

Mr. PROXMIRE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY INCLUDES THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, on June 9, the annual convention of Rotary International voted overwhelmingly to prohibit membership restrictions based on race, color, creed, or national origin.

This welcome development reminds us that more and more people around the world are recognizing the harm done by distinctions based on these factors. Individuals and organizations everywhere are taking steps to make sure that opportunities and freedoms are available to all, regardless of membership in any national, ethnical, religious, or racial group.

We should commend Rotary International for its action to counter discrimination and broaden opportunities in the sphere of professional and com-munity activity. We should encourage other business and civic associations to do the same. The effort to tear down the barriers of prejudice in business, government, education, and every field

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13541 of endeavor is essential to the wellbeing of our Nation and the world.

But while we are striving to secure for all individuals the opportunity to participate fully in modern economic and intellectual life, we are overlooking the need to secure a yet more basic and important opportunity-the opportunity to live.

Mr. President, there are people in many places in the world whose hopes for professional and economic success are continually in jeopardy because their very lives are in jeopardy. There are people who fear not only discrimination in the workplace, but discrimination in its most extreme form: The attempted destruction of an entire ethnic, religious, or national group. There are people for whom the threat of genocide is a stark reality.

We in the United States must reaffirm our commitment to equal opportunity for all by taking action to safeguard the equal opportunity to live. I call upon my colleagues in the Senate to take this action by ratifying the Genocide Convention.

SPENDING FEDERAL MONEY FOR NUCLEAR MATERIALS FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, for

the last several weeks, I have been reading into the RECORD information on the nuclear arms acquisition by this country and nuclear arms production because I feel that all of us should have as much of the facts as we can get in the debate that is likely to follow, which may be one of the most important debates in the Senate this year or in any other year, for that matter.

The material that I have been reading from in the last few days is from the Arms Control Today, a publication of the Arms Control Association, and particularly from an article by three distinguished experts, including William M. Arkin, Thomas B. Cochran, and Milton M. Hoenig. These gentlemen are as follows: Mr. Arkin is the director of the arms race and nuclear weapons research project at the Institute for Policy Studies, in Washington, D.C.; Mr. Cochran is senior staff scientist, and Mr. Hoenig is consultant to the National Recources Defense Council, in Washington, D.C.

They are particularly concerned with the nuclear stockpile and with the justification thereof. Reading from their publication, they point out:

MATERIALS GAP

Long-range production and materials requirements, based upon gross projections, have created a materials "gap" in the 1990s. This gap is a vivid reminder of the fact that among the impulses behind a never ending arms race are the "shortages" which can always be manufactured by the planning process.

The plans of the late 1980s and early 1990s which project such a gap are for an

accelerated generational replacement of strategic systems, including the MX missile, Trident II, and a new cruisie missile. In addition, new warhead designs and innovations are deemed to be necessary and their development and deployment are assumed. It can be argued that some of the new warheads do not represent additional military capabilities. The military requirements for neutron bombs over fission weapons, for higher yield small MX warheads, or for enhanced radiation and directed energy antiballistic missile warheads have been questioned both technically and politically, and they are only "exotic" new ways of doing old things.

The supposed materials gap prior to when a new production reactor comes on-line is thus, for the most part, falsely manufactured. The projection of a shortfall of materials is based upon a set of inflated contingencies and exaggerated requirements. Beyond the current planning period, the projected acceleration in new weapons production could indeed create an artificial shortage of nuclear materials. But after an expensive and extensive undertaking to upgrade the materials production complex, the argument that there is still a pressing need for further expansion should be closely examined. The planning gap provides the impetus to justify a further $6-10 billion factory upgrade, even though the capabilities warhead production are already adequate for any but the wildest dreams of nuclear weapons planners.

The bottom line is that the need for nuclear materials and weapons should not be determined by the weapons designers. The "plans" for new weapons should be inextricably linked to overall military policy and plans. If a huge nuclear build-up is thus the plan for the next decade, it should be the subject of an intense public assessment and debate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

NATIONAL PECAN MARKETING ORDER

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my concern over a proposed Federal Marketing Order for Pecans, presently being considered by the Department of Agriculture.

Throughout its history, the pecan industry has enjoyed a marked degree of success. Without restraints from any Government price or production control regulations, the producers of this crop have been able to find adequate markets, as well as receive an acceptable price for their commodity.

It is my understanding that this marketing order is being supported by some of the larger producers of pecans. As it stands now, this proposed marketing order for pecans would be for advertising and promotion purposes only. I would impose a tax of 1 cent per pound to cover promotion costs, with built-in increases for inflation in the future. I have found that there is widespread opposition to this marketing order in the Southeast, where the majority of pecans are produced. They fear that it is the intention of the promoters of this order to amend it in the future so as to place

controls on production, quality, and other aspects of the pecan industry. These farmers are strongly opposed to any such controls, feeling they would not be in the best interest of either the growers or consumers.

Mr. President, I share their concerns in this matter and I find it hard to understand why a proposal to increase Government expansion would be considered at this time, when the keynote of this administration is the reduction of Government involvement in all areas of private industry.

Unlike other agriculture commodities, the pecan industry does not have a Federal program governing its marketing practice. The growers in the Southeast are proud of this unique situation. They voiced this fact recently by overwhelmingly expressing their opposition to the proposed order during the Agriculture Department's solicitation of views on this matter. I feel that this expression should be accorded great deference before the U.S. Department of Agriculture decides to further pursue this matter.

Mr. President, I might add, too, that, in my opinion, the consumers, the buyers of pecans, do not want these controls.

Mr. President, on behalf of my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Senator HOLLINGS, and myself, I ask unanimous consent that a South Carolina State Senate Resolution memoralizing the Secretary of Agriculture to oppose the proposed National Federal Marketing Order concerning pecans, be printed in the RECORD.

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

SENATE RESOLUTION 1055 Whereas, a majority of the pecan growers

in South Carolina oppose the National Federal Marketing Order concerning pecans; and

Whereas, South Carolina produces ten million pounds of pecans a year; and

Whereas, ninety percent of this amount of pecans is produced by small growers who engage primarily in casual sales; and

Whereas, it is the understanding of this body that the one cent per pound check-off required by the proposed marketing order is allocated for advertising; and

Whereas, it would not only be exceedingly difficult to collect this fee but, assuming it is collected, it would be of minimal service to the small growers especially since the National Pecan Marketing Council presently provides comparable, if not more efficient, advertising service; and

Whereas, the application of the collection aspect of the order is further complicated by the fact that nowhere in legislation or the proposed order is the term "pecan grower" defined. As a result, it is not known who would be eligible to vote in the referendum on the proposed order; and

Whereas, the proposed order should be quashed at its inception since it will not generate any improvement in the pecan industry and, if passed, would simply lead to the establishment of another unneeded bureaucracy. Now, therefore,

13542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 Be it resolved by the Senate of the State

of South Carolina: That the United States Secretary of Agriculture is memorialized to oppose the National Federal Marketing Order concerning pecans. Be it further resolved that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the United States Secretary of Agriculture, the South Carolina Congressional Delegation, and Mr. Allen Belden, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is . there further morning business?

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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


ORDER OF PROCEDURE Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, in a

moment I will suggest the absence of a quorum once more.

It is anticipated that a decision will be made on whether to call up the CEQ bill, S. 1210, within the next 10 or 15 minutes.

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



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

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

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business has expired.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on S. 1210.

I have the authority of the majority leader to make the request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate CS. 1210) entitled "An Act amending the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970", do pass with the following amendments:

Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert: That section 205 of the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 <42 U.S.C. 4374) is amended-

(1) by striking out " ; and" at the end of paragraph Ca) and inserting in lieu thereof a period; and

(2 ) by adding at the end thereof the following:

"(c) $44,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982.

" (d) Such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years ending September 30, 1983, and September 30, 1984.".

Amend the title so as to read: "An Act to authorize appropriations for the operations of the Office of Environmental Quality and the Council on Environmental Quality during fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 1984.".

Mr. GORTON. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. President.

UP AMENDMENT NO. 1021

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Pennsylvania <Mr.

SPECTER) proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 1021.

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


The amendment is as follows: At the end of the bill add the following

new Section: SEc. . (a) Section 1 of the Clayton Act

<15 U.S.C. 12) is amended by inserting after the words "nineteen hundred and thirteen;" the words "section 801 of the Act of September 8, 1916, entitled 'An Act to raise revenue, and for other purposes' <39 Stat. 798; 15 u.s.c. 72);".

Cb) Section 801 of the Act of September 8, 1916, entitled "An Act to raise revenue, and for other purposes" <15 U.S.C. 72) is amended to read as follows:

" (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to import, assist in importing, or sell within the United States, at a purchase price less than the foreign market value (or, in the absence of any such value, the constructed value) prevailing at the time, if the reasonably forseeable effect of such importation or sale of such article is-

"(1) injury to a company or an industry in the United States; or

"(2) the prevention, in whole or in part, of the establishment, modernization, or expansion of an industry in the United States.

"(b)(l) Any person who has been injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of, or conspiracy to violate this section, may sue in the District Court of the United States for the district in which the defendant resides, transacts business, is found, or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy.

" (2) In any suit filed under paragraph (1),

the court shall have jurisdiction to decide such suit and may issue a temporary or permanent injunction or a temporary restraining order prohibiting the importation or sale of any articles which will be imported or sold in violation of subsection <a> of this section, or prohibiting the sale of any articles that have been imported in violation of such subsection.

"(3) Any plaintiff prevailing in a suit filed under paragraph < 1) of this subsection shall, upon a finding of injury under subsection Ca), recover the damages sustained by the plaintiff, any other equitable relief as may be appropriate, and the cost of the suit, including reasonable attorney fees.

" (c) The standard of proof in any action filed under subsection Cb) is a preponderance of the evidence. Upon a prima facie showing that there has been a violation of subsection <a>, or upon any final determination by the International Trade Commission or administering authority that is affirmative under sections 705 or 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930 <19 U.S.C. 1671d or 1673d) and which shall be considered a prima facie case for purposes of this section, the burden of rebutting the prima facie case thus made by showing justification shall be upon the person charged with a violation of this section, and unless it is affirmatively shown that articles have not been imported or sold at less than foreign market value, the court may issue an appropriate order, including any penalty or sanction authorized by subsection Cb).

" (d) If, during the course of any proceeding under this section, the court determines that there is reason to believe that there is a violation of this section, the court may direct that the articles concerned be prohibited from entry into or sale in the United States, pending completion of the suit.

" (e) Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under this Act is pending that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned before the court, whether or not they reside in the district in which the court is held, and subpoenas so summoning those parties may be served and enforced in any judicial district of the United States.

" (f) If a defendant, in any proceeding brought under subsection Cb) of this section fails to comply with any discovery order or other order or decree of court, the court may enjoin the further importation into the United States, sales, or distribution in interstate commerce within the United States by such defendant of articles which are the same as, or similar to, those articles which are alleged in such proceeding to have been sold or imported in violation of the provisions of subsection <a> of this section, until such time as the defendant complies with such order or decree, or may take any other action authorized by law, including entering judgment for the plaintiff.

" (g) If a plaintiff, in any proceeding brought under subsection Cb) of this section fails to comply with any discovery order or other order or decree of such court, the court may dismiss the complaint.

" (h) The confidential or privileged status accorded to any documents, comments or information by law shall be preserved in any action under this section. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the court may examine, in camera, the confidential or privileged material, may accept depositions, documents or affidavits under seal, and may disclose such material under such terms and conditions as it may order.

"(i) Any suit filed under subsection Cb) shall be advanced on the docket and expedited in every way possible.

" (j) For the purpose of construing the terms 'foreign market value' and 'constructed value', the court shall apply the definitions of such terms contained in the Tariff Act of 1930 <19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.). To the extent that any governmental or other subsidy provided to a manufacturer or producer is not included in the foreign market value or constructed value, then the amount of such subsidy shall be added on to the foreign market value or constructed value.

" (k) Any foreign manufacturer or exporter who sells the products of that manufac-

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13543 turer or exporter in the United States or who designates another party to sell those products in the United States shall be considered to have designated the Commissioner of Customs to be the lawful attorney of that manufacturer or exporter, upon whom may be served all lawful process in any action or proceeding under this section relating to the foreign manufacturer or exporter.

"Cl) The action brought under subsection Cb) shall be barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued.".

"Cc) It is the sense of the Congress that the provisions of this section are consistent with and in accord with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade CGATT).

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had intended to ask for immediate consideration of this amendment, but I shall refrain from doing so in order that the pending legislation may be considered.

This is an amendment, if I may speak briefly for about 3 or 4 minutes before 1:30, when the time for the vote is called--

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that and take 1 minute? I have an amendment myself.

Mr. SPECTER. Two minutes. Mr. GORTON. I have to put an

amendment in before 1:30. Mr. SPECTER. I will allow the Sen

ator time. This amendment would grant Ameri

can industries broader access to the courts to prevent economic injury in antidumping cases.

' I had decided to press this matter today in the wake of Friday's findings of very substantial damage to the American steel industry with very conclusive evidence being forthcoming about subsidies by foreign governments for as much as $250 per ton, which have resulted in enormous losses to the American steel industry. There are similar problems with other industries, including but not limited to textiles, leather, mushrooms, and shoes as a result of foreign dumping.

This amendment is urgently needed to alleviate the high rate of unemployment and the rapidly declining production in many American industries caused by the dumping of products on American markets and foreign government subsidies to foreign corporations. This amendment will provide more expeditious and effective relief to domestic companies and industries injured by foreign products, many of which are subsidized and being dumped or sold on the American market at less than their fair value.

As just one example, the steel industry is currently operating below 50 percent capacity, a rate lower than that during the Great Depression, and unemployment in that industry is over 100,000 employees. Dumping and the selling of Government subsidized products is clearly a violation of international trade laws, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This legislation does not impose any

barriers to free trade or initiate any ptotectionist measures. Rather, it only insures that trade laws will be enforced with greater certainty, vigor, and speed.

This bill does not impede or interfere with the legitimate trade of products and services that are not unfairly subsidized by the foreign government and which are not being dumped on the American market.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 provides an administrative mechanism for the handling of antidumping and countervailing duty complaints. However, a typical antidumping matter may take 13 to 17 months, from the time when the domestic corporation initiates an investigation until it receives relief. This administrative mechanism requires multiple decisions by two different administering agencies which must produce evidence regarding prices in the seller's home market, prices in the third country markets, and support allegations of injury to a U.S. industry.

Under the prior law, in one instance involving the television industry, the investigation took over 7 years. In another instance covering 8 years, an American typewriter company unsuccessfully sought to secure the proper assessment of antidumping duties. Despite final determinations of dumping and the substantial margins of dumping, no relief was provided. This statutory, administrative mechanism is clearly inadequate, because relief is long delayed, prospective in nature and consists only of duties.

Foreign companies, subsidized by their governments, can dump their products on American markets for extended periods of time without being subject to sanction. Once a foreign company commences dumping, it will take the American industry 6 or more months to become aware of and gather evidence concerning this practice. Once a complaint is filed with the administering authorities, it takes an additional 6 months or more before a preliminary determination is made. Thus, over a year transpires before any sanction is imposed on these companies who are illegally dumping products on the American market.

Further, evidence indicates that once duties are imposed, these companies halt the exportation of goods to American markets. Thus, no duties are collected and no sanction is ever imposed. Another tactic of these foreign companies is to voluntarily agree to halt the importation of products into our markets once the preliminary determination is impending. Thus, they are allowed to dump their products on the American markets for up to a year or more without paying any duties or damages.

In response to numerous complaints by the steel industry, the Carter administration initiated by administra-

tive action a trigger price mechanism <TPM) for steel products only, which was originally intended to be more efficient than the administrative antidumping and countervailing duty procedure. In addition, an antisurge mechanism was initiated. In the 1979 act, the TPM and the antisurge mechanism have not been successful because they have not significantly shortened the timeframe for antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. In addition, since relief is only prospective, delays result in significant injury to American industry. The harm is done before the investigation is completed.

There have also been shortcomings in the operation of these administrative mechanisms. For example, in a study of the administration of TPM prior to its extension in 1980, the GAO determined that 40 percent of foreign steel imports were coming into the country below trigger price, with 6 percent significantly below trigger price. However, in only 1 percent of all imports were antidumping investigations being triggered by the Department of the Treasury. Also, since the TPM only triggered an antidumping investigation, all the procedures set forth in the 1979 Trade Agreement Act still apply.

As a result of these shortcomings, the steel industry filed massive complaints in the spring of 1980, causing the Carter administration to suspend the TPM. It was subsequently reinstated immediately prior to the elections. In January, the steel industry initiated massive complaints and the Reagan administration again suspended the TPM. Separate complaints were filed by many of the major steel companies, including United States Steel, Republic Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Jones & Laughlin, Babcock & Wilcox, Inland Steel, National Steel, and Cyclops Corp.

These complaints allege wholesale violations of antidumping and countervailing duty laws and that European steel companies have received $30 billion in Government grants, loans, guarantees, and other forms of subsidies in the past 6 years and will receive another $30 billion in the next 4 years.

Over the past 6 years, certain European steel companies have had losses of over $20 billion and would have been forced out of business without these subsidies.

In response to the massive complaints filed by the steel industry, the ITC has instituted 92 separate preliminary investigations. ITC has dismissed 54 of these matters, but has determined to proceed affirmatively in 38 separate investigations, including 89 percent of the steel products covered by the complaint. The preliminary determination will occur in June and August on these investigations.

13544 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 Even when the administering au

thority has found in favor of the American steel companies, the foreign producers will have had 18 months of time to dump their products on American markets. Clearly, this is not acceptable.

If this amendment had been in effect during the past year, these companies would be subject to damages for dumping their products on the American markets throughout this period. Based on past experience, it is clear that many of these companies would have been deterred from commencing this practice in the first place if they were aware that they could be subject to damages from the commencement of their illegal activities.

Mr. President, in introducing this amendment today, I have made several modifications to the original text of my bill, S. 2167, introduced on March 4.

Subsection <a> would place section 72 of title 15, United States Code-the Unfair Foreign Competition Actunder the Nation's antitrust laws, thus providing plaintiffs with all of the remedies, rights of action, and so forth, provided for under those laws. Dumping is a predatory, anticompetitive act, and plaintiffs in these cases would have the ability to use the precedents, procedures, and immediate remedies of antitrust laws.

Subsection (b) would amend section 72 of title 15, United States Code, and extend the coverage of this legislation from importers and those who assist in the importation of goods in the United States to include those persons who sell products which are dumped on American markets. It utilizes terms contained in the Trade Act to reduce the vagueness in the current statute. The use of these terms is well established under the trade laws. The existing terms used in the statute, while having been previously construed in court tests, do not have as well-defined meanings.

In addition, this subsection would cover instances where products are not sold in the home country or in another foreign country. Using the constructive value approach eliminates this problem.

Instead of proving tliat the foreign manufacturer, importer, or government intends to destroy or injure an industry of the United States, subsection (a) would require that such actions result in and have the reasonably foreseeable effect of injuring the American industry or preventing the establishment or modernization of the industry in the United States. This would significantly reduce the standard of proof required in any court action.

Subsection (a) of the act, as amended, would also permit the recovery of damages when a company can prove that it has been damaged and not the

entire industry. This is a clarification from the original bill.

The criminal penalties contained in the original bill have been eliminated.

Subsection (b), as amended, provides that any person who has been injured by reason of a violation of this section may sue in district court. A plaintiff may recover the damages sustained, the cost of the suit, and any other equitable relief as may be appropriate. The treble damages provision has been eliminated.

Subsection (c) of the act, as amended, changes the standard of proof and provides that upon a prima facie showing of a violation, the burden of rebutting the prima facie case will be upon the defendant. A final determination by the ITC or administering authority will be considered to be a prima facie case, but not a preliminary determination as provided for in the original bill.

Subsection (g), as amended, provides that if plaintiff fails to comply with a discovery order or other order, the court may dismiss the complaint. The remainder of the amendment is the same as the bill introduced on March 4, with certain technical, drafting changes.

With the steel industry operating at a level lower than in the Great Depression and many other industries similarly situated, urgent action is clearly required.

In order that the pending legislation may proceed, I have decided not to press this amendment today. I have consulted with Senator THURMOND, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who has agreed to set prompt hearings, further hearings, an initial hearing having been held on May 24, and I have consulted with Senator DOLE, chairman of the Committee on Finance, who has suggested prompt hearings before the Finance Committee, with a request that they be before the recess commencing with the beginning of July.

For these reasons I will not press this amendment today, but I do wish to state for the record that if there is another pending piece of legislation to which this amendment can be attached in the course of the next several days or between today and the end of June, I do intend to call this matter up for consideration by this body at the earliest possible time.

Mr. President, at this time I withdraw the amendment for the reasons I have already given.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Washington.

UP AMENDMENT NO. 1022

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the House amendments with a Senate amendment which I have sent to the desk.



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


Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be reported.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Washington <Mr.

GORTON), for himself and Mr. JACKSON, proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 1022.

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


The amendment is as follows: SECTION 1. Strike out all after the enact

ing clause, and insert: That section 205 of the Environmental

Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4374) is amended-

(a) by striking out "; and" at the end of paragraph (a) and inserting in lieu thereof a period; and

Cb) by adding at the end thereof the following:

"(c) $44,000 for the fiscal years ending September 30, 1982, 1983, and 1984."

Sec. 2. That a new section of the Environ- , mental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 <42 U.S.C. 4374> be added as follows:

<a> Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal lands within the area described in subsection <b> of this section are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; from location, entry and patent under the United States mining laws; and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing and all amendments thereto, except as is necessary to dispose of such lands for the protection of drinking water watersheds.

(b) The area referred to in subsection (a) shall comprise those lands which are owned by the United States within the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and which lie within the physiographic boundaries of the watersheds of the Cedar River, the Green River, the North and South Forks of the Tolt River. The boundaries of such area shall be as depicted on maps entitled "Boundary Map, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie Proposed Withdrawals," dated May 12, 1982. Such maps shall be on file and available for inspection in the offices of the United States Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

Sec. 3. Amend the title so as to read: An Act to authorize appropriations for the operations of the Office of Environmental Quality and the Council of Environmental Quality during the fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 1984, and withdraw certain lands within the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest from leasing under mineral and geothermal leasing laws.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote set for 1:30 be def erred until 1:35.

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13545 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is

there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the matter before the Senate at this time is the authorization for the Council on Environmental Quality for the fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 1984.

The Council on Environmental Quality <CEQ) is a three-member advisory and policy coordination group in the Executive Office of the President. The Council was established on January 1, 1970, by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and was given a series of functions which, in addition to advising the President, include overseeing the implementation of national environmental programs and conducting various information, research, and education activities along with producing an annual report on environmental quality.

During the previous administration, the Council on Environmental Quality served an active and highly visiable role in the development and execution of the administration's environmental policy. Now, as we all know, the Council on Environmental Policy performs a much less visiable role. Environmental policy in the current administration is much more likely to be determined by the administrative decisionmaking of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior. Notwithstanding this fact, the hypothetical role, and the actual practice, of the current members of the Council on Environmental Quality are important and significant elements in the formulation of environmental policy.

I believe that the members of the Council on Environmental Quality should be ears for the administration to listen to the Nation's environmental community. In addition, they should be advocates within the administration's decisionmaking bodies for environmental concerns which they hear voiced by the environmental community.

Appropriations for the Council on Environmental Quality and its Office of Environmental Quality are authorized under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Quality Improvement Act. Since the creation of the CEQ in 1970, those acts together have authorized an average annual budget of $2,610,000. The administration budget proposal for CEQ in 1982 was $1,044,000, $1,000,000 of which would be authorized under the continuing NEPA authorization. The administration budget . proposal for 1983 is $926,000, all of which would be authorized under the continuing NEPA authorization.

S. 1210, as originally introduced and passed by the Senate called for an authorization level of $2,544,000 for fiscal year 1982 only; $1,000,000 of that total would have been authorized

under the continuing NEPA authorization. I promoted that much higher level of funding because I felt that the role of the Council on Environmental Quality had been significant in environmental policy development in previous years and I did not want to witness the total termination of the work of the agency without the attendant development of a policy influencing substitute. I was, of course, concerned about total authorization levels and recommended compensating decreases in Environmental Protection Agency authorization levels to accommodate the proposed increase over the administration's budget proposal.

As S. 1210 was amended by House action in September of last year, it now provides for an authorization of $44,000 for fiscal year 1982, identical to the administration's proposal for 1982 when the continuing NEPA authorization is added, and such sums as may be necessary in fiscal years 1983 and 1984.

I believe that the CEQ should be more active than it is now. To be more active, greater financial resources are required. I do believe that the current members of the CEQ are performing their jobs to the extent of the resources which the administration is prepared to seek that the Congress provide. It is obvious that the administration is not prepared to seek more. To be sure, I support the administration's general objective to spend the Government's money at levels that do not cause major deficits.

I am therefore reluctantly prepared to accept the amendments · of the House of Representatives to S. 1210, at least with respect to fiscal year 1982, where they have accepted the administration's recommendation. And to be consistent with that acceptance, I would propose that the same authorization level be accepted for fiscal years 1983 and 1984.

Previously I stated that environmental policy in the current administration is developed by administrative action rather than the pref ormation of policy objectives. A relevant case in point occurred recently within the State of Washington, which I represent. Early in April of this year, the Bureau of Land Management announced that it had awarded oil and gas exploration leases on U.S. Forest Service managed land in the drinking water watersheds of the cities of Seattle and Tacoma. This action was taken notwithstanding the prior objection of the U.S. Forest Service, the existence of a city of Seattle and Forest Service agreement defining mutual rights and responsibilities toward the goal of water quality protection, and the absence of any environmental analysis of the implications of such action.

The BLM canceled the leases after protestations from all quarters, including my own. Nevertheless, they may

be regranted. There is no insurance, even when the 'procedural protection offered by an environmental analysis or impact statement, that future similar action is foreclosed. The administration has stated by its action or at least the public of the State which I represent perceive that it has stated, that its environmental policy is that oil and gas exploration, even where there is no known oil and gas reserves, outweighs the protection of the natural forested areas in which the population of two large Amercian cities draws its drinking water. I do not believe that this is a good policy.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to withdraw certain public lands in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in the State of Washington from mining and mineral leasing. This amendment is practically identical to legislation Senator GORTON and I introduced on May 13, 1982.

Like many of my constituents, I was shocked to learn last month that the Department of the Interior has issued five oil and gas leases on Federal lands in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest that are part of the watershed for the water supply systems of the cities of Seattle and Tacoma. These leases were issued over the objections of the U.S. Forest Service. They were issued despite the fact that the Forest Service and the cities have a cooperative agreement calling for management practices on Federal lands designed to protect watershed values. Since they were issued, the entire Washington State congressional delegation has gone on record in opposition to the leases and they have been rescinded.

While the immediate threat to these lands appears resolved, I am deeply concerned at the helter-skelter approach the Department is taking with respect to additional leasing. It appears that there is a policy of leasing whatever land industry asks for, with little or no thought given to the potential impacts of development. Surely, municipal watershed lands should be one of the last places leased. The same can be said for congressionally designated units of the National Wilderness preservation system.

The Department's current program files in the face of the principles of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Forest Management Act, both of which I helped to enact in 1976. These laws call for multiple-use decisions on national forest and Bureau of Land Management lands to be made in accordance with land management plans which consider all resource values and are subject to review and comment by State and local governements and the general public.

13546 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 The Department's actions on the Se

attle and Tacoma watershed leases reverses the process to a "lease first and get comments later" approach. The result is predictable-public outrage and opposition. Furthermore, this "act first and think later" approach is bound to stimulate widespread opposition to development, even in circumstances where development would be appropriate.

As a response to this approach, Senator GORTON and I are offering this amendment which will insure that these lands will not be leased in the future. .

The only difference between this amendment and the bill we introduced in May is the addition of language making it clear that the bill will not preclude a land exchange between the affected cities and the Forest Service if something can be worked out satisfactorily to both parties. It is my understanding that the cities are currently attempting to acquire some of those lands by exchange to insure permanent watershed protection.

Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the House amendments with the amendment I have sent to the desk.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield

back the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Washington <Mr. GORTON). The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the

Senator from New Jersey <Mr. BRADY), the Senator from Florida <Mrs. HAWKINS), the Senator from Pennsylvania <Mr. HEINZ), the Senator from Kansas <Mrs. KASSEBAUM), the Senator from Wisconsin <Mr. KASTEN), the Senator from Alaska <Mr. MURKOWSKI), the Senator from New Mexico <Mr. SCHMITT), and the Senator from Vermont <Mr. STAFFORD) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida <Mrs. HAWKINS), would vote "yea".

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce that the Senator from Texas <Mr. BENTSEN), the Senator from Delaware <Mr. BIDEN), the Senator from Oklahoma <Mr. BOREN), the Senator from New Jersey <Mr. BRADLEY), the Senator from North Dakota <Mr. BURDICK), the Senator from California <Mr. CRANSTON), the Senator from Connecticut <Mr. DODD), the Senator from Colorado <Mr. HART), the Senator

from South Carolina <Mr. HOLLINGS), the Senator from Vermont <Mr. LEAHY), the Senator from Michigan <Mr. LEVIN), the Senator from Maine <Mr. MITCHELL), the Senator from Rhode Island <Mr. PELL), the Senator from Michigan <Mr. RIEGLE), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. SARBANES), and the Senator from Tennessee <Mr. SASSER), are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee <Mr. SASSER), the Senator from Rhode Island <Mr. PELL), and the Senator from North Dakota <Mr. BURDICK), would vote "yea".

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. COCHRAN). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber wishing to vote?

The result was announced-yeas 76, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 171 Leg.] YEAS-76

Abdnor Andrews Armstrong Baker Baucus Boschwitz Bumpers Byrd,

Harry F., Jr. Byrd, Robert C. Cannon Chafee Chiles Cochran Cohen D 'Amato Danforth DeConcini Denton Dixon Dole Domenici Duren berger Eagleton East Exon

Ford Garn Glenn Goldwater Gorton · Grassley Hatch Hatfield Hayakawa Heflin Helms Huddleston Humphrey Inouye Jackson Jepsen Johnston Kennedy Lax alt Long Lugar Mathias Matsunaga Mattingly McClure Melcher

Metzenbaum Moynihan Nickles Nunn Packwood Percy Pressler Proxmire Pryor Quayle Randolph Roth Rudman Simpson Specter Stennis Stevens Symms Thurmond Tower Tsongas Wallop Warner Weicker Zorinsky

NAYS-0 NO'l' VOTING-24

Bentsen Bi den Boren Bradley Brady Burdick Cranston Dodd

Hart Hawkins Heinz Hollings Kassebaum Kasten Leahy Levin

Mitchell Murkowski Pell Riegle Sar banes Sasser Schmitt Stafford

So the motion was agreed to.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1982

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the motion to proceed to S. 1992.

The majority leader is recognized. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, if I may

have the attention of the Senate for a moment, it is the intention of the leadership to ask the Senate to continue the debate on this motion as long as necessary today.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's point of order is well taken. Will the Senate please be in order?

The majority leader.

Mr. BAKER. It is my understanding that, by reason of a unanimous-consent order which was entered into previously, if I file a cloture motion today, the vote will occur on tomorrow; is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask the clerk to report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the cloture motion.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

CLOTURE MOTION FILED

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 1992, a bill to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to extend the effect of certain provisions, and for other purposes.

Howard Baker, Ted Stevens, Arlen Specter, Slade Gorton, William Proxmire, Mark Andrews, Lowell Weicker, Charles Mee. Mathias, Jr., Richard G. Lugar, John C. Danforth, William V. Roth, Jr., Dan Quayle, Robert Dole, John H. Chafee, Edward M. Kennedy, Robert C. Byrd, Roger W. Jepsen.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Mr. BAKER. It is still my hope, Mr. President, that this matter can be resolved. I think the issues that divide the parties on this measure are not great. I think there is an overwhelming sentiment in the Senate that this bill should be passed and that the passage should occur promptly. There are honest differences of opinion as to the final form this measure should take. There are some Senators who have amendments that they may wish to offer. The amendments are not frivolous. The concerns that they express are genuine and real, and I urge Senators to consider that there should still be negotiations on the matter of trying to resolve the differences between the parties on this measure.

Mr. President, this is a cloture motion to proceed. It is not a cloture motion on the bill itself. If cloture is invoked, of course, the Senate will then proceed to the consideration of this measure and there will be ample time to engage in whatever negotiations may be desirable and necessary in order to expedite the Senate's consideration of this measure.

SENATE SCHEDULE

I anticipate that in addition to this measure this week, it may be possible to consider other measures. For instance, the conference report on the urgent supplemental appropriations bill may be available to the Senate this week. It is my hope that the voting rights bill will be finished in time to proceed to the consideration of

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13547 that measure as well, if it is received from the House of Representatives.

I will repeat very briefly what I said at the opening of the Senate today. We have a heavy schedule before us between now and July 2, when the Senate· is scheduled to go on its 4th of July break.

In addition to the Voting Rights Act and the urgent supplemental appropriations conference report, it is the intention of the leadership to ask the Senate to turn to the consideration of a constitutional amendment dealing with a balanced budget.

In addition to that, Mr. President, it is very likely, almost certain, that we will have to deal with a bill to increase the debt limit. Also, I anticipate that we will have before us a conference report on the budget resolution.

I am advised now by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and others that a crime package consisting of two bills that are now on the calendar may perhaps have been cleared for action. When and if we can find a window for consideration of those measures, it would be the intention of the leadership to ask the Senate to do so. There may be other matters that can be taken up this week as well, including perhaps a jobs training bill offered by the Senator from Indiana and others.

Mr. DOLE. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, I yield. Mr. DOLE. I see the Senator from

Arizona on the floor. We have an interest in S. 2000, the bankruptcy reform bill, which we believe could be disposed of in an hour or so. We certainly would like to find a window for that somewhere between now and July 2.

Mr. BAKER. Yes. Mr. DECONCINI. Will the Senator

yield for just a moment? Mr. BAKER. I yield to the Senator

from Arizona. Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, this

is very important, and I do not know of any hold on the bill. There may be a little debate, but this is something the Senator from Kansas and myself have been working on for a year and a half. I would appreciate it if we could grind this out before the Fourth of July recess.

Mr. BAKER. I thank the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I, too, want to see that measure addressed and dealt with in the Senate, and I assure both the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Arizona that I will make every effort to find a window for that so that we can take it up and dispose of it.

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

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, as the Senator knows, I have been urging

.

for some time that we find the time to consider the amendments to the 1902 Reclamation Act. There is some urgency on that.

As Senators know, there is a court order which is kind of in suspense now. It is not being followed by the Department of the Interior, as it was not by the last administration, although Secretary Andrus in the last administration moved not just to enforce the court order but to go beyond it. There is a court order which at sometime somebody will seek to use to force some change in the administrative procedures. Action on the part of the Congress ought to precede that push, so I hope that at sometime in the not too distant future we would be able to schedule the time. Although we have not had any success as yet in reaching unanimous consent on time, I am hopeful that we will. But with or without that unanimous consent, we simply must act on that. legislation this year, and I hope earlier rather than later.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Idaho, and I assure him that I will cooperate with him and other Senators in finding the appropriate time to deal with that.

I will be perfectly happy to do that before the July 2 recess, if we can find the time in which to do it.

Once again, these five items are urgent and must be dealt with, and I expect that most Senators will agree that they should have priority in the time that remains to us before the Fourth of July break.

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

Mr. BAKER. I yield. Mr. DECONCINI. Does the leader

have any idea about Friday, Monday, Saturday?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I announced earlier today, when the Senate convened, that it is the hope of the leadership that we can stick as close as possible to the regular schedule for concluding the business of the Senate, which we have abided by for some time-that is, on weekdays, other than Thursdays, the Senate would conclude its activities around 6 or 6:30, and that Thursday would be the late evening, if necessary.

But in view of the potential for a great amount of time that may be necessary to deal with these five items, it would be my intention to ask the Senate to convene earlier than usual in the morning, in order to provide a maximum opportunity to deal with these matters. ORDER FOR RECESS UNTIL 9:15 A.M. ON TUESDAY,

WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, AND FRIDAY OF THIS WEEK

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9:15 a.m. on tomorrow, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. BAKER. Once again, Mr. President, it is not my intention to ask the Senate to remain in later than necessary. Of course, it may not be possible to abide by the 6 or 6:30 hour on days other than Thursday, but that will be the intention of the leadership, to the extent that the schedule will permit.

I do not anticipate a session this Saturday, but Senators should be on notice that after this Saturday, there is the possibility of a Saturday session in the time between now and July 2, if that seems indicated in order to complete the agenda of business I have described.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate the announcement of the schedule.

I believe it is important to recognize that since Wednesday last, we have had what I would call a desultory discussion about whether the Voting Rights Act extension measure, which is cosponsored by 78 Members of the Senate, Republican as well as Democrat, and supported by the President of the United States, will be permitted to be before the Senate. With the exception of a few moments during the debate, there has been relatively little that has had anything to do with whether or not we should proceed to consider the proposed legislation.

We have taken a great deal of time debating the motion to proceed debate of a bill which the House has passed by a 389-24 vote. As I have mentioned, there is very broad agreement on this measure. I think the majority leader has pointed out that some aspects of this legislation are controversial. Most of those provisions, whether they deal with section 2 or section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, have been examined in considerable detail in the subcommittee chaired by the Senator from Utah <Mr. HATCH) and before the full Judiciary Committee, where we voted upon a series of amendments. In the final vote, all but one member of the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of the legislation.

I certainly want to accede to the leader's proposed schedule, and I want to cooperate with him in every way. But I think it is important, as I have stated previously, to point out that the delay that is being imposed upon the Senate is not being imposed by any of those who support or oppose the other pieces of legislation to which the majority leader has ref erred, but by a handful of Senators who are not permitting the Senate to work its will.

The acting majority leader, Senator STEVENS, showed his good faith and

'

I :

13548 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 his intention to have the Senate address this issue by making the unique request that should the majority leader file a cloture motion today, we would be able to vote on it tomorrow.

I believe that Senator ROBERT C. BYRD, the minority leader, even indicatd that if the majority leader was not prepared to file a cloture motion today, he would be prepared to file it. It was not even included in the unanimous-consent request that the minority leader would be given the courtesy of a vote on Tuesday, if he were to file a cloture motion. so we would have had to have been voting on Wednesday of this week on the motion to take up, and that it would have meant another delay period before we could consider cloture on the bill itself.

We have a considerable agenda, as the majority leader has outlined. We are going to have before us the matter of raising the debt limit, which will take some time; there will be very strenuous debate on that, as I know the majority leader is aware.

I consider this to be the most important and successful civil rights bill this Congress has ever passed. The issue before the Senate is one which I thought we had resolved some 17 years ago, in 1965, once and for all. Now we are back debating it again for the fourth time. The issues are not new.

I had hoped that the negotiations would be carried out on the floor of the Senate in the form of amendments; so that we could debate and consider them openly, as we did with the amendments in the full Judiciary Committee and in the subcommittee. I hope we will not postpone consideration of this piece of legislation. I think I speak for other Members, those who are supporting this bill, such as the Senator Jrom Maryland <Mr. MATHIAS)-! see the Senator from Kansas here, and he can speak for himself-the Senator from Michigan <Mr. RIEGLE), and a number of my other colleagues who have indicated that we would not be prepared to move off this legislation should there be any attempt to do so.

I mention this with some reluctance, because I have great respect for the prerogative of the majority leader in establishing the agenda for the Senate. I believe he has acted in complete good faith in scheduling this matter and he has demonstrated his good faith today by filing this cloture motion and indicating-by virtue of his announcement of the schedulethat he is rather hopeful that we will be able to dispose of this legislation this week. So I take him at his word. But I also want to indicate that, should these conversations not be successful, I hope he will understand our reluctance to sidetrack this legislation.

I am aware that the leader has a variety of parliamentary measures he

can take advantage of in order to postpone consideration of the bill. But it is my personal belief that he is strongly committed to the legislation. I have spoken to him about it over a period of time, and he has shown his willingness to put it on the agenda and to take the action he has taken today.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. The majority leader has the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I ask the majority leader and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts whether they are aware, as I think they may be, that the managers of this legislation in the other body have indicated that if we will adopt the measure as reported from the Judiciary Committee, there will be no need for a conference. The House will simply adopt it, and this matter will be beyond us.

We can dispose of this in very short order.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I am aware of that.

I am sure my friend from New York and my friend from Massachusetts both would be the first to acknowledge I also have a responsibility, however, to Senators who have a genuine and real concern about certain aspects of the bill.

I support this bill. I will vote for it in its present form. But I recognize the merit of the contention of other Senators and I acknowledge and respect the concerns expressed by some Senators. Their concerns are not frivolous, and the amendments that they have proposed are not without meaning and importance.

I think that we will proceed now in a way that will give all Senators an opportunity to express their views and to make their points and perhaps even to urge their point of view in terms of an amendment, and what the Senate decides to do with those amendments, of course, is up to the Senate.

But what we have done at this point is I think in keeping with the traditions of the Senate to do justice to every Member, and that is provide that we will proceed to the matter and to the bill in good time, which we have done; to file cloture to limit debate on the motion to proceed, which has now been done; to assure the Senate that we are going to dispose of this matter as promptly as possible, which I have done; and try to protect the rights of Senators who have points of view that they wish to elaborate and perhaps even amendments that they wish to offer.

But I think altogether the Senate is now in a position procedurally to see that no rights are trampled and that the opportunity to present the arguments on this bill or any amendments to it have been adequately provided for and to expedite its passage within the limits of prudence and equity.

I expect, Mr. President, that it may be possible to dispose of this matter this week. I sincerely hope so.

With that, I am prepared to yield the floor.


The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will call the roll.


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


Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1982

Mr. President, we have in effect begun consideration of legislation to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which is a momentous occasion for it provides us an opportunity once again to reaffirm this Nation's commitment to that most basic and fundamental guarantee embodied in the Constitution which is the right of every citizen to exercise his or her right to vote for those who would represent them in Government. It is the right that ultimately remedies all other wrongs.

And the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts could not have been more correct, in my view, than when he observed that this had proved the most successful civil rights measure in the history of the Republic.

I have a small history of involvement with this issue. In 1965 I was a member of the administration of President Johnson and it fell to me to write the first draft of the address on civil rights that the President delivered at Howard University on June 4, 1965, just 17 years ago.

That speech was entitled "To Fulfill These Rights," and it recounted the struggle for civil rights in this Nation, paid tribute to progress that had been made, and called attention to obstacles that were yet to be overcome.

Illustrative of this progress was the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 under President Eisenhower, the first of its kind since Reconstruction. Lyndon Johnson was then majority leader in this body. Then there were Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964.

The President then turned to the question of the Voting Rights Act which was at that very moment being debated in this Chamber, and he stated in his address that he considered passage of the Voting Rights Act to be as fundamental as any measure we would ever adopt or consider.

In addressing that measure President Johnson said and I quote him:

No act of my entire administration will give me greater satisfaction than the day when my signature makes this bill, too, the law of the land. The voting rights bill will be the latest and among the most important

.

.

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13549 in a long series of victories, but this victory, as Winston Churchill said-of another triumph for freedom-"is not the end." But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedon are tumbling down.

He went on: Freedom is the right to share, share fully

and equally in American society-to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. It is the right to be treated in every part of our national life as a: person equal in dignity and promise to all others.

Shortly after this address Congress passed and President Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As Congress assembled for the 1st session of the 97th Congress in January of last year, a major concern was that on August 6 of this year certain important provisions of the Voting Rights Act would expire. Many of us thought they ought not to expire, and that important improvements could be made in the legislation, given the experience of some 17 years. I was proud to join my distinguished colleagues, Senator MATHIAS, Senator KENNEDY, and Senator WEICKER, in concert with Representative RODINO and others in the House of Representatives, proposing on April 7, 1981, now more than a year ago, legislation to extend the major provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Our goal was to achieve enactment of the strongest possible bipartisan measure. This has always been a bipartisan measure, as was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the distinguished memorable father-in-law of our present majority leader helped to bring into being.

We would have thought this extension of the measure was not simply beyond party but in some significant sense beyond politics. It was something we had agreed to in our Nation and had agreed to most especially as our judgments were confirmed that it would work, it would have great and good consequences in the Nation.

However, we encountered not only outright opposition to the measure we had proposed, but we also faced the very real prospect that amendments would be adopted which, in our view, would have sharply diminished the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act as it had come to be after a series of reenactments, the first being in 1970.

Another difficulty about which I would wish to be candid but not to press as a point was the administ~ation's conflicting and often tentative expressions in this matter. The first real progress toward achieving our goal came in the House of Representatives where, after extensive hearings by the Judiciary Committee throughout the better part of 1981, the committee voted overwhelmingly to report H.R. 3112, a measure which was similar to the Voting Rights Act extension

measure which we introduced in the Senate.

On October 5 of last year the House passed that bill by the extraordinary vote of 389 to 23.

In the Senate, however, we continued to encounter resistance to the consideration of the legislation we had proposed. Indeed, I, at one point, feared it would prove impossible to reach agreement in the Senate on any measure, and I do not think I was alone in that apprehension.

Accordingly, on December 16, I joined again with Senators MATHIAS and KENNEDY in introducing S. 1992, which was indentical to the voting rights extension measure as passed by the House.

We had over 60 cosponsors on the day S. 1992 was introduce.

Over the next 5 months extensive negotiations took place in an effort to reach agreement on a measure that could be brought to the Senate floor. On May 3 such an agreement was reached, and on May 25, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17 to 1 to report S. 1992 to the full Senate. It is that measure that is before us today, and no praise could be too great for Senators MATHIAS, KENNEDY' and DOLE for their efforts in reaching this compromise, for I am convinced it will allow us to realize the objective we have all had in mind from the beginning of this Congress, the enactment of a strong extension of this most fundamental of American laws.

Moments ago Mr. President, I observed that the managers of the legislation in the House have indicated that if we will adopt the bill reported from the Senate Committee on the Judiciary it will, in turn, be adopted by the House of Representatives. There need be no conference. There is much we must do this year and the prospect of finding time for the agenda ahead of us must daunt the majority leaderit daunts me-so then how more important is it that the Voting Rights Act can be disposed of by a direct vote. If there are some amendments that Senators wish to offer, let them be offered, but first we must proceed to the bill so that they may be offered.

How can we not address ourselves directly to this matter? How can we not think of it as a matter of the first priority and of essential simplicity? We have agreement. We are for this legislation. Overwhelmingly the House has adopted it, overwhelmingly the Senate will adopt it.

If we should allow procedures to obstruct the will of the Senate, the will of the people in this matter, what will be said of us?

I was in this city in 1965 when you could argue this was an issue unresolved in the minds of the Congress and of the people. But that was a political generation ago. We have accepted this measure and incorporated it

into our lives, as no single event of this century since the 19th amendment provided that women as well as men should vote. These are the two great acts of the 20th century. They have made fundamental changes in the expanding of the franchise and strengthening the democracy, the Republic.

On the floor of the House the majority leader, Mr. WRIGHT, spoke so well when he said, spoke such truth when he said, "We have never made a mistake when we have extended the franchise." Never, never. The franchise of the 19th century was a very limited one. Property qualifications were the first to go; racial qualifications in theory the next; gender qualifications finally. The 27th amendment provided for 18-year-old voting. Certainly not an unimportant event. But the great issues have been gender and race.

And the great fact was the constitutional guarantees of the 15th amendment to the Constitution after a century-one century, 1865 to 1965-had not been upheld. There were people across this land whose constitutional rights were not protected and in particular the right to vote. And so at long last we passed the Voting Rights Act and we settled an issue that had been with us a century.

I, to repeat, was in this city, part of the administration, working on statements for the President on the matter. I would have thought that, once this was resolved, the issue would never be before us as anything more than a technical or where experience suggested a specific improvement.

We are not new to this issue. The 15th amendment, in its first section, states that:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2 provides that: The Congress shall have the power to en

force this article by appropriate legislation. And it was to the exercise of that

power in the pursuit of that guarantee that President Johnson spoke at Howard University on the 4th of June, 17 years ago.

And is there not an extraordinary record of achievement-and how proud he would have been of that record-in the aftermath of enactment? Just slightly less than 100 years after the Constitution was amended, the legislation was put in place to give the guarantees to the Constitution force. And what force they have shown.

In the seven fully covered States under the act, there were, in 1965, 100 elected black officials, and only 100. By 1980, the number had increased twentyfold to over 2,000. And it was with this significant progress in mind that Senators MATHIAS and KENNEDY

13550 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 and I and the others of us, introducing the Voting Rights Act in April a year ago, observed that there is a tendency now to suppose that the objectives of these great enactments have been obtained and that they have served their purposes and therefore they are no longer needed.

But to the contrary, you could not have had such an extraordinary change in the composition of our elected officials in this period of some 17 years without indicating, without demonstrating, the extraordinary depth and duration of the problem to which the legislation was addressed.

General de Gaulle once observed that no great issue is ever solved in a single generation. And it would not be difficult to point to a half-dozen issues on this floor which are not going to be resolved in this generation, either.

But the issue of voting rights is an issue that was with us over four or five generations and now into a sixth one, scarcely precipitous in our conduct and not altogether admirable in our willingness to be patient. There are some things concerning which pa.tience is scarcely a virtue and after a point concerning which patience becomes a form of avoidance.

Mr. TOWER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to yield to my friend from Taxas.

Mr. TOWER. I do not find disagreement with the things the Senator has just said. There is one thing that concerns me, and that is that our objective should not be just to elect more members of various ethnic minorities but to make sure that the ethnic minorities have a franchise, have vote to be fairly counted and have some impact on the electoral process. Because I can remember instances where the Republican Party in my State has run black candidates of predominantly black constituents only to be defeated by a white with 90 percent of the black vote. And this kind of thing can occur.

I have seen Anglos predominate over Mexican Americans and predominantly Mexican American constituents, which is the same sort of thing, because of the traditional alinement, of course, of the blacks and the Mexican Americans in the Democratic Party. That is understandable. It is not a phenomenon of any kind.

But I think that we should make this very clear: That the objective is not to try to seek quotas of elected officials. Because if that is the case, then I think that actually runs against the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Would my friend from Texas allow me to agree with him? He is entirely correct. It is possible, however, to measure

certain effects of legislation. And we do know that there were some parts of

our country in which this was the case with respect to all matters, and all parts of our country with respect to which this was the case regarding some matters, in which a particular group was effectively disfranchised. And a measure of the normal workings of the political process is to observe what was the condition prior to the enactment of this legislation and what came about naturally in the aftermath.

The great cities of the South began to elect black mayors, typically did so from majority white constituencies and typically have gone back to white mayors and randomly across the wide ethnic spectrum of America.

The point is a random outcome associated with ability, energy, and issues, independent of race, independent of gender. We do not have random outcomes independent of gender. If we did, 48.6 percent of this body would be male and 51.4 percent would be female.

We do not have random outcomes with respect to race or we would not be the body we are. But we are moving in that direction, and certainly this legislation has nothing to do, as the sponsors have said so carefully, with proportional representation, with quotas, with anything of the kind. Were it to do so, it would be as much a violation of the principle of the 15th amendment as the previous refusal to enforce those guarantees and protect those guarantees.

Anyone who is familiar with the rich tapestry of American life as is the Senator from Texas, who has, after all, taught government as well as practiced it, knows that we have had a long and enduring and quite intelligible practice of seeking representation for all the various ethnic, religious, and regional groups of this country in the electoral system. It is a natural aspect of diversity. It was as present in the days of Andrew Jackson as it was in the days of Lyndon Johnson. There is nothing the matter with that. Indeed, although it began in its first appearance as an aberration from some ideals of a republic led by platonic aristocracy, when people started to say, "Well, you have to have a German on the ticket in Philadelphia," it has proved an enduring source of stability and a sense of shared reward and shared responsibility.

It is said that at the Paris Peace Conference at Versailles in 1919, Samuel Gompers, the head of the American labor movement, was trying to describe to a European audience the plans for the International Labor Organization that President Wilson had brought with him. He made a statement to that skeptical audience which, it seems to me, could hardly be improved. He said, "You do not know how safe a thing freedom is." And the freedom of the franchise, I would like

to suggest, and I am sure the Senator from Texas would agree, while at some level is seen as giving access to the rewards of society, sooner or later commits individuals and groups to the responsibilities of society as well. That is the enduring part and the enduring consequence. That is what we have done with this legislation.

That is why I so very much hope that we will not delay, that the Senate will work its manifest will, and that legislation of the highest ethical purpose, ethical and governmental purpose, will be adopted before the country for a moment gets the impression that we have any doubts about what we should do and what we will do.

The country has the right to expect of us that seeing our duty we will proceed to perform it, and not for frivolous or unworthy or allow inconsequential purposes to avoid that duty.

I thank the Chair. Mr. TOWER. Will the Senator yield

for a brief comment? Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to

yield. Mr. TOWER. I hope I will be able to

overcome my somewhat ethnic or religious background to say that that would make no difference, that people would be selected on the merit of their political philosophy, and the ability to reflect the needs and aspirations of people. I hope that day will sometime come. As a practical politician, I am aware that it is not here, and, as the Senator from New York has suggested, it may not come for a generation or perhaps two.

I remember back in New York City in 1960 there being some balance about having Lefkowitz and certain others on the ballot, but the effort lost.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Would the Senator mind if I reported that it lost to an almost identical combination on the other side.

Mr. TOWER. I am sure the combination on the other side was somewhat similar.

But I think we should not ignore the fact that we have made great progress, and with the progress initiated through the courts. I think ultimately the courts must be the guardians of the rights of people to their franchise with unimpeded restraint. I know that in my own State there was a day when nomination in the Democratic primary was tantamount to election, because we were a one-party State, and blacks, were not permitted to vote in the Democratic primary. There was the classic case of Smith against Cole in the Supreme Court in 1944, which forced the Democratic Party to open its primaries. That was a landmark decision. From that point we have made great progress in my State and I would say generally speaking that discrimination has been confined largely to

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13551 certain local areas. We have been going in the direction of assuring that everyone, not just the black Americans but Mexican Americans as well, have access to the franchise and are not in any way deterred in asserting their privileges and responsibilities through unreasonable gerrymandering or through administrative antics designed to prevent them from exercising their franchise.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Could I thank the Senator from Texas for calling attention to the aspects of this legislation that deal with Hispanic Americans, of whom there is the greatest diversity ranging from the Mexican subjects overrun during the American expansion to emigrants from a whole range of the Western Hemisphere, to American citizens from the island· of Puerto Rico, who are protected by this legislation, who have a second language.

In the State of New York, the three counties of New York County, Kings County and Queens County are covered by the voting Rights Act. This is in part having regard to the language provisions.

There are wrongs that had to be remedied-the all-white primary, the requirement of people with one native language to know another in order to vote. These are not new to America. It is not the last of it. But what we have always shown is a capacity to respond.

It is not where you are in these matters, it is where you are going. Where we are going is forward. We are going to pass this bill, Mr. President. There may be those in this body who have some different thought, who have so mistaken the temper of the Senate itself and the unquestioned desire and, I should say, will of the people that they think this could be obstructed or delayed, that, somehow, other matters will intervene. They will not, Mr. President. We will pass this bill. There is no way it can be prevented. And it will not be.

When it is done, and I hope it will be done with expedition and such grace such that, -in the aftermath, we do not look back and wonder, did we cast a shadow on that shining moment; did we dim the achievement of Lyndon Johnson and the Congress that adopted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and that of the men and women who died to bring it about? Because there were those who did.

We are dealing here with an American tradition, Mr. President, one we can be proud of, every bit as much as we are dealing with the extension of a statute.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that President Johnson's commencement address at Howard University on June 4, 1965, "To Fulfill These Rights," in which he talked of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS AT HOWARD UNIVER

SITY: "To FuLFILL THESE RIGHTS"-JUNE 4, 1965 Dr. Nabrit, my fellow Americans: I am de

lighted at the chance to speak at this important and this historic institution. Howard has long been an outstanding center for the education of Negro Americans. Its students are of every race and color and they come from many countries of the world. It is truly a working example of democratic excellence.

Our earth is the home of revolution. In every comer of every continent men charged with hope contend with ancient ways in the pursuit of justice. They reach for the newest of weapons to realize the oldest of dreams, that each may walk in freedom and pride, stretching his talents, enjoying the fruits of the earth.

Our enemies may occasionally seize the day of change, but it is the banner of our revolution they take. And our own future is linked to this process of swift and turbulent change in many lands in the world. But nothing in any country touches us more profoundly, and nothing is more freighted with meaning for our own destiny than the revolution of the Negro American.

In far too many ways American Negroes have been another nation: deprived of freedom, crippled by hatred, the doors of opportunity closed to hope.

In our time change has come to this Nation, too. The American Negro, acting with impressive restraint, has peacefully protested and marched, entered the courtrooms and the seats of government, demanding a justice that has long been denied. The voice of the Negro was the call to action. But it is a tribute to America that, once aroused, the courts and the Congress, the President and most of the people, have been the allies of progress.

LEGAL PROTECTION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Thus we have seen the high court of the country declare · that discrimination based on race was repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore void. We have seen in 1957, and 1960, and again in 1964, the first civil rights legislation in this Nation in almost an entire century. ·

As majority leader of the United States Senate, I helped to guide two of these bills through the Senate. And, as your President, I was proud to sign the third. And now very soon we will have the fourth-a new law guaranteeing every American the right to vote.

No act of my entire administration will give me greater satisfaction than the day when my signature makes this bill, too, the law of this land.

The voting rights bill will be the latest, and among the most important, in a long series of victories. But this victory-as Winston Churchill said of another triumph for freedom-"is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down. Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in American society-to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. It is the right to be treated in every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity and promise to all others.

FREEDOM IS NOT ENOUGH

But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying:

Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line or a race and then say," you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.

Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.

This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a. result.

For the task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities-physical, mental and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness.

To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough. Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in-by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.

PROGRESS FOR SOME

This graduating class at Howard University is witness to the indomitable determination of the Negro American to win his way in American life.

The number of Negroes in schools of higher learning has almost doubled in 15 years. The number of nonwhite professional workers has more than doubled in 10 years. The median income of Negro college women tonight exceeds that of white college women. And there are also the enormous accomplishments of distinguished individual Negroes-many of them graduates of this institution, and one of them the first lady ambassador in the history of the United States.

These are proud and impressive achievements. But they tell only the story of a growing middle class minority, steadily narrowing the gap between them and their white counterparts.

A WIDENING GULF

But for the great majority of Negro Americans-the poor, the unemployed, the uprooted, and the dispossessed-there is a much grimmer story. They still, as we meet here tonight, are another nation. Despite the court orders and the laws, despite the legislative victories and the speeches, for them the walls are rising and the gulf is widening.

Here are some of the facts of this American failure.

Thirty-five years ago the rate of unemployment for Negroes and whites was about the same. Tonight the Negro rate is twice as high.

In 1948 the 8 percent unemployment rate for Negro teenage boys was actually less than that of whites. By last year that rate had grown to 23 percent, as against 13 percent for whites unemployed.

Between 1949 and 1959, the income of Negro men relative to white men declined in every section of this country. From 1952 to

·-

13552 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 1963 the median income of Negro families compared to white actually dropped from 57 percent to 53 percent .

In the years 1955 through 1957, 22 percent of experienced Negro workers were out of work at some time during the year. In 1961 through 1963 that proportion had soared to 29 percent.

Since 1947 the number of white families living in poverty has decreased 27 percent while the number of poorer nonwhite families decreased only 3 percent.

The infant mortality of nonwhites in 1940 was 70 percent greater than whites. Twentytwo years later it was 90 percent greater.

Moreover, the isolation of Negro from white communities is increasing, rather than decreasing as Negroes crowd into the central cities and become a city within a city.

Of course Negro Americans as well as white Americans have shared in our rising national abundance. But the harsh fact of the matter is that in the battle for true equality too many- far too many-are losing ground every day.

THE CAUSES OF INEQUALITY

We are not completely sure why this is. We know the causes are complex and subtle. But we do know the two broad basic reasons. And we do know that we have to act.

First, Negroes are trapped-as many whites are trapped-in inherited, gateless poverty. They lack training and skills. They are shut in, in slums, without decent medical care. Private and public poverty combine to cripple their capacities.

We are trying to attack these evils through our poverty program, through our education program, through our medical care and our other health programs, and a dozen more of the Great Society programs that are aimed at the root causes of this poverty.

We will increase, and we will accelerate, and we will broaden this attack in years to come until this most enduring of foes finally yields to our unyielding will.

But there is a second cause-much more difficult to explain, more deeply grounded, more desperate in its force. It is the devastating heritage of long years of slavery; and a century of oppression, hatred, and injustice.

SPECIAL NATURE OF NEGRO POVERTY

For Negro poverty is not white poverty. Many of its causes and many of its cures are the same. But there are differences-deep, corrosive, obstinate differences-radiating painful roots into the community, and into the family, and the nature of the individual.

These differences are not racial differences. They are solely and simply the consequence of ancient brutality, past injustice, and present prejudice. They are anguishing to observe. For the Negro they are a constant reminder of oppression. For the white they are a constant reminder of guilt. But they must be faced and they must be dealt with and they must be overcome, if we are ever to reach the time when the only difference between Negroes and whites is the color of their skin.

Nor can we find a complete answer in the experience of other American minorities. They made a valiant and a largely successful effort to emerge from poverty and prejudice.

The Negro, like these others, will have to rely mostly upon is own efforts. But he just can not do it alone. For they did not have the heritage of centuries to overcome, and they did not have a cultural tradition which

had been twisted and battered by endless years of hatred and hopelessness, nor were they excluded-these others-because of race or color-a feeling whose dark intensity is matched by no other prejudice in our society.

Nor can these differences be understood as isolated infirmities. They are a seamless web. They cause each other. They result from each other. They reinforce each other.

Much of the Negro community is buried under a blanket of history and circumstance. It is not a lasting solution to lift just one corner of that blanket. We must stand on all sides and we must raise the entire cover if we are to liberate our fellow citizens.

THE ROOTS OF INJUSTICE

One of the differences is the increased concentration of Negroes in our cities. More than 73 percent of all Negroes live in urban areas compared with less than 70 percent of the whites. Most of these Negroes live in slums. Most of these Negroes live togethera separated people.

Men are shaped by their world. When it is a world of decay, ringed by an invisible wall, when escape is arduous and uncertain, and the saving pressures of a more hopeful society are unknown, it can cripple the youth and it can desolate the men.

There is also the burden that a dark skin can add to the search for a productive place in our society. Unemployment strikes most swiftly and broadly at the Negro, and this burden erodes hope. Blighted hope breeds despair. Despair brings indifferences to the learning which offers a way out. And despair, coupled with indifferences, is often the source of destructive rebellion against the fabric of society.

There is also the lacerating hurt of early collision with white hatred or prejudice, distaste or condescension. Other groups have felt similar intolerance. But success and achievement could wipe it away. They do not change the color of a man's skin. I have seen this uncomprehending pain in the eyes of the little, young Mexican-American schoolchildren that I taught many years ago. But it can be overcome. But, for many, the wounds are always open.

FAMILY BREAKDOWN

Perhaps most important-its influence radiating to every part of life-is the breakdown of the Negro family structure. For this, most of all, white America must accept responsibility. It flows from centuries of oppression and persecution of the Negro man. It flows from the long years of degradation and discrimination, which have attacked his dignity and assaulted his ability to produce for his family.

This, too, is not pleasant to look upon. But it must be faced by those whose serious intent is to improve the life of all Americans.

Only a minority-less than half-of all Negro children reach the age of 18 having lived all their lives with both of their parents. At this moment, tonight, little less than two-thirds are at home with both of their parents. Probably a majority of all Negro children receive federally-aided public assistance sometime during their childhood.

The family is the cornerstone of our society. More than any other force it shapes the attitude, the hopes, the ambitions, and the values of the child. And when the family collapses it is the children that are usually damaged. When it happens on a massive scale the community itself is crippled.

So, unless we work to strengthen the family, to create conditions under which most parents will stay together-all the rest: schools, and playgrounds, and public assistance, and private concern, will never be enough to cut completely the circle of despair and deprivation.

TO FULFILL THESE RIGHTS

There is no single easy answer to all of these problems.

Jobs are part of the answer. They bring the income which permits a man to provide for his family.

Decent homes in decent surroundings and a chance to learn-an equal chance to learn-are part of the answer.

Welfare and social programs better designed to hold families together are part of the answer.

Care for the sick is part of the answer. An understanding heart by all Americans

is another big part of the answer. And to all of these fronts-and a dozen

more-I will dedicate the expanding efforts of the Johnson administration.

But there are other answers that are still to be found. Nor do we fully understand even all of the problems. Therefore, I want to announce tonight that this fall I intend to call a White House conference of scholars, and experts, and outstanding Negro leaders-men of both races-and officials of Government at every level.

This White House conference's theme and title will be "To Fulfill These Rights."

Its object will be to help the American Negro fulfill the rights which, after the long time of injustice, he is finally about to secure.

To move beyond opportunity to achievement.

To shatter forever not only the barriers of law and public practice, but the walls which bound the condition of many by the color of his skin.

To dissolve, as best we can, the antique enmities of the heart which diminish the holder, divide the great democracy, and do wrong-great wrong-to the children of God.

And I pledge you tonight that this will be a chief goal of my administration, and of my program next year, and in the years to come. And I hope, and I pray, and I believe, it will be a part of the program of all America.

WHAT IS JUSTICE?

For what is justice? It is to fulfill the fair expectations of man. Thus, American justice is a very special

thing. For, from the first, this has been a land of towering expectations. It was to be a nation where each man could be ruled by the common consent of all-enshrined in law, given life by institutions, guided by men themselves subject to its rule. And allall of every station and origin-would be touched equally in obligation and in liberty.

Beyond the law lay the land. It was a rich land, glowing with more abundant promise than man had ever seen. Here, unlike any place yet known, all were to share the harvest.

And beyond this was the dignity of man. Each could become whatever his qualities of mind and spirit would permit-to strive, to seek, and, if he could, to find his happiness.

This is American justice. We have pursued it faithfully to the edge of our imperfections, and we have failed to find it for the American Negro.

So, it is the glorious opportunity of this generation to end the one huge wrong of

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13553 the American Nation and, in so doing, to find America for ourselves, with the same immense thrill of discovery which gripped those who first began to realize that here, at last, was a home for freedom.

All it will take is for all of us to understand what this country is and what this country must become.

The Scripture promises: "I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out."

Together, and with millions more, we can light that candle of understanding in the heart of all America.

And, once lit, it will never again go out. <Note: The President spoke at 6:35 p.m. on

the Main Quadrangle in front of the library at Howard University in Washington, after being awarded an honorary degree of doctor of laws. His opening words referred to Dr. James M. Nabrit, Jr., President of the University. During his remarks he referred to Mrs. Patricia Harris, U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg and former associate professor of law at Howard University.

<The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was approved by the President on August 6, 1965 <see Item 409).)

<See also Items 548, 613.)

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair for its courtesy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I can

recall an article written by the distinguished Senator from New York a few years back in the publication, Public Interest, on the subject of what do I do if the Supreme Court is wrong, or something along that line. It was an excellent article and, if my recollection serves me correctly, I put excerpts of it into the RECORD.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President. may I interject to say the Senator most certainly did and it was a distinct sense of honor that I felt at the time. The article was entitled "What Do You Do When The Supreme Court Is Wrong?"

Of course, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator will recall that I defined that word "wrong," as meaning wrong in the sense that the Court subsequently declares itself to have been wrong.

Mr. HATCH. That is correct, Mr. President. That was an excellent article. I commend the Senator for it again.

I might say, however, Mr. President, that I do not recall that one of the suggestions made by my distinguished colleague from New York was that Congress statutorily overrule any constitutionally based decision that it believed to be "wrong."

I ask the distinguished Senator from New York, does he believe today that overruling a constitutionally based decision is an appropriate response to a "wrong" Supreme Court decision?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. If I can recapitulate the article, Mr. President, I said that those persons who are of the view that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in a way that is inappropriate should follow what I discerned as a pattern of "Debate, legis-

late, litigate," the simple proposition being to bring before the Court further opportunities to make decisions.

In exactly that pattern, the decision in Lochner against New York was reversed. Lochner decided in 1905, embodied the notion of substantive due process and said that the State of New York could not enact labor legislation. Despite Mr. Justice Holmes' observation that the "14th amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's social statistics, it became the law." There followed a period of debating Lochner, of passing "hours of work" legislation,

·and finally, cases came to the Court and the Court said, "We no longer hold as we held in Lochner."

Just 2 weeks ago, in United States against Ross that presented a question of police search and seizure, the Court reversed its holding handed down but a year ago, and why? Because the Court had another case come before it.

But, Mr. President, I should like to ask in what sense is there any aspect of this legislation whatever that reverses a finding of the Supreme Court with respect to a constitutional right?

The question the Senator asks-may I read from page 41, section (f), of the committee report, if the Senator will bear with me, and I am sure he will, and he has a copy. We appear to be in chapel here together. I read the following passage:

It has been suggested that the Committee bill would overturn a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court, in spite of the strenuous opposition of some of the bill's proponents to unrelated Congressional efforts to override Supreme Court decisions in other areas by statute rather than by constitutional amendment.

This argument simply misconstrues the nature of the proposed amendment to section 2. Certainly, Congress cannot overturn a substantive interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Such rulings can only be altered under our form of government by constitutional amendment or by a subsequent decision by the Court.

If I may point out to the Senator from Utah, my friend <Mr. HATCH), the point I made in the article in Public Interest followed that of Abraham Lincoln in the debate with DouglasLincoln said that a Supreme Court decision is not a "thus saith the Lord;" that the Court is human and can change.

If you are a U.S. Senator, you have the right to vote your judgment of the Constitution. Mr. President, I have repeatedly said that we have no obligation to agree with the Supreme Court. Our obligation is to obey it.

To continue: Thus, Congress cannot alter the judicial

interpretations in Bolden of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by simple statute. But the proposed amendment to section 2 does not seek to reverse the Court's constitutional interpretation. Rather, the proposal is a proper statutory exercise of Congress' enforcement power described above and it is not a redefinition of the scope of the Consti-

tutional provisions. As American Bar Association President David R. Brink emphasized:

"Under this amendment, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the proper constitutional standard would be left intact. Only the section 2 statutory standard would be changed to reinstate the prior legal standard."

As Professor Cox noted, the proposed amendment to section 2 is clearly distinguishable from proposals pending in the 97th Congress to offset substantive Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution by simple statute.

Unlike legislation proposed in other areas, S. 1992 does not attempt to restrict the federal court's jurisdiction in any way. It does not direct the result or the remedy that courts may reach with respect to claims brought under· the Fifteenth or Fourteenth Amendments. Nor does it purpose to redefine terms in either amendment for purposes of constitutional adjudication.

That is the view of the committee, and it is precisely my view, and I hope it is, consistent with my observations, in Public Interest. But I am happy to hear the Senator from Utah, who is my friend and counsel in these matters, too.

<Mr. SYMMS assumed the chair.) Mr. HATCH. I am aware that this is

the majority view. Although section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has always been considered a restatement of the 15th amendment to the Constitution, it is, of course, true that Congress may choose to amend section 2 to achiev.e some other purpose. In other words, I recognize that section 2 need not be maintained indefinitely as the statutory embodiment of the 15th amendment. To the extent, however, that the Supreme Court has construed the 15th amendment to require some demonstration of purposeful discrimination in order to establish a constitutional violation and to the extent that section 2 was enacted by Congress under the constitutional authority of the 15th amendment, I do not believe that the Congress is empowered to legislate outside the parameters set by the Court, indeed by the Constitution. Section 2 of the 15th amendment provides that Congress shall "enforce" the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation.

Congress, however, is not empowered here or anywhere else in the Constitution to "define" or to "interpret" the provisions of the 15th amendment but simply to "enforce" those substantive constitutional guarantees already in existence. To allow Congress to interpret the substantive limits of the 15th amendment in a more expansive manner or indeed in a disparate manner than our Court is to sharply alter the apportionment of powers under our constitutional system of separate powers.

What has intrigued me is that many of those who argue that that can be done through the new language in section 2 have a very difficult time with

{

13554 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 the question of the constitutionality of the so-called Human Life Statute, which would overturn Roe against Wade by redefining the term "person" in the 14th amendment.

I should like to briefly discuss some of the interesting things relating to the Voting Rights Act which have happened in New York very recently.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several articles be placed in the RECORD at this point.

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

[From the New York Times, June 9, 19821 COURT GETS MASTER'S DISTRICTING PLAN

<By Maurice Carroll) A plan by a Federal Court master to revise

New York's political boundaries-scrambling districts and pitting incumbents against each other-was made public yesterday.

Drawn as an alternative to lines voted by the State legislature, the plan will be weighed tomorrow by three Federal judges.

"If the Justice Department approves the Legislature's plan, that probably would be the plan," the master, Robert P. Patterson Jr., said after sending his maps and documents to the court. But he noted that Federal approval had not yet come.

In Washington, a Justice Department spokesman, Arthur P. Brill, deputy director of public affairs, said the department was "still actively reviewing" the lines submitted by the Legislature. "There is no \"l:ay of estimating when the decision will be made," he said.

MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN TWO PLANS Mr. Patterson was appointed by a special

Federal court panel that was convened under a Federal law that provides for considering constitutional challenges involving reapportionment.

As legislators studied the relatively small Assembly districts in Mr. Patterson's plan, the thick black lines on the maps made detailed judgment difficult.

"It'll take a while to figure out who'd run against who," said.

But the Congressional districts, being bigger, were easier to sort out, and it was clear that Mr. Patterson's version would make major changes from the Legislature's, including these:

Brooklyn-Queens: The district represented by James H. Scheuer, which takes in parts of both boroughs, vanished. Two of Brooklyn's four districts seemed heavily black. The district represented by Frederick W. Richmond-which the Legislature would link to two predominantly Hispanic slices of Manhattan-would merge instead with the Flatbush section represented by Stephen J. Solarz. It also would include the conservative community of Bay Ridge, which the Legislature would attach to Staten Island.

Manhattan-Bronx: Manhattan would be split up the middle, forming two full districts, with a third Harlem based district now represented by Charles B. Rangel joined to the Bronx. Representative Jonathan B. Bingham's Bronx area would be joined to Westchester, not to Manhattan as on the Legislature's map.

PLAN DRAWN BY COMPUTER Drawn by computer with deliberate disre

gard of political factors, the Patterson plan still would have immense political impact. For example, in western New York, Re pre-

sentative Jack F. Kemp, one of the nation's most prominent Republicans, would be put into a heavily Democratic district in Buffalo represented by Henry J. Nowak, a Democrat.

The three judges, convened in Federal District Court in Manhattan, picked Mr. Patterson to draw lines reflecting the 1980 census when the Legislature failed to meet a court deadline. Subsequently, the reapportionment plan drawn up in Albany was sent to Washington. Clearance by the Justice Department is needed because the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies to Brooklyn, the Bronx and Manhattan.

Because of population shifts, both plans provide for five fewer Congressional seats than the present 39 and reduce the power of New-York City.

In the report that Mr. Patterson submitted late Monday, he rejected appeals to respect political niceties like protection of incumbents.

He was under orders not to cut the number of districts where racial minorities were in the majority.

"Where possible," he wrote, "lines were drawn which would permit discrete minorities, black, Hispanic or Chinese, a fair opportunity to elect candidates."

[From the New York Times, June 11, 19821 U.S. ACCEPTS COUNCIL LINES AIDING

MINORITIES <By Jane Perlez)

WASHINGTON, June 10.-The Justice Department approved a redistricting plan for the New York City Council today, saying that the Council had drawn lines that increased the voting strength of minority groups.

The approval, which came eight months after the Justice Department rejected as discriminatory a redistricting plan that was proposed last year, cleared the way for City Council elections on Nov. 2.

"The new plan was approved because the City Council made changes to correct problems we noted before," the Justice Department said in a statement. "The Council redrew district lines to eliminate the fragmentation of minority groups and to increase minority voting districts."

The plan, approved by the City Council and signed into law by Mayor Koch last month, increases the number of Council seats to 35 from 33. The Justice Department said the plan increased from nine to 12 the number of seats where "the minority community could choose the incumbent."

In these 12 districts, black and Hispanic residents make up more than 65 percent of the population.

The Justice Department did not say explicitly that these were districts in which minority candidates could be expected to win. But Council leaders, who have consulted the department during the last six months, said the department's directions were intended to give minority candidates a winning chance in the 12 districts.

Council leaders have said privately, however, that minority candidates are likely to win only nine or 10 of the 12 new districts. The Council now has eight minority members.

A 13th district in the plan has a minority population of more than 50 percent.

Meanwhile, in the litigation in New York City over new Congressional and legislative boundaries, a special three-judge Federal court prodded the Justice Department to act quickly on the new lines so that the state could hold its election on time.

"You've got the ball now," Judge Robert J. Ward told a Justice Department lawyer at a hearing in Foley Square on reapportioning State Senate and Assembly districts and the state's Congressional districts. "We'd appreciate if you'd move on it."

Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Justice Department must approve electoral changes in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan to insure that minority participation is not diminished.

The decision by the Justice Department today ended nine months of intense wrangling within the Council itself, between the Council and the Mayor and between the Justice Department and the Council.

The Council had its first trouble with the Justice Department on the eve of last September's scheduled primaries when a federal court ruled that the city had failed to provide the department with supporting data for approval of its original redistricting plan.

With the help of a private counsel, Edward N. Costikyan, the Council provided additional information and legal arguments, but the department rejected the plan on Oct. 27, ruling that the lines would "lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities." The rejection led to the cancellation of Council elections last November.

SECOND PLAN SUBMITTED The Council then went back to the draw

ing board, and according to Mr. Costikyan, the lines in the plan approved today were mapped "in consultation with the Justice Department." The second plan was submitted to the Justice Department on May 4.

The 10 at-large members of the Council were not affected by today's action.

A Federal judge last month barred the city form holding elections for the at-large members in the fall. Judge Edward R. Neaher of Federal District Court in Brooklyn ruled that the at-large members could stay in office until November 1983, when voters will be asked to vote on a new formula for electing the at-large members.

Judge Neaher and the United States Second .Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had found earlier that the city's method of electing at-large members violated the one-man, one-vote principle, because there are two at-large members for each borough, regardless of population.

MEETING IN WASHINGTON After the Federal court in New York City

urged prompt Federal action on Congressional and legislative redistricting, a Justice Department lawyer, Sheila Delaney, said, "We're trying our best."

The court sought a decision that would allow the state political calendar start June 22 with the circulation of nominating petitions.

Miss Delaney would not give a promise. She noted that the dapartment's deadline for action ran until Aug. 2.

The new Council districts in which the minority population is more than 65 percent, with the incumbents, were listed by the Justice Department. They are these:

District 5, Manhattan: Frederick E. Samuels: 73.5 percent black residents, 15.5 percent Hispanic residents. Combined minority population: 89.12 percent.

District 6, Manhattan: Stanley E. Michels; 17.36 percent black, 52.50 percent Hispanic. Combined minority population: 69.86 percent.

District 8, Bronx-Manhattan: Robert Rodriguez; 28.9 percent black, 41.89 percent

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13555 Hispanic. Combined minority population: 70. 79 percent.

District 9, Bronx: Wendell Foster: 54.58 percent black, 37.01 percent Hi.$panic. Combined minority population: 91.59 percent.

District 11, Bronx: Gilberto Gerena-Valentin; 32. 79 percent black, 60.24 percent Hispanic. Combined minority population: 93.03 percent.

District 13, Bronx: a new district; 32.39 percent black, 53.06 percent Hispanic. Combined minority population: 85.45 percent.

District 24, Brooklyn: a new district, which includes part of Leon A. Katz's old district; 69.59 percent black, 22.66 percent Hispanic. Combined minority population: 92.55 percent.

District 25, Brooklyn: a new district, which includes part of Theodore Silverman's old district; 57.07 percent black, 12.47 percent Hispanic. Combined minority population: 69.49 percent.

District 26, Brooklyn: Enoch Williams; 86.52 percent black, 8.59 percent Hispanic. Combined minority population: 95.47 percent.

District 27, Brooklyn: Luis A. Olmedo; 22.75 percent black, 59.30 percent Hispanic. Combined minority population: 82.05 percent.

District 28, Brooklyn: Mary Pinkett: 27 .88 percent black, 11.69 percent Hispanic. Combined minority population: 89.57 percent.

District 17, Queens: Archie Spigner; 82 percent black, 4.48 percent Hispanic. Combined minority population: 86.48 percent.

The district with more than 50 percent minority population and the incumbent was listed as:

District 14, Bronx: Jerry L. Crispino; 34.31 percent black, 19.45 percent Hispanic. Combined minority population: 53. 75 percent.

Mr. HATCH. What both articles make clear, as if it is not already quite clear, is that the Voting Rights Act increasingly is losing sight of its traditional objectives. Rather than attempting to promote racial neutrality and racial nondiscrimination in the voting process, the act now requires minute calculations of percentages of racial and ethnic groups within various electoral districts. I do not know what that has to do with the original purposes of the act.

What we see taking place on a limited scale in New York City under section 5 is going to become a normal occurrence throughout the Nation under section 2. Racial gerrymandering and race-conscious districting will become standard procedure. In the process, our Nation will have lost a great deal.

As the new York City experience indicates clearly, the concerns that have been raised about the changes in section 2 are not merely speculative; one need only look at what has been taking place recently under the narrowly circumscribed "effects" test in section 5.

I would also recall one of the more interesting cases that have occurred under the Voting Rights Act-United Jewish Organizations v. Carey case, at 403 U.S. 144 0977). This case involved the Attorney General's rejection of New York's 1972 legislative redistricting plan as it applied to Brooklyn

which is covered under the Voting Rights Act.

The Attorney General ruled that there were an insufficient number of districts with nonwhite populations large enough that nonwhite candidates could win an election. The Attorney General then went on to indicate that a nonwhite population of 65 percent was necessary to create a safe nonwhite seat. In a new plan adopted in 1974, the legislature met the objection of the Attorney General but in so doing divided a whole community of Hasidic Jews which had previously resided in a single district.

The Attorney General approved the plan but the Hasidic Jews went to court claiming that they had been the victims of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court rejected their efforts but was unable to produce a majority opinion. Seven members of the Court did agree, however, that New York's use of explicit racial criteria in revising the reapportionment plan in order to obtain the Justice Department's approval did not violate the 14th and 15th amendment rights of the Hasidic Jews.

Nathan Dershowitz, director of Law and Social Action of the American Jewish Congress, had this to say about the case:

The Williamsburg section of Brooklyn has been tortuously gerrymandered in an attempt to assure the election of minority group members.

He described it further as the "institutionalization of ethnic representation."

Mr. President, I wish to make clear once again that I am a strong supporter of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. I agree with Senator KENNEDY, who spoke here earlier, that it has been the single most effective and successful civil rights act in history. There is no question in my mind that we need to continue and extend the law.

I also agree that preclearance, under section 5 needs to be extended, because there are still instances in this country of invidious discrimination, although I am pleased that they are growing fewer each year.

I have fought to see that fair hearings were held on this matter, and I believe that these hearings demonstrated that there is continued need for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

My major concerns have been with proposed amendments to sections 2 and 5.

Some have argued here that section 5 has been liberalized in its approach so that States can more easily bail out from the requirements of preclearance. That simply is not true; additional provisions have been added that would make it significantly more difficult to bail out. I believe that there should be real incentives to bail out. They do not exist in S. 1992.

Section 2 is a more difficult issue. Section 2 is an issue with respect to

which we are changing the entire thrust of the Voting Rights Act. I believe that the new results test for identifying discrimination is leading us into uncharted waters that will likely lead to the polarization of races and increased race isolation in our country.

Be that as it may, I recognize that the bill is going to pass. I will continue to do everything in my power to have the bill brought up, to see that this motion proceeds with expedition, and to have an up-and-down vote on this bill as soon as we possibly can. Along with the majority leader and others, I feel very deeply about that.

That does not negate the fact, however, that some of the issues we are raising with respect to section 2 and section 5 are important constitutional issues, that transcend the interests of any particular group in our society, and that may be among the most important constitutional issues ever raised on the floor of the U.S. Congress. They may have as far reaching and as profound effect, in the final analysis,- as any legislation that has come before it.

Mr. President, I have done a brief analysis of several cases that are pertinent to this particular issue, and I ask unanimous consent that the analysis be printed in the RECORD.

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

I. CONSTITUTIONALITY

South Carolina v. Katzenback, 383 U.S. 301 (1966)

In an opinion by Chief Justice Warren, the Supreme Court held the original provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to be a constitutionally permissible method of protecting the right to vote. The Court upheld the preclearance provisions of Section 5 under the rationale that "exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate." Id. at 334. Because Congress had found from its own evidentiary investigation that "unique circumstances" existed in the covered jurisdictions, the preclearance provisions were held justified. Id. at 335. Justice Black dissented on the Section 5 issues. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966)

In an opinion by Justice Brennan, the Supreme Court upheld Section 4<e> of the 1965 Act which provided that certain persons educated in Spanish in Puerto Rican schools would not have to comply with the literacy tests imposed by certain states as a precondition to voting. This provision rendered New York literacy tests invalid as applied to those persons. The Court held that this step was within the power of Congress under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce that Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws, even though a court might not have held that the New York law was unconstitutional. The only question to be determined by the Court was whether Congress had a reasonable basis for its conclusion that such action might be necessary to protect minority rights. Justices Harlan and Stewart dissented, arguing that Congress had no right to strike down a

13556 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 state statute unless a court would have found that statute unconstitutional. City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156

(1980) In an opinion by Justice Marshall, the Su

preme Court held that a political subdivision within a covered state could not bail t;)Ut under Section 4(a) independently from

~th,e state itself, even though that subdivi. sion had proven that it had not been guilty of discrimination for tlie previous seventeen years. The Court also held that where exceptional circumstances exist Congress had tl}e:power under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment to prohibit practices that have only disparate racial impact with no discriminatory intent. In dissent, Justice Powell said that the Act should be interpreted to permit subdivisions to bail out from the preclearance requirements even though the state itself could not bail out. Justice Powell went on to say that in the absence of an independent bailout, Section 5

-of the Act would be unconstitutional. Justices Rehnquist and Stewart concluded in dissent that Congress does not have the power under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment to prohibit practices having only a disparate racial impact where the governmental unit had affirmatively proven that' it had not been guilty of any discriminatory intent for a period of seventeen years. The majority also held that the city had not carried its burden of proving that certain annexations and electoral changes did not have a disadvantageous effect on minority voters.

II . .JURISDICTIONS COVERED UNDER SECTION 5

United States v. Board of Commissioners, 435 U.S. 110 (1978)

In an opinion by Justice Brennan, the Supreme Court held that all governmental units within a covered jurisdictions were required to submit all covered changes under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court rejected arguments that only states and "political subdivisions" were required under Section 5 to make submission, and that Section 4(c)(2) defined political subdivisions to include only those governmental units which register voters, and not those which do not. In dissent, Chief Justice Burger and Justices Stevens and Rehnquist concluded that only those governmental units which meet the definition of political subdivisions should be required to submit changes. In separate concurrences, Justices Blackmun and Powell expressed reservations as to the correctness of the decision, but believed it to be compelled by Allen. Justice Blackmun also remarked that he considered Congressional action in 1970 and 1975 to have been an endorsement of the Allen rule.

Gaston County v. United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969)

In an opinion by Justice Harlan, the Supreme Court held that Gaston County, North Carolina, had not met the criteria for bailout in Section 4(a) of the Act in that it had not proven that its literacy tests had not been used with either the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on the grounds of race. The Court affirmed a finding of the district court that the county's previous maintenance of a segregated school system had resulted in inferior education for its black citizens. The inability of many blacks to pass the literacy tests was a result of this prior discrimination, and the test therefore had the effect of denying or abridging their right to vote because of racial discrimination. Justice

Black dissented because of his view that the precleamace provisions of the Act were unconstitutional.

City of Rome v. United States (See I above)

III. CHANGES COVERED UNDER SECTION 5

Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969)

In an opinion by Chief Justice Warren, the Supreme Court held that private litigants could bring suit before a three-judge district court in their local districts to argue that state laws had not been precleared under Section 5. The Court held that the preclearance provisions were applicable, not only to changes in laws directly affecting registration and voting, but all changes "which alter the election law of a covered State in even a minor way." Id. at 566. The Court specifically held that the change from a district system to an at large system was covered, as was the changing of a particular office from elective to appointive. Also covered were changes in procedures for qualifications of independent candidates and for casting write in votes. Justice Harlan dissented, concluding that Section 5 covered only "those states laws that change either voter qualifications or the manner in which elections are conducted." Id. at 591. Justice Black again dissented because of his conviction that Section 5 was altogether unconstitutional.

Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379 f1971J In an opinion by Justice Brennan, the Su

preme Court held that a local Federal district court was without jurisdiction to determine whether or not a particular change had the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote. Rather, the only function of a local court was to determine whether or not the change is subject to preclearance under Section 5 of the Act. The Court went on to hold that the municipal annexations and changes in locations of polling places must be precleared. Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun separately concurred under the authority of Allen. Justices Black and Harlan dissented on the basis of their opinions in Allen. Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973)

In an opinion by Justice Stewart, the Supreme Court concluded that legislative reapportionments must be precleared under Section 5. The Court also held that the Attorney General could object to a submission even though he could not conclude that a change had either the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote. The Attorney General could validly place the burden of proof on the submitting jurisdiction, and could interpose an objection whenever that jurisdiction failed to prove that a change did not have such a purpose or effect. Chief Justice Burger concurred, while reiterating his reservations about Allen. Justices White, Powell, and Rehnquist dissented on the grounds that the Attorney General should not put the burden of proof on the submitting jurisdictions. IV. MUNICIPAL ANNEXATIONS UNDER SECTION 5

City of Petersburg v. United States, 41 O U.S. 962 (1973)

The Supreme Court wrote no opinion but summarily affirmed a judgment of the district court finding that Petersburg's annexation of a predominantly white area could not be approved under Section 5 because it would have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on the basis of race. The district court also ordered that the annexation could be permitted if the at

large government of the city were to be changed to a council of single member districts. This is one of only two cases in which the Supreme Court has found a municipal annexation to be in violation of Section 5. The result in this case was later explained by a majority of the Court in an opinion by Justice White in City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 0975). The Court explained that the annexation of the white area coupled with an at large form of government tended "to exclude Negroes totally from participation in the governing of the city through membership on the city council." Id. at 370. This effect could be cured by the establishment of a ward system which would afford them representation "reasonably equivalent to their political strength in the enlarged community" Ibid. The Court specifically noted that the mere fact that the blacks made up a smaller percentage of the city after the annexation did not amount to a violation of the Act. City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S.

358 (1975)

In an opinion by Justice White, the Court applied the same test it had applied without an opinion in the Petersburg case. The district court had disapproved an application by Richmond to annex white areas while changing to the single member system. The Court did not have occasion to rule as to whether the annexation standing alone would have constituted a violation of the Act, but it reversed the district court and remanded for reconsideration in light of its explanation of the Petersburg case. In dissent, Justices Brennan, Douglas, and Marshall concluded that the annexation had been motivated by discriminatory purpose. Moreover, they felt that by reducing the percentage of blacks in the city of Richmond, the annexation had the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote.

City of Rome v. United States <See I above).

V. SCOPE OF SECTION 2

City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)

In this case, the district court had found that Mobile's election of its city government at large had the effect of discriminating against black voters, and it ordered a new governing board be created consisting of a mayor and a city council with members elected from single member districts. The Supreme Court reversed, but there was no majority opinion. In an opinion joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justices Powell and Rehnquist, Justice Stewart concluded that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act had the same meaning as the Fifteenth Amendment itself, and therefore reaches only the intentional abridgements of the right to vote. In dissent, Justice Marshall explicitly agreed that the provisions of Section 2 of the Act were congruent with the protection of the Fifteenth Amendment, but he concluded that proof of discriminatory impact was sufficient to secure relief under the Fifteenth Amendment. Id. at 105n.2. Justice Brennan agreed with Justice Marshall's interpretation of the Fifteenth Amendment, but no member of the Court explicitly disagreed with the conclusion that Section 2 had the same meaning as that Amendment. Justice Stewart's opinion concluded that the Fifteenth Amendment was satisfied wherever all races have access to the ballot, and that claims of "vote dilution" must be tested under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justices Stevens and Marshall explicitly disagreed, find-

I

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13557 ing that dilution cases could also be brought under the Fifteenth Amendment. Justice Stewart concluded that there was insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent in the creation and maintenance of Mobile's form of government; he did not explicitly state that proof of such intent would have sufficed to justify relief. Justice Brennan, White, and Marshall concluded is dissent that there was adequate proof of discriminatory intent, and that such intent justified the relief granted by the district court. Justice Blackmun joined in the reversal, even though he expressed some sympathy for the viewpoint of the dissenters, because he felt that the relief ordered by the district court was too drastic. Justice Stevens in his concurrence indicated that the question of intent in municipal government cases should be largely irrelevant. He concluded that so long as there was any rational justification for an at large form of government, it should be upheld by the courts, even though some of its supporters might have discriminatory motives.

VI. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 <1960). An act of the Alabama Legislature had re

drawn the boundaries of the city of Tuskegee in such a way as to remove from the city almost all of the black voters without removing any of the white voters. Whereas the city had previously been in the form of a square, its new boundaries had twentyeight sides over a much smaller area. In an opinion by Justice Frankfurter, the Court concluded this removal of black voters from the city denied them the right to vote in contravention of the Fifteenth Amendment. In a separate concurrence, Justice Whittaker held that the Fifteenth Amendment had not been violated, because all persons of every race were permitted to vote in the areas in which they resided. However, he found that the action violated the Fourteenth Amendment because blacks had been clearly segregated out of the city.

Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 <1976). Under the 1960 census, the city of New

Orleans was governed by a council made up of five members elected from single member districts and two members elected at large. The 1970 census revealed that 45 percent of the city's population and 35 percent of its voters were non-white. The city submitted to the Attorney General a reapportionment plan which preserved the two at large seats, created two districts with black population majorities, and for the first time created one district with a black voter majority. The Attorney General and the district court rejected the plan because it would produce black representation on the council roughly proportional to black population in the city. The district court added that the city should abolish the two members elected at large. In an opinion by Justice Stewart, the Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that the district court had no authority under Section 5 9f the Act to consider the existence of the at large seats, since those seats had been in existence prior to 1964. Moreover, the Court held that Section 5 prohibits only those voting changes which result in " retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise." Id. at 141. Because this plan created more black majority districts than the plan that it replaced, it should have been approved under Section 5. Justices White, Marshall, and Brennan all dissented. They would have

.held that Section 5 prohibits the approval of a plan which does not result in an approximation of proportional representation where there is also evidence of bloc voting and certain bars to participation in the electoral process.

City of Mobile v. Bolden <See V above). VII. LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS UNDER THE

FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS

Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 f1971J In an opinion by Justice White, the Su

preme Court held that multi-member state legislative districts are not necessarily unconstitutional. In dictum the Court states that multi-member districts in some circumstances might be proven to work as an unconstitutional dilution of the voting power of the minority voters within the district. In this case the Court found that minority voters had ample opportunity to participate in the selection of Democratic candidates, but that Republicans regularly defeated those candidates. The disadvantage to the minority voter was based not upon race, but upon partisan affiliation. Justices Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall dissented, finding that the dilution of the minority vote had already been proven to the district court. They also indicated that there was no need to prove discriminatory intent. In a separate dissent, Justice Harlan argued that the entire question of dilution could not be managed by the courts in a neutral and objective way, and concluded that the courts should stay out of reapportionment altogether.

White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973) In an opinion by Justice White, the Su

preme Court affirmed a decision of a district court in Texas requiring that state legislators from Dallas and San Antonio be elected from single member districts rather than at large in their respective counties. This is the first and only case in which the Supreme Court has found that multi-member districts actually dilute the minority vote. In Dallas the Court emphasized that blacks did not have a fair opportunity to participate in the nominating process of the Democratic party. In San Antonio the Court emphasized that language and cultural barriers made it difficult for Mexican-Americans to have their views represented in a delegation elected at large.

United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977)

This case involved the Attorney General's rejection of New York's 1972 legislative redistricting as it applied to Brooklyn, which is covered under the Act. The Attorney General originally ruled that there were an insufficient number of districts with nonwhite populations large enough that nonwhite candidates could win an election. The Attorney General indicated that a nonwhite population of 65% was necessary to create a safe non-white seat. In a new plan adopted in 1974, the Legislature met the objections of the Attorney General, but in so doing, divided a community of Hasidic Jews which had previously resided in a single district. The Attorney General approved the plan, but the Jews went to court claiming that they had been the victims of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court rejected their efforts, but was unable to produce a majority opinion. Justices Brennan, Blackmun, and Stevens joined an opinion by Justice White which held that the Legislature could legitimately use racial quotas in order to create a plan which would be acceptable under Section 5 of the Act. From the record made in the district court, it did not appear

that the Legislature had done any more than comply with the requirement that minority voting strength not be decreased. Justices White, Stevens and Rehnquist went on to say that, even absent the requirements of the Act, the Constitution permits a state to draw lines in such a way that the percentage of non-white districts would approximate the percentage of non-whites in the population, so long as whites were in the population, so long as whites were likewise provided with fair representation. Justices Stewart and Powell rejected the argument that race consciousness is unconstitutional per se. They found this plan constitutional because there was no purpose of invidious discrimination. Chief Justice Burger dissented, finding that the use of a quota system in redistricting offended the Fifteenth Amendment and that an effort to require an effort to comply with the Voting Rights Act could not cure that infirmity.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, perhaps the analysis of these cases will be of some assistance to my colleagues who are reviewing this matter.

With that, I yield the floor. Mr. EAST. Mr. President, I should

like to make a comment or two apropos some recent remarks that have been made here regarding the question of proceeding on this very important measure.

Senator HATCH has made some very cogent and telling remarks, which he always does so well and so eloquently.

I have also been intrigued with some of the comments of the distinguished Senator from New York <Mr. MOYNIHAN). He touched on a theme that seems to appear fairly commonly among those supporting the measure; namely, that in some way or other, it is inappropriate that we take the time to deliberate and to reflect seriously upon what we are doing on these issues.

I simply point out to him that at the very moment he was making that point, he was interrupted by the Senator from Kentucky <Mr. FORD), who was submitting an amendment indicating his concern about this measure and the impact it will have in his State. I suspect that, in due course, we may very well hear from other Senators as they begin to have the opportunity to reflect on this legislation.

I should like to quote briefly from a column by Mr. James Jackson Kilpatrick with respect to this measure. He says this as regards this measure:

The Dole "compromise" is no compromise at all. It is folly. In 40 years of covering politics, I cannot recall a more lamentable legislative error.

He concludes his column, a very recent one, by saying:

From the waves of thoughtless support given to this misguided bill, I respectfully dissent.

In between those statements, he gives a very trenchant analysis of the great weaknesses in this bill. There are enormous weaknesses, and we should be looking at them as we even consider whether to take up the measure.

.

.

13558 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 Passage of this bill will, in the first

place, have enormous impact on election politics in the United States. Whether Senators would like to admit it or not, it is going to introduce the quota concept into the election process. It will revolutionize American politics in a way no bill has ever done before.

Then, when you look at the burdens of preclearance that are still carried, without justification, by the affected States, including my own, and when you look at the major flaws in the legislation-the venue problem, the burden of proof problem, the absence of a fair and equitable bailout-it becomes clear that we need to spend more time thinking carefully and analyzing what we are doing. I submit to any fairminded Senator who is studying this matter that substantive issues are at stake and certainly the so-called greatest deliberative body in the world should not shy away from looking at them.

But I do not find a great deal of enthusiasm for looking at this legislation because, I expect, it does not bear up well under. careful scrutiny.

I have always felt very strongly that if we could get our colleagues to look seriously at this legislation, as they have looked at other very important matters before us, we would see a very changed attitude in this body.

Mr. President, the Wall Street Journal, a responsible publication in this country, on May 5 had this to say, if I might quote briefly about this legislation. It says:

The new bill would further embroil the courts in local elections across the country and would give citizens less of a voice in deciding on the type of government that they want to run their local affairs.

And it continues: The "compromise" further muddies the

waters with the legalistic jargon such as a " totality of circumstances" rather than making effects the sole test. The point of the exercise is to write a bill that means all things to all parties. But since the bill gives contradictory instructions, it means nothing at all.

The practical effect, of course, will be to dump the hot potato into the hands of the courts. Our guess is that the end result will be a huge impetus toward proportional representation for minorities. But our certainty is that the courts will take a long time figuring out what the legislation means, and that in the meantime a great many local elections will be suspended.

Then it concludes: The "compromise" on voting rights solves

the political problems of Congress, but is going to cause no end of mischief in the land. What kind of compromise is it that gives us a voting rights act that will stop the voters from voting?

We are finding in a growing number of very responsible sources an appreciation that the legislation Congress seems to be on the threshold of passing has been drafted too quickly. We are moving on impetuously, I repeat,

Mr. President, because the supporters of this bill seem to dread what would happen if we proceeded in a careful and orderly way to examine the substantive impact that the bill will have.

So, Mr. President, I am a bit concerned that those of us who wish to explore the legislation with some care and at some depth are labeled as obstructionists. We are not at all. I rather think we do credit to this great deliberative body by wanting to explore important matters with some care and some substance, as the very distinguished Senator from Utah has been doing. Mr. President, in these few remarks here I particularly want to underscore that his willingness to look at the bill carefully deserves to be publicly commended. And, with all due respect to our able opponents, I submit that their desire to rush on offering simply the full flourish of rhetoric, but not really looking at things with any depth, penetration, or substance, is an ill-advised course to take.

So I implore my colleagues not to be rushed into something that quite frankly many of us feel is ill-advised and precipitate.

I agree with Mr. Kilpatrick. I agree with the Wall Street Journal. And I agree with many other distinguished observers and students of this matter outside Congress, be they in the halls of academia, be they in journalism, or be they elsewhere who feel that this measure is radical, that it is going to dramatically alter the nature of the American Federal system and of the whole election process in the United States.

All I am requesting and all I feel that many others such as the distinguished Senator from Utah are requesting is simply: "Let us look carefully at this. Let us make sure we understand what we are doing, and if we do pass a bill like this one, then let us be prepared to live with the results."

But I ask my colleagues let us not come back in 6 months or a year or 2 or 3 and have to say: "My goodness, I had no idea that legislation would allow them to challenge at-large elections in my State or annexations in this city or staggered elections in that."

Let us really look at this bill. It is an open invitation for the courts to make such challenges and to impose appropriate remedies. Many responsible authorities have made this clear. It will have tremendous impact and tremendous importance. Any why we should not examine it with care I do not know.

So, Mr. President, it is in that spirit that I have been involved in this measure since it first saw the light of day in the Judiciary Committee. Now that it is being brought before the Senate, I find the approach that I wish to take and that others such as the Senator from Utah are taking to be eminently

responsible and very consistent with the deliberation and examination that should characterize good representative government. By taking time to think, we are acting in the best interests of the country in general and of our constituencies in particular.

So I do not believe, as our distinguished opponents imply, that, oh, we are obstructionists, oh, we do not understand the importance of getting on. Yes, we do, certainly we do.

We are simply asking that we not rush headlong into something that frankly few people really understand. Therein lies our great problem and our great dilemma-how to inform our able and busy colleagues just what the problem is and how at the same time to alert the people of this country that they are in for a very fascinating time in terms of their State and local elections if this bill goes through.

And if we do nothing else in this process but make that point and that message, even if we lose, I feel we will have served a very vital role, a very responsible role. If we play that role, we can ultimately walk away from here and say we did our best; we tried to inform others, they did not want to listen, or they did listen and they said no, and we move on to other issues.

But please now let our opponents not hammer on that we should not look at the legislation carefully, that we should not examine it, and that a fairminded reasonable mind could not possibly disagree with their position. Oh, yes, he can. And I offer again the distinguished Senator from Utah as an example of such a man, a man who is known for great care, great prudence, and great insight into what he does.

I found him to be in my brief tenure in the Senate one of the most thorough Senators I know in terms of keeping up with a whole range of difficult and complicated issues and in terms of trying to inform himself.

I off er his approach as an example to all of my colleagues, however they ultimately come down on the bill. Please examine this measure with care, with deliberation, and then ultimately we can decide as a body, as a Congress, and as a Nation where we wish to go with it.

Thank you, Mr. President, I yield. e Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. President, it is indeed unfortunate that we are unable to proceed to debate on the Voting Rights Act. With 77 Senators favoring extension of S. 1992 in its present form, it is only a matter of time before cloture is invoked to limit debate. We can then proceed to vote on the bill itself. I would like to draw my colleagues attention to yesterday's New York Times editorial and ask that it be placed in the RECORD.

The editorial follows:

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13559 [From the New York Times, June 13, 19821

A FILIBUSTER? ON VOTING? IN 1982? Senator Jesse Helms promises to filibuster

"until the cows come home" to prevent a vote on the Voting Rights Act. But the debate is over and the cows are coming home. Though he is taking days to say it, the North Carolina obstructionist has nothing new to say. Underneath it all there is an old message.

Senate Republican leaders say they will conduct "shuttle diplomacy" with him and the handful of other opponents of the bill. But since the votes for cloture are amply available, this seems pointless. The drafting, improving and compromising are done, yet Senator Helms won't even agree to a preliminary motion to take up the bill for debate. All temporizing could accomplish is snarl it in other Senate business-as the August deadline for renewing key voting rights provisions approaches.

The House passed an extended, improved version of the law last fall by an overwhelming 389 to 24. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported a bill so popular that President Reagan embraced it. Four-fifths of the Senate favors that bill. Senator John Stennis of Mississippi, up for re-election, suddenly sees its merit.

But Senator Helms drones on. Most of his complaints about "regional discrimination" are as hollow as they were when raised against the original 1965 voting rights law that has enfranchised-and elected-so many minority citizens. His charge that the law would create racial election quotas is fully answered in the compromise worked out with the important help of Senator Dole.

The Senator's demonstration, if more genteel in phrasing, is no less mean-spirited and no less an anachronism than those of the Thurmonds and Eastlands who once made the word "filibuster" redolent of racism. Even those few legislators who remain openly opposed to racial equality are embarrassed into silence when the subject is voting, the right that preserves other rights. Is Senator Helms beyond embarrassment? It's time for the Senate to stop the talking and do some voting of its own.e

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


The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

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

URGENT SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, as the Senate approaches consideration of the conference report to the urgent supplemental appropriations bill, I am compelled to remind my colleagues that this not merely an urgent supplemental bill. It contains legislation initiating a massive new housing program which I oppose and which President Reagan opposes. While it is an affront to the budget process that we consider additional appropriations for the cur-

rent fiscal year, allowing legislative language containing both authorization and appropriations for a new program on this bill, does double duty. It violates the appropriations process by providing new funds which are not necessary to continue the function of government on this urgent supplemental bill, and providing both appropriations and authorization in one vehicle. The appropriations process was specifically designed to be separate from the authorization process; combining the two merely as an opportunistic measure of forcing enactment of the Lugar amendment does violence to our congressional responsibility.

Because the conference report contains this legislation, I intend to vote against it, and if it passes it is my hope that the President will veto it.

In this morning's Wall Street Journal an editorial appeared that discusses this state of affairs. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the RECORD.

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

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 14, 1982)

Now THE FuN BEGINS Mr. Reagan finally pried out of the House

the 1983 budget resolution he said he wanted. It still must be reconciled with the Senate version, but the differences aren't great and already the air is thick with proclamations of another great budget victory for the administration.

But quite aside from the merits of this particular budget resolution, which we think are dubious at best, it should be remembered that budget resolutions · are only the beginning, not the end, of the budget cycle. Now comes the actual appropriations process. This is where the fun really begins as the vested interests go to work on the individual committees to ratchet spending ever higher.

Indeed, there will be an immediate test of whether the 1983 budget resolution is worth the paper it's written on. At the same time that Congress was wringing its .hands and beating its breast about future deficits, it was quietly whipping through a budgetbusting housing bill calling for $3 billion to $5 billion of "anti-recessionary" mortgage subsidies over the next five years.

This housing bailout is likely to reach the President's desk later this week. Its sponsors, hoping to make it veto-proof, have attached it to an " urgent supplemental appropriation" of monies needed to keep the government operating through the current fiscal year. <Those urgent supplementals are a neat little trick too, by the way; Congress habitually makes its budget ceilings look better in the fall by underestimating fixed obligations. Then comes back for a supplemental in the spring.)

Mr. Reagan, tired of these budget-busting games, has indicated he's ready to veto the whole package and let Congress sweat over who pays the government's bills. But the House, for all its show of restraint on the 1983 resolution, is almost certain to override him on this issue of real substance. And in the Republican-controlled Senate he could lose as well; 51 Senators co-sponsored the housing subsidies to begin with.

If Congress does override the President, it will be a sure sign that the old politics is continuing: tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect. And we're not just talking about Democrats. The main backers of the housing boondoggles, which would provide mortgages to the middle class at up to four percentage points below market, have been Republican Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and Jake Garn of Utah.

If housing needs special treatment, after all, why not the auto industry, the aircraft industry, the thrifts, the elderly, the young, or anybody else with the clout to press an "entitlement"? Republicans can play the game as well as Democrats. And in the present economic climate, it will not be difficult to play on the sympathies of the press and public, not to mention the electoral fears of the politicians.

But failure to hold the line will be an equally clear signal to the markets that Congress has no serious intent of getting a grip on spending and the deficit. If interest rates are indeed staying high because of fear of future deficits, as most of the political establishment seems to assume, they are unlikely to decline after getting such a clear signal of budget irresolution. Yet the same political establishment moans that high interest rates are choking off economic recovery.

It's not as if the budget resolutions passed by the Senate and House are models of restraint. They call for $95 billion in new taxes-most of which will never get out of committee, fortunately-but with spending continuing to rise so fast that the deficit next year would still be about $100 billion. And since when has Congress met even the modest targets it set for itself?

Mr. HAYAKAWA. I thank the Chair.

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





CEASE-FIRE ON THE FALKLAND ISLANDS

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I have been advised by officials of our Government that they have received word that there has been at least a creasefire between British and Argentine troops in the Falkland Islands off South America.

One set of accounts indicates there has been a negotiated surrender of Argentine troops to British forces on the Falklands. Another report is to the effect that there has been at least a cease-fire.

I believe the reports carried by wire services from Buenos Aires indicate that it is a cease-fire for the purpose of· further negotiations. In either case it is welcome news, Mr. President.

It is clear now from the reports that have been received by our Government and are being carried on the wire

13560 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 services, by the wire services, that the fighting has stopped.

It is my fervent hope and wish that the cessation of hostilities is permanent and that further bloodshed has been averted. I just talked to the Vice President on the telephone who indicated I might convey that information to the Senate.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator restate his second point? I was to the rear and I really did not catch it, and I am referring to the second point the Senator made.

Mr. BAKER. Yes. I was advised by officials of our Gov- ·

ernment, including the Vice ·President on the telephone, that according to information we have received, and also according to wire service reports which were circulated at this time, that there has been at least a cease-fire with respect to military activities between the British and Argentine forces on the Falkland Islands.

According to one press account and, perhaps, other sources as well, the cessation of hostilities may have amounted to the surrender of Argentine forces to the British forces on the Falkland Islands. That situation is not now clear. I hope it will be clarified in the next little while. But at the very least it seems that hostilities have ended for the time being. It is my hope that they have ended permanently and that further bloodshed in the Falkland Islands has been avoided.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator. He well-stated it.

Mr. BAKER. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro

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

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


REMARKS OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND BEFORE THE TENNESSEE BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the

Honorable STROM THURMOND, the Senator from South Carolina, gave a remarkable speech before the Tennessee Bar Association the other day in Memphis, Tenn. I think this is the type of speech that everybody who is interested in law and interested in this country should read.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator THURMOND's remarks be printed in the RECORD.

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

REMARKS BY SENATOR STROM THURMOND

President Allen, president-elect Tune, vice-president Waters, Chief Judge Harry

Phillips, Chief Justice Harbison, distinguished guests and ladies and gentlemen:

It is a pleasure for me to be here in the great State of Tennessee-home of the Grand Ole Opry, the World's Fair of 1982 and Howard Baker.

Senator Baker is, in my opinion, the ablest majority leader the Senate has had during the 28 years that I have served in that body. He is a man of vision; a man of action. He is highly respected in both Houses of the Congress. Howard Baker has also earned the confidence and respect of the President of the United States. The people of Tennessee are indeed fortunate to have Senator Baker in Washington.

Tennessee has also given three of its finest lawyers to the service of the Ameri· can Bar Association. Three past presidents of the ABA came from right here in Mem· phis-Walter P. Armstrong, Edward W. Kuhn, and most recently, S. Sheppard Tate. That is a distinguished record and one I am sure you as members of the Tennessee Bar are proud.

During the 1968 Presidential campaign, and especially at the Republican Convention of that year, I remember the valuable service rendered by a very bright young man who I understand is in the audience today. Three years ago he was appointed as the youngest state judge in Tennessee and is now on Executive Committee of the State Judicial Conference. Judge Ed Williams of Johnson City, Tennessee has my admiration for his achievement and my best wishes for his continued success.

ROLE OF LA WYERS IN OUR SOCIETY

As all of you are keenly aware, the legal profession has historically played a major role in this Nation of laws. Attorneys were among the Founding Fathers who framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Lawyers have a rich tradition of service at all levels of government, including interpreting our laws as members of the Federal judiciary.

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, I have the opportunity to review the records and meet those members of the bar who are chosen by the President to serve on our Federal courts. For the most part, these are extremely competent and able attorneys with excellent credentials. They do a great service to our Country by giving up, in many cases, a successful practice to join the Federal bench.

But the legal profession is not without criticism and skepticism among out citizens. Watergate, as much as I believe that should be put behind us, revealed activities by lawyers which in some cases transcended the legal canon of ethics, and in a few cases, the law itself.

Public opinion polls frequently list lawyers way down the line when people are asked the question "which are the most respected professions?" One reason, besides occasional scandals in the newspapers involving members of the legal profession, is the perception that not all segments of our society benefit equally from the services lawyers provide. In other words, the perception is that only the wealthy can afford the high legal fees lawyers charge.

That reminds me of the story of the lawyer who had to have some plumbing work done in his home. After the plumber had finished his work, he presented the lawyer with the bill.

"My goodness," exclaimed the lawyer, " you charge more per hour than I do."

"You know," replied the plumber, "that is what I used to think when I practiced law."

Perhaps legal fees are not the sole reason for many people to hold lawyers in less than high esteem. Some time back the American Bar Association published a report of a national survey by the Special Committee to Survey Legal Needs. Some of the findings are interesting. Of the group surveyed: 57 percent to 39 percent agreed that the rich are favored over everyone else by the legal profession; 62 percent to 30 percent agreed that fees charged by lawyers were more than the services are worth; and 56 percent to 38 percent disagreed that lawyers worked as hard for the poor as for the rich.

The study also showed that the profession was generally uninterested in doing anything about the "bad apples" in its ranks. The argument has always been that other lawyers are reluctant to discipline their fellow attorneys.

I believe that these charges are being met in a responsible manner by many State and local bar associations. My own State of South Carolina has pursued a vigorous program of hearing complaints against members of the bar and taking the appropriate steps to act on them. Disbarments in my State have risen sharply in the last few years and I think the impact of those proceedings and actions have not been lost on the public.

Another area of critricism of the legal profession has come from no less than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Chief Justice Burger has stated on several occasions that in his opinion the competency of lawyers now in practice and coming out of the law schools is not up to the standards the American public deserves. I do not need to detail his views here because I know most of you are well aware of them.

Again, State and local bar associations have taken steps to respond to this criticism. Continuing legal education programs have sprouted up throughout the Nation. South Carolina now requires at least 12 hours of continuing legal education a year for members of the Stat e Bar. Other States have adopted similar requirements in an effort to ensure a competent level of attorneys. These efforts are sure to improve the quality of the legal profession in America.

Lawyers are officers of the court, and in that capacity we must not forget our responsibility to not only our clients but also the legal system itself. Each of us swears to uphold the law and conduct ourselves according to the Canon of Professional Responsibility. We must rededicate ourselves to those commitments every day. I am confident that if that is done many of the perceptions held by the public about lawyers will be dispelled.

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, I am mindful of the importance of our laws relating to the criminal justice system and the constitutional rights of all citizens. For example, I have been especially aware of the right of a jury trial as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The longest speech I made in the Senate-22 hours and 18 minutes-was in 1957 and had to do with the right of a trial by jury. It is one of the most precious rights in our constitutional framework and I can foresee no conditions that would change our guarantee of that right.

REFORMS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

One of my major efforts as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is to make reforms in our criminal justice system. Why is that a priority for me and many others in

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13561 -nie United States Senate? Let me tell you

why. Reports from the Department of Justice indicate that last year almost one-third of all households in the United States were victimized by crime. There was a crime committed every 2.4 seconds. Violent crimes have the most frightening report with one aggravated assault every forty-eight seconds, one robbery every fifty-six seconds, one forcible rape every six minutes, and one murder committed every twenty-four minutes.

Pollster George Gallup and others have found that people today favor stricter and harsher punishments to control the flourishing crime rate. Mr. Gallup suggests that these public feelings "coincide with a sharply rising fear of crime on the part of the American people."

In the United States there are more than six million known criminals. If we consider those criminals that are unknown to the authorities, this already huge number becomes even larger. To illustrate this point further, in 1977 there were only 1,331,000 persons employed in the food products trade, 1,156,000 in the wearing apparel trade, and 1,010,000 in the motor vehicle trade, three of the largest employing trades in America. The number of criminals in the United States is nearly double the number of employees of all these trades combined.

A Newsweek magazine article some months ago reported a survey which the respondents were asked: "How much confidence do you have in the police to protect you from crime?" Forty-two percent of these responding said, "not very much." The question, "How much confidence do you have in the courts to sentence and convict criminals?" was also asked, and fiftynine percent answered, "not very much." Persons responding to a Gallup poll listed lenient court systems, second only to economic problems, as the major cause of the growing crime rate.

Of course, State and local lawmakers must accept their responsibility to maintain law and order within their jurisdictions. They must take an active role in motivating the members of their communities to become involved in crime prevention. Strong community spirit has proved to be a major deterrent to crime in several areas of the nation.

Two weeks ago, I introduced in the Senate, along with 43 cosponsors, legislation entitled the "Violent Crime and Drug Enforcement Improvements Act of 1982". This bill is a comprehensive approach to this problem and is made up mostly of measures that have already been approved by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary or have been the subject of hearings in the Judiciary Committee. Several of these measures are pending on the Calendar of the Senate. The legislation has the support of the Reagan Administration and is cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats alike.

It is time to stop talking about the crime problem. It is time to address the issue with changes reflecting the best thinking in the criminal justice field. The package is directed primarily at violent crime and drug trafficking which, in many parts of the country, have increased to the point of being beyond the present control of law enforcement. Let me briefly describe some of the major provisions in the bill.

Title I of the bill contains provisions which amend the Bail Reform Act of 1966 to, among other things, < 1) permit danger to the community to be considered in determining whether to release a defendant pending trial, or, if release is appropriate, in

determining conditions for release; (2) tighten significantly the criteria for post-conviction release pending sentencing and appeal; <3> provide procedure for revocation of release and contempt of court prosecution for committing a crime while on release; (4) provide consecutive sentences for crimes committed on pretrial release; and <5> increase the penalties for bail jumping. It also includes a presumption that a particular individual is a danger to the community if he committed a serious drug trafficking offense or used a firearm in a violent crime.

There are safeguards to ensure that due process rights of individuals are protected. A hearing before a judicial officer is required. The defendant has a right to counsel, to present information and witnesses, to be given written findings or statement of conditions, and to testify in his own behalf.

Title II would require a presentence report to include a "victim impact statement" to advise the judge on this important factor in sentencing the defendant. It would make it a crime, punishable by imprisonment for 6 years or $25,000, or both, to hinder harm, annoy, or injure any victim or witness who is involved in the criminal justice process. It also makes it a crime to retaliate against a witness or victim after the completion of the criminal justice process.

Title IV amends section 351 and 1751 of title 18, United States Code, to make it a Federal crime to kill, kidnap, or assault certain senior White House officials, a member of the cabinet and his next in command, and a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Title V makes fundamental changes in the sentencing system of current law. The major features include for the first time setting forth the purposes of sentencing and changing the sentencing system to a determinate system, with no parole and limited good time credits. A seven-member sentencing commission would be responsible, subject to review by Congress, for promulgating sentencing guidelines for the courts to use in determining an appropriate sentence. The court must explain the basis for sentences outside the guidelines. The defendant may appeal a sentence more lenient than the applicable guideline. So-called "safety ner provisions are included to provide, after service of a specified portion of the sentence. an opportunity for review and modification of a long sentence in unusual circumstances.

Title VII contains procedural changes in the law impacting on mentally ill persons in the Federal criminal justice system. One feature oi this part of the title closes a loophole in current law by providing a Federal commitment procedure for a dangerous Federal defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity, if no State will commit him on other grounds.

Another aspect of this title would replace the current Federal insanity defense with a narrower defense applicable only to those individuals who were so mentally ill that they could not form the mental state required for the crime.

In addition to these provisions, the legislation makes a number of changes in current title 18 provisions such as:

Permit emergency electronic surveillance in life endangering situations;

Strengthen federal juvenile justice provisions;

Extend kidnapping jurisdiction to protect federal officials listed in 18 U.S.C. 1114 if connected with performance of official duties;

Protect the immediate families of certain federal officials from acts of violence perpe-

trated to coerce action by or retaliate against such official;

Expand the offenses relating to destruction of interstate motor vehicles to include cargo carrying vehicles;

Make it a crime to solicit the commission of a federal crime of violence;

Expand the list of dangerous crimes applicable to felony-murder, to include escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, and sabotage; and

Increase the penalties for distributing controlled substances in or on, or within 1,000 feet of, an elementary or secondary school.

It is my hope this package of tough, anticrime measures can be enacted this year. Behind the economy, crime is the number one social problem in America. Crime is essentially a State and local problem, but passage of this legislation at the Federal level can send a signal to State and local governments and encourage them to enact similar laws where appropriate.

In addition to this comprehensive anticrime package, legislation to reinstate capital punishment for certain serious and heinous crimes should be acted on by the Congress. I personally believe capital -pun-ishment can be a deterrent to violent crime. There are those who do not share that view, and I respect their opinion and beliefs- on the death penalty.

The penalty of death is the only punishment, in my opinion, that even comes close to compensating for trampling on the sanctity of innocent life. As violent crimes grows, the public sentiment increases in favor of the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. Approximately two-thirds of the American people now favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder.

There is now on the Senate Calendar a bill to impose the death penalty for certairr Federal crimes, murder, treason and espionage. This measure should also be considered by- the Senate this year.

The entire judicial process must be speeded up. At some point, a decision and judgment must become final. Continued appeals as a means of delaying punishment: have clogged the entire court system.. By designating a point at which all appeals must end, the judicial system will hecome more effective. Just recenUy Chief Justice Burger in bis Year-End Report on the Judiciary. expressed the need for changes in Federal court jurisdiction ovel"' collateral review of state court convictions. He said, "The administration of justice in this country is plagued and bogged down with a. lack of reasonable finality of judgments in criminal cases." I have already introduced legislation in the Senate to respond to this problem and it is pending before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

The so-called exclusionary rule, under which highly relevant evidence is excluded from consideration in a criminal trial because it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure, should also be abolished or modified. It makes little sense to turn the criminal loose as a method of punishment of a police officer for failure to comply with the often technical requirements of the Fourth Amendment laws on search and seizure. We should punish the criminal and at the same time provide a civil and administrative remedy to deal effectively with the erring police officer.

VOTING RIGHTS LEGISLATION

One priority for the Senate next week will be action on the Voting Rights legislation

13562 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 now before the Senate. Foremost in my mind is the need to assure all Americans that the right to register and to vote will be protected against discrimination · of any kind.

Throughout consideration of this legislation I have expressed concern over three important aspects of the bill. First, I have sought assurance that the proposed changes in Section 2 of the Act would not result in court-ordered establishment of systems of proportional representation by race. Second, I have sought the inclusion of a reasonable bailout provision so that jurisdictions subject to the preclearance requirements of Section 5 would have a genuine incentive to rid themselves of any lingering discrimination. Third, I have sought a period of extension that is responsive to present conditions.

With respect to the proportional representation issue, I am hopeful that the legislative history will provide some protection against the establishment of electoral systems that will result in proportional representation by race.

OTHER PENDING LEGISLATION In addition to consideration of Voting

Rights legislation, the Congress faces the prospect of action on several of the so-called social issues-abortion, busing, and voluntary prayer in schools. Let me discuss each briefly.

There are two approaches being taken to reverse the 1973 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade, which permits abortion the first 3 months on demand and during the next 3 months when the life of the mother is in danger. One is to pass a bill defining "person" in the Constitution to include an unborn person. The other is to pursue a Constitutional amendment that would permit each State to pass legislation on the question of abortion so long as it were not less restrictive than the Federal law. The Committee has reported S.J. Res. 110, which adopts the latter approach.

With regard to limitations on court-ordered busing, there are again several bills before the Congress. In practice, being only slightly different, they have the objective of either limiting severely, or prohibiting altogether, the use of .busing as a means to achieve racial integration. The objective is one that I support. This social experiment has not worked, and in fact, has become a hardship on the families and children of both blacks and whites. The failure of busing is not a partisan issue. Both Senators JOHNSTON CD-La.), BIDEN CD-Del.), and Senators HELMs CR-N.C.) and others are outspoken critics of forced busing as a means to achieve racial integration.

Quality education for all our children should be the goal of our government policy. The use of busing ignores that objective and place great emotional and financial strains on the families and communities where it is practiced. I hope the Congress will act favorably on this legislation during the present session.

Finally, in the area of social issues, the Committee may also act on legislation to allow voluntary prayer in schools. We must always recognize the Constitutional requirement to keep Church and State separate, where there is any hint of compulsory action by the Government. The Supreme Court has wrestled with this question only recently. Voluntary prayer in schools does not, in my opinion, violate the principle of separation of Church and State and should be permitted. I have introduced a constitutional amendment to restore voluntary

prayer in the schools, which was endorsed by President Reagan last month. Hearings and Senate action may be expected this year.

In addition to these issues, reform of the immigration and refugee laws is a major priority for the Committee and the Senate this year. S. 2222, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, was approved by the Committee last month by a vote of 16 to 1, and will be considered shortly on the Senate floor.

The problems of immigration in general, and refugees coming to America in large numbers in particular, have gone on too long without a coherent and clear response. The sudden arrival of more than 125,000 Cubans in April of 1980 only brought national attention to a problem that has plagued South Florida for several yearsthat of the influx of refugees from Haiti and other Caribbean basin countries which has overwhelmed local jurisdictions in South Florida.

The immigration laws of this Nation need to be changed to respond to the economic pressures in other countries that are pushing increased numbers of foreign nationals to our shores. But we cannot continue to allow refugees and foreign nationals to come to the United States solely for economic reasons. The law is clear-there must be a showing of a fear of persecution because of religious or political beliefs. We can and will do our share, but we cannot possibly take all those who wish to come.

These are just a few of the major issues that the Congress should take action on this year. Adoption of a responsible budget will, of course, be a priority item over the next few weeks.

We in the Congress must act on the budget. Federal spending must be brought under control. President Reagan has made every effort to present a budget that is fair, that preserves the strength of our military, and will start us on the road to a balanced budget. This issue is so important to the future of our Country that partisanship must be set aside and every effort applied to achieving agreement on a budget as soon as possible.

In conclusion, I challenge you as members of the bar to take a stand in improving the role of the legal profession in society, to support laws that will lead to the reduction of crime, and to express yourselves to the Congress on matters that vitally concern you and our country.

Let me express my appreciation to President Allen for inviting me to be with you today and for the fine Tennessee hospitality that has been extended to me.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent th.at the order ior the quorum call be rescinded.


ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, appar

ently there is no requirement for additional time to debate the motion to proceed this evening. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a brief period for the transaction of

routine morning business to extend not past the hour of 5:30 p.m. in which Senators may speak.


Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, these requests, I believe, have been cleared by the minority leader. I will state them now for his consideration and that of other Senators.

JOINT REFERRALPRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE 136

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous· consent that Presidential Message 136 on the international fishery agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union be jointly referred to the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Foreign Relations.


FIRST CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask

that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on Senate Concurrent Resolution 92.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendment to the resolution CS. Con. Res. 92) entitled "Concurrent resolution setting forth the recommended congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985, and revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year 1982", and ask a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I move that the Senate disagree to the House amendment, and agree to the request of the House for a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer <Mr. MATTINGLY) appointed Mr. DOMENIC!, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. BoscHWITZ, Mr. HATCH, Mr. TOWER, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. CHILES, Mr. JOHNSTON, and Mr. METZENBAUM conferees on the part of the Senate.

REREFERRAL OF S. 2519

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 2519, a bill for the relief of the Grace Baptist Church, Portland, Maine, and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13563 The PRESIDING OFFICER. With

out objection, it is so ordered.

NEW JAPAN-UNITED STATES AVIATION AGREEMENT EXTENDS "FRIENDLY SKIES" Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, on June

4, 1982, President Reagan and Japanese Prime Minister Suzuki announced that a new aviation agreement had been concluded between the two countries.

This outstanding agreement should be of significant benefit to the Midwest, to consumers, and to the aviation industry.

In a nutshell, the agreement permits United Airlines to begin daily nonstop service to Tokyo from both Seattle and Portland. United has been attempting to secure these Japanese landing rights for the past 16 years. During that time I have worked closely with officials from this Illinoisheadquartered airline in this effort. Only 2 months ago, I spoke directly with Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshio Sakurauchi to urge him to approve United's entry into Japan. I am very grateful that the Japanese Foreign Minister and the Office of the Prime Minister responded so constructively to help extend the Friendly Skies westward to the Orient. I understand that United plans to originate these flights at O'Hare International Airport beginning on April 1, 1983, which is the earliest time permitted under terms of the agreement.

In addition, Japan Air Lines is permitted to begin service on the same date from Tokyo to both O'Hare International Airport and Seattle. If JAL chooses to operate nonstop from Chicago to Tokyo, Illinois residents will be given competitive service for the first time between these two points. Trade relations between Illinois and Japan could improve with the entry of JAL into this important route. JAL has a well-deserved international reputation for excellence and is preferred by many Japanese and foreign travelers.

I have attached a full copy of the Record of Consultations which spell out further details of this outstanding agreement.

I should like to personally thank members of the entire U.S. delegation who worked over the Memorial Day holiday and into the early morning hours of last week to conclude the agreement. They include:

From the Department of Transportation: Darrell M. Trent, Deputy Secretary; Judith T. Connor, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs; Frank Willis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs; Jeffrey N. Shane, Assistant General Counsel for International Law; and Vance Fort, Director of the Office of International Policy and Programs.

From the Department of State: Robert D. Hormats, Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs; Matthew V. Scocozza, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation and Telecommunications; and James Ferrer, Director of the Office of Aviation.

From the Civil Aeronautics Board: Dan McKinnon, Chairman; Dan Casper, Director of the Bureau of International Aviation; and Charles <Bob) Mallalieu, Jr., from in the Bureau of International Affairs.

This agreement is a demonstration of how trade differences can be bandied without resorting to counterproductive sanctions or retaliation. I know that for the employees of United Airlines-with 10,000 of them furloughed-this should be welcome news. This new route should open up scores of new employment opportunities for United employees.

I ask to have printed in the RECORD the agreement and the article from the June 7, 1982, Wall Street Journal describing the agreement.

The material is as follows: RECORD OF CONSULTATIONS

With respect to the outstanding issues between Japan and the United States of America concerning bilateral civil aviation relations, an interim agreement should be concluded comprising the following elements:

1. The Government of Japan and the Government of the United States of America should reconvene the negotiations by the end of 1983, in order to review the bilateral civil aviation relations comprehensively and to arrive at an overall balance of benefits under the Civil Air Transport Agreement signed at Tokyo, August 11, 1952, as amended.

2. The Government of Japan and the Government of the United States of America have agreed on the following provisional measures:

(a) Implementation of the measures and extension of the duration of the measures recorded in the Memorandum of Consultations dated September 20, 1980, modified as follows:

For the United States of America, effective April 1, 1983: Continental/ Air Micronesia will be permitted to operate seven round trip flights per week on the basis of narrow body aircraft on a route between Saipan and Nagoya.

For Japan: On a date to be agreed upon later by the two governments, a Japanese designated airline will be permitted to operate scheduled all-cargo services on a route between Tokyo and Chicago at the level of two round trip flights per week on the basis of narrow body aircraft.

(b) Other elements EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 19 8 3

For the United States of America: A U.S. designated airline not currently operating between the U.S. and Japan will be permitted to operate seven round trip combination flights per week on a route between Seattle/ Portland and Tokyo.

For Japan: A Japanese designated airline will be permitted to operate five round trip combination flights per week on a route between Tokyo and Seattle/Chicago.

EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 19 8 4

A Japanese designated airline will be permitted to operate two round trip combination flights per week on a route between Tokyo-Los Angeles-Sao Paulo/Rio de Janeiro with full traffic rights.

This does not affect in any way the right that Japan has with regard to the beyond sector from Los Angeles under the present schedule to the Agreement; nor does this Record of Consultations in any way affect the rights which the U.S. has with regard to the beyond sectors from Japan.

For Both Countries-Effective upon Signature of the Interim Agreement: (c) 300 one-way charter flights per year for the airlines of each country will be permitted to be operated in accordance with country of origin rules.

(d) These provisional measures mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) should be manitained for three years after the date of entry into force of the interim agreement, or until the negotiations mentioned in paragraph 1 above are concluded, whichever is later.

Y OSHIO JlATANO, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plen

ipotentiary, embassy of Japan. DARRELL M. TRENT,

Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation.

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 4, 1982.

[From the Wall Street Journal] U.S., JAPAN REACH 3-YEAR AVIATION PACT,

BOOSTING SERVICE BETWEEN THE Two COUNTRIES The U.S. and Japan concluded a three

year aviation agreement that will boost service between the two countries, culminating 18 months of difficult negotiations.

The "interim" pact resolved some of the air-route issues that have proved highly troublesome in the long series of talks. Other matters weren't settled, howev.er, and were put off for more bargaining, to begin by the end of 1983.

The new agreement will permit United Airlines to start Seattle-Tokyo and Portland-Tokyo flights April 1, 1983. Japan had long resisted those flights despite a 1978 Civil Aeronautics Board award of the routes to the UAL Inc. unit.

In Chicago, United said it will begin flights between the two countries next_ April. A spokesman for United said the airline will probably fly daily between Tokyo and Seattle or Portland. The flight will originate in Chicago, United said Currently, only two other U.S. carriers fly betwe_en the two countries, the spokesman added. Northwest Airlines flies from Los Angeles, Seattle and Chicago and, beginning this Thursday, will fly from New York., Pan American World Airways also flies the route.

United applied for permission to fly to Japan in 1966. That initial application was denied in 1968, but a second request was approved by the CAB in July 1978. Service was delayed because of the disagreement between the U.S. and Japanese governments.

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES AFFILIATE Other provisions of the new agreement

will let a Continental Airlines affiliate in Micronesia expand its service to Japan to include flights to Nagoya, and will improve the charter-flight authority for U.S. and Japanese-flag airlines alike, including a substantial expansion of the number of annual charter flights. Continental is a Texas Air Corp. unit.

13564 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 In return, Japan Air Lines will be permit

ted flights linking Tokyo with Seattle and Chicago, and to pick up Los Angeles passengers on some flights enroute from Tokyo to Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro.

Conceding JAL the Los Angeles-South America route was central to making the new agreement acceptable to the Japanese. They had demanded the route vociferously in the previous round of talks in March but the U.S. had refused to grant it.

When the U.S. conceded the route this time, hard-liners on the Japanese side from JAL and Ministry of Transportation still weren't satisfied, but their position was undercut. The concession gave fresh ammunition to Japanese foreign ministry officials, whose primary concern is U.S.-Japan relations and who had long been pushing for some sort of settlement before the opening of the current seven-nation economic summit in Versailles. With the concession coming on the eve of the summit, "the timing was right" for an agreement, said one Tokyo insider.

The U.S. also gained agreement language that U.S. officials said buttressed its argument that a 1952 bilateral aviation agreement with Japan, still in effect, permits American carriers serving Japan to make unlimited flights beyond that nation.

The Japanese government had been seeking to limit any expansion of existing U.S.flag service beyond Japan, or even to pare down that service. This "beyond rights" issue prevented an agreement during eight days of talks in March of this year in Palo Alto, Calif. Similar language preserving Japanese rights for flights beyond Los Angeles was written into the new pact, signed in Washington over the weekend.

However, it's understood that the new language the U.S. obtained, while ensuring U.S. carriers the right to fly through, say, Tokyo, to a "beyond" point such as Seoul, doesn't specifically address the related problem of the carriers' rights to pick up new passengers in Tokyo for the Tokyo-Seoul leg of the flight. The Japanese have long complained that U.S. carriers abuse these socalled fifth freedom rights by picking up large numbers of new passengers in Japan.

The issue could arise anew if China grants Pan Am new rights to fly to Peking. To make the flights economically feasible, it is thought, Pan Am would want to stop in Tokyo and pick up new passengers there for the Tokyo-Peking journey. Whether the Japanese would grant them that right is at this point unclear.

SECOND CARRIER

The agreement was scaled down from what was termed a "mini-package" that U.S. negotiators had hoped Japanese representatives would accept during the Palo Alto discussions. At that time, Japanese officals seemed willing to allow a second additional U.S. carrier, other than United, to begin flying U.S.-Japan routes, and to let the U.S. designate one more Japanese city to be served by an American carrier.

U.S. bargainers were also willing, at the time, to expand JAL's service to include one other U.S. city, to be named by Japan, besides Seattle and· Chicago. But the "wish list" was reduced in the most-recent talk "and we tried out darndest not to blow it back up again," said one U.S. negotiator.

Later talks will deal with such issues as the designation of more U.S.-flag airlines to serve Japan, firmer assurance of flying rights beyond Japan for American carriers and lower fares for U.S.-Japan markets, all sought by the U.S., the official said. Also in-

volved will be Japanese goals-more American cities to be served by JAL, more rights for JAL beyond the U.S., and a limit of U.S. flag. flight capacity over the Pacific, she said.

In Tokyo, it was also clear that despite the new agreement, the Japanese continue to regard the basic 1952 treaty overall as unbalanced in favor of the U.S., an imbalance they will undoubtedly attempt to rectify in future negotiations.

Meanwhile she said, the CAB will drop any plans to impose sanctions on JAL, as it had proposed to do in retaliation for Japanese restrictions, including Japan's opposition to United's service. Japan had countered by imposing its own sanction, including the clampdown on U.S. flag "beyond rights."

PRIME MINISTER HAUGHEY SPEAKS ON IRISH UNITY IN NEW YORK CITY Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President,

during his brief visit to New York City last week to address the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, Prime Minister Charles Haughey of the Republic of Ireland also spoke on the issue of Northern Ireland at a reception for Irish Americans.

In his remarks at this reception, the Prime Minister talked eloquently of the special bonds between Ireland and the United States and the influential role of Irish Americans in helping to achieve an end to the violence in Northern Ireland and a peacful settlement of the conflict.

The Prime minister stated that "the frrst political priority of the Irish Government is to promote the unity of the people of Ireland." He emphasized, moreover, that the great goal of Irish unity can be achieved only through peaceful means, not through violence, and he urged all Americans to avoid any actions that encourage such violence.

Mr. President, I believe that the Prime Minister's address will be of interest to all of us concerned about Northern Ireland, and I ask unanimous consent that it may be printed in the RECORD.

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

ADDRESS BY PRIME MINISTER CHARLES J. HAUGHEY

I am fortunate that my brief visit to New York allows me an opportunity of meeting this distinguished assembly of leaders of the Irish American Community and friends of Ireland.

In my address at the White House on Saint Patrick's Day this year when we were the guests of President Reagan, I sought to convey something of the immense pride taken in Ireland in the magnificant contribution Irish-Americans have made in the building of the United States. Many of the Irish men and women who made their home in America came first to this city of New York. It is to this great metropolis, too, that representatives and leaders of the Irish people came to seek that support from Irish-Americans which was crucial in our

struggle for independence. One such leader was Eamon De Valera who was born in New York and on my last visit here I gave myself the pleasure ·of visiting the Church of St. Agnes where he was baptised one hundred years ago. It is a great honour for me on behalf of the Irish people at home in this centenary year of Eamon De Valera to express to you all, Friends of Ireland, our gratitude for your steadfast support for our political, economic and social development.

At home we have perhaps sometimes taken that support for granted. In our pride in the achievement of our compatriots here, we have not always realised the immensely varied part played by Irish-Americans building of this land and the sacrifices made in dong so. Neither have we always made an adequate effort to ensure that our friends in America were fully informed of the evolution of the greater part of the Irish homeland into a modern, progressive democratic society. We must now look to a future of greater mutual understanding and constructive co-operation among Irish people everywhere in the achievement of Irish national objectives.

For my part, I can assure you of my Government's appreciation of the sympathies and traditional loyalties which have given strength to successive generations of Irish emigrants and their descendants in this country. I know from my personal experience that the Irish American Community of today is anxious and is well placed to continue this great tradition.

I am deeply aware of the obligation on me to explain fully and communicate clearly to you, the representatives of the Irish-American Community, the politics of the Irish Government for the attainment of our fundamental aim of welding historically diverse cultures and traditions into a unified modern nation.

It is my conviction that much of the confusion which has existed regarding the Irish Government's approach to the problem of Northern Ireland stems from a failure in communication and I am determined to remedy that failure.

Let us be clear then about one thing-the first political priority of the Irish Government is to promote the unity of the people of Ireland. This is not a question simply of territorial integrity. We seek a union of culture and traditions in a nation which, like yours, is based on democracy and repects fully the freedom of the individual. Our energies are directed towards creating a framework in which an All-Ireland settlement can be negotiated to ensure that in the new Ireland which will emerge the rights of all Irish men and women will be entirely repected and fully guaranteed. We are convinced that it is only in unity that the divisions which are undermining the material wellbeing of generations of Irishmen can be ended. Only in unity can the true fulfilment of our two great traditions be achieved.

Britain has a major responsibility in solving the problem of Northern Ireland. As we contemplate the appalling cost of Northern Ireland's failure as a political and economic entity, not only to the community in the Six Counties but to all of us who live on the island of Ireland, we are entitled to ask for British help and cooperation in finding a new and more constructive basis for the management and development of Irish affairs by Irish men and women in their own best interest. I have always argued that this will not only restore peace in Ireland but it will remove the shadow which hangs over relations between Britain and Ireland.

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13565 It is not in the Irish interest alone that we

seek British help and goodwill in the solution of the Northern Ireland problem. It is also in Britain's interest, in America's interest, and in the interest of democracy everywhere that the present unstable situation is not allowed to continue.

At this stage, I believe that only joint action by Dublin and London, taking fully into account the views of all the Northern people, can begin to end division among Irish people.

As Taoiseach, therefore, I have actively pursued the creation of an institutional relationship with Britain as a way of providing an appropriate framework for such joint action.

In my address at the White House last March I expressed the hope that the encouragement of Irish unity would rank high among the international objectives of the United States. The President has already emphasised that the Northern Ireland conflict and the instability which it represent is a problem which should concern all of us in the Western Democracies. The United States as a friend of both Ireland and Britain can do much to encourage a change of attitudes in Northern Ireland which would pave the way for Irish unity. Moreover, the U.S. Administration continues to express concern about the declining economy of Northern Ireland and a readiness to encourage private investment into Northern Ireland when stability has been restored through the decisive political progress we seek.

I urge you and through you all Irish Americans, to unite behind the clear policy upon which we are embarked. This policy already commands the support of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people. Broad Irish American support for our objectives will, I believe, enable the U.S. Administration to play a more effective role in resolving this problem which your President rightly regards as one for the entire community of Western nations.

I was glad in recent days to welcome in Dublin a group of visitors from the Congressional Organisation, the Friends of Ireland. I am happy to be able to meet more of these true friends of Ireland here this evening. I look forward to many more such visits in both directions across the Atlantic in the future. These interchanges help to inform people about the real cause of the conflict in Northern Ireland and promote Irish unity as the most effective road to peace.

My Government will work with all those in America who share our ultimate objective of the unity of the people of Ireland and our abhorrence of violence. And let me emphasise that violence, evil in itself and appalling in its consequences, can only postpone the day of Irish uriity. Far from advancing, it will further delay a final British military and political withdrawal from Ireland. Violence and the bitterness it involves only frustrate the ultimate achievement of national unity.

I know that many of you are deeply concerned about the Northern Ireland situation

-and the Irish Government share your concern and hopes for your understanding and support for the view that progress in removing the causes of violence can only be made by peaceful political means.

Friends of Ireland in America, that is the message I have come to give you. It is a positive message. I set before you a positive aim, the peaceful reunification by agreement of our people and of our country. I have described the peaceful framework in which we

89-059 0 -86- 27 (Pt. 10)

shall pursue that aim. Let us do nothing that will separate Irish men and women, whatever side of the Atlantic they may live on-that is the most fundamental lesson of our history. I am confident that we will not forget it, but that we will from now on work together by peaceful persuasion to build a national will for progress, a will to solve the most obdurate problem which stands between us and the ftilfilment of the wider nationhood which embraces all the traditions of Ireland.

Nobody in America, therefore, should support or subscribe to policies which envisage violence and terror as the means of bringing about the unity of Ireland.

We intend to mobilise effectively American political and public opinion in favour of the cause of Irish unity by peaceful political process, the only true and lasting basis for such unity. We intend to weld together the constructive efforts of the Friends of Ireland and of Irish Americans generally, both individually and through their various organizations, to support the cause of Irish unity by peaceful but purposeful negotiations as the ultimate and only sensible way to end the intolerable situation in Northern Ireland.

We want your support and help in that political constitutional process. But there are always of course many other particular ways in which you can help the further and fuller development of Ireland and her people.

Ireland today is engaged in a vast programme of modernization through education, through industrial expansion based on advanced scientific and technological industries, through growing commerce and trade and through our rapidly-improving economic infrastructure.

We seek your help in bringing Ireland to the front rank of the small modem economies, an ambition within our reach given our rich natural resources and the energy and enterprise of our people.

Your partnership can take many forms, all of practical benefit to you and to Ireland.

You and your families can come on holidays to Ireland, as so many of you have done down the years. Bord Failte <the Irish Tourist Board), Aer Lingus and CIE and travel agents everywhere can provide· you with all the advice and assistance you need for a happy and rewarding holiday in Ireland.

You may be in a position to encourage your particular firm or corporation to invest in manufacturing or service industry in Ireland knowing you will get the most favourable tax facilities, financial incentives and investment returns available anywhere in Europe. The offices of our Industrial Development Authority throughout the United States will help you avail of the full range of investment opportunities Ireland now offers.

You can support our growing export trade. We are now one of the highest exporters of goods and services in Europe relative to the size of the country. The range and quality of our exports now offer not alone attractive consumer products for the individual but also new trading possibilities to importers, wholesalers and retailers. The officer of Coras Trachtala, the Irish Export Board, in the United States will help you gain access to this growing new trading opportunity.

On a completely different level we will shortly adopt a scheme proposed by Dr. Eoin McKieman of the Irish American Cul-

tural Institute which will enable IrishAmericans to sponsor the planting of trees in Ireland dedicated to themselves, their relatives or their friends.

Their personalized tree planting and dedication will add a new interest to a visit to Ireland and will remain for many generations a testimony of our practical and affectionate interest in Ireland.

In conclusion, I would ask you to think seriously on what I have said in this short address about the support we need from you for our positive but peaceful policies and our economic endeavours.

I also hope that you will avail of one or other of the practical ways I have outlined, to join with us in building a modern progressive and prospering Ireland where conditions are now so different from the deprivation which drove the Irish originally in great numbers to seek a better li.fe overseas. We are now a land of growing opportunity. My purpose here today is to invite you to join us in realising these opportunities, to enlist your encouragement-and support for our enterprising economic plans and our prudent political endeavours.

Contact: Mr. Frank Sheridan, 462-3939. June 10, 1982.

PROTECTING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 101, I believe it is imperative that Congress make clear "That a handicapped child's right to life should not be abridged or denied on account of age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."

On April 20, Representative HENRY HYDE and I wrote to Secretary of Health and Human Services Schweiker to request swift action "to insure the equal protection of our laws to handicapped children." I was encouraged by the response that I received from Secretary Schweiker. I ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, we must pray that_ the time is not too distant that the Senate will act, as Secretary Schweiker put it, "to protect the rights and welfare of all persons, particularly those least able to protect themselves."

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

THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Washington, D.C., May 6, 1982. Hon. JESSE HELMS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D . C.

DEAR SENATOR HELMS: This is in response to your letter concerning the question of withholding life-sustaining medical care for mentally and physically handicapped newborn infants.

On April 30 of this year the President issued a statement deploring the denial of care to such infants and confirming the applicability of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in such cases. I fully support the President on this issue and on May

13566 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 18 the HHS Office for Civil Rights issued notice to health care providers who are recipients of Federal financial assistance to remind them that it is unlawful to withhold discriminatorily from a handicapped infant medical treatment or nutritional sustenance that would be provided to a non-handicapped infant.

I joing the President in supporting the vigorous enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting discrimination against the handicapped. This Department will continue to protect the rights and welfare of all persons, particularly those least able to protect themselves.

I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely,

RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Secretary.

PROCTER & GAMBLE DEDICATES A NEW PLANT IN NORTH CAROLINA Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on June

4 I was among several hundred people who attended dedication ceremonies for a new Procter & Gamble plant in Greensboro, N.C.

I added this event to my schedule that day because it occurred to me that I had little firsthand knowledge about an enormous U.S. corporation that now has two facilities in my State. Moreover, I am intrigued at what exists today because a couple of Americans, one named Procter and the other named Gamble, decided to go into the business of manufacturing soap and candles 145 years ago. Talk about having come a long way, Mr. President. The Procter & Gamble story is almost incredible.

It is not often, Mr. President, that I read into the RECORD a speech delivered at a plant dedication. In fact, I believe this is the first time I have done so. But I think Senators may be interested in the remarks on that occasion by A. E. Harris, Procter & Gamble's group vice president, who came down to North Carolina from Cincinnati to represent his company. And if Mr. Procter and Mr. Gamble were still around, I suspect they would not be merely interested-they would be amazed at what they started.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Harris' observations be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

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

REMARKS BY MR. A. E. HARRIS

Senator Helms; Secretary Faircloth; Chairman Campbell; Mayor Forbis, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.

This gathering exemplifies the warm reception we have been receiving from the Greensboro community ever since March 1980, when we first announced the construction of this plant. We are very pleased to show our appreciation by having you all join us in our dedication celebration today.

Procter & Gamble has manufact uring facilities throughout the United States and around the world. This is our second plant

in North Carolina. Our first was built just 8 years ago in Greenville. We take this opportunity to publicly thank you who represent the Greensboro community, for the support and assistance you have provided in helping us establish new roots here. Our acceptance has been most heartwarming and our establishment here has been easier to accomplish because of all of you.

Our company's arrival here has also been made easier by Greensboro's reputation as one of the most livable cities in the U.S. You can be proud of your good government, your good people, your diversified business base, your schools of higher learning, your excellent recreational opportunities, and your many cultural assets, which are so important to the continued healthy growth of your community.

Our new plant in Greensboro is one of three Procter & Gamble plants in the U.S. dedicated to the manufacture of beauty care and personal care products. The first product being produced here since the plant's startup a few months ago is Crest toothpaste-the leader in its field and a brand which I hope is familiar to all of you-but just in case, we'll have samples for all of you later on.

It was about fifty years ago when Procter & Gamble first entered this beauty care and personal care field. Our first entry was Drene shampoo, in 1933. Since then we have introduced Prell shampoo, Lilt home permanents, Gleem and Crest toothpastes, Secret and Sure deodorants, Head & Shoulders shampoo, Scope mouthwash, Wondra hand & body lotion, and Pert shampoo. Our research and development effort in these divisions is a strong one, and we anticipate being able to bring you more fine products in the future.

The Greensboro plant is a result of the continuing growth of these products and their acceptance by consumers throughout the U.S. As you may know, Procter & Gamble goes back a long time, over 145 years and the company's success has been built on providing quality products at reasonable costs. Mr. Procter & Mr. Gamble started out in 1837 making candles and soap, but today the company which they began produces a great variety of wellknown consumer products-including_ Tide, Cheer, Folger's coffee, Pampers, Charmin, White Cloud and Bounty, Jif, Duncan Hines, Crisco, Pringles, Ivory, Camay, Zest, to name just a few. We're proud that it's almost impossible to enter an American home without finding at least one of our products.

Our experience in building this plant has been good and we are pleased with the results.

When it came time to take employment applications, we were actually a little surprised by the tremendous interest shown. Some of you may still remember the traffic jam created by job applicants the first day. Such quantity. Well, our management people here will also attest to the high quality of the applicants-for they have yielded for this plant an excellent group of technician employees. All the technician employees-some 100 of them thus far-were employed from the surrounding communities.

You can see that the plant occupies only a small part of this 288-acre site. Experience has taught us that we should allow ourselves plenty of "growing room" when building a new plant. We've done that here.

We have no present plans for using any of this extra land and no one can say with certainty when we'll need it. But, if we can

draw some conclusion about the future by looking at the past, J;>rocter & Gamble's long-term and broadscale growth record points to long-term growth here as well.

Today's program has been called a "dedication" program. Therefore, it seems appropriate that I should say to what this plant is "dedicated."

First of all, we dedicate this plant to the American consumer, because everything we do in every part of our business is aimed at benefiting that consumer. The entire physical plant is designed for, and the plant's people must be everlastingly devoted to, providing the consumer with the best possible products at unvarying high quality and at a reasonable price.

But also, We dedicate this plant to a happy and

prosperous long-term relationship between Procter & Gamble and the greater Greensboro community, and the State of North Carolina.

We dedicate this plant to a continuation here of the good relationship between Procter & Gamble and its employees that has long been an outstanding characteristic of our company.

We dedicate this plant to the tens of thousands of people who have put their trust in us by investing in the company, our shareholders.

And, finally, we dedicate this plant to the American system of free enterprise that has helped so much to build in this nation a standard of living unparalleled in world history.

THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY AND FARM POLICY

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Dr. William G. Lesher is a well-liked and highly respected economist who has reached top rank in his profession at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Dr. Lesher last month presented an excellent statement on the farm economy and agricultural policy. It discloses not only the strength of his economic and analytical skills, but also provides very thoughtful insights into the future direction of farm, food, and trade policy.

We are especially proud of Bill Lesher because he previously served in a completely bipartisan way on the staff of the Senate Agriculture Committee. He was trained in agronomy and agricultural economics at Purdue and Oregon State University. He taught and received his Ph. D. at Cornell. Originally from an Indiana farm, he was an assistant to Senator LUGAR before joining the committee staff. Today he serves as Assistant Secretary for Economics at USDA.

His address at St. Louis on May 10 highlighted current and upcoming issues facing agriculture. He acknowledged the dairy surpluses and current economic problems in farming, but described some hopeful signs. Several points are particularly significant for the U.S. Senate to consider.

First, the United States is assuming a greater share of the burden of holding the world's stocks of grain. Al-

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13567 though current worldwide grain inventories are large, they are still a fairly typical percentage of the amount of grain used each year. What is different from most years is that the U.S. share of those world stocks of grain is higher than at any time in the last 20 years. In short, the United States is maintaining the world's granary by itself. Policymakers must be aware that other grain producing countries would like the United States to bear the entire expense of maintaining these stocks-an expense that American taxpayers and farmers can ill afford.

Second, the bipartisan 1981 farm bill is working and providing assistance to farmers. Signup in the voluntary acreage reduction program authorized by the farm bill has reached unprecedented levels.

During debate on the 1981 Farm Act, some criticized the measure for not providing enough economic aid to farmers.

The fact is that loan rates and target prices were increased for nearly every commodity covered in the act.

The fact is that this act will be used to provide nearly $11 billion of assistance to farmers.

The fact is that net outlays for 1982 price support programs under the new legislation will be over 21/2 times the outlays in the previous year.

A third point made by Dr. Lesher is that U.S. farmers are part of a dynam- _ ic, competitive world economy, and our farm program decisions must take that fact into account.

The United States is now offering an acreage reduction program to remedy the oversupply situation which is depressing farm prices for grain. At the same time, however, other grain producing countries are increasing their production and taking advantage of the higher prices resulting from the self-restraint of the United States.

The net result is that our competitors benefit and our farmers lose their share of the market, which reduces our long-term profit potential.

Mr. President, there is one further observation I will make which is not directly included in Dr. Lesher's statement, but is certainly related. -The Farm Crisis Act of 1982 has

been introduced by others in Congress as a response to the serious economic problems in agriculture today. On May 25, the House Agriculture Committee is conducting hearings on the measure.

I am sure that the hearings will find what we in the Senate already knowagriculture is in economic distress. The remedy is not to be found in a Farm Crisis Act, however. It is found in profits provided to farmers by the marketplace.

The Farm Crisis Act will increase price supports and impose production controls.

Such measures will treat the symptom-not the cause-of farm problems. In fact, if low farm prices are caused by world overproduction, then higher price supports only encourage more production and make the problem worse.

In terms of production controls, the Secretary of Agriculture has a number of tools which he can and will use. This authority must be used carefully, however.

As Dr. Lesher so wisely points out, other countries are taking advantage of the United States by expanding acreage and subsidizing their exports. In 1982, while the United States is implementing its acreage reduction program, Canada has told its farmers to pursue all-out production. Argentina is considering bringing into cultivation a potential 20 to 25 million acres. Australia is expected to have record plantings of wheat this year.

In the face of this expanded competition, what does the Farm Crisis Act propose? Further re.straints on American farmers, while foreign growers expand at our expense.

This constitutes withdrawal from world markets, a return to the 1950's and 1960's. It is an approach that we pursue at our peril.

We can and must expand our markets, not surrender them to our competitors.

We can and must be competitive in the world marketplace.

We can and must stand by our farmers to maintain and expand their market share.

The Farm Crisis Act may be well-intended, but it would reduce the ultimate profit potential in the markets which serve U.S. farmers. These are markets that the American farmer and the American taxpayer cannot afford to lose.

Dr. Lesher's statement sets forth the reasons this is true. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Dr. Lesher's address be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE U.S. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY-CURRENT

SITUATION AND FuTURE DILEMMA

<Remarks delivered by William G. Lesher, Assistant Secretary for Economics, St. Louis Agri-Business Club, St. Louis, Missouri, May 10, 1982.) It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to

discuss the current state of the agricultural economy. The outlook for U.S. agriculture has strengthened somewhat in recent months. This is not to say, however, that our problems are behind us. Many uncertainties still exist. But, world and U.S. markets are showing some signs of underlying strength that hopefully should support future improvement as adjustments are made to market realities.

I would like to begin by discussing the current economic situation for livestock, dairy and grains and then describe what I see as a

dilemma facing U.S. agriculture in the near future.

LIVESTOCK

Overall, farm prices are still below a year ago, but are up over 5 percent from last December-with the livestock sector showing significant strength. Despite the current weakness in consumer purchasing power, livestock feeders are enjoying the first sustained positive feeding margins since 1979. In early May, hog prices had increased a third since the first week of the year, whiie prices for Choice steers has risen 20 percent. Broiler prices have fluctuated widely but are up about 9 percent. The principal factor affecting price has been producer adjustments in the form of a significant reduction in meat output-primarily pork. Total red meat and poultry production in the first quarter declined 3 percent from a year earlier. Output for the balance of the year will likely run 4 or 5 percent below last year, with the largest reduction coming in pork. With consumer demand benefiting from the July 1 tax cut and with improvement in gereral economic conditions, I expect the livestock industry will enjoy its first moderately good year in some time.

DAIRY

While other parts of the livestock sector have been making production adjustments, the dairy industry clearly has not. Dairy herds and milk output have continued to expand. Surplus dairy stocks have continued to accumulate. Net Federal Government outlays for the dairy support program for fiscal 1982 are projected to approach $2 billion again, and uncommitted CCC inventories may exceed the equivalent of 17 billion pounds of milk by the end of the fiscal year-5-times more stock than the CCC owned in fiscal 1979.

Much of the problem has its roots in the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977. Through rigid parity formulas indexed twice a year, dairy producers were given a signal to expand production and-like any other producer-they responded to the incentives. But the signal was coming from the Federal Government and not from the marketplace-and the signal was wrong!

When the Reagan Administration took office, we tried to change the signal to reflect the realities of the marketplace-first by making no adjustment in the price support on April l, 1981, and then by holding the support level at $13.10 per hundredweight in the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981. While adjustments in dairy production take time, particularly when conditions are changing so dramatically, there are some encouraging signs. For example, milk production this past March was up only 1 percent from a year earlier, compared with a 3 percent increase in the 12 months ending last December. But dairy farmers and the Reagan Administration agree that more decisive actions are needed, not only to permit the market to send a clear signal to producers to reduce production but also to dispose of the large surplus stocks that will be with us for some time.

On May 5. Secretary Block proposed an emergency dairy package designed to bring balance to the nation's dairy industry. The package covers many areas-disposal of current stocks both here and abroad, research on new uses of dairy products, product promotion and distribution-but the key to the program is to have the tools to act expeditiously and with good judgement. We asked Congress to give the Secretary of Agriculture discretion in setting the dairy price

13568 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 support level. The Secretary also proposed to establish a Dairy Advisory Board to advise the Federal Government in making decisions affecting the dairy industry.

Secretary Block has pledged not to adjust the present support level until January 1, 1983. This will give farmers a few months to cull their herds before any adjustments are made in the support level. We view this as fair, since the current critical situation is primarily the fault of inflexible dairy policies, not the dairy farmer. The market situation will be carefully monitored until January 1, and, based on an analysis of the figures, any necessary adjustments will be made at that time. We do not believe at this time that the price support level will have to be lowered below $12 per hundredweight. Dairy farmers should cull heavily this summer and fall. While no support adjustment will occur before January 1, it is imperative that Congress provide the authority to the Secretary as quickly as possible to give the clear signal so that Dairy producers will respond. Any delays will only lead to further confusion and continued deterioration in the situation.

GRAINS

The U.S. crop sector continues to reflect the impact of large world supplies in the face of a worldwide economic downturn, compounded for our farmers by an exceptionally strong U.S. dollar in international markets. However, grain and oilseed prices have recently moved up from their seasonal lows-supported by increased Commodity Credit Corporation loan activity, heavy movement into the farmer-owned reserve, and some recovery in export demand. By season's end, nearly four-fifths of the corn carryover and two-thirds of wheat stocks are expected to be in the farmer-held reserve and government inventory. More recently, corn exports have recovered somewhat, boosted by large shipments to the Soviet Union. April corn exports averaged 48 million bushels per week, the highest rate since May 1981. Wheat exports during March and April of this year were up more than 15 percent from the same period last year.

While the grain reserve program has isolated a significant quantity of grain from the market, further production adjustments are clearly needed if we are to bring world supplies more in line with demand and ensure a favorable return for U.S. producers. The U.S. has announced voluntary acreage reduction programs for wheat, feed grains, cotton and rice, which are expected to remove 10 to 15 million acres of land from production this year. The preliminary signup for the program shows that farmers enrolled 79 percent of the total acreage base. They enrolled more than 90 percent of the rice and cotton acreage; more than 80 percent of the wheat acreage; and more than 70 percent of the feed grain acreage. Final compliance, of course, will be a function of relative prices and weather developments between now and the deadline for compliance.

While I look for some improvement in corn and soybean prices over the next few months due to some tightening in the free stock position, there is no way to know the magnitude, given the instability always present from such factors as weather and economic conditions. World grain stocks are large and do serve as a damper on upward price movements, but they represent only about 16 percent of annual utilization. This would be around the level of stocks with which we entered the 1979/80 season and

which were subsequently drawn down very sharply. During the 1960's grain stocks ranged from 17 to 28 percent of utilization with an average level around 20 percent. What is different is that the U.S. is carrying a larger share of the total stocks than at any time in the last 20 years. In 1981/82 world grain stocks are expected to increase by 35 million metric tons, with U.S. stocks increasing by 33 million metric tons or more than 50 percent.

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY

In developing a consistent and cohesive set of agricultural programs for the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, the Reagan Administration recognized that agriculture differs greatly from other sectors of the economy in that production depends on natural and biological forces. Weather alone can transform crop abundance into scarcity. Thus, there is a need to provide protection against natural disasters. It is also necessary to protect against economic disasters, which are inherent in an agricultural industry with substantial fluctuations in output. Agricultural commodity price variations can be large as supplies change, leading to significant changes in farm income· from year to year.

Without a sound program of assistance, farmers work at odds with the market-too much fixed capital investment during periods of high prices and incomes, with disinvestment during periods of low prices and incomes. While recognizing the need for farm programs, the Reagan Administration feels that farm programs need to embody a basic principle-they need to be adaptable and embrace a market orientation.

While we did not achieve all we wished in the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, it was a step in the right direction. Utilizing the programs contained in this legislation, the Reagan Administration has been able to provide assistance to farmers that will total nearly $11 billion in fiscal 1982. Net outlays for on-going CCC price support programs, which were designed with flexibility to deal with a surplus production situation such as we are now experiencing, will increase by around $61/2 billion in fiscal 1982-over 2% times the fiscal 1981 outlays. It is difficult to agree with those who say that this Farm Bill is a "do-nothing" bill when we have had increased outlays of this magnitude.

Farmers are having a difficult time and we are using the provisions of the Farm Bill to assist them. But farmers don't want their income from the Federal Government, they want it from the marketplace. We are going to provide all the assistance possible without jeopardizing the further development of markets that our farmers must have for their longer-term prosperity. The Federal Government can help farmers adjust but it can never provide enduring prosperity for farmers. It is unfair to farmers to suggest otherwise.

Domestic and international programs and policy objectives are not separable in the agricultural sector. That is why the philosophy with which the Reagan Administration approached the 1981 Farm Bill has carried over to basic trade policy. One of the first actions Secretary Block took was to lay the groundwork for President Reagan to end the Soviet grain embargo. The embargo was terrible for our farmers; it also was bad for the economy; and it did little to punish the Soviets. Not only did this Administration lift the embargo, but more recently President Reagan stated very explicitly three es-

sential components of our long-term policy on farm exports:

First, no restrictions will be imposed on farm exports because of rising domestic prices. Farm prices go up and farm prices go down. High prices signal market-oriented farmers to produce more, and they will, if we allow them to compete freely in foreign and domestic markets. This is best for everyone, from farmer to consumer.

Second, farm exports will not be singled as an instrument of foreign policy. Farm exports could only be a part of a broad embargo in a situation so extreme that our national security is threatened. Agricultural commodities are fungible; that is, they are easily interchanged for the same commodity from other nations. For this reason the embargo of 1980 was ineffective in achieving its intended purpose, yet it caused great economic hardship to U.S. agriculture. This Administration will not repeat such action.

Third, world markets must be freed of trade barriers and unfair trade practices. We must continue to pursue this objective aggressively. World economic health will be improved and strengthened by freer agricultural trade. Our great agricultural system must be turned loose to benefit not only Americans but people throughout the entire world.

Farmers and the agri-business community may not appreciate fully the implications of the long-term farm export policy presented by President Reagan. For example, it is the first time that I can remember a U.S. President clearly stating in writing that short supply situations will not result in trade restrictions. That is something that U.S. farmers and agri-business can eagerly pass on to our foreign customers who have expressed a continuous concern over the issue for some years.

THE FUTURE

By now it is evident that I am basically optimistic about the potential for U.S. agriculture. However, in all candor, I do have a very serious concern about the responsibilities and roles of the U.S. and other countries in world markets. This concern extends to our major competitors as well as to the world's major importers. At issue is the burden of adjustments to changing market conditions as influenced by trade restrictions such as tariffs and quotas and internal export or producer subsidy programs. The current adjustments in the world wheat market are an excellent example of this concern.

The record world wheat harvest in 1981/ 82, coupled with virtually no growth in consumption, is leading to a buildup in world wheat stocks for the first time since 1978/ 79. About half of the increase in stocks is occurring in the United States, where carryover stocks on June 1 are expected to exceed 1.1 billion bushels, the highest in 4 years. Current U.S. wheat at the farm prices are the lowest in 2 years.

The United States has taken steps to bring supplies more in line with consumption, thus serving to strengthen prices for producers. Secretary Block announced a 15 percent wheat acreage reduction program for the 1982 crop, with target price and loan rate incentives designed to encourage participation. The program is designed to remove 5 to 8 million acres of land from wheat production, thus reducing the potential 1982 crop by 130 to 210 million bushels. Complementing this action was the grain reserve program, which will absorb an additional 200 million bushels from the 1981/82

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13569 crop and isolate it from the market. Additionally, Secretary Block announced acreage reduction programs for feed grains, rice, and cotton.

While the U.S. is attempting to deal with the excess supply situation through the farmer-owned reserve, reduced acreage programs, and freer world trade, producers in other exporting countries are offsetting the impact of the U.S. program to a large degree by increasing acreage. Canadian producers have indicated intentions to increase wheat acreage by '3 percent in 1982. If these intentions materialize, Canadian producers will have expanded acreage by 20 percent in 3 years, contributing to the current burdensome world supply situation. Austrailian wheat acreage may be up 4 percent or more in 1982, after a 5-percent increase in 1981. Argentina's acreage may continue to rise, following a 15-percent increase during the past 2 years. At the same time, wheat production in the European Community, principally in France, continues to grow under an export subsidy program that insures increased production will directly enter into export markets at subsidized prices. Acreage expansion in these exporting countries is undermining U.S. efforts to reduce world wheat supplies, and strengthen prices for producers in this country and around the world.

Not only are our competitors increasing acreage, but they are limiting their stock buildup by subsidizing exports, which puts added downward pressure on world prices. The recent sale of subsidized EC wheat flour to Chile at a lower price than domestically produced Chilean flour is an example of gaining entry to non-traditional markets through the use of subsidies. The subsidized price undercuts domestic flour mills in Chile which has in recent years imported mainly wheat, about 1 million tons per year, all from the United States.

In 1981, for example, the European Community CEC> spent nearly $11/2 billion to subsidize cereal exports. At the same time, the U.S. spent billions of dollars drawing grain into the farmer-owned reserve to isolate it from the markets and strengthen prices. Additional outlays will result from the incentives offered to U.S. producers to reduce acreage and limit production in 1982/83. The result is not only sizable outlays, but an accumulated burden for the United States. The U.S. share of world wheat stocks has been increasing steadily since the mid-1960's-this country held about 23 percent of the world stocks during the second half of the 1960's. The share increased to 31 percent during the late 1970's. For 1981/82, the United States is projected to hold 37 percent of global stocks, a level exceeded only once in the past 17 years.

While I have outlined what our competitors are doing, I do not want to give the impression that the U.S. is without fault. Clearly, our dairy program is not in accord with world markets. However, we treat the symptoms of over-production differently than others. We do not dump surplus products on world markets while at the same time increasing price support levels. In fact, we are giving our dairy farmers a choiceeither cut back on production or we will reduce the price support level for milk. Sugar is another example in which we are now operating a restrictive system for imported sugar. We view the quotas, however, as a short-term measure which will be dismantled after world sugar prices increase. Moreover, we ended up with this program in partial response to others dumping sugar on

world markets, lowering the price substantially. And, according to recent reports, it does not appear that our sugar program will lead to increased sugar production domestically.

A DILEMMA

I cannot help but wonder how long the United States can continue to absorb the burden of unilateral adjustments to world market conditions. Perhaps we are approaching the point at which policy adjustments, which may be painful in the shortrun, are necessary to ensure longer-term prosperity for U.S. agriculture.

Deputy Secretary Richard Lyng and I went to Europe recently to discuss our concerns over EC policies with officials from the Community. Secretary Block was there last year. Our hope was to create an open dialogue and find some common area of agreement from which to proceed. Our discussions were very candid and friendly, but I found the common areas of agreement few indeed. For example, they did not feel that subsidized EC wheat exports lower world wheat prices. Nor did they feel any commitment to an internal grain stocking policy in years of surplus production. Their perception of world markets-how they operate and the responsibilities of the participants in the marketplace-are so different from our viewpoints that an effective dialogue on these issues appears bleak in the near future.

Simply put, the dilemma is this: the market is signaling that a reduction in output is needed, and many United States' producers are responding by idling acreage. The other exporters are applauding U.S. farmers' actions as being beneficial to world prices and at the same time are expanding their own production. It is not surprising that United States' farmers are becoming upset as they see our competitors taking over world markets while they are reducing output. The problem is further compounded for U.S. farmers when they are encouraged to seek assistance through higher loan rates which are effectively the floor under world grain prices. Higher loan rates in periods of over-supply only aggravate the longer term problem by generating higher world prices and greater incentives for world production increases.

Moreover once our competitors have applauded U.S. farmers' response to large supplies through idling acreage and encouraged them to raise world prices through higher loan rates, they negotiate bilateral agreements to ensure that any future market deterioration would not impact their trade.

Canada, after applauding our efforts to reduce production at the April 22-23 Grain Exporters Conference in Ottawa, signed a new wheat agreement in early May with China, providing for a substantial increase in shipments over the next 3 years. Senator Hazen Argue, minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, commented on the new agreement, and according to newspaper reports called for "all out production" from Canadian farmers. It appears that other exporters want to push U.S. farmers back to the 1950's and 1960's when they idled 50-60 million acres and produced primarily for domestic markets at higher per unit costs.

It seems we are rapidly approaching a choice. One choice is to reduce our agricultural base, which generates 20 percent of our Gross National Product and requires the services of 22 percent of the nation's labor force, as we withdraw from world markets over time. This would be painful economically because each 1 million metric

tons exported generates, on average, at least 5,000 new jobs, and stimulates additional economic activity beyond the farm sector. The other choice is to draw a line and sayenough-do not go beyond this point, and implement policies that will ensure that American farmers share in the benefits of expanding world markets.

The President has laid out the basic principles which will guide our export policy development, and I believe it is the correct course to secure the greatest benefits for the U.S. as well as the world. However, it may be necessary to deviate temporarily from our free market stance and engage in costly short run trade wars to achieve the principles that we have set forth. Other countries which point to their trade surpluses with the United States as a justification for their actions in agricultural markets are not fooling anyone. It would seem that this surplus is primarily a result of goods and services they wish to buy in the marketplace, and not the result of any desire to do anyone a favor.

I know there are some who like the status quo, for they are doing the business that now goes on. I can understand that, but I think there is a longer-run view that must be appreciated and around which a dialogue must take place. For those that believe that scarcity will soon be upon us and much higher farm prices will ensue, I need only point to the fundamental principle that there is no scarcity or surplus if prices are allowed to move freely.

I strongly disagree with those who endorse the "scarcity syndrome," as my friend Don Paarlberg has. characterized it. There is no basis for expecting a prolonged period of tight supply/demand conditions for U.S. and world agriculture which would absorb all the world's productive potential and eliminate our dilemma. Such a development is simply not consistent with the price adjustment and response mechanisms which have always been evident in all markets to a large degree. Adjustments take place everyday in a free market, which allocate resources efficiently and provide maximum social welfare.

Our farmers have always been responsive to market signals, and I have no reason to believe that they will not be in the future. Nor does it recognize the potential new production technologies which may soon be in place. There is an increasing agreement that a number of new technologies such as nitrogen-fixation, genetic engineering, enhancement of photosynthetic efficiency and highefficiency pesticide application may be less than a decade away. Such breakthroughs, even in the face of stronger economic growth, would again force significant adjustments in major producing countries. Market economies assimilate and adjust to new breakthroughs, leading to increased efficiencies and great economic development.

The experiences of the 1960's and 1970's will teach us something if we only take the time to examine the record objectively. If markets are permitted to function in setting the prices of our products, the right signals will be given to both the production and consumption sides of the market. Our goal should be to enhance the operations of the markets with policies which are designed to minimize any interference in the function of such markets and avoid the syndromes of surplus or scarcity which generate self-fulfilling policies and continue to force a misallocation of our resources.

The value of our comparative advantage in agriculture, and the greatest welfare of

13570 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 the world in general, can best be reaped through free trade in open markets. But it seems unlikely that we can continue our present policies and ignore the actions of the other participants in agricultural trade. I believe this will be the issue of the 1980's, and not one of scarcity. Will we seek the markets we must have to utilize our comparative advantage or will we retrench as others fill the world's needs?

The reason I bring up this issue today is that I believe that we will soon be embarking on policies that will chart the direction we will go for some time in the future. The choices will have to be made soon and I believe it is too important to decide without a thorough discussion. The 1983 crop decisions will have to be announced soon and large deficiency payments on the 1982 crop appear a near certainty. Do we continue to cut back production, reduce budget outlays and raise farm prices while other countries aim for all-out production? If we do, it means we are willing to shrink our agricultural base. If we do not, then what type of policies do we embark upon and what shortterm risks are involved? This is the dilemma-one that deserves a great amount of thought and attention.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Saunders, one of his secretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session, the Acting President pro tempore laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations and a withdrawal which were ref erred to the Committee on Armed Services.

<The nominations and withdrawal received today are printed at the end of the Senate proceedings.)

PRESIDENTIAL APPROVALS A message from the President of the

United States, reported that he had approved and signed the following enrolled bills and joint resolutions:

On May 25, 1982: S. 1611. An act to amend the transfer, con

veyance, lease and improvement of, and construction on, certain property in the District of Columbia, for use as a headquarters site for an international organization, as sites for governments of foreign countries, and for other purposes.

On June 1, 1982: S. 2535. An act to regulate the operation

of foreign fish processing vessels within State waters.

S. 2575. An act to extend the expiration date of section 252 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

S.J. Res. 53. Joint resolution to provide for the designation of September 5, 1982, as "Working Mothers' Day."

S.J. Res. 59. Joint resolution designating the square dance as the national folk dance of the United States.

S.J. Res. 160. Joint resolution to provide for the designation of July 9, 1982, and

April 9, 1983, as "National P.O.W./M.I.A. Recognition Day."

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE At 12:14 p.m., a message from the

House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Gregory, one of its clerks, announced that the House insists upon its amendments to the bill <S. 1947> to improve small business access to Federal procurement information, asks a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland, Mr. SMITH of Iowa, Mr. ADDABBO, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. RICHMOND, Mr. HATCHER, Mr. SAVAGE, Mr. MCDADE, Mr. CONTE, Mr. STANTON of Ohio, Mr. BROOMFIELD, and Mr. WILLIAMS of Ohio as managers of the conference on the part of the House.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bills:

H.R. 5432. An act to authorize the presentation on behalf of the Congress of a specially struck gold medal to Adm. Hyman George Rickover;

H.R. 5566. An act authorizing appropriations to the Secretary of the Interior for services necessary to the nonperforming arts functions of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and for other purposes;

H.R. 5659. An act to authorize the Smithsonian Institution to construct a building for the National Museum of African Art and a center for Eastern art together with structures for related educational activities in the area south of the original Smithsonian Institution building adjacent to Independence Avenue at 10th Street Southwest, in the city of Washington; and

H.R. 6132. An act to amend section 5590 of the Revised Statutes to provide for adjusting the rate of interest paid on funds of the Smithsonian Institution deposited with the Treasury of the United States as a permanent loan.

The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the President pro tempore (Mr. THuRMOND).

At 12:41, a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Gregory, announced that the House has passed the following joint resolution, without amendment:

S.J. Res. 201. Joint resolution designating "Baltic Freedom Day."

ENROLLED BILL AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED

At 1:35 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Gregory, announced that the Speaker has signed the following bill and joint resolution:

H.R. 4. An act to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of information identifying certain United States intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources; and


The enrolled bill and joint resolution were subsequently signed by the President pro tempore <Mr. THURMOND).

At 3:27 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Gregory, announced that the House has passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 4861. An act to establish the American Conservation Corps, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the House insists upon its amendments to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 92) setting forth the recommended congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985, and revising the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1982, asks a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. JONES of Oklahoma, Mr. OBEY, Mr. SOLARZ, Mr. NELSON, Mr. ASPIN, Mr. HEFNER, Mr. DOWNEY, Mr. BENJAMIN, Mr. DONNELLY, Mr. LATTA, Mr. REGULA, Mr. FRENZEL, Mr. BETHUNE, Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois, and Ms. FIEDLER as managers of the conference on the part of the House.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED The following bill was read twice by

unanimous consent, and referred as in-dicated: ·

H.R. 4861. An act to establish the American Conservation Corps, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTION PRESENTED

The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, June 14, 1982, he had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled joint resolution:


EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred as indicated:

EC-3623. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on a new Privacy Act system of records; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3624. A communication from the District of Columbia Auditor, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report and evaluation of the Mayorial Mailing to Senior Citizens; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3625. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13571 Comptroller, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on four new Privacy Act systems of records; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3626. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, for Health, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on a new Privacy Act system of records; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3627. A communication from the Secretary of Education transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on an altered Privacy Act system of records; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3628. A communication from the Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration transmitting, pursuant to law, a copy of the 1981 NOAA Corps pension plan; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3629. A communication from the District of Columbia Auditor transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on his review of the maintenance and replacement policy for the Department of Environmental Services motor vehicles; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3630. A communication from the Comptroller General of the United States transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled "A CPI for Retirees is not Needed Now but Could be in the Future"; to the Committee on Governmental affairs.

EC-3631. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on a new Privacy Act system of records; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3632. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on a new Privacy Act system of records; to the Committee on Governmental affairs.

EC-3633. A communication from the Secretary of Agriculture transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the Inspector General for the period October 1, 1981, to March 31, 1982; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3634. A communication from the Administrator of the Veterans Administration transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the Inspector General for the period October 1, 1981 through March 31, 1982; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3635. A communication from the Secretary of Transportation transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the Inspector General for the period October 1, 1981 through March 31, 1982; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3636. A communication from the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the Commission's activities under the Government in the Sunshine Act for Calendar year 1981; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3637. A communication from the Assistant Attorney General for Administration transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on a modified Privacy Act system of records; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3638. A communication from the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the activities of the Commission during calendar year 1981 under the Government in the Sunshine Act; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3639. A communication from the Secretary of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant

to law, the semiannual report on the activities of the Office of Inspector General, Department of Commerce for the period October 31, 1981 through March 31, 1982; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3640. A communication from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the semiannual report on the activities of the Office of Inspector General from October 1, 1981 to March 31, 1982; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3641. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the fourth semi-annual report of the Inspector General for the period October 1, 1981 through March 31, 1982; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3642. A communication from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the semiannual report of the Inspector General, Department of Labor, for the period October 1, 1981 through March 31, 1982; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3643. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of legislation adopted by the Council on March 23, 1982; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3644. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of legislation adopted by the Council on May 11, 1982; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.




EC-3648. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District· of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of legislation adopted by the Council on May 11, 1982; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

EC-3649. A communication from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, a proposed plan for the use and distribution of judgment funds of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe in dockets 343-70 and 87-C before the United States Court of Claims; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

EC-3650. A communication from the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of orders suspending the deportation of certain aliens under section 244<a><U of the Immigration and Nationality Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-3651. A communication from the Office of Legislative Affairs of the Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a draft of proposed legislation to reauthorize and extend significant portions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968; to the Committee on Judiciary.

EC-3652. A communication from the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, transmitting, pursuant to law, reports of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States from March 12 and 13, 1981 and September 24 and 25, 1981; to the Committee on Judiciary.

EC-3653. A communication from the United States Environmental Protection Agency <Freedom of Information Office), transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual report on the activities of the Agency under the Freedom of Information Act for calendar year 1981; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EC-3654. A communication from the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on waivers granted under certain sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act for the first half of fiscal year 1982; to the Committee on the judiciary.

EC-3655. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, legislative and administrative steps to implement the National Policy of Aging, from the 1981 White House Conference on Aging; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

EC-3656. A communication from the Chairman of the National Diabetes Advisory Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual report of the National Diabetes Advisory Board for fiscal year 1981; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

EC-3657. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the final regulations for the Special Program for Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

EC-3658. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report entitled "The Condition of Education in America, 1982 Edition"; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

EC-3659. A communication from the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's annual report for fiscal year 1981; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

EC-3660. A communication from the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a number of recommendations for legislative action; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. DURENBERGER, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs:

A report to accompany the bill <S. 2386) to provide for the establishment of a system to collect data on the geographic distribution of Federal funds <Rept. No. 97-473) <Additional views filed).

By Mr. DOMENIC!, from the Committee on the Budget, without amendment:

S. Res. 399. Resolution waiving section 303<a> of the Congressional Budget Act of 197 4 for consideration of S. 257 4.

13572 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE · June 14, 1982 INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND

JOINT RESOLUTIONS The following bills and joint resolu

tions were introduced, read the first and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. DECONCINI: S. 2624. A bill to amend section 1407Ch) of

title 28, United States Code, to permit the consolidation of civil antitrust actions for trial; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr.ROTH: S. 2625. A bill to amend the Federal Prop

erty and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to make Federal surplus property more accessible to local emergency preparedness and volunteer firefighting organizations and to authorize and direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to recommend available Federal surplus to the Administrator of the General Services Administration for transfer to such organizations and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

By Mr. LAXALT <for himself and Mr. CANNON):

S. 2626. A bill for the relief of the estate of Nell J. Redfield; to the Committee on Finance.

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred <or acted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. MELCHER: Senate Resolution 409. Resolution to dis

approve the plan for distribution of judgment funds awarded to the Gros Ventre Tribe of the Fort Belknap Reservation Docket 649080L, U.S. Court of Claims; to the Select Committee on Indian Affairs.

By Mr. TSONGAS: Senate Resolution 410. Resolution ex

pressing the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Education use the 1980 census data in determining the amount of grants under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. DeCONCINI: S. 2624. A bill to amend section 1407

(h) of title 28, United States Code, to permit the consolidation of civil antitrust actions for trial; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL ANTITRUST ACTIONS

Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bjll directed at giving the judiciary an important procedural tool which will be of great assistance in the management of large and complex antitrust cases. It is a bill aimed at solving many of the problems which constantly confront us in such cases.

The Multidistrict Litigation Act, 28 U.S.C. 1407, presently permits civil antitrust actions to be transferred to a single district court for pretrial proceedings. It also allows parens patriae cases brought under section 4C of the Clayton Act to be consolidated in one district court for trial as well as pre-

trial purposes. Today's bill makes this procedure available for trial in private antitrust suits as well as in parens patriae cases.

It is important to note that consolidation in a single district court for trial would not be required. If in particular cases separate trials were appropriate, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation would retain its present power to order such a result. This bill would vest the judicial panel with the ·authority to order a single, consolidated trial when that would be the most efficient and just procedure.

The adoption of this procedure simply makes good commonsense. It would permit a case to be tried once in a single district court, rather than having the parties face multiple trials in several States following coordinated, consolidated pretrial proceedings. The procedure would also conserve judicial resources in the trial of multidistrict cases. Without this change, however, plaintiffs and defendants who have conducted all of their pretrial proceedings before one judge are required to disperse to face a series of trials in different States. This in turn creates the further risk of inconsistent adjudications and duplicative recovery.

The Judiciary Committee previously had an opportunity to consider this subject when it was part of the bills introduced during the 96th Congress to overturn the Illinois Brick decision. While those bills were extremely controversial as they related to the rights of indirect purchasers, both opponents and proponents testified in favor of trying multiple actions arising from the same set of facts in a single forum. This idea has firm support from every segment of both the legal and business communities.

Finally, and of equal importance, Mr. President, this proposal creates no cost whatsoever to the U.S. Government while it nonetheless provides our citizens with swifter and fairer resollltion of complex antitrust c~es.

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

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

s. 2624 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America ·in Congress assembled, That, section 1407 (h) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking out :•section 4C of" and inserting in lieu thereof "section 4 or 4C of".

By Mr. LAXALT . (for himself and Mr. CANNON):

S. 2626. A bill for the relief of the estate of Nell J. Redfield; to the Committee on Finance.

ESTATE OF NELL J. REDFIELD

e Mr. LAX.ALT. Mr. President, I am today introducing along with my distinguished senior colleague, Senator

CANNON, legislation that will have a dramatic impact of preservation of the Lake Tahoe basin. Our legislation will transfer to the U.S. Forest Service 10,000 acres of pristine forest lands.

The acreage in the Carson Range of the Toiyabe National Forest will be turned over to the Forest Service by the estate of Nell J. Redfield in exchange for a credit against $17 million in estate taxes owed by the estate. In 1976, Senator CANNON and I were pleased to sponsor, and eventually see passed, special legislation which enabled the Forest Service to acquire 29,000 acres in the Tahoe basin in exchange for a credit against taxes owed by the estate of Mrs. Redfield's husband La Vere Redfield.

Mr. President, the Forest Service has identified the land in question as being of high priority for acquisition and have a value disproportionate to their size. Private development of the property would have an adverse impact of the scenic qualities of the basin and could conceivably increase soil erosion and water pollution.

I look forward to the prompt consideration and passage of this legislation by the Senate.e •Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator LAXALT, in sponsoring this legislation for the relief of the estate of Nell J. Redfield.

Mr. President, the history of this issue goes back to 1974 when Nell Redfield's husband, La Vere Redfield, died and left a considerable estate. Included in that estate were some 50,000 acres of prime forest land, 40,000 acres of which were identified by the U.S. Forest Service as being desirable for additions to the Toiyabe National Forest. The availability of this land provided the State of Nevada with a unique opportunity to secure some of the most beautiful, pristine, and scenic areas in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

Significant support in northern Nevada was garnered in favor of a plan to deed some 29,000 acres of the 40,000 total to the Forest Service as a credit toward the $9.9 million in estate taxes due to the Federal Government. Because I believed that everything possible should be done to preserve these lands for future generations, I, along with Senator LAXALT, sponsored an amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976, to permit the U.S. Treasury to accept the 29,000 acres of land in lieu of the Redfield Estate's tax obligation. I am pleased that our efforts were successful and these unspoiled land areas were transferred to the U.S. Forest Service. Not only were these lands of interest to the Forest Service because of their esthetic and recreation value, but they also provided a valuable watershed function.

Since 1976, Mr. President, thousands of Americans, not just Nevadans, have

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13573 enjoyed the beauty of these lands in the Lake Tahoe basin. All parties surely benefited from this action: The Treasury Department's needs were met, the Forest Service was able to secure prime land, and the national interest was se-rved by insuring that these vital areas were preserved. A forced sale of those lands would, indeed, have been a tragedy.

Now, Mr. President, we have another rare opportunity to save at least 10,000 more acres of these lands from commercial and residential development so that the natural resources, open space, quality air and water can be enjoyed by everyone who visits the area. Prior to Nell Redfield's death she entered into negotiations with the Forest Service to transfer the remaining lands of the Redfield estate. However, because the Forest Service was unable to secure sufficient appropriations, the purchase was not completed. When Nell died in 1981, her estate included the remaining lands that were previously identified by the Service as priority lands in 1974.

This bill would, once again, permit the Department of the Treasury to accept the transfer of the Redfield lands to the Forest Service in lieu of the Redfield estate tax liability. Such an action would complete the Forest Service's original 1974 plan, and would insure that a portion of America's natural beauty will be preserved for years to come. Such an opportunity will not be available again, and we must act now so that our children and grandchildren will not miss the special opportunities that these lands offer.

This legislation has the support of those at the local and State levels of Nevada government, and I urge the Senate's support of this important issue.e

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS s. 1008

At the request of Mr. THURMOND, the Senator from Wisconsin <Mr. PRoxMIRE) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1008, a bill to provide that retired officers of the armed services recalled to active duty and detailed to duty with the American Battle Monuments Commission shall not be charged against the authorized end strengths and grade limitations prescribed for the Department of Defense or the military departments concerned.

s. 1215

At the request of Mr. PROXMIRE, the Senator from California <Mr. CRANSTON) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1215, a bill to clarify the circumstances under which territorial provisions in licenses to distribute and sell trademarked malt beverage products are lawful under the antitrust laws.

added as a cosponsor of S. 1450, a bill to provide for the continued deregulation of the Nation's airlines, and for other purposes.

s. 1581

At the request of Mr. JEPSEN, the Senator from Nevada <Mr. CANNON) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1581, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to allow the taxpayer the choice of a tax credit or a deduction for each household which includes a dependent person who is at least 65 years old.

s. 1825

At the request of Mr. ARMSTRONG, the Senator from Colorado <Mr. HART) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1825, a bill to prohibit price support for crops produced on certain lands in the Western part of the United States which have not been used in the past 10 years for agricultural purposes, and for other purposes.

s. 2131

At the request of Mr. MOYNIHAN, the Senator from Massachusetts <Mr. TsoNGAS) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2131, a bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act, to provide for the protection of certain recharge areas overlying sole source underground water supplies.

s. 2147

At the request of Mr. DECONCINI, the Senator from Wisconsin <Mr. KASTEN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2147, a bill to require amendment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide a simple income tax with low marginal rates and to require the Secretary of the Treasury to propose legislation to establish such an income tax.

s. 2174

At the request of Mr. THURMOND, the Senator from Michigan <Mr. RIEGLE) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2174, a bill to recognize the organization known as American Ex-Prisoners of War.

s. 2225

At the request of Mr. BAucus, the Senator from California <Mr. CRANSTON) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2225, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to remove certain limitations on charitable contributions of certain items.

s. 2261

At the request of Mr. PRESSLER, the Senator from Virginia <Mr. WARNER), the Senator from Montana <Mr. BAucus), the Senator from Kentucky <Mr. HUDDLESTON), and the Senator from Alaska <Mr. STEVENS) were added as cosponsors of S. 2261, a bill to authorize funds for the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration for fiscal year 1983.

L 1450 L 2334

At the request of Mr. CANNON, the At the request of Mr. DURENBERGER, Senator from Florida <Mr. CHILES) was the Senator from Pennsylvania <Mr.

HEINZ), and the Senator from Kansas <Mr. DoLE) were added as cosponsors of S. 2334, a bill to provide that registration and polling places for Federal elections be accessible to handicapped and elderly individuals, and for other purposes.

s. 2362

At the request of Mr. ARMSTRONG, the Senator from North Carolina <Mr. HELMS) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2362, a bill to abolish the Synthetic Fuels Corporation.

s. 2366

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the Senator from Florida <Mrs. HAWKINS) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2366, a bill to set aside certain surplus vessels for use in the provision of health and other humanitarian services to developing countries.

s. 2425

At the request of Mr. ROTH, the Senator from Montana <Mr. MELCHER) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2425, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to clarify certain requirements which apply to mortgage subsidy bonds, to make tax-exempt bonds available for certain residential rental property, and for other purposes.

s. 2459

At the request of Mr. RANDOLPH, the Senator from Rhode Island <Mr. PELL) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2459, a bill to strengthen certain national resources, facilities, and services for deaf-blind individuals and other handicapped individuals, and for other purposes.

s. 2572

At the request of Mr. THURMOND, the Senator from Delaware <Mr. ROTH), and the Senator from Wisconsin <Mr. KASTEN) were added as cosponsors of S. 2572, a bill to strengthen law enforcement in the areas of violent crime and drug trafficking, and for other purposes.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 58

At the request of Mr. HATCH, the Senator from Louisiana <Mr. LONG) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 58,. a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution altering Federal fiscal decisionmaking procedures.


At the request of Mr. ROTH, the Senator from Florida <Mr. CHILES) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 159, a joint resolution entitled the "White House Conference on Productivity Act".


At the request of Mr. SPECTER, the Senator from Connecticut <Mr. DODD), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. THURMOND) were added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 183, a joint resolution to authorize and request the President to issue a procla-

13574 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~SENATE June 14, 1982 mation designating October 19 394, a resolution expressing the sense through October 25, 1982, as "Lupus of the Senate to commemorate the bi-Awareness Week". centennial of the great seal of the

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 93 United States. At the request of Mr. DOLE, the Sen-

ator from Maryland <Mr. MATHIAS) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 93, a concurrent resolution to urge the Government of the Soviet Union to facilitate the emigration of certain Soviet citizens, and for other purposes.

SENATE RESOLUTION 270

At the request of Mr. HUDDLESTON, the Senator from Utah <Mr. GARN), the Senator from Alabama <Mr. HEFLIN), the Senator from Kentucky <Mr. FORD), and the Senator from Georgia <Mr. NUNN) were added as cosponsors of Senate Resolution 270, a resolution relating to the "Great Friendship Run".


At the request of Mr. DECONCINI, the Senator from Florida <Mr. CHILES) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 355, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to the need to continue Federal funding for energy conservation and renewable energy resources.


At the request of Mr. CANNON, the Senator from Alaska <Mr. MururnwSKI) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 379, a resolution to urge the Secretary of Transportation and the Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board to convene an AirlineGovernment Summit Conference for the purposes of examining Federal Government policies affecting the airline industry and discussing airlines' fare policies under deregulation.


At the request of Mr. WARNER, the Senator from Oregon <Mr. HATFIELD), the Senator from Virginia <Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr.), the Senator from Alabama <Mr. HEFLIN), the Senator from Nevada <Mr. CANNON), the Senator from Montana <Mr. BAucus), the Senator from Arkansas <Mr. BUMPERS), the Senator from Alabama <Mr. DENTON), the Senator from Ohio <Mr. GLENN), the Senator from Iowa <Mr. JEPSEN), the Senator from Wisconsin <Mr. KASTEN), the Senator from South Carolina <Mr. THURMOND), the Senator from Michigan <Mr. RIEGLE), the Senator from Tennessee <Mr. SASSER), the Senator from Mississippi <Mr. STENNIS), the Senator from Nevada <Mr. LAxALT), the Senator from Maryland <Mr. MATHIAS), the Senator from North Carolina <Mr. EAST), the Senator from Utah <Mr. GARN), the Senator from Oklahoma <Mr. BOREN), the Senator from South Carolina <Mr. HOLLINGS), the Senator from Washington <Mr. JACKSON), the Senator from Idaho <Mr. SYMMS), and the Senator from Illinois <Mr. DIXON) were added as cosponsors of Senate Resolution

SENATE RESOLUTION 409-RESOLUTION RELATING TO DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN INDIAN JUDGMENT FUNDS Mr. MELCHER submitted the fol

lowing resolution; which was referred to the Select Committee on Indian Affairs:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the plan submitted on March 26, 1982, by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Indian Judgment Funds Act of October 19, 1973 <87 Stat. 466), for the distribution of judgment funds to the Gros Ventre Tribe of the Fort Belknap Reservation awarded by the Court of Claims in Docket 649-80L be disapproved.

e Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, I am ~ubmitting today a Senate resolution to disapprove a plan for the distribution of judgment funds awarded by the U.S. Court of Claims in docket 649-80L to the .Gros Ventre Tribe of the Fort Belknap Reservation, Mont.

The plan, as submitted to the Congress in accordance with the Indian Judgment Funds Act of October 19, 1973, stated that it was to conform to an amendment to S. 1986 a bill pending before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. However, the plan makes reference to a specific amendment to S. 1986 that was further amended by the committee in a recent business meeting. To be sure that the distribution of funds in docket 649-80L is in accordance with the decision of the Select Committee, the plan should be disapproved as submitted. If possible, the committee will include authorization to distribute these judgment funds in S. 1986 before the bill is reported to the Senate.e

SENA TE RESOLUTION 410-RELATING TO TITLE I COMPENSATORY EDUCATION GRANTS Mr. TSONGAS submitted the fol

lowing resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources:

S. RES. 410 Resolved, That it is the sense of the

Senate that the Secretary of Education shall, in carrying out section lll<c><2> of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, use the date compiled by the Bureau of the Census in the 1980 decennial census for determining the number of children aged five to seventeen, inclusive.

e Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. President, today I am submitting a sense of the Senate resolution that opposes the use of 1970 census data in determining compensatory education grants under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I raise this issue because it relates to a title I funding

cut that is being implemented outside the budget process.

Title I grants are linked to the number of disadvantaged youngsters identified in the census data. In 1970, 116,900 youngsters in Massachusetts were classified as disadvantaged. The 1980 data show a 25-percent increase to 146,580. But the Department of Education has harked back to the old data.

The purported rationale is the incompleteness of aggregate data from the 1980 census. The missing data pertain to Puerto Rico, which has not yet submitted its findings. I contend, Mr. President, that the administration has a different reason for using outdated figures: To continue its assault on the title I program. This decision is shortsighted and inequitable. It will devastate the title I program in my State of Massachusetts and throughout the rest of the Nation.

Because of a lack of funds, fewer than half the children in this Nation who qualify for title I services are receiving them. There is often the specter of having to rob Peter to save Paul. The first round of budget cuts in title I forced the sacrifice of a math program in Boston to preserve the reading program. We have come to a sad crossroad when we must choose whether to teach reading or arithmetic to poor children.

The capricious disregard of 1980 census data will result in a $6 million loss in title I funds that Massachusetts would otherwise recieve. Additional budget cuts in title I for fiscal year 1983 will cost Massachusetts an additional $4 million. The loss will amount to a total of $10 million. This is a loss we can ill afford.

Mr. President, there has been very little disagreement regarding the success of title I in improving basic reading and math skills for disadvantaged youngsters. There are no horror stories about fraud and abuse related to title I funds. Secretary of Education Bell has frequently lauded title I and has acknowledged its success. This program works. It has the potential for further far-reaching results. For months we have been grappling with the problems of record unemployment and slumping production. We can only exacerbate those problems if we fail to provide educational opportunities for disadvantaged children.

I have written a letter to Secretary Bell asking that he reconsider the use of 1970 data in calculating title I grants. I urge my collegues to do likewise and help rebuff the attack on this vital progr.am.e

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13575 AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED FOR

PRINTING

REGULATION OF CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS

AMENDMENT NO. 1881

<Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. PRESSLER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill <H.R. 3663) to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, to provide for more eff ective regulation of motor carriers of passengers.

EXTENSION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT

AMENDMENT NO. 188"2

<Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. HEFLIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill <S. 1992) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to extend the effect of certain provisions, and for other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO: 1883

<Ordered to be printed and lie on the table.)

Mr. FORD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill CS. 1992) supra.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment to the voter assistance amendment of the voting rights extension bill, S. 1992, which will make the voter assistance provisions effective January 1, 1984.

The voter assistance amendment will guarantee privacy and confidentiality to all voters by giving those voters who require assistance the opportunity to select a person whom they know and trust to help them in the voting booths. Although all States now provide some form of voter assistance to those individuals who require aid due to a disability, some States do not extend- help to persons who cannot read or write, and many place restrictions on who actually may assist a voter.

In many States, voters requiring assistance must accept the aid of a single or bipartisan pair of election officials. Such requirements certainly compromise the confidentiality and hinder the free exercise of the right to vote to those voters who require help in voting. By choosing their own aids, their votes are less likely to be influenced or manipulated.

Although I have some reservations about the necessity for those restrictions placed on the voters' selections by the amendment, I fully support the goal and objective of this amendment to protect the right of all voters with the maximum privacy possible.

In view of the primary elections already underway, and the upcoming general election this fall, there could

be a considerable amount of confusion should this amendment become eff ective upon passage. It is the purpose of my amendment merely to assure that the States have adequate time to review their various assistance provisions, and to make any changes that they may deem necessary in light of this amendment while guaranteeing that its goals will be fully implemented during the next Presidential election.

AMENDMENTS NO. 1884 THROUGH NO. 1892


Mr. EAST submitted nine amendments intended to be proposed by him to the bill CS. 1992) supra.

DAMAGES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT

AMENDMENT NO. 1893


Mr. GORTON <for . himself, Mr. RUDMAN, and Mr. DANFORTH) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the bill CS. 995) to provide for contribution of damages attributable to an agreement by two or more persons to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices under section 4, 4A, or 4C of the Clayton Act.

EXTENSION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT

AMENDMENT NO. 1894


Mr. HAYAKAWA submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill CS. 1992) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to extend the effect of certain provisions, and for other purposes.

NOTICES OF HEARINGS SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION,

MARKETING, AND STABILIZATION OF PRICES

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Marketing, and Stabilization of Prices will hold a hearing on S. 505 on Thursday, June 17. S. 505 would make imported grapes subject to the same marketing regulations as domestically grown grapes.

The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. in room 324, Russell.

Anyone wishing further information should contact the Agriculture Committee staff at 224-2035.

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commit-

tee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, June 14, to continue the markup of food stamp legislation.


SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 15, at 2 p.m., to receive a briefing on intelligence matters.


ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

CONGRESSIONAL PAGES HOLD MEETING ON FLAG DAY-SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES SPEAK Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,

today the helpful pages who serve the Members of Congress met in the House of Representatives Chamber with their teachers, parents and families prior to the annual commencement program for graduating seniors from the Capitol Page School this evening. This pages program held a special significance, I feel, because June 14 is Flag Day throughout the United States.

David Hartman, on today's "Good Morning America" program of ABC, appropriately recognized Flag Day.

In my remarks, the shortest of President Abraham Lincoln's speeches was quoted in full. His words, at the flagraising ceremony at the U.S. Treasury Building, are as follows:

The part assigned to me is to raise the flag, which, if there be no fault in the machinery, I will do, and when up, it will be for the people to keep it up.

I further said: Our flag symbolizes the human spirit. The

noted author, Henry Ward Beecher, wrote: "A thoughtful mind, when it sees a nation's flag, sees not the flag, but the nation itself. And, whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag, the government, the principles, the truths, the history that belongs to the nation that sets it forth."

General Washington, when the StarSpangled Banner was first flown by the Continental Army, is said to have described it in these words:

We take the stars from the heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes-thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing liberty.

On the eve of the First World War, President Woodrow Wilson spoke at a Flag Day ceremony in words which I feel describe our thoughts on this day. He said:

13576 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 This flag, which we honor and under

which we serve, is the emblem of our unity, our power, our thought and our purpose as a nation. It has no other character than that which we give it from generation to generation. The choices are ours.

Thoughtful and inspiring talks were presented to the approximately 200 persons in attendance, by STROM THURMOND, the President pro tempore of the Senate; Senator ORRIN HATCH of Utah; Representative JIM WRIGHT, majority leader of the House; Representative MORRIS UDALL of Arizona and WIU.IAM WHITEHURST, Representative from Virginia.

Andy Glick, a House page and William Norton, of the Democrat cloakroom staff, introduced the speakers.

U.S. POPULATION e Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I wish to report that according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau approximations, the total population of the United States on June 1, 1982, was 231,307,930. This represents an increase of 168,471 since May l, 1982. Since this time last year, our population has grown by an additional 2,205,961.

In 1 short month we have added enough people to our population to more than fill the city of Lincoln, Nebr. Over the past year, our population has increased enough to fill the city of Indianapolis, Ind., more than three times.

Mr. President, the problems of increasing population is not limited to the United States. In most parts of the world the population problem is far more severe and the solution less close at hand than in the United States. The Population Reference Bureau, Inc., located in Washington, D.C., has outlined the progress made in some parts of the world and the tremendous problem that still exists in other areas in its "1982 World Population Data Sheet." Some of the statistics contained in this data sheet are startling. The bureau estimates that the mid-1982 world population is 4,585,000,000, a number that is projected to increase to 6,082,000,000 by the year 2000-up by 1.5 billion · in 18 years. If the current estimated growth rate of 1. 7 percent persists, global numbers will double in just 40 years.

The good news is that progress is being made. Population growth rates have turned downward in the last few

years in all regions except Africa. Populations have stopped growing or, in a few cases, begun to decline in the industralized countries. In the less developed countries growth is still rapid. The proportion of people in the world who live in less developed countries is much greater than in the recent past and will continue to increase.

Mr. President, the impact of this continued growth in the less developed countries is incalculable. As we all know, population increases can detrimentally affect, among other things, every country's economy, employment picture, and environment. As the world grows smaller, the problems of one country become more and more the problems of all countries. For this reason, it is up to the United States to provide nations around the world with leadership in the common battle against the population explosion.

Because ef the importance of this issue, Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD the "1982 World Population Data Sheet," just issued by the Population Reference Bureau. I think many will find the information contained in the data sheet extremely informative.

The material follows:

1982 WORLD POPULATION DATA SHEET OF THE POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU, INC.

Labor Population Natural ~%~1~~~; Population Population Population Life force Per estimate, Crude Crude increase estimate projected projected Infant Total Population expectan- Urban eng_aged

~~~I mid-1982 birth death (annual, time" in c. 1940 to 2000 to 2020 mortality fertility <age cy at population In Region or country 1

(mil- rate 3 rate 3 years (at (mil- (mil- (mil- rate 7 rate 8 15/65 + birth (per- agricul- 1980 per- current (percent) cent) io tu re lions) 2 cent) 4 lions) 2 lions) 8 lions) 8 (years) 8 (US$) 12 rate) 5 (per-

cent) i 1

World .......... ............................................................... 4,585.0 29 11 1.7 40 2,277.0 6,082.0 7,678.0 85.0 3.9 35/6 60 37 46 $2,620

More developed .. .............. ....................................................... 1,152.0 15 10 7.6 116 798.0 1,248.0 1,310.0 20.0 2.0 23/11 72 69 13 8,130

~ :;:= .. iexc1iidiiig.ciiiiiai' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3,434.0 33 12 2.1 33 1,479.0 4,835.0 6,368.0 96.0 4.6 39/ 4 57 26 60 680 2,434.0 38 14 2.4 29 949.0 3,635.0 4,968.0 108.0 5.3 42/3 53 32 60 860

Africa ................................ .................................... 498.0 46 17 2.9 24 175.0 847.0 1,344.0 121.0 6.5 45/3 49 28 66 770

Northern Africa ............................ .. ......... ................................ 117.0 44 13 3.1 22 42.0 190.0 265.0 110.0 6.5 43/3 54 43 52 1,110

Algeria ........... .. ............................ .................................. 20.1 46 14 3.2 22 7.7 36.3 56.8 118.0 7.4 47/4 56 61 51 1,920

~~t.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : ::::: : :: : ::::::::::::: 44.8 43 12 3.1 22 16.9 66.7 92.4 103.0 6.0 40/4 55 45 44 580 3.2 47 13 3.5 20 .8 6.1 10.0 100.0 7.4 49/4 55 52 17 ~.640

Morocco ............................... ....................................... .. . 22.3 45 14 3.2 22 7.6 37.5 56.5 107.0 6.9 46/3 55 41 52 860 Sudan ................................ ........ ................................. . 19.9 47 17 3.0 23 6.1 33.1 51.3 124.0 6.6 44/3 46 25 77 470 Tunisia ························· ··· ························ 6.7 35 11 2.4 29 2.9 9.6 12.4 100.0 5.6 43/4 58 52 32 1,310

Western Africa .. ...................................... .............. .................. 150.0 49 19 3.0 23 47.0 265.0 449.0 140.0 6.8 46/3 47 22 64 750

Benin ............................................................................. 3.7 49 19 3.0 23 1.3 6.6 12.0 154.0 6.7 46/4 46 14 46 300 Cape Verde .................................................................... .3 29 8 2.1 33 .2 .4 .5 . 82.0 3.1 36/4 60 20 57 300 Gambia ...... ......................... ......................................... .6 49 28 2.1 33 .2 1.0 1.8 198.0 6.4 42/2 41 19 78 250 Ghana ................................ ................... ......................... 12.4 48 17 3.1 22 3.7 21.5 32.7 103.0 6.7 47/4 48 36 52 420 Guinea ............... .. ........ ................................................... 5.3 46 21 1.5 27 2.1 8.8 15.0 165.0 6.2 43/3 44 19 81 290 Guinea-Bissau ..................................... ................ ............ .8 40 21 1.9 36 .4 1.2 1.8 149.0 5.4 38/4 41 24 83 160 lwry Coast ................................... ... ....................... ....... 8.8 48 18 2.9 24 2.5 15.1 25.0 127.0 6.7 45/2 46 38 80 1,150 Liberia ......... ............................ .... ......................... .. ........ 2.0 50 20 3.0 23 .8 3.8 6.7 154.0 6.9 41/4 53 33 72 520 Mali.. ..................................... ............... .. ........................ 7.1 52 24 2.8 24 2.3 12.2 21.4 154.0 7.0 48/1 42 17 87 190 Mauritania ................. ........... .......... .. .............................. 1.7 50 22 2.8 25 .6 3.0 5.4 143.0 6.9 42/6 42 23 83 320

~l~:;fa· : ::: :: : :: ::::::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :::::::::::::: .............. 5.8 51 22 2.9 24 1.9 10.4 18.7 146.0 7.1 43/3 42 13 89 330

82.3 50 18 3.2 22 24.0 149.7 258.1 135.0 6.9 47/2 48 20 54 1,010 5.9 48 22 2.6 27 2.3 9.7 15.3 147.0 7.1 44/3 42 33 75 450 Senegal ........................................... .......................... ..... 3.7 46 19 2.6 26 1.6 6.1 9.8 208.0 6.2 41/5 46 25 66 270 Sierra Leone .. ... .................. .......................... ............. ..... 2.8 48 19 2.9 24 1.0 4.8 8.0 109.0 6.5 50/4 46 17 68 410 Togo .......... ........... .. ............ ..................... ....................... 6.7 48 22 2.6 27 3.l 10.9 17.2 211.0 6.5 44/3 42 8 82 190 Upper Volta ....... ............. ................................................

Eastern Africa ........ .......................................................... ....... 141.0 48 18 3.0 23 50.0 246.0 402.0 112.0 6.7 46/3 47 15 78 310

Burundi ........................ ................................... ............... 4.4 45 23 2.2 31 2.0 7.0 11.7 122.0 5.9 44/2 41 2 84 200 Comoros ...... ............. ............... ........ ············· ················ .4 44 14 3.0 23 .1 .6 .9 93.0 6.2 43/3 46 19 64 300

.5 49 22 2.6 26 .1 .7 1.0 74 480 ~lh~~L::::::::::: : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 30.5 50 25 2.5 28 13.3 50.6 79.6 147.0 6.7 43/3 40 14 80 140

17.9 53 14 3.9 18 4.8 35.4 59.3 87.0 8.1 50/4 54 I4 78 420

::"f ~a~'.:::::::: : :::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : ::::::: : :: 92 45 18 2.7 26 3.6 15.2 24.2 71.0 6.4 44/4 46 18 84 350 6.6 51 19 3.2 22 2.4 12.0 20.8 172.0 7.0 44/4 46 10 84 230 1.0 27 7 2.0 35 .4 1.2 1.5 32.9 3.1 35/4 64 43 29 1,060 Mauritius ........................................................................

12.7 45 19 2.6 27 4.9 20.7 32.7 115.0 6.1 45/2 46 8 65 270 Mozambique ........................................................... .. ...... .5 25 7 1.8 38 .2 .7 .8 20.0 3.1 35/4 65 41 29 3,830 Reunion .... .............. ......... ............. ..................................

5.4 50 19 3.0 23 1.7 9.5 15.5 107.0 7.0 51/2 46 4 90 200 Rwanda .............. ............................................................ .1 28 7 2.1 34 (•) .1 .1 26.6 4.2 38/6 65 25 18 1,770 Seychelles .................... ..................................................

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13577 1982 WORLD POPULATION DATA SHEET OF THE POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU, INC.-Continued

Region or country 1

Population estimate, mid-1982

(mi~ lions) 2

Crude birth

rate 3

Crude death rate 3

Natural increase (annual,

percent) 4

~Jb1\~; Population Population Population lime" in estimate projected projected years (at c.(~11~o to(~~1~o to(~~1~o ~~[:jnJ lions) • lions) • lions) •

Infant mortality rate•

Total fertility rate 8

Population <age

15/65 + (percent)

life Urban ex~~n- population

birth (per-(years) 9 cent) 1 o

Labor force

engaged in

agriculture (per

cent) 11

Per

~w~~I J980

(US$) 12

Somalia............................................................... ........... 4.6 46 20 2.6 26 1.5 7.2 12.0 147.0 6.1 45/2 42 30 80 Tanzania........................... .............................................. 19.9 46 14 3.2 22 6.8 35.3 59.9 103.0 6.6 46/4 50 13 82 260 Uganda ............................... ................................... .. ...... 13.7 48 16 3.2 22 4.3 23.9 39.0 97.0 6.2 45/3 52 7 81 280 Zambia ...... .......................... .......... ................................. 6.0 49 17 3.2 22 2.1 11.0 19.1 106.0 7.0 46/3 48 40 67 560 Zimbabwe... .................. ............... .. ........... ........ 8.0 47 14 3.4 21 2.1 14.7 23.9 74.0 6.7 51/2 54 20 59 630

============================================================================ Middle Africa .. ....... . . ................. .................. .. __ 56_.o ___ 4_6 ___ 20 ___ 2_.6 ___ 2_1 __ 2_4._o __ 90_.0 __ 14_5_.0 __ 12_2._o __ 6_.o __ 4:.....4/_3 ___ 4_5 ___ 3_o ___ 75 ___ 3_7o

Angola.............. .................................. 6.8 48 23 2.4 28 3.7 11.3 19.2 154.0 6.4 44/3 41 21 58 470 Cameroon ........................... ............................. 8.9 45 20 2.5 28 4.3 13.8 20.9 109.0 5.7 43/4 46 35 81 670 Central Africa Republic ..... ... ...................... 2.4 44 22 2.2 32 I.I 3.9 6.6 149.0 5.9 4J/4 42 4J 88 300 Chad .......... ............ 4.6 44 24 2.0 35 2.3 6.7 10.4 J49.0 5.9 41/3 40 J8 84 J20 Congo............ .................... 1.6 45 J9 2.6 27 .7 2.7 4.6 129.0 6.0 43/3 46 37 35 730 Equatorial Guinea ........................ ................................. .3 42 J9 2.3 30 .2 .4 .7 143.0 5.7 42/4 46 54 75 Gabon.......................................... .7 34 22 1.2 58 .4 .9 1.2 117.0 4.7 34/ 6 44 36 77 3,680 Sao Tome and Principe.. . ............................................ .I 42 JO 3.2 2J .I .I .I 49.7 33 490 Zaire .............................. ...... ............................ 30.3 46 19 2.8 25 J0.7 50.5 81.3 112.0 6.1 44/3 46 30 75 220

============================================================================ Southern Africa ............... ... ....... ................... ......................... 34.0 37 J2 2.5 28 J2.0 55.0 82.0 98.0 5.2 42/4 59 47 35 2,J20

Botswana ................ . .... ............................................. .9 5J J8 3.3 2J .4 1.6 3.0 83.0 6.5 46/5 48 29 8J 9JO Lesotho .................. ............................................... ......... 1.4 40 J6 2.4 29 .7 2.2 3.3 115.0 5.9 40/ 4 50 4 84 390 Namibia................... ............................... I.I 44 J5 2.8 24 .4 1.8 2.9 120.0 5.9 44/3 51 45 49 1,410 South Africa .............................. 30.0 36 J2 2.4 28 J0.3 48.9 71.5 96.0 5.1 42/4 60 50 29 2,290 Swaziland ................................................................... ·===.6===48===J9===2=.8===2=4===.2===1.=0===l.=7 ==J3=5.=0 ===6.5===48=/3===4=6===9===7=4 ==6=80

Asia ........ ......................................................................... ... =2=,6=71=.0===3=0 ===ll===J=.9===3=7 ==J,2=4=5.0==3=,5=28=.0==4,=368=·=0==9=1.0===4=.2==3=6/=4 ===5=8===2=3 ===59==·=92=0

Asia (excluding China) ............................... .. ........... ............. _l_,6_71_.o ___ 35 ___ J_4 ___ 2~.1 ___ 3_3 __ 71_5._o __ 2._32_8._o __ 2,_96_8._0 __ J_0_8.o ___ 5.o __ 4_0_/4 ___ 5_3 ___ 3_o ___ 5_7 __ l_,3_40

Southwest Asia ............. ............................................ .............. J06.0 39 12 2.7 26 36.0 J71.0 250.0 J02.0 5.6 43/4 58 52 48 3,520 Bahrain. ......................................................................... .4 37 8 2.8 24 .I .7 1.0 53.0 7.4 4J/3 66 78 3 5,560 Cyprus................................... .............. ........................... .6 22 9 1.2 55 .4 .7 .8 J8.0 2.3 25/10 72 53 35 3,560 Gaza........................ ............................ ........................... .5 51 14 3.7 19 .3 .7 .9 92.0 90 Iraq .............................................................................. 14.0 47 13 3.4 20 4.0 24.2 37.4 78.0 7.0 49/ 4 55 72 30 3,020 Israel..... ..................................................... .. .................. 4.1 24 7 1.7 40 1.5 5.6 7.1 14.1 3.5 33/8 73 89 6 4,500 Jordan ............................................................................ 3.5 47 10 3.6 19 1.0 6.5 10.3 69.0 7.3 5J/3 60 42 27 1,420 Kuwait .................................................................... 1.5 42 5 3.7 J9 .I 2.9 4.6 39.1 6.1 44/2 69 88 2 22,840 Lebanon .................................................... ..................... 2.7 30 9 2.1 32 1.0 4.0 5.3 41.0 4.3 43/5 65 76 11 Oman .......... ................................................................... .9 49 19 3.0 23 .3 1.7 2.6 128.0 7.2 45/3 47 7 62 4,380 Qatar.......................................................................... .... .3 37 10 2.8 25 (•) .4 .6 53.0 6.8 45/3 57 86 26,080 Saudi Arabia .............................. ............................... ... JI.I 46 14 3.2 22 3.2 20.5 32.7 114.0 7.3 45/3 53 67 6J 11,260 Syria ....................................... .......................... ......... .... 9.7 46 9 3.8 J8 2.7 J8.7 30.0 62.0 7.4 48/3 64 47 32 1,340 Turkey .......... .. .......................... ...................................... 47.7 33 JO 2.2 31 17.8 70.7 95.2 123.0 4.3 40/4 60 44 56 1,460 United Arab Emirates........................................ ............. 1.2 30 7 2.3 30 .I 1.9 2.8 53.0 6.8 34/3 62 72 5 30,070 Yemen, North ............................... ... ·-···························· 5.5 49 24 2.4 28 2.5 8.8 J3.5 J62.0 6.8 45/3 4J JO 75 460 Yemen, South .............. ....................................... 2.0 48 2J 2.7 26 .8 3.4 5.3 146.0 7.0 46/3 44 37 40 420

Middle South Asia .................................. ............................... 988.0 38 16 2.2 32 422.0 1,396.0 J,797.0 125.0 5.5 4J/3 49 22 64 230 -------------------------------------------~

J 5.1 48 23 2.5 27 7 .0 26.5 39.3 205.0 6.9 45/3 40 11 78 93.3 47 19 2.8 25 38.6 J49.2 210.1 136.0 6.3 42/3 46 JO 77 120

1.4 43 21 2.2 3J .7 2.0 2.9 150.0 6.2 42/3 43 4 94 80

Afghanistan ································-·································· Bangladesh ........ ........................................................... . Bhutan ................................................ .......................... . India .................................................. ............................ . 713.8 35 J5 2.0 35 316.3 967.6 1.196.8 123.0 5.3 40/3 49 22 64 240 Iran ............................ ................................................. . 41.2 44 14 3.1 22 14.0 66.5 95.5 J08.0 6.4 44/4 58 50 37 Maldives ................ ............... ....................................... . .2 47 14 3.1 22 .I .3 .4 120.0 45/2 11 260

14.5 44 2J 2.3 30 7.7 20.7 28.5 J50.0 6.5 40/3 43 5 93 140 93.0 44 J6 2.8 25 31.3 142.7 J98.2 126.0 6.3 46/3 5J 28 54 300 ~rstaii :::::::::::::::: : : :: : ::: ::: : :: : ·· · ·········· · ::::~::::::::::::::::::::

Sri Lanka .. . .. .................. ....................... . 15.2 29 7 2.2 3J 6.0 20.9 25.6 37.1 3.4 39/4 65 27 54 270

Southeast Asia . ............. .......... .. ..................................... ..... 374.0 34 12 2.2 32 152.0 519.0 658.0 86.0 4.8 42/3 53 23 65 580 -------------------------------------------~

Brunei..................... ....................................................... .2 28 4 2.4 29 (•) .4 .5 20.0 5.1 34/3 66 76 11,890 Burma................................................................. ........... 37.1 39 J4 2.4 29 J6.0 55.1 76.7 JOl.O 5.5 40/4 52 27 65 180 Democratic Kampuchea .................................................. 6.1 38 19 1.9 36 3.0 9.2 11.7 2J2.0 37 14 74 East Timor ..................................................................... .5 44 2J 2.3 30 .5 .7 1.0 42/3 42 11 60 Indonesia............................... .............. ......................... 151.3 34 16 1.7 40 70.5 J97.l 236.4 93.0 4.7 42/2 48 20 65 Laos ............................................ :...... ............................ 3.7 44 20 2.4 29 1.6 5.5 7.4 J29.0 6.2 42/3 44 15 74

~~~i~es :::::::::::::::::::::::::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : ::::::::: m ~~ ~ ~: i ~~ J~:~ m l~~:~ ~g:~ ~:~ mj ~i ~~ :~ ~~~~l~e_ :::::::::: :::: : :: : :: ::: : :: : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 4~: ~ u ~ g ~~ Jd 6~:~ 8~:~ U:& t~ m~ ~~ l~~ 7j Vietnam ................ .................. 56.6 37 9 2.8 25 23.0 80.0 J02.3 100.0 5.3 4J/4 53 19 71

420

1,670 720

4,480 670

============================================================================ East Asia ...... . .. ................. .............................. . _J_,2_04_.0 ___ 2_J _____ 1_.4 ___ 5_o __ 6_3_5.0 __ 1_.4_4J_.o __ J,'-66_3._o __ 4_1.0 ___ 2_.7 __ 3_J/_6 ___ 6_6 ___ 2_2 ___ 54 __ J:.....,33_o

China 1 • •••••••••...•• . •......• ••• .•••••••••• . •. ••.. . ••••.• .. .••••••••• ••.• ••• . • J,000.0 22 1.4 48 530.0 J,200.0 1,400.0 45.0 2.8 32/6 65 J3 6J 290 Hong Kong..................................................................... 5.0 17 1.2 59 1.8 6.6 7.4 J3.4 2.4 27 /6 76 90 J 4,2JO Japan ....................................... ...................................... 118.6 14 .8 92 72.5 J26.4 J29.0 7.4 1.8 24/9 76 76 9 9,890 Korea, North .................................................................. J8.7 32 2.4 29 8.0 27.3 35.8 34.0 4.5 40/4 62 33 47 Korea, South........................................ ........... 41.1 J9 1.4 50 J5.5 52.8 62.2 34.0 2.6 38/4 66 55 34 1,520 Macao .......................................................................... .3 28 2.0 35 .4 .4 .5 38/5 98 2,020 Mongolia ................... ..................................................... 1.8 38 2.9 24 .8 2.7 3.7 55.0 5.4 43/3 62 50 50 Taiwan..... .......................... ............................................ 18.5 23 1.8 38 6.0 24.6 29.6 24.0 2.7 33/4 71 66 30 ============================================================================

North America .............................. ......... .................. ........... .. __ 2_56_.o ___ J6 ______ .7 ___ 9_5 __ 14_5._o __ 28_6._o __ 3_0_8._o __ J_2.o ___ l.9 __ 2_3_/l_J ___ 7_4 ___ 7_4 _____ 11_.:._,2_40

Canada ................ ......................................... .................. 24.4 J6 .8 82 11.7 26.9 33.4 J0.9 1.8 24/9 74 76 10,J30 United States ............................... .................. ........ : ..... ==2=32=.0===J=6======.7===9=6==1=3=3.1==2=59=.0==27=4.=l ==l=l.8===1=.9==2=3/=11===7=4===7=4 ====J=l'=,36=0

Lalin America ..... ............. .............. ·············· ··························==3=78=.0===32======2=.3===3=0==12=9.=0==54=9.=0 ==7=6=9.=0 ==6=7.0===4=.4==4=0=/4===63===6=3 ===4=0 ==l=,9=10

Middle America ......... .................................... ........................ __ 9_5_.o ___ 33 _____ 2_.6 ___ 2_6 __ 21_.0 __ 14_2.0 __ 2_02_.0 __ 60_.0 ___ 5_.o __ 43_/3 ___ 64 ___ 6_o ___ 42 _ _...:l,_840

.2 40 12 2.8 25 .I .3 .3 49/4 49 29 1.080 2.3 29 4 2.5 28 .6 3.4 4.6 24.2 3.7 38/4 70 43 36 J,730 5.0 35 8 2.7 26 1.6 8.6 13.5 53.0 5.8 46/3 62 41 4J 590 7.7 42 10 3.2 22 2.2 12.7 J9.8 70.2 5.7 45/3 58 36 57 1,110 4.0 47 12 3.5 20 I.I 7.0 12.0 88.0 7.1 48/3 .57 36 6J 560

Belize ..... ............................. ........................................ . Costa Rica .................................................................... . El Salvador .............. ...................................................... . Guatemala .......................... ........................................... . Honduras ..................................................... .................. .

13578

Region or country 1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE June 14, 1982 1982 WORLD POPULATION DATA SHEET OF THE POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU, INC.-Continued

Population estimate, mid-1982

(millions) 2

Crude birth

rate 3

Crude death rate 3

Natural increase (annual,

percent) 4

~~~1\~; Population Population Population time" in estimate projected projected years (at c.(~1io to(~~o to(~~io ;~{:)~ lions) 2 lions) s lions) a

Infant mortality

rate 7

Total fertility rate 8

P laf Life Urban ~ ag~ expectan- population

15/ 65 + ~rtii1 (per-(percent) · (years) 9 cent) 1 o

labor force

engaged in

agriculture (per

cent) 11

Per capital GNP, 1980

(US$) 1 2

Mexico ........................................................................... 71.3 32 6 2.5 27 19.8 102.3 140.0 56.0 4.8 42/3 65 67 40 2,130 Nicaragua....................................................................... 2.6 47 12 3.4 20 .8 4.6 7.9 90.0 6.6 48/2 55 53 42 720 Panama .......................................................................... ==l=.9===2=7===6===2=.1===3=3===·6===2=.7===3.=6 ==34=.0===4=.1==4=3/=4 ===7=0===5=1 ===51====1,=730

Caribbean ................................................................................ __ 30_.0 ___ 2_1 ___ 1 ___ 1_.8 ___ 3_8 __ 1_4.0 ___ 41_.o __ 5_3._0 __ 6_2.0 ___ 3_.7 __ 3_8/_6 ___ 6_6 ___ 5_2 _ _ _ 39_--'l,~540

Antigua and Barbuda ...................................... ............... .I 16 6 1.1 64 (•) .I .2 31.5 2.6 34 1,270 Bahamas........................................................................ .2 22 5 1.7 41 .I .3 .4 31.9 3.5 44/4 69 54 3,300 Barbados........................................................................ .3 17 8 .8 82 .2 .3 .4 25.1 2.2 31/9 70 4 17 3,040

~iri1ea ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :::::::::::::::::::::::::: 9: ~ ~1 ~ 1 :~ ~~ t~~ 12J 14:~ rn:~ 1.9 35/11 73 65 24 620 Dominican Republic........................................................ 5.7 37 9 2.8 25 1.8 8.6 12.4 68.0 5.4 45/3 60 51 57 1.140 Grenada................................................ .......................... .I 24 7 1.8 39 .I .I .2 15.4 70 690 Guadeloupe..................................................................... .3 19 6 1.3 54 .2 .3 .4 25.0 2.9 32/6 69 43 18 3,870 Haiti... ........................................................................ -... 6.1 42 16 2.6 27 2.7 9.4 13.5 115.0 6.0 41/4 51 25 67 270 Jamaica ............................................... ........................... 2.2 27 6 2.1 33 1.2 2.9 3.6 16.2 3.7 40/6 70 50 29 1,030 Martinique...................................................................... .3 23 7 1.6 43 .2 .3 .4 22.0 2.9 32/6 69 66 16 4,640 Netherlands Antilles ....................................................... .2 29 7 2.2 32 .I .3 .4 25.0 38/5 90 I 4,290 Puerto Rico .................................................................... 3.3 23 6 1.7 41 1.9 4.1 4.9 20.4 2.8 31/7 74 70 6 3,010 St. Lucia ........................................................................ .I 32 7 2.4 29 .I .2 .2 33.0 50/ 5 67 850 St. Vincent and the Grenadines ..................................... .I 35 7 2.8 25 .I .2 .2 38.1 67 520 TrinidadandTobago ...................................................... ==1=.1===2=5===6===1=.9===3=7===·5===1=.4===1.=6==2=6.4===2=.7==3=7/=4===6=9===4=9===12====4,~370

Tropical South America ........................................................... __ 2_09_.o ___ 3_3 _____ 2_.4 ___ 2_8 __ 6_7.o __ 3_13_.o __ 45_2._0 __ 7_4.o ___ 4_.5 __ 4_1/_:t ___ 6_2 ___ 6_2 ___ 37_--'1,~890

Bolivia... .. ............... .. ...................................................... 5.6 45 18 2.7 25 2.5 9.3 16.7 131.0 6.6 42/4 49 42 46 570 Brazil.... ......................................................................... 127.7 32 9 2.4 29 41.2 186.7 267.2 77.0 U 41/3 62 63 39 2,050 Columbia ........................................................................ 25.6 28 8 2.0 35 9.1 36.3 47.1 56.0 3.8 40/3 62 60 28 1,180 Ecuador.......................................................................... 8.5 42 10 3.1 22 2.5 14.6 23.3 82.0 6.3 45/ 4 60 45 45 1,220 Guyana........................................................................... .9 28 7 2.1 33 .3 1.2 1.5 44.0 3.9 44/ 4 69 30 22 690 Paraguay................................................................... ..... 3.3 34 7 2.6 26 1.1 5.4 7.9 47.0 4.9 45/3 64 40 44 1,340 Peru ............................................................................... 18.6 38 11 2.8 25 6.5 30.7 50.2 88.0 5.3 44/3 57 67 40 930 SUriname........................................................................ .4 28 8 2.0 35 .2 .6 .8 36.0 51/4 67 45 18 2,840 Venezuela ............................................................... ........ 18.4 34 5 2.9 24 3.7 28.3 37.4 42.0 4.3 43/3 66 76 19 3,630

==========================================================~~ Temperate South America ....................................................... __ 43_.o ___ 2_4 _____ 1_.5 ___ 4_5 __ 2_1.0 ___ 53_.o __ 6_1._0 __ 4_D.0 ___ 2_.9 __ 2...:.9/_7 ___ 6:..:.8 __ ...:.8:..2 __ :..14~--=:2·::::360

~f~~~i.~_:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :::::::::::::::::::::::: m ~~ ~ t~ :~ 1g ru m ~~:~ ~ :~ m~ ~~ ~~ rn B~ Uruguay .............................................. ........................... ==3=.0===1=9===11===.8===8=7===2.0===3=.4===4.=0==3=7.4===2=.8==2=7/=10===7=0===84=====16====2,~820

Europe ...................................... .. ................................ ............. ==4=88=.0= ==1=4===10===·4===18=7==3=7=7.0==5=11=.0==50=8.=0==1=6.0===l=.9==2=3/=13===7=2===6=9===16==='7,=990

Northern Europe ....................................... ............................... _ _ 82_.0 ___ 1_3 ___ 1_1 ___ .2 ___ 35_2 __ 6_8._0 __ 84_.o __ 8_3_.0 __ 1_1._o __ 1_.9 __ 2....:21_14 ___ 7....:.3 ___ 7_4 __ _:__...:.9:.:..:..::,020

Denmark ....................................... .. ............................... 5.1 11 11 0 3.8 5.1 4.8 8.5 1.5 20/14 7 4 84 8 12,950 Finland ....................... .................................................... 4.8 13 9 .4 187 3.7 4.9 4.7 7.7 1.6 21/ 12 73 62 11 9,720 Iceland ........................................................................... .2 20 7 1.4 50 .I .3 .3 5.4 2.5 29/10 76 88 12 11,330 Ireland............................................................................ 3.5 22 10 1.2 57 3.0 4.1 4.9 12.4 3.2 31/11 73 58 19 4,880 Norway .......................................................................... 4.1 12 10 .2 277 3.0 4.1 4.0 8.8 1.7 23/14 75 44 8 12,650 Sweden .......................................................................... 8.3 12 11 .I 990 6.4 8.0 7.4 6.7 1.7 20/16 75 83 6 13,520 United Kingdom ............................................... .............. ==56=.1===1=4===12===·2===46=2==4=8.2===57=.1==5=&.=5==1=1.8===1=.9==2=2/=15===7=3===7=7 ===2===7,=920

Western l.urope....................................................................... 154.0 12 11 .2 423 113.0 155.0 142.0 11.0 1.7 21/ 14 73 81 7 12,600 -----------------------------------------~

Austria ........................................................................... 7.6 12 12 O 6.7 7.3 6.8 13.9 1.7 21/15 72 54 11 10,230 Belgium.......................................................................... 9.9 13 12 .I 630 8.3 9.9 9.3 11.0 1.7 21/14 73 95 3 12,180 France................... ............................................ ............. 54.2 15 10 .5 147 41.3 56.4 56.6 10.0 2.0 22/14 74 78 8 11.730 Germany, West .............................................................. 61.7 10 12 .2 43.0 59.9 49.3 12.6 1.5 20/15 72 85 6 13,590 Luxembourg ................................................................... .4 12 12 0 .3 .3 .3 11.5 1.5 20/13 71 68 14,510 Netherlands .................................................................... 14.3 13 8 .5 147 8.9 14.9 14.2 8.6 1.6 23/11 75 88 11,470 SWitzerland .................................................................... ==6=.3===1=2===9===·2===34=7===4.2===6=.2===5.=6===8.5===1=.5==2=0/=14===7=5===5=8====1=6,=440

Eastern Europe ........................................................................ __ 1_11_.0 ___ 1_1 ___ 1_1 ___ .6 ___ 11_7 __ 9_3.0 __ 1_20_.0 __ 12_1._0 __ 2_1.0 ___ 2_.2 __ 2_3/_12 ___ 1_1 ___ 5_9 ___ 28 __ 4,_390

~~:klYak~·:::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::: : ::::::~:::::::: 1~:~ I~ n :: m 1~:~ 1N &~ m H mn H ~~ rt a~ Germany, East ............................................................... 16.7 15 14 0 16.8 16.8 15.3 12.1 1.9 20/16 72 76 10 7,180

~~~~.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :::::::::::::::::::::::: : :::::: m ~~ 1~ I.~ 71 3u i~:~ m m g ~1m ~~ ~ ~ij ~:~~ Rornania ......................................................................... ==22=.6===1=9===10===·9===8=0 ==15=.9===25=.6==2=8.=3 ==31=.6===2=.5==26=/=10===7=0===49===4=8==='2,=340

Southern Europe ...................................................................... __ 1_41_.0 ___ 1_4 ______ .5 ___ 13_1 __ 1_03_.0 __ 1_52_.0 __ 15_6._o __ 19_.0 ___ 2_.0 __ 25_/_11 ___ 1_2 ___ 6_1 ___ 23_--'5,_090

Albania ........................................................................... 2.8 29 7 2.2 32 1.1 3.9 4.8 47.0 4.2 38/5 69 37 61 Greece............................................................................ 9.8 16 9 .7 96 7.4 10.6 11.3 18.7 2.3 23/13 73 65 38 4,520

~~ria·:::: : : : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 57:: u 1~ :~ m 43:~ 57:: 54:1 iu ~:~ m~2 ~r ~~ 1i ~::n Portugal......................................................................... 9.9 16 9 .7 100 7.7 11.2 12.1 26.0 2.2 28/10 70 31 27 2,350

~~Via::::::::: : ::::::::::: : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~:~ B ~ :~ ~~ m m m ~u ~:ij ~~w ~~ rs fg ~:~ro =================================================================== U.S.S.R ......... ........................................................................... ==2=70=.0===1=8===10===·8===8=8==1=9=5.0==3=02=.0==34=6.=0 ==36=.0===2=.3==24=/=10===6=9===62===17===4,=550

Oceania ................................................................................... __ 24_.0 ___ 21 _____ 1_.3 ___ 5_5 __ 11_.0 __ 3_0._o __ 35_.o __ 4_2.0 ___ 2_.7 __ 31_/8 ___ 69 ___ 1_2 ___ 20_.........:.7,6_oo

~!:'.~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 15:~ i~ ~ d i~ 7J 18:~ 1~:~ M:~ u mi· ~r u 4~ rn~ New Zealand .................................................................. 3.1 17 8 .9 80 1.6 3.8 4.3 12.6 2.1 28/9 73 82 10 7,090 Papua-New Guinea ......................................................... 3.2 44 16 2.8 25 1.1 5.2 7.5 104.0 6.l 44/4 50 13 83 780 Samoa, Western ............................................................. .2 37 7 3.0 23 .1 .2 .2 40.0 5.8 48/3 65 20 61 Solomoo Islands ............................................................. .2 44 9 3.5 20 .1 .4 .7 78.0 6.2 48/3 11 460 Vanuatu .......... ........................... .................................... .1 45 17 2.8 25 (•) .2 .3 101.0 530

General notes: "World Population Data Sheets" of various years should not be used as a lime series. Changes in data from year to year often reflect improved or revised estimates incorporated in successive editions, particularly in the case of the Jess developed countries (LDC's) . "Figures I~ regions and the ~rid:'.' Population totals_ include small areas no! listed sepa~tely; reg~I data ha~ been i~tly rounded a!Xf. rates and, percentages are ~ighted avera~. '. 'Sources of data and estimates:" Unless othelWlse cited, basic data used come pnmanly from the following sources: United NatlOfls (U.N.); Demograpl11c Yearbook' and "PoptJfation and Vital Statistics Report' of the U.N. Statistical Office; periodic "Working

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13579 Papers and "Assessments" of world population of the U.N. Population Division. Other sources include: "Wooing Population," 1979 and 1981 editions, of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, published World Bank estimates and projections, County Reports of the World Fertility Survey, official country publications, special studies, and direct communication with demographers and statisticians both in the U.S. and overseas. Thanks are expressed to staff members of the International Demographic Data Center and Foreign Demographic Analysis Division of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the UN's Population Division and Statistical Office, the Office of Population of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the World Bank for their assistance in obtainin~ some of the data and estimates. PRB demographer Cary Davis performed computer runs for the Data Sheet and interm Ken Kochanek gave valuable statistical assistance. The PRB assumes responsibility for all figures shown. "Meaning of symbols:' Dashes(-) indicate that data or estimates are unavailable (•) indicates a population estimate less than 50,000 in 1940.

1 The "Data Sheet" lists all geopolitical entities with a population larger than 150,000 and all members of the United Nations. Classification of "more developed" and "less developed" regions follows U.N. practice, whereby "more developed" regions comprise all of Europe, and North America, plus Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the U.S.S.R. All other regions and/or countries are classified as "less developed."

2 Based upon data from a recent census or by incorporating estimates made !JY the U.N. the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and official country publications. The estimate for circa 1940 was obtained with primary consideration given to the U.N. "Demographic Yearbook," 1959 and 1962 editions, the U.N.'s 1963 "Assessment,' and special studies. Due to the many different geographic definitions of countries, boundary changes, and the presumably poorer quality of data in 1940, these estimates are not in all cases completely consistent with population figures given elsewhere on the "Data Sheet."

•Annual number of births or deaths per 1,000 population. For more developed countries (MDC's) with complete registration of vital events, nearly all rates refer to 1979 or 1980. For LDC's most of whom lack complete registration systems, estimates refer to some point in the late 1970s. "Crude" rates, particularly the crude death rate, can be affected by a population's age composition; thus, the higher death rates for MDC's are a reflection of the larger proportion of the older population in those countries (which is in turn caused by lower birth rates in MDC's) .

4 Birth rate minus the death rate; since the rates were based on the unrounded birth and death rate, they do not always equal the difference between the rates shown on the "Data Sheet." •Based on the current unrounded rate of natural increase (RNI) . This column is provided to provide some indication of the potential effect of different levels of the RNI and is not intended to forecast the actual doubling of any population.

The columns on projected populations in 2000 and 2020 should be consulted for the change in population size actually anticipated under a reasonable set of assumptions regarding future birth and death rates. e For most countnes, projected by applying growth rates incorporated in projections prepared by the U.N. 11'.e World Bank, or the U.S. Bureau of the Census. For many MDC's with low birth rates PRB projections incorporating an assumption

of constant fertility were used. ProjectlOllS to 2020 are, of course, subject to particularly wide margins of error. 7 Annual deaths to infants under one year of age per 1,000 live births in a given year. For countries with data considered to be of good reliability by the U.N. (complete or nearly complete registration). nearly all data refer to 1979 or 1980

and are shown to one decimal place; these data are from U.N. ("Population and Vital Statistics ... "). For countries with incomplete data, the estimates are shown in whole numbers and refer to 1980. They were derived by averaging the estimated rates for the periods 1975-1980 and 1980- 1985 given in 0.N. population Division, " Infant Mortality Rates: Estimates and Projections By Country and Re_gion." 1970-2000 (forthcoming) . These estimates are the result of a new study by the Population Division, with financial assistance from UNICEF, which evaluated data from all available registration systems, surveys, and censuses. We thank the Population Division for their assistance.

8 The total fertility rate (TFR) indicates the average number of children that would be born to each woman in a population if each were to live through her childbearing lifetime (usually considered ages 15-49) bearing children at the same rate as women of those ages actually did in a given year. A TFR of 2.1 to 2.5, depending upon mortality conditions, indicates "replacement level" fertility-the level at which a country's population would eventually stop growing (or declining), leaving migration out of account Most TFRs shown here refer to the 1975-1980 period for less developed countries and are from the U.N. ~lation Division's "1980 Assessment" ... or survey estimates such as those of the World Fertifity Survey. For more developed countries, rates are the latest officially reported as shown in the sources noted above or from Alain Monnier", L Europe et Jes pay ~loppes d'OUtremer. Dormees statisitques. Population, 36:4- 5," institut national d'etudes dl!mographiques, Paris, 1981 and refer to 1980.

9 Average years an infant can be expected to live under current mortality conditions. Estimates are primarily those of the U.N. Population Division or the "Demographic Yearbook" and refer to the mid to late 1970's. 1 0 Percentage of total population living in areas termed urban by that country. Estimates refer to some point in the l 970's. 11 Definition of agriculture also indudes hunting, forestry, and fishing; data are from the U.N. Food and Al!riculture Organization, "Production Yearbook," 1979 or a recent census as given in international Labour Organization Yearbooks. 12 Per capita Gross National Product estimates are provisl0!131 World Bank estimates, refer to 1980, and are from the " 1981 World Bank Atlas." 13 Many unknowns regarding China's demography may be clarified when China conducts its first national census in some time during July 1982. Estimates given here represent a departure from previous Data Sheets and are largely based

upon work done by Judith Bannister of the U.S. Bureau of the Census and in consultation with H. Yuan Tien, PRB's Visiting Scholar.

BALTIC FREEDOM DAY • Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, June 14 has been selected as the day to observe Baltic Freedom Day. On this day in 1941, the Soviet Government initiated mass deportations of such magnitude that 48,000 Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians were wrenched from their homelands. The terror that reigned during the night and the suffering and anguish that these families endured compel us to remember and honor the Baltic peoples today.

Two years earlier, in 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had signed the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which paved the way for a Russian invasion of the Baltic nations. In a secret amendment to the pact, the nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were placed within the "sphere of influence" of the Soviet Union. The fact that all three nations were members of the League of Nations at that time did nothing to deter the aggression of the Soviets and prevent the incorporation of all three states into the Soviet empire.

NIGHT OF TERROR

The June 14 deportations constituted a night of terror that can never be forgotten by those who eKperienced it. Described by Khrushchev as a "task of great political importance" which was to rid the Soviet Union of nationalists, or "anti-Soviet elements," the deportations were conducted in a cold, calculated, and brutal manner by the Soviet authorities. One of the cruelest f eatures of the campaign was the separation of heads of families from their wives and children. Special care was taken to keep this particular fact secret from the deportees; its inevitable discovery added further terror to the nightmare.

The deportations of June 14 were merely a prelude to those which were to follow in the years 1944-49. During

these years, half a million Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians were forcibly removed from their homelands to Siberian labor camps. It is estimated that only 20 percent returned. Of those who returned, many had become physical wrecks.

While the massive deportations have stopped, Russification-in the form of Russian efforts to discourage the use of native Baltic languages and in attempts at resettlement-continues to this day. Moscow's attempts at cultural and linguistic Russification, however, have met with stubborn resistance. Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian activists continue to speak out in behalf of their national, political, cultural, religious, and linguistic rights, despite the Soviet Government's repressive measures against them. The Baltic peoples continue to preserve their sense of national identity and cling to their dream of independence.

The suppression of the Baltic peoples is a stark illustration of. the Soviet Government's disregard for the Helsinki Final Act. The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which monitors compliance with the Helsinki Final Act and on which I serve as cochairman, has amassed countless pieces of evidence from Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia pointing to Soviet violations of principles pertaining to human rights and selfdetermination.

We must not forget the Baltic peoples in their quest for freedom, for to do so would be to forget our own tradition of freedom.•

FEDERAL COURTS JURISDICTION

• Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on Sunday last it was my honor to address the graduating seniors of the St. John's University Law School. I had prepared an address on the subject of

those bills, now pending in Congress, that would limit the jurisdiction of our Federal courts including the Supreme Court. I did not deliver my remarks in their entirety, however I did say that I would place the full text in the RECORD and I ask that that be done.

The text follows: ADDRESS BY SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK

MOYNIHAN

In 1981, not long after the 97th Congress convened, the American Bar Association testified before the judiciary committees of Congress that legislation then beginning to be introduced that would strip Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over various subject matters was both unwise as to policy and questionable as to constitutional validity. The president of the ABA, Mr. David R. Brink wrote the committees:

"We confront, at this very moment, the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War."

A year has gone by. One such measure has passed the Senate by an imposing vote. Others are being "marked up" and reported out, still others are already on the calendar. The proponents of such measures grow more confident. The grounds for their confidence are clear. The Congress would seem to be theirs. The Judiciary, the "least dangerous branch" as Madison had it, is silent in obedience to its custom and to its constitutional role. There is in that respect a stand-off. The one event that might change this balance has not occurred, which is to say that the Executive Branch, and more specifically the Justice Department, might take a stand on behall of the Court, and in the judgment of some of us, the Constitution.

The Justice Department, however, chooses as best it can to act as if there were no crisis. It is in the main silent; at best ambiguous. Above all, it is unconcerned.

As one Senator very much concerned, I must state that, in my view, in the face of this crisis, in the face of a fundamental assault on constitutional procedure, the Department of Justice has been complacent to the point of collusion.

I speak, or if you will, write as someone who has been much interested in the histo-

13580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 ry of the Court's reversing itself, and very much involved in some issues of the present age in which it seems to me the Court ought to do and which I dare to think it will.

Put plain, the Supreme Court is often wrong. Not in the sense that one of us might think it wrong, but in the specific sense that the Court having decided an issue, subsequently declares that its decision was incorrect and either modifies or in some cases, quite reverses its early decision.

In the largest matters, these changes occur over a generation; more often over two generations. If we use the somewhat dim convention that a generation is to be measured as thirty years, it was one generation before the Court reversed itself in Lochner, two generations before it reversed itself in Plessy. I need not tell law graduates that these are often cultural as much as legal events. Hence my judgment that it will take the better part of two generations entirely to reverse Everson, a process already underway, but by no means completed.

On the other hand, the Court can reverse itself within the space of a year, as it did on this past Tuesday, June 1 in U.S. v. Ross. 1

In the fall of 1979, I published an article in The Public Interest entitled: "What Do You Do When The Supreme Court Is Wrong?" I argued that at various points in American history, and sometimes for extended periods, the Court had been "wrong" about one or another of the principal constitutional issues of the day, and that the Court had subsequently reversed itself, saying in effect that it had been in error.

My purpose was to examine the process by which earlier Court reversals had come about-and could today. I described a simple hierarchy of responses-responses to the question, what do you do when one thinks the Supreme Court is wrong?-responses that in one combination or another had commonly led the Court to change its position. My argument, deriving as much from Finley Peter Dunne as from any more contemporary political scientist was that the Court does respond to positions reasonably propounded. I suggested a hierarchy, if you will, of advocacy. One was to Debate, to Legislate, to Litigate.

Briefly, issues upon which the Court had ruled would remain vital in public forums. Debate would continue on the same question. Variations of the originally contested law would be -enacted by legislators who thought the Court had been wrong. The laws would be challenged in the lower Courts and indeed in the Supreme Court, which might already have changed its position. If it wasn't already convinced, if it rules again that legislators had written an unconstitutional law <I wrote), the solution was to draft yet another law to the same

1 The Court in Ross upheld the right of police to search luggage or packages found in an automobile provided the police had prob~ble cause both to search the vehicle and the container. In so holding the Court expressly overruled a decision it had handed down less than 12 months before disallowing such a search. Writing for the majority, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens explained: "Our decision today is inconsistent with the disposition in Robbins v. California and with the portion of the opinion in Arkansas v. Sanders on which the plurality in Robbins relied. Nevertheless, the doctrine of stare decisis does not preclude this action. Although we have rejected some of the reasoning in Sanders, we adhere to our holding in that case; although we reject the precise holding in Robbins, there was no Court opinion supporting a single rationale for its judgment and the reasoning we adopt today was not presented by the parties in that case."

effect. Changed social circumstances, a differently <or· better!) argued case, or a new Justice might lead to a favorable ruling.

I hoped that those who disagreed with one or another of the Court's decisions, as I had done with respect to opinions on aid to non-public schools and public access to pretrial judicial proceedings, would remember that the Court can change its mind and that there is a legitimate and time-tested way to get it to do so.

But I fear that something else has happened. In the intervening three years, some people-indeed, a great many people-have decided that they do not agree with the Supreme Court and that they are not satisfied to Debate, Legislate, Litigate.

They have embarked upon an altogether new and I believe quite dangerous course of action. A new triumvirate hierarchy has emerged. Convene <meaning the calling of a constitutional convention), Overrule <the passage of legislation designed to overrule a particular Court ruling, when the Court's ruling was based on an interpretation of the Constitution) and Restrict <to restrict the jurisdiction of certain courts to decide particular kinds of cases).

Perhaps the most pernicious of these is the attempt to restrict courts' jurisdictions, for it is both colorably constitutional <at least in the case of inferior courts> and profoundly at odds with our nation's customs and political philosophy.

It is a commonplace that our democracy is characterized by majority rule and minority rights. Our Constitution vests majority rule in the Congress and the President while the courts protect the rights of the minority.

While the legislature makes the laws, and the executive enforces them, it is the courts that tell us what the laws say and whether they conform to the Constitution.

This notion of judicial review has been part of our heritage for nearly two hundred years. There is not a more famous case in American jurisprudence than Marbury v. Madison and few more famous dicta "than Chief Justice Marshall's that: "<I>t is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

But in order for the Court to interpret the law it must decide cases. If it cannot hear certain cases, then it cannot protect certain rights.

As cases produce winners and losers, so do the ideas and principles upon which the cases rely produce supporters and enemies. So I suppose that it is only natural that those who see the courts ruling against them should seek to prevent these rulings by denying the courts the power to decide at all, or, failing that, by denying litigants certain kinds of relief, such as the bussing of school children to eliminate illegal segregation.

These court-curbing bills-there are currently thirty-two <32) of them pending in the 97th Congress-would deny federal courts the authority to hear cases on a variety of such issues. The Senate, I regret having to report, has already adopted one such measure, having voted 58 to 38 on February 4, 1982, substantfally to limit the authority of lower federal courts to require bussing as a remedy for the unconstitutional segregation of school children.

These bills are troublesome, not least because they are arguably constitutional. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is set out · in Article III of the Constitution which states in Section 2:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this

Q)

constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies between two or more States, between a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects.

" In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

I repeat: "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

The plain meaning of the penultimate clause-the "exceptions" clause-is that Congress may, by statute, set boundaries for the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Indeed, in Ex Parte Mccardle <1868), the Court itself seemingly bowed to the authority of the Legislature. The Court dismissed for want of jurisdiction an appeal based on a law repealed by Congress after the case had been argued before the Court, while it was awaiting final decision. Some have suggested that the Court's decision was not truly a test of Congress' powers in the area of jurisdiction in that it merely altered the manner in which a Habeus Corpus question could be brought before the Court and in no way questioned the Court's ability to hear the case. But it is frequently cite& as the leading case in this area by those who would have Congress restrict the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court said:

"We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.

"What, then, is the effect of the repealing act upon the case before us? We cannot doubt as to this. Without jurisdiction the Court cannot proceed at all in any case. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause."

This is not, however, the end of the matter. For the Constitution has other sections including Article VI which states in part:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Must we not presume from this, the "supremacy clause", that the Constitution's framers intended that there should be but a single arbiter of this supreme law, rather than the anarchy of a separate interpretation by each State's highest Court?. Why write a constitutional "supremacy clause" if there were not to be a single supreme tribunal authorized to interpret and pronounce the meaning of the Constitution and of Federal law? Indeed, in the case of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, <1816), Mr. Justice Story said as much.

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13581 "A motive of another kind, perfectly com

patible with the most sincere respect for state tribunals, might induce the grant of appellate power over their decisions. That motive is the importance, and even necessity, · of uniformity of decisions throughout the whole United States, upon all subjects within the purview of the constitution. Judges of equal learning and integrity, in different states, might differently interpret a statute, or a treaty of the United States, or even the constitution itself: If there were no revising authority to control these jarring and discordant judgments, and harmonize them into uniformity, the laws, the treaties, and the constitution of the United States would be different in different states, and might, perhaps, never have precisely the same construction, obligation, or efficacy, in any two states. The public mischiefs that would attend such a state of things would be truly deplorable; and it cannot be believed that they could have escaped the enlightened convention which formed the constitution ... (T)he appellate jurisdiction must continue to be the only adequate remedy for such evils."

Thus we have the notion that the court has certain "essential functions" under the Constitution. And that any power the national legislature might have to limit jurisdiction is itself limited. Professor Leonard G. Ratner of the University of South Carolina suggests that:

" ... Reasonably interpreted the <exceptions) clause means "With such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress may make, not inconsistent with the essential functions of the Supreme Court under this Constitution.

We find ourselves, then, not knowing if the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is subject to the will of Congress. We have in Ex Parte Mccardle a leading case, but rather an old one, that suggests that it is. I think it would be fair to say that most modern commentators would say that it is not.

The claim that the Congress makes on the jurisdiction of lower courts though is I think more clear. Section 1 of Article III says:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

It is held that this section gives Congress absolute discretion to establish lower federal courts and by implication the power to control the jurisdiction of the courts it creates. There are those who would disagree. Professor Theodore Eisenberg of Cornell has said that because of the proliferation of Federal law and the dramatic increase in Federal court caseloads since the first lower Federal courts were established in 1789, these courts have become a constitutional necessity since the burden of harmonizing conflicting interpretations of Federal law by the fifty state court systems and vindicating Federal rights would be more than the Supreme Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction could bear. Others have said that Federal courts are constitutionally necessary to bar unconstitutional acts by Federal officials since state courts are generally without power to afford relief in such cases.

Again we find ourselves in the situation of not knowing for sure what the powers of Congress in this area are. The legislature has repeatedly, and without serious challenge, exercised its power to decide what the lower courts' jurisdiction should be in organizational or administrative matters, such as

the minimum dollar amount that must be in obligation to the Court is not to agree with controversy before a case can be heard. But it but to obey it. Indeed we see over history it has never tried to say that certain out- the Court changing its mind, as repeatedly comes would not be tolerated or that certain it has done as new evidence, new thinking, cases rather than classes of cases could not and new Justices come to the fore ... be heard. Whatever else we do, we should not attempt

If the constitutionality of these jurisdic- to deny the Court its most fundamental retion-stripping bills is unclear, two things are ality, which is to act as a court, to decide not. One is that they are a profoundly bad matters which are brought before it by litiidea that raises the spector of a constitu- gants. When you say that there are matters tional crisis that could leave our courts crip- the Court may not consider you say it is less pied and the Congress diminished. The than a court; much less a Supreme Court. other is that the Reagan Administration you are saying the court acts at the tolerahas at least tacitly acquiesced in the actions tion and on the terms set by this body; that of those who would take away the courts' this body becomes the supreme arbiter of power to decide. what may be judged and what may not.

On October 29, 1981, Attorney General "At that point a profound constitutional William French Smith spoke before the transformation takes place, a constitutional Federal Legal Council in Reston, Virginia. transmutation. We are not thereafter the After saying that "the multiplication of im- same Republic we have been." plied constitutional rights ... has gone far For nearly 200 years this country has suc-enough," Mr. Smith concluded: ceeded for the most part in resolving its po-

"We intend in a comprehensive way to litical disputes in a manner that, if it did identify those principals that we will urge not satisfy everyone, at least left adversaries upon the Federal courts. And we intend to feeling that they had been treated fairly. identify the cases in which to make our ar- We have been able to do this because we guments all the way to the Supreme Court." have agreed on certain things that, while

Fair enough. It is the duty of the Attor- not contained in the Constitution, are relatney General to enforce the laws as he sees ed to it. First, we would not reach basic decifit and to interpret the Constitution as best sions on great issues without coming to he can. But Mr. Smith also said "Through more or less a national consensus. We would legislation and litigation we will attempt to not try to overpower the opposition because effect the goals I have outlined." we knew that one day we might be the op-

Back in October, I had hoped by this the position. Political parties might forget that Attorney General meant he had come to they would not always be in power, but accept my hierarchy. He had, by the very those in power generally tried to ensure fact of his address, already begun the that the rights of the minority were protectdebate on the courts' decisions with which ed. he disagreed. I thought he might then seek Next, we have respected our institutions. passage of laws that would bring before the The Congress might war with the President courts those issues he wished to have decid- but the Presidency was honored. We now ed differently, and that he would argue in find ourselves in danger of losing both these court for the changes he sought. Debate, things. In large part the matters sought to Legislate, Litigate. be decided by these jurisdiction-stripping

But it now appears that he had something bills are matters where concensus does not quite different in mind. For on May 6, 1982 yet exist, and the bills themselves are fashhe wrote Congressman Peter Rodino, Chair- ioned to endanger the way Americans feel man of the House Judiciary Committee en- about their government and the way the dorsing the constitutionality of S. 951 the branches of government feel about each Senate-passed version of the Department of other. And that is why they must be opJustice authorization bill that limits the posed. I end today where I began my article power of lower Federal courts to order bus- three years ago, with the words of Erwin N. sing. It was clearly his duty to do this, to Griswold: tell us if he thought the legislation constitu- "An institution charged with the role tional or not. But the Attorney General of which the Supreme Court has successfully the United States has other duties too. It is filled for so many years is entitled to our rehis duty to advise on the prudence and the spect and understanding. If one criticizes wisdom of matters touching on the Court, the Court <as people have always done in of which he must be the first defender. the past, and should continue to do in the

The Attorney General failed in that duty. future), it should be essentially for the purHowever much one might disagree, it would pose of trying to contribute to that respect be possible to respect a position by the At- and to that understanding. The debt which torney General supporting the court-strip- we all owe to the Court is far greater than ping bill. After all, fifty-eight Senators did · any individual can repay. Criticism of deciso. But what is one to say of silence. The sions of the Court or opinions of its memmere assertion, as stated in the accompany- bers should be offered as an effort to repay ing press release: that debt, and with the thought that consci-

"With regard to the anti-bussing legisla- entious criticism may be an aid to the Court tion, the Attorney General has concluded in carrying out its difficult and essential that this legislation may be enacted consist- task.''• ent with the Constitution."

Indeed, I grant, that might be so. But should it be? The American Bar Association declares this to involve "the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War". The Attorney General declares, in effect, that it is no concern of his.

In the course of the debate on S. 951, I had occasion to speak of this matter on the floor.

"Many times I have stood on this floor and said that as to a particular issue I thought the Supreme Court was wrong, but I have always said simultaneously that our

INTELLIGENCE IDENTITIES PROTECTION ACT

•Mr. JEPSEN. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of S. 391, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, I would like to express my continued support for the bill, and my regret at being necessarily absent for the rollcall vote last Thursday. I had voted in its favor when it first passed the Senate, and

13582 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 was unable to be present for the conference vote because of a cornrnencement speech at the National Defense University's Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

The strength of our Nation depends on the effectiveness of its branches of government. Yet we should be ever watchful lest the strength of this Government, and the legislation of this body, infringe upon the basic freedoms and balances that have made our system flexible, long lasting, and the model to be copied and envied by so many other nations.

Mr. President, I believe S. 391 effectively delineates the thin line between competent intelligence activities, and the first amendment freedoms of our public and press. This piece of legislation, long overdue, while not limiting the press in its gathering and reporting of information regarding CIA activities, finally puts a hold on those who might endanger our agents' effectiveness and lives by a wanton disclosure of their identities.

The conference has reported out a good bill, and I would like to congratulate the Senators, Representatives, and staffs on both sides of the aisle for their efforts on its behalf.•

THE FATE OF MIKHAIL KUKUBAKA

e Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a cornrnunication that I have recently received and that I view with a great deal of alarm. I am ref erring to a report that Mikhail Kukubaka, a Soviet prisoner of conscience from Bielorussia, has been trans! erred from the prison where he had been held to the notorious Serbsky Institute of Forensic Psychiatry in Moscow.

As many of my colleagues are aware, Mikhail Kukubaka has already spent 6 years in psychiatric confinement in the U.S.S.R.-from 1969 to 1976-for openly refusing to participate in Soviet elections, for writing letters of protest against injustice in the Soviet system, and for acquainting his fell ow Soviet citizens with the provisions of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Following his release, Kukubaka renounced his Soviet citizenship and requested permission to emigrate to any free country. Then, in 1979, he was sentenced to 3 years of prison for such alleged crimes as writing and disseminating his essays "Human Rights and detente Are Indivisible", and "The Stolen Fatherland," along with other articles dealing with human rights violations in the Soviet Union and in Kukubaka's homeland, Bielorussia.

It should come as no surprise that Mikhail Kukubaka was treated in prison with that particular inhumanity reserved by the authorities for

those "dangerous" persons who attempt to express themselves freely within Soviet society. According to a document released by the Moscow Helsinki Group, Kukubaka was assigned to work beyond his physical capacity, and then, when he could not fulfill his daily production norm, his food rations were reduced. His attempts to protest against this mistreatment only resulted in harsher measures meted out by the authorities.

AN INDEFINITE SENTENCE?

But even in the Soviet Union, prison terms, if allowed to run their course, do come to an end. It would seem, however, that Mikhail Kukubaka was not to be allowed to go free. In 1981, we learned that the authorities were preparing new charges against him, and now we have word that prisoner Kukubaka has become "patient" Kukubaka at the Serbsky Institute. If this report is true-and there is no reason to believe otherwise-this is a most alarming development. For while prisoner Kukubaka might have anticipated release at the end of his term, "patient" Kukubaka may be subject to an arbitrary diagnosis of "mentally incompetent" and kept in confinement for an indefinite period.

Mr. President, we are entering a period of heightened world tensions when the fate of mankind may well depend on the conscientious observance of international agreements, and a rational approach to those disagreements that inevitably arise between nations of the world. I call upon the Soviet Government to consider carefully the consequences of its callous disregard of the humanitarian provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, both with regard to Mikhail Kukubaka, and to all prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union.e

CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY e Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, last month the Council on Foundations published a study on corporate giving, which draws conclusions about corporate philanthropy based on the opinions of chief executive officers from more than 200 of the Nation's largest corporations. I recommend the study to my colleagues as evidence of the need to rethink and rewrite the role of the private sector in society, to help provide services the Government can no longer afford or provide eff ectively.

The study concludes that although major corporations are making generous cash contributions to nonprofit organizations-probably more generous than most of us assumed-and although most said they plan to increase their donations in the future, the funds often are not administered in an effective fashion, with an eye toward fulfilling a specific social policy. This is largely because corporate giving is

not seen as a major social function, but rather as a self-serving concession to the cornrnunity, and at best, a small supplement to Government support. While the majority of the corporations expressed a desire to help their cornrnunities through their donations, most giving programs are "relatively underdeveloped corporate functions." They often are administered poorly, rather unprofessionally, with little plan for where and how the available funds can be used to make a real difference. It is no wonder that many corporate executive officers are disappointed at their failure to achieve meaningful social and corporate objectives.

Yet, as the study indicates, many executive officers have emphasized a willingness to strengthen the effectiveness of their donations. A number of companies, although mainly the very largest, already have special staffs to administer their giving programs.

I believe that by more fully understanding the role of corporate philanthropy and how it can best be used to benefit society, we can realize the potential for societally effective philanthropy. Corporations can stop throwing money haphazardly into the nonprofit pool, and start making real qualitative changes in their cornrnunities.

Given the relevance and timeliness of the Council on Foundations' study, I ask that a summary of the study be printed in the RECORD.

The surnrnary follows: OVERVIEW

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Five principal conclusions emerge from the study:

1. Major American corporations are quite generous in their philanthropic programsand more generous than previously supposed. In addition, many CEO's forecast increases in their company's giving in the future.

2. The CEO dominates corporate giving decisions, although other powerful corporate figures, such as members of Boards of Directors and top executives, also play influential roles. CEO's indicate, however, that Boards of Directors have great, largely unrealized potential power to increase their company's giving in the future.

3. Corporate giving is an expression of enlightened self-interest. It is genreally not regarded as a form of social policy in any meaningful sense of the term.

4. Many CEO's their giving programs are underachieving their major corporate and social objectives.

5. Corporate giving is a relatively underdeveloped, poorly understood function in most companies.

MORE GENEROUS THAN PREVIOUSLY SUPPOSED

Many who believe that corporations have yet to achieve their enormous potential as donors to the third sector point to earlier studies that show that 65 percent of all companies with a positive income fail to make cash contributions to nonprofit organizations. While this figure may be accurate, it is also open to misinterpretation.

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13583 Approximately 90 percent of the compa

nies represented in the survey made cash contributions to nonprofit organizations in the last fiscal year-and virtually all of these companies claim a history of giving. Recall that these companies account for the bulk of the profits in this country and are the companies most able to give. It follows that the nongivers tend to be small companies with relatively modest incomes-those least able to give.

These findings are both encouraging and chastening. On the one hand, it is satisfying to know that our most prosperous corporations have generally taken on the responsibility of giving to the third sector. But it also suggests that the potential for increases in corporate giving is not as great as might be assumed by projection from the fact that two-thirds fail to give. How much do these companies contribute in cash and cash equivalents, such as securities? On average, Fortune 1300 companies made cash contributions of 1.1 percent of their total pretax net income. Companies of intermediate size <annual sales ranging from $50 to $100 million> gave 1.3 percent of their pretax income. The smaller companies in our sample <annual sales of $25 to $49 million> contributed 1.7 percent of pretax income. 1 It should be noted that the generosity of these companies is partially hidden from public view. Most estimates of the level of corporate cash giving to nonprofit organizations are derived from IRS returns. Yet 38 percent of these companies do not report all of their contributions as charitable giving and choose instead to report part of them as other types of legitimate expenditures. This tendency is especially pronounced among the largest givers in the Fortune companies. Thus, IRS data understate the level of cash contributions.

The future also looks promising, assuming a recovery from the current recession. About 6 in 10 of the companies studied plan to increase their philanthropic contributions over the next few years (in real dollars adjusted for inflation>. About a third anticipate a constant level of giving and virtually none expects to decrease the amount given.

Among the Fortune 1300 companies that plan increases, CEO's predict that, three years hence, their giving will be 28 percent above the current level in real inflation-adjusted dollars. The comparable figure for intermediate size companies is 27 percent and for smaller companies is 25 percent.

THE ROLE OF THE CEO AND OTHER POWERFUL CORPORATE FIGURES

Commitment at the very top of the organization is the key to how much and how a company gives. The CEO is far and away the dominant figure, particularly in intermediate size companies and smaller size companies. The CEO who is committed to corporate giving is something of a "type" -an individual who expresses his/her publicspiritedness in a number of ways. Thus, there is a correlation between a CEO's commitment to corporate giving and his/her <a> involvement in the community; and Cb) personal giving to charity.

While the CEO dominates these decisions, he/she does not act alone. CEO's indicate that members of the Board and other top executives play far more than a passive, certifying role. More importantly, the Board

1 Throughout this report, companies with annual sales of $50 to $100 million are referred to as "intermediate size companies" and companies with annual sales of $25 to $49 million are referred as "smaller size companies."

has great latent influence. Forty-five percent of CEO's <and 51 percent of Fortune CEO's) claim that a desire on the part of their Board members to contribute more would almost certainly yield that result.

By contrast, groups external to the corporation play a- relatively modest role in shaping the character and influencing the level of corporate giving programs. And this situation is likely to endure. CEO's state that any future pressures from outsiders of almost any variety-customers, suppliers/ vendors, industry groups that might set guidelines for giving, elected officials, federated campaigns, or soliciting organizations/ communities-will have a negligible impact on their giving. In short, corporate giving is, above all, a response to powerful voices within the corporation. The inner-directed nature of the decisiorunaking process suggests that corporate giving seeks to address an internal corporate agenda first and a public agenda second. This point is further documented when one analyzes the stated goals of corporate philanthropy.

ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST

The overriding purpose of corporate giving is to assist those in need in a manner that serves larger corporate objectives. In the eyes of CEO's, philanthropy is, at best, a small supplement to government-sponsored social programs and, at worst, has the potential for being regarded as a stand-in for those programs.

Thus, the vast majority state that their giving efforts are motivated by a mixture of self-help and helping others.

Seven in ten are seeking to help the needy in the communities in which their company has plants/locations.

Two out of three emphasize the goals of improving local communities in order to benefit their own employees.

Two-thirds hope to improve the "public opinion climate" in which they do business.

About a third hope to improve their company's corporate image through their giving programs.

About a quarter expect their efforts to enhance their ability to recruit quality employees.

Moreover self-interested goals are especially important to CEO's of Fortune 1300 companies, which account for the lion's share of cash contributions.

"SHORTFALL" IN ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF CORPORATE GIVING

Many CEO's are disappointed that their programs are not achieving some of these crucial objectives, notably: helping the needy in the communities in which they have plants/locations; generating benefits for their employees in those communities; and protecting and improving the environment in which they do business.

Interestingly, there is also one area of significant perceived "overachievement" of goals: meeting the pressures exerted by prominent corporate figures to contribute to organizations that they favor.

RELATIVELY UNDERDEVELOPED CORPORATE FUNCTION

Most giving programs are relatively underdeveloped corporate functions. There is insufficient information available to corporate givers on important matters; there is often a lack of a formal structure or a highly professional staff; and behavior is more reactive than proactive. There is, in short, a lack of surefootedness even among some of the most generous.

Regarding informational needs, about a third of the CEO's claim that they are un-

aware of the giving activities of other companies in their community and peer companies in their industry. This makes it difficult to establish external criteria to evaluate one's own giving efforts. In addition, about a third confess limited knowledge of the tax laws that apply to cash contributions to nonprofit organizations. This knowledge gap is particularly unfortunate, since those who are most familiar with the tax laws are also inclined to evaluate them as a strong incentive to give.

In a number of companies, special staffs or foundations have been established to administer the corporate giving program. Yet this formalization/professionalization is concentrated in Fortune companies.

Moreover, in describing the activities of these corporate giving staffs/foundations, CEO's indicate that they play a largely reactive role. It is rare to find a program that includes systematic methods to assess either corporate or community needs.

The underdeveloped quality of the corporate philanthropy function is partly a consequence of its general character-as the domain of the CEO and as an expression of corporate interests. Yet this does not mean that the situation is unchangeable, for many CEO's emphasize their interest in strengthening their company's ability to give more efficiently.e

THE NEED FOR THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

• Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. President, over the next 3 days, I would like to share with my colleagues excerpts from the December 1978 report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concerning the equal rights amendment. The report points out the need for the equal rights amendment and the benefits at making it a part of our Constitution.

I ask that the first part of the report be printed in the RECORD.

The material follows: THE NEED FOR THE EQUAL RIGHTS

AMENDMENT

Discrimination on the basis of sex continues to be a major national problem almost 7 years after Congress proposed the Equal Rights Amendment. A recent Civil Rights Commission review of statistical measurements of equality provides clear documentation of continuing and serious problems of sex-based inequality in employment, education, and housing. 1 These inequities exist despite the passage of Federal and State legislation to combat certain forms of sex discrimination. While this statement is not an exhaustive survey of all the areas in which change is needed, the examples discussed dispel the myth that women already have equality under law.

In Federal statutes alone, the Civil Rights Commission has identified over 800 sections of the U.S. Code containing examples of substantive sex bias or sex-based terminology that are inconsistent with a national commitment to equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities. 2 "The cumulative effect," as Civil Rights Commissioner Freeman has pointed out, "is to assign women, solely on the basis of their sex, to a subordinate or dependent role." 3

Footnotes at end of article.

13584 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 CURRENT STATUS OF WOMEN

Family Law A woman's rights during marriage, as well

as after-whether the marriage ends as a result of death or divorce-have traditionally been those of a second-cla.:>s citizen._ Many State laws still reflect their roots m the English common law view of the married woman as the property of her husband. 4

Some of the more oppressive aspects of this discrimination have been removed over the past century, so that a married woman can now own property, enter into contracts, be granted custody of her children, and, in most cases, keep her own earnings. 5 However, laws covering marriage continue to deny women equal rights. 6

Marital property laws illustrate the persistence of sex bias against women. In Georgia, for example, a married couple's hoID:e belongs only to the husband, even when it has been paid for by the wife. 7 In other States, the husband is given the right. to manage and control marital property without the wife's consent, again, even if it w'.18 purchased with the wife's earnings. 8 In WlSconsin, the earnings of a married woman "accruing from labor performed for her husband, or in his employ, or payable by him" are not considered her separate property and are subject to her husband's control. 9

The same bias is evident in laws that deny a woman the right to sue a third party who has injured her husband and thereby. d~prived her of his services. A husband, similarly deprived, can sue. 10

The married woman wbo chooses to be a full-time homemaker has the least legal and economic protection of all, since ma:ny States do not recognize her labor as havmg economic value. 11 This is repugnant to the view of marriage as a partnership between the husband and the wife, with both performing different but equally important roles each having economic significance. 12 Th~ lack of economic value accorded a

woman's contributions to a marriage is demonstrated in the case of a Nebraska farm couple who worked the land together for 33 years.13 When the husband died in 1974, his wife learned that in the Federal Government's eyes the farm belonged entirely to him. Unless she could prove that she helped to pay for its purchase or improvement, she would be liable for a $25,000 inheritance tax. Her years of work, even the joint title, was no proof. Had the wife died first, her husband would have had to pay no tax.14

In most States, when a marriage ends, distribution of the marital property follows a similar rule. Until a recent successful challenge under the Pennsylvania State ;ERA, a woman in that State was faced with the legal presumption that all the J:ousehold articles acquired during the marriage-such as the stove, the TV, and even her jewelry-belonged to her husband, unless she co~ld prove that she paid for them. 15 While States like New York do not ha:ve such an explicit presumption, the result is often the same because one's legal rights to property generally are determined by proo~ of act';lal economic contribution or of receipt as gift. Most homemakers who earn no wages cannot establish such proof. 16 .

Sex-based roles and presumptions also affect a married woman's ability to get credit.11 This is true even under the Federal Equal Credit Opportunit~ Act <e~ac~e~ to make credit available without . discrrmmation on the basis of sex or marital stat':18), since creditors may cons.id.er State. marit8:1 property laws in determmmg creditworthiness.18

Similar hardships face the homemaker under the social security program. Since she has no independent entitlement to benefits, if she becomes disabled, she and her dependents have no right to social security, even though her services are lost to her family.19 Because the program does not !ecognize the economic value of her contribution to the family, she will not receive benefits under her husband's coverage if she is widowed before the age of 50 unless she has minor or disabled children in her care. This is true even if she is disabled and cannot work.20 .

The only economic "right" the married woman has traditionally had is the theoretical " right to support during a marriage." The significance of this "right" and the potential effect of the ERA on it have been primary targets of distortion by ERA opponents trying to argue that the amendment will strip away women's rights. In fact, the legal duty of a husband to support his wife is largely unenforceable. It is little more than myth, since courts will not interfere in an ongoing marriage to ensure adequate support either for the wife or for the chil-dren. 21 .

Laws governing support and allmony during separation and after divorce are similarly illusory in the benefits they appear to confer upon women.22 The reality is that only 14 percent of divorced wives were awarded alimony in 1975 and that fewer than half were able to collect their payments regularly. 23 Similar enforcement problems exist for collecting child support. A study tracing child support payments over 10 years showed that 62 percent of male parents failed to comply fully wi~h court:ordered child support payments m the first year after the order, and 42 percent did not make even a single payment. By the 10th year, 79 percent were making no payments at all. 24

Support laws are so poorly enforced that most separated and divorced women have no choice but to work outside the home or turn to welfare. A study in Jefferson County, Alabama, revealed that the average amount of support ordered for a woman and two children was $80 per month, substantially less than the amount she would receive under welfare. 25 In Rhode Island, because support payments are so erratic, tl:~ey are not counted as income when applymg for credit.26 . .

As discussed in chapter 3, women m traditional homemaker roles who are so poorly protected by current laws have much to gain under the Equal Rights Amendment. The amendment would prohibit explicit sexbased statutes and common law doctrines associated with family law. Even laws neutral on their face, but that affect one sex more harshly than the other, would have to be reexamined.

This does not mean, however, that the ERA will alter family structure. It will not force women out of the home or downgrade the roles of mother and homemaker. "Indeed, it would give new dignity to these important roles. By confirming equality under the law, by upholding woman's right to choose her place in society, the Equal Rights Amendment can only enhance. the status of traditional women's occupations. For these would become position accepted by women as equals, not roles imposed on them as inferior .... " 27

Women in the Labor Force Women who work outside the home con

tinue to be disadvantaged by sex-role stereotypes and gender lines that affect employ-

ment opportunities and achievements. These women, too, stand to gain under the Equal Rights Amendment. Despite recent legislative reform and efforts to enforce Federal and State antidiscrimination laws, sex bias in employment persists.

While the labor market has provided increased job opportunities for women in recent years, most of the openings have been in clerical and service areas traditionally dominated by women. Indeed, occupa~ional segregation by sex increased substantially between 1970 and 1976.28 Not only are the jobs held by women different from those held by men, but the evidence is that they are valued less by society. 29

In professional and technical fields, women are overrepresented in jobs that are lower on the career ladder than men in the same industries: women are teachers more often than principals, bookkeepers more often than comptrollers. 30 Even within a traditional woman's field, clerical occupations, women are more likely to be employed in lower paying positions as typists, stenographers, secretaries, and file clerks, while men tend to be employed as administrative assistants, a higher paying clerical occupation. 31 In general, the jobs in which women are concentrated pay lower salaries than those paid in traditionally male-dominated positions, even when these positions involve equivalent skill, effort, and responsibility. 32

Even when adjustments are made for education and occupation, women earn less than men. In 1976 a woman who attended 4 years of college was earning about as much as a man with 8 years of elementary school education.33 On the average, in 1976 women clerical workers earned $4,200 less than male clerical workers, and saleswomen earned $6,900 less than salesmen. 34 In public employment, the median income for women working full time was $9,215 in 1975, while the median income for men was $13,118.35

Although women of all races consistently earn less than majority group men, the earnings gap between minority women and majority men is even more pronounced .. In 1975 American Indian, Alaskan Native, black Mexican American, and Puerto Rican wom~n averaged less than $5,000 a year in earnings, not even half of the average $11,427 earnings of majority men.36 T~ese differences persisted even when occupation, age, education, State of residence, and time worked were taken into account.

Indeed, the earnings gap between men and women in public and private employment has increased. In 1956, before the enactment of Federal equal employment legislation, women's average earnings were 63 percent of men's. Twenty years later, they had fallen to 60 percent of men's earnings. 37 For minority women, the earnings gap is greater still. 38

In 1963 Congress began the task of improving the legal status of working women with passage of the Equal Pay Act, which, as amended, broadly prohibits sex discrimination in wages paid in public and private employment. 39 A ban on sex discrimination was included in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and has been expanded to cover workers in public as well as private employment. 40

But the task of reforming the law is unfinished at both the Federal 41 and State levels. Some employees, such as those who work for the Congress, still are not covered by laws prohibiting sex and other forms of discrimination in employment.42 Express sex bias also persists in our Nation's laws.

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13585 For example, a 17-year-old girl who wants to work for a contractor with the Federal Government cannot, but a 17-year-old boy can.43 Although such a restriction may have been intended as "protective" legislation, surely if working conditions are unsound for young women, they are unsound for young men as well and should be corrected.

Other laws and government programs restrict job opportunities for women in ways that are less direct, but no less damaging. For example, the automatic preference given veterans in public employment is a program that few women can take advantage of, owing primarily to the history of sex discrimination that has restricted their opportunities in the military.44 In this context, bias clearly breeds bias. This is apparent in Federal civil service test results. Women are 41 percent of those who pass the college-level test, but only 27 percent of those who are hired. Veterans, on the other hand, are only 20 percent of those who pass the test, but 34 percent of those who are hired.45

Finally, recent court decisions have narrowed the application of equal opportunity laws such as Title VII. For example, the Supreme Court has exempted certain discriminatory seniority systems from Title VII, 46 has allowed an employee's "womanhood" to disqualify her from a job, 47 and has upheld the denial of disability benefits and accrued sick pay to employees disabled by pregnancy. 48 Lower courts, moreover, are largely failing to apply Title VII standards at all to academic employment. 49

In general, courts have not brought to sex discrimination cases "those judicial virtues of detachment, reflection and critical analysis which have served them so well with respect to other sensitive social issues. . .. 'Sexism' ... is as easily discernible in contemporary judicial opinions as racism ever was." 50

The Equal Rights Amendment will be an important legal and symbolic weapon to counter sex-based discrimination in employment, particularly meaningful to minority women, who participate in the labor force at a higher rate than majority women. 51 It will help to complete the Federal and State efforts to erase the sex bias in laws that have limited employment opportunities only for women. 52 It will, at a minimum, give government workers already protected against jobrelated sex discrimination under Federal civil rights statutes a stricter standard for the review of their claims 53 and extend such protection to congressional workers who are not already <!overed. In addition, the ERA will provide an impetus for more effective and vigilant enforcement of antidiscrimination laws. Finally, the courts will be governed by the provisions of Equal Rights Amendment as they decide cases raising problems of sex-based discrimination.

Criminal Law Criminal law is another area in which

women and men are treated differently because of their sex. This treatment has most often been disadvantageous to women, as both victims and offenders. 54

In some jurisdictions, definitions of criminal behavior and legal' defenses reflect sexbased notions. In Alabama, for example, if a husband finds his wife in the act of adultery and immediately kills her, he is not guilty of murder, but of the lesser crime of manslaughter.55 However, the same defense is not available to a wife.

This view that husbands have a special prerogative when it comes to their wives

also is reflected in the laws of those States that do not recognize a charge of forcible rape as a crime when committed by a husband against his wife, regardless of the circumstances and degree of coercion involved. 56

Explicit sex lines similarly are found in prostitution laws. Traditionally, prostitution was defined as a "woman's act," with no attempt to penalize the men who paid or were paid for it.57 Although many jurisdictions have revised these laws to cover men as well as women, "less than half explicitly penalize the patrons of prostitution, and many of those that do impose less stringent penalties against patrons than prostitutes."58

Sex-based definitions of criminal behavior also permeate the juvenile justice system, which often subjects girls and boys to differing definitions of delinquent behavior and to different sentences. In general, more girls are detained for "status" offenses such as promiscuity or truancy, while boys are arrested for delinquent acts such as theft. 59 On the average, girls are institutionalized for less serious conduct than boys and for longer periods of time. 60

Sentencing and parole statutes and practices further illustrate the persistent sexbased discrimination in criminal law. In some States, laws still mandate indeterminate sentences for women, while men receive set minimum and maximum terms.61 This disparate treatment stems from the sex-based presumption that "women, including women offenders, are more malleable than men and thus more amenable to reform and rehabilitation. In practice, this means that a woman offender remains in custody until the prison administration finds she has been 'corrected' while a man who has been imprisoned 'does time' for some set period .... " 62 The result may be that the female offender is incarcerated far longer or far shorter than a man convicted of the same offense; in either case, the comparative time in prison may bear no relationship either to the crime or to rehabilitation.

Once in prison, there is further evidence of different treatment for male and female offenders. Women generally receive far less vocational training or job placement assistance, and the training that is offered in women's prisons tends to be sex stereotyped, tracking women into lower paying jobs.63

Commenting on the sex bias throughout the criminal justice system, Commissioner Freeman has noted its particular bearing on minority women. "Given the conditions in which many minority people live and how these conditions breed crime, and given the greater likelihood of arrest and conviction of minority people, the double jeopardy in which minority women are placed by actions which discriminate on the basis of sex is apparent.'' 64

The Equal Rights Amendment would require neutralizing the distinctions that penalize perpetrators and/ or protect victims of crime differently depending on their sex. This does not mean that any criminals will go unpunished, but rather that men and women will be judged by the acts they commit, not by their sex.

Education In describing the need for the Equal

Rights Amendment in 1972, congressional proponents pointed to the field of education as evidence of the persistent pattern of sex discrimination. 65 Despite Federal and State legislation prohibiting such discrimination in educational programs and institutions,

many discriminatory patterns persist. Eduction is an important route for personal advancement; therefore, its opportunities must be open to our daughters as well as to our sons.

Yet, in elementary and secondary schools girls still are steered away from mathematics, science, and the training needed for the better paying fields currently dominated by men. In the 3 years from 1972 to 1975, the proportion of girls in technical education rose less than 1 percentage point, from 10 percent to 11 percent. The increase was about the same-from 12 percent to 13 percent-in trades and industrial occupations. 66

In a recent case, when a ninth-grade girl who had won awards in geometry and science wanted to go to a public school that offered advanced courses and superior facilities in these fields and for which she was qualified by all objective standards, she was turned down because the school was for boys only. 67 Susan Vorchheimer took her case all the way to the Supreme Court, where she was turned down again. 68 The Court has not yet recognized such sex-based segregation as a form of sex discrimination nor is it likely to do so while the ERA is pending.69

Inequality is widespread in school sports, a traditional training ground for leadership and a route to higher education through athletic scholarships. For every one girl playing high shool sports, schools are still providing teams and equipment that advantage two-and-a-half times as many boys.70 At the college level, budgets for women's sports are still only 10 to 15 percent of men's. 71

Women are less likely than men to complete 4 or more years of college. When minority women are compared with white men, the disparity is particularly pronounced. 72

College-level discrimination is perhaps most severe among the ranks of faculty and college administrators. Women are only 25 percent of full-time faculty; they are clustered at the lower professional ranks, and their status has been described as "sliding slowly downhill." 73 College administration is still a male-dominated field; as of May 1977 only about 1 percent of all presidents of 4-year colleges and public and private universities were women. 74

Federal legislation to address these problems includes Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments, which broadly prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs financed by the Federal Government. 75 However, two extensive reviews of Title IX show it has failed to have much effect. 76 The outcome of the July 1978 deadline for compliance by secondary and postsecondary schools with the athletics provisions of the regulations remains to be seen. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare <the Federal agency chiefly responsible for Title IX enforcement) took 3 years to issue the regulations necessary to enforce Title IX, and other agencies with enforcement responsibilities still have no regulations at all more than 6 years after Title IX became law. 77

Even after HEW's delayed response, a court order was necessary to trigger even minimal administrative enforcement of the statute.78 The administrative enforcement process itself has failed to result in clear and consistent rulings; has included withdrawal of rulings when they became the center of controversy; and in 6 years has reached a final decision in less than 500 complaints of sex discrimination of a total

13586 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE June 14, 1982 of 1,400 pending-an average of less than one complaint per investigator per year. 79

Indeed, for the 10 months preceding June 1977, HEW stopped making decisions on Title IX almost completely and did not even answer mail dealing with the act. so

Individuals turning to the courts for relief under Title IX have met with further resistance. In fact, their right to go to court at all under Title IX has been questioned.81

The Federal Equal Rights Amendment will provide an independent basis with which to challenge sex bias in education programs that directly or substantially involve government action. Unlike Title IX, Federal funding will not be required to trigger its application. The right of a student or teacher to go to court when faced with sexbased discrimination will be clear. Ratification of the ERA can be expected to prompt more effective enforcement of antidiscrimination laws concerning education. It will be a clear mandate of the highest order that sex bias is not acceptable in our Nation's schools.

Moreover, the symbolic effect of the Equal Rights Amendment on our childrens' education cannot be overestimated. It will assure that the study of the Constitution finally will include the principle that women and men are equal before the law.

EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES

The 5th and 14th amendments have never been interpreted to prohibit all discrimination against women as a class. Indeed, before 1971, even the sharpest sex-based classifications survived constitutional review, usually justified as "preferential" to women. Gender lines upheld by the Supreme Court have included those that kept women off juries, 82 barred them from occupations ranging from attorney 83 to bartender, 84 and before the 19th amendment, denied them the right to vote. 85

The Court signaled a new direction in Reed v. Reed, a 1971 decision that struck down an Idaho statute which gave men preference over women in administering the estates of deceased relatives. 86 Following Reed, the Court in Frontiero v. Richardson 87 declared unconstitutional a statute that gave automatic fringe benefits to wives of men in the uniformed services, while requiring husbands of servicewomen to prove dependence.

Despite this new willingness to reject sexbiased laws, the Court consistently has stopped short of declaring a sex a "suspect" classification, as it has done with race and national origin. The explanation for this hesitancy offered by Justice Powell in Frontiero underscores the importance of ratification of the ERA:

"There is another, and I find compelling, reason for deferring a general categorizing of sex classification as invoking the strictest test of judicial scrutiny. The Equal Rights Amendment, which if adopted will resolve the substance of this precise question, has been approved by the Congress and submitted for ratification by the states." 88

Supreme Court rulings in sex discrimination cases following Frontiero have been uneven. The Court has upheld sex-based classifications against equal protection challenges in some cases, 89 while invalidating them in others. 90 In one case challenging sex-segregated schools < Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia>. it was unable to reach any decision at all. 91 The effect in Vorchheimer was to let stand the lower court's opinion allowing sex-segregated schools.92

In the recent Bakke decision, Justice Powell, writing the deciding opinion, explained why the Court "has never viewed [gender-based classifications] as inherently suspect or comparable to racial or ethnic classifications for the purpose of equal-protection analysis." Discrimination against women, Justice Powell states in Bakke, is not "inherently odious" when compared to the "lengthy and tragic history" of racial bias.93 Such a comparison of victims of discrimination surely is neither required nor appropriate, and Justice Powell himself recognizes elsewhere in his Bakke opinion that "the kind of variable sociological and political analysis necessary to produce such rankings simply does not lie within judicial competence .... " 94 Moreover, Justice Powell's summary of the Supreme Court's view of sex-based classifications is further evidence that the Court has failed to recognize and understand the history and invidious nature of sex discrimination in this country.

The Court's record in the 7 years since Reed has included some remarkable gains. But as Columbia law professor Ruth Ginsburg has commented: "the 1970's break with tradition is hardly clear and clean. The Court's performance is characterized by vacillation, 5-4 decisions and a tendency to shy away from doctrinal development." 95

Indeed, the unsettled issue of the ERA itself seems to be causing the Court to move less forcefully in striking down gender-based discrimination.

Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment will set a standard for review of sex discrimination claims that clearly goes beyond current interpretations of the 5th and 14th amendments in such cases. The ERA standard would prohibit sex-based classifications, except where the constitutional right to privacy or physical characteristics unique to one sex are concerned. 9 s The amendment will provide a firm root for the doctrine of equal protection for women and men under the law. The application of this principle of equality is discussed in chapter 3.

FOQTNOTES 1 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Social Indica

tors of Equality for minorities and Women (1978) <hereinafter cited as Social Indicators>.

2 u.s_ Commission on Civil Rights, Sex Bias in the U.S. Code <1977> (hereinafter cited as Sex Bias in the U.S. Code>.

3 Freeman, testimony Before Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of House Judiciary Committee <May 19, 1978>. ·

4 See, Crozier, Marital Support, 15 Boston Univ. L. Rev. 28 0935>; W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 442.

•See, e.g., m. Ann. Stat. ch 68, §§, 6, 9 <SmithHurd 1959>; Me. Rev. Stat. Tit. 19, §§ 161-63 <West 1965).

• See generally, B. Brown, A. Freedman, H. Katz, A. Price, Women's Rights and the Law: The Impact of the ERA on State Laws 97-202 <1977).

7 L. McGough, The Legal Status of Homemakers in Georgia <Nat'l Comm'n on the Observance of IWY, 1977).

8 Louisiana law describes the husband as. the "head and master'' of the comm.unity property and grants him the rights to full management and control. La. Stat. Ann. Civ. Code Art. 2404 <West 1971>. The constitutionality of the "head and master" law was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court. Corpus Christi Parish Credit Union v. Martin, 358 S.2d 295 <1978), cerL denied, 47 U.S.L.W. 3246 ( 1978>. The legislature recently has amended this law, but the changes are nQt effective until 1980. La. H. Bill 1569 <enacted on July 12, 1978>.

Male management .principles also survive in two common law property States. D'Ercole v. D'Ercole, 407 F . Supp. 1377, 1380 <D. Mass. 1976>; Rauchfuss v. Rauchfuss, 234 S.E.2d 423 <N.C. App. 1977>. See also, C. Slaughter, The Legal status of Homemakers in Mississippi <Nat'l comm'n on the Observance of IWY, 1977>.

9 Wis. Stat. Ann. 246.05 0975>. 10See, e.g., Bates v. Donnafield, 481 P. 2d, 347

<Wyo. 1971> See generally, Brown et al., Women's Rights and the Law, supra, at 118.

11 Real Women, Real Lives-Marriage, Divorce, Widowhood 17-19 <Wisc. Gov. Comm'n on the Status of Women, 1978> <hereinafter cited as Real Women, Real Lives>.

12See, e.g., Report of the President's Commission on the Status of Women 47 <1963>. Of course, not all homemakers are women, and sometimes the laws that disadvantage homemakers deny fair treatment to men.

13 See More Perfect Union, supra, at 13-14. 14 For a discussion of Federal inheritance and gift

taxes imposed on property transfers between spouses, see, e.g., S. Cunningham, The Legal Status of Homemakers in Nebraska 13 <Nat'l Comm'n on the Observance of IWY, 1977>. Changes in Federal tax laws in 1976 and 1978 may have eased the burden on the Nebraska woman described in the text, but did not eliminate the unequal treatment of homemakers and their wage-earning spol.Lc;es.

Similar inequities sometimes result under State tax laws. See, e.g., Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 118.010 <2><a><l974>; Rhode Island Gen. L. Ann. §44-22-7<6>.

.. DiFlorido v. DiFlorido, 459 Pa. 641, 331 A.2d 174 <1975>. See discussion in/ra, ch. 3, "Domestic Relations."

'"See, e.g., J. Goodman, Legal Status of Homemakers in New York 16 <Nat'l Comm'n on the Observance of IWY, 1977>; S. Sousa and M. Tracey, Legal Status of Homemakers in Rhode Island 14 <Nat'l Comm'n on the Observance of IWY, 1977>. See, generally. A. Bingman, "The Impact of the ERA on Marital Economics," Impact ERA: Limitations and Possibilities 116-25 Ced. Calif. Comm'n on the Status of Women. 1976>.

17 Id. at 118. 18 15 U.S.C. § 1691d<b> <Supp. 1978>; 12 C.F .R.

202.5(1)(1977). 19 See Department of Health, Education, and Wel

fare, Report of the HEW Task Force on the Treatment of Women under Social Security <1978). See also, Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, supra, at 36 < 1977>. Women who are wage earners also are disadvantaged in several ways under the social security program.

20 42 U.S.C. § 402Cb> and <e> 0974> as amended 0978 supp.>.

21 See, e.g. McGuire v. McGuire, 59N.W.2d 336 <Neb. 1953>; Commonwealth v. George, 358 Pa. 118, 56 A.2d 228 <1948). See Paulsen, Support Rights and Duties, 9 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 709, 719 0956).

22 Real Women, Real Lives, supra, at 43-45. 23 More Perfect Union, supra, at 16. 24 L. Weitzman, Legal Regulation of Marriage:

Tradition and Change, 62 Cal. L. Rev. 1169, 1195 (1974).

28 J. Crittendon, The Legal Status of Homemakers in Alabama 11 <Nat'l Comm'n on the Observance of IWY, 1977>.

28 Sousa and Tracey, The Legal Status of Homemakers in Rhode Island 17 <Nat'l Comm'n on the Observance of IWY, 1977>. In some instances, this practice may be successfully challenged under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, see Reg. B, 12 C.F.R. 202.6Cb)C5><March 1977>.

27 Rep. Florence Dwyer, 117 Cong. Rec. 35319 (1971).

28 Social Indicators, supra, at 39-45. For example, a higher proportion of employed women were clercial or service workers in 1970 than in 1960. U.S. Department of Commerce, A Statistical Portrait of Women in the U.S. at table 8-1 0976).

29 Social Indicators, supra, at 45. 30 Women's Equity Action League, "Women and

Work: The Unequal Paycheck," 7 WEAL Washington Report 6 <April 1978). See generally, U.S. Department of Labor, 1975 Handbook on Women Workers 88-92 (1975>.

31 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Women and Poverty 7 <1974>.

32 See, e.g., U.S. Department of Labor, Women and Work 1-7 <1977).

u U.S. Bureau of Census, Income and Poverty Statistics of Families and Persons in the United States 1976 at table 7 <P-60 No. 107, Advance Report>.

34 U.S., Department of Labor, U.S. Working Women: A Databook 34 <table 36) <1977> <hereinafter cited as U.S. Working Women>.

35 U.S., Bureau of the Census, Money Income in 1975 of Families and Persom in the U.S., table 55 <Current Population Reports Series, P-60 No. 105>.

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13587 38 Social Indicators, supra, at 54. 37 Compare U.S. Department of Labor, 1975

Handbook, supra, at 131 with U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The State of Civil Rights 2< 1977>.

38 See, U.S. Working Women, supra, at table 53. See also G. Borjas, Discrimination in HEW: Is the Doctor sick or Are the Patients Healthy? <unpublished paper, Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, Chicago, Ill., 1978>. which showed white males employed in one Federal agency earned about 23 percent more than white females in 1977 and 31 percent more than black females.

38 29 U.S.C. § 206Cd>Cl974). • 0 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2003-16 <1974). Some State

legislatures also have enacted broad fair employment practices laws.

• • The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has reported elsewhere on the persistent enforcement problems with respect to Federal equal employment laws see, e.g., The Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort-1977, to Eliminate Employment Discrimination: A Sequel <1977>.

42 Employers of fewer than 15 employees also are not covered by Title VII. 42 U.D.C. § 20003e(b) (1974).

• 3 41 U.S.C. § 35: See also, 30 U.S.C. §187, which flatly prohibits hiring women to work in certain mineral mines on federally-owned lands. For a review of State protective labor laws, see Brown et al., Women's Rights and the Law, supra, at table 6.1.

44 For a review of sex discriminatory provisions regarding the armed forces, see Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, supra, at 19-33: ACLU, "Women and the Military," Notes from the Women's Rights Project 6 0977>; veterans preference programs exist at both the Federal and State levels.

45 The White House, Proposed Modification of Veteran's Preference Fact Sheet 2 <1978>. The result of this bias is seen in the case of a Dallas woman who applied for a Federal air traffic controller job. She scored a perfect 100 percent on the civil service examination, but because of job preferences automatically given to veterans, she was ranked 147th on th job roster. A. Otten, " Congress and the Veterans Lobby." Wall Street Journal, July 26, 1978, at 12. The House of Representatives recently voted to retain existing veterans preference standards by adopting an amendment to H.R. 11280, Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 124 Cong. Rec. H9401 (daily ed. Sept. 11, 1978).

•8 International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 413 U.S. 324 Cl977>.

• 1 Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 <1977). See P. Ogg. Title VII: Are exceptions Swallowing the Rule? 13 Tulsa L. J. 108 <1977>.

48 General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 0976>. Workers disabled by pregnancy, however, cannot be denied accumulated seniority. Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U.S. 136 <1977). In the 1978 session, Congress amended Title VII to require that pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions be treated the same as other disabilities under employer programs. Act of Oct. 31, 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076-77 Cto be codified in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e).

48 See, e.g., Johnson v. University of Pittsburgh, 435 F . Supp. 1328 CW.D. Pa. 1977>. See generally, Vladeck and Young. Sex Discrimination in Higher Education, 4 Women's Rights L. Rep. 59 <1978>.

•o Johnston and Knapp, Sex Discrimination by Law: a Study in Judicial Perspective, 46 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 675, 676 0971).

• 1 U.S. Working Women, supra, at 44. u See, Brown et al., Women's Right and the Law,

supra, at 223-25 <description of State reform efforts).

u CJ. P. Ogg. "Title VII . . .," supra. .. In some instances, however, men have received

harsher treatment in the criminal justice system. See generally Brown et al., Women's Rights and the Law, supra, at 45-96.

66 See Farr v. State, 304 So.2d 898, 902 <Crim- App. Ala. 1974>; Warren v. State, 34 Ala. App. 447, 41 So.2d 201 0949>.

••As of 1977 rape statues in 27 States provided for the husband's immunity. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code § 261 <West Supp. 1976>; Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14.41 <West Supp. 1976). See generally, The Marital Rape Exemption, 52 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 306 0977>. As an example of lesser protection given men under criminal laws, approximately 25 States do not protect any male victims of sexual assault in their forcible rape statutes. See Brown et al., Women's Rights and the Law, supra, at 46.

• 7 For example, the Alaska statute defining prostitution refers specifically to "females." Alaska

Stat. § 11.40.210 <1970). See generally, Brown et al., Women's Rights and the Law, supra at 66.

58 Id. at 67. See, e.g., Ill. Ann. Stat. Ch. 38, § 11-14, 11-18 <Smith Hurd 1977>; Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3512, 21-3515.

09 American Bar Association Commission on Correctional Facilities and Services, " Women in Detention and Statewide Jail Standards," 7 Clearinghouse Bulletin 1, 7-8 <March 1974), reports that 70 percent of female youths are detained for status offenses while only 23 percent of male youths are detained for such offenses. See also P. Cohen, "A Double Standard of Justice," 10 Civil Rights Digest 10 <Spring 1978>; Female Offender Resource Center, Survey of Educational and Vocational Programs in State Juvenile Correctional Institutions <American Bar Association, 1975).

5 ou.s., Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Little Sisters and the Law 0977>. According to this study, girls have longer average confinements than boys even though the vast majority of the boys C82 percent> were criminal offenders and nearly half of the girls were status offensers Cp. 16). See also, R. Vinter and R. Sarri, Time OuL· A National Study of Juvenile Correction Programs <National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections, University of Michigan, 1976>.

81 Brown et al., Women's Rights and the Law, supra, at 83. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 18-65.

82 Brown et al., Women's Rights and the Law, supra, at 83.

83 See, e.g., Crisman, Position Paper on Women in Prisons 2 (unpublished report, ACLU Nat'l Prison Project 1976>; Haft, "Women in Prisons: Discriminatory Practices with Some Legal Solutions," 8 Clearinghouse Review 1 (1974). See generally, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Information Sources: Women in Prison 0975).

84 Extending the Ratification Period for the Proposed Equal Rights AmendmenL· Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 95th Cong., 1st and 2d sess., 337 0977-78) <testimony of Frankie Freeman, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights>.

85 S. Rep. No. 92-689, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 92d Cong., 2d sess, 8 <1972>.

88 Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education, Comparative Analysis of Vocational Education Entrollment by Sex in Fiscal Year 1972 and 1975 <unpublished report, U.S. Office of Education>

87 See A. Novick and D. Griffiths, Sex-Segregated Public Schools: VorcMeimer v. School District of Philadelphia and the Judicial Definition of an Equal Education for Women, 4 Women's Rights L. Rep. 79 Cl978).

88 Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia, 400 F. Supp. 326 CE.D. Pa 1975). rev'd, 532 F.2d 880. C3d Cir. 1976), aff'd mem by an equally divided Court, 430 U.S. 703 0977).

89 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 692 0973> <concurring opinion).

70 National Federation of State H.S. Association, 1977 Sports Participation Survey Cl977).

71 Margot Polivy, attorney for the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women, quoted in "Comes the Revolution," Time, June 26, 1978.

72 Social Indicators. supra. at 14-16. 73 On Campus with Women <Association of Amer

ican Colleges, June 1978), citing figures from No Progress This Year: Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 1976-77 <American Association of University Professors). See Suzanne Howard, But We Will PersisL· A Comparative Research Report on the Status of Women in Academe <American Association of University Women, 1978>.

74 A.W. Astin, Data Pertaining to the Education of Women: A Challenge to the Federal Government (unpublished paper, 1978>.

75 20 U.S.C. §§1681-86 0976>. In addition to applying only to federally-financed schools, the statute has several exceptions. Institutions and the activities expressly exempted include: Cl> admissions to elementary and secondary schools, private undergraduate colleges, and public colleges that have been single sex from the beginning; C2> military training schools; C3> religious schools where compliance with Title IX would be inconsistent with religious tenets; and C4> Boys State/Girls State 20 U.S.C. §168Ca>. In addition, Federal re.gulations promulgated under Title IX expressly exempt such activities as the "Y," Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, arid Campfire Girls. 45 C.F.R. §86.11 0977>.

7 6 See Project on Equal Education Rights C"PEER">, Stalled at the Start <1977); American Friends ServJce Committee, Almost as Fairly C 1977).

77 The HEW regulations became effective June 4, 1975. See PEER, Stalled at the Start, supra. With respect to other; agencies, see National Advisory Council on Women's Educational Programs, The Unenforced law; Title IX Activity by Federal Agencies Other Than HEWC1978>.

78 See consent order in Adams v. Califano, No. 3095-70 and WEAL v. Califano, No. 74-1720 CD.D.C. Dec. 29, 1977>.

79 National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, Statement by Dot Ridings et al. 1 <June 26, 1978).

80 PEER, Stalled at the Start, supra, at 8. 8 1 The only Federal appellate court to decide so

far whether private parties have an implied right to sue private universities under Title IX held that such right does not exist. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 559 F.2d 1063 C7th Cir. 1977) Con rehearing), cerL granted, 46 U.S.L.W. 3799 <June 27, 1978>. Another Federal appellate court recently has held that such a right can be implied under Title IX with respect to public schools. De la Cruz v. Tormey-F.2d-C9th Cir. Sept. 13, 1978>. As to employment discrimination in educational institutions, recent district court decisions have held that Title IX does not apply at all, thereby limiting the statute's scope to students. See, e.g., Romeo Community Schools v. HEW, 438 F. Supp. 1021 CE.D. Mich. 1977>. on appeal to the Sixth Circuit.

82 Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 <1961>. 83 Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 0872>. 84 Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 0948). s• Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 0874>. 86 404 U.S. 71 (1971). See generally, R. Ginsburg,

"From No Rights, to Half Rights, to Confusing Rights," 7 Human Rights 13 (1978).

8 7 411 U.S. 677 (1973). 88 Frontiero v. Richardson, supra, 411 U.S. at 691-

2 <Justice Powell, concurring, joined by Justice Blackmun and Chief Justice Burger.>

89 See, e.g., Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498 0975> <upholding Navy rule guaranteeing female officers more years than male before mandatory discharge for lack of promotion; no consideration given ways men were advantaged by this differential); Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U.S. 351 0974> <upholding exclusion of widowers from tax exemption granted to widows: the exception saved the widow who owned real property the sum of $15 annually and was granted to only two other classes of people: the blind and the totally disabled>; Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 494 <1974> holding a State statute that excluded women disabled by pregnancy from a workers' income-protection insurance plan.>.

90 See, e.g.,Califano v. Goldberg, 430 U.S. 199 <1977> (invalidated social security provision requiring widowers to prove they had been dependent on their wife's income while automatically qualifying widows for survivors' benefits>; Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 <1976) <invalidating State law that allowed 18-year-old girls to purchase beer but made boys wait until they were 21>; Weinberger v. Weisenfeld, 420 U.S.-636 0975> <invalidating social security provision that denied widowed fathers who wished to take care of their children the same benefits available to widowed mothers>.

91 Vorchheimer. V. School District of Philadelphia, 532 F.2d 880 C3d Cir. 1976), aff'd mem by an equally divided Court 430 U.S. 703 (1977).

92 See generally, A. Novick and D . Griffiths, SexSegregated Public Schools ... , supra, and discussion supra in "Education." ch. 2.

93 Regents of the University of Calfornia v. Bakke, 438 U.S.-,98 Ct. 2733, 2755 0978>.

94 Id. at 4903. For a discussion of parallels between race and sex discrimination, see G. Myrdal, An American Dilemma, 1073-78 <1962 ed.).

95 R. Ginsburg. "From No Rights ... , "supra, at 47.

98 See Brown et al., Women 's Rights and the Law, supra.,-a.t 15-19.e

ELIMINATING MANDATORY RETIREMENT

e Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, the American dream is a promise of opportunity. It is a promise that each of us, limited only by our own abilities, can strive to achieve any goal we seek. In real terms, we are still seeking to achieve this equality of op-

13588 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982

portunity. Today, we have a chance to bring every American closer to this ideal. We can achieve this by supporting legislation that Senator HEINZ, Senator CHILES, and I are introducing this morning, legislation which would eliminate mandatory retirement.

It seems incredible to me that in a country where we so strongly value the right to choose our own careers and lifestyles, we still have a law which allows mandatory retirement. Through this law, we condone the dismissal of a worker for no better reason than the fact that he or she turned 70 years old. This is not freedom. This is not fair. And, this should not be allowed to continue.

Not every older American wants to continue working past the average retirement age. Many seniors look forward to retirement as an opportunity to pursue hobbies, travel, and leisure activities with their loved ones. Others are forced into retirement due to illness or disability. But it is also true that the decision to retire is not a pleasant one for every senior. Many older workers see the approach of retirement age, not as an opportunity for a different lifestyle, but as a barrier to continuing their career.

We began to address the problem of forced retirement when Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1978. These amendments completely eliminated mandatory retirement for Federal employees and raised the retirement age for private employees to 70. Today, with the introduction of legislation to remove this age 70 "cap," we have the opportunity to eliminate mandatory retirement altogether.

What will this mean to workers and to the businesses they serve? It will mean that each employee, whether 17 or 70, will be evaluated as an individual with different talents and skills. The mere fact that someone has turned 70 years of age will not mean that he or she is no longer a productive employee. We need only look as far as the White House to see a man well past retirement age handling the most grueling job in Government. In the private sector, Ronald Reagan's 70th birthday might have marked the point of mandatory retirement. Instead, it marked the beginning of a new phase in his public service.

Older workers can represent a viable part of the American work force. Today more than 26 million Americans over 11 percent of our population,' are 65 years of age or older. This age group will build in significance as more than 5,000 Americans celebrate their 65th birthday each day. I am talking about the phenomenon known as the graying of America. Projections show that by the year 2030 over 20 percent of our population will be 65 or older. At the same time the number of older Americans is increasing, there

will be a dwindling number of younger persons in the labor force. This means that we will be facing a worker shortage at the same time we will have a burgeoning senior population.

These older Americans off er a wealth of experience and skills that will be sorely needed in the workplace. Every senior many not want to work past average retirement age and every senior may not be qualified for the job he or she seeks, but age alone should not be the limiting factor. We need to look beyond a few gray hairs to the person and realize that older Americans can continue to be an important part of a productive economy.

I hope each of my colleagues will join me in supporting the end to mandatory retirement. Let us back up the promise of opportunity with action.e

GRADUATION 1982 e Mr. GARN. Mr. President, the Memorial Day recess was, as it always is, graduation time for many high schools throughout the country. Utah was no exception as thousands of graduates "commenced" a new life in the real world. For most it appeared to be a time of hope; for a significant number, it was a time to reflect on their high school careers, and to assess the value of that career, in terms of the demands placed upon them and the preparation it gave them for the future.

The Salt Lake Tribune took the opportunity to survey the opinions of typical high school graduates in Utah, coming up with some interesting findings. I make no pretense that Utah is typical of the Nation, or that this survey can accurately reflect the views of all graduates, but it did provide me with some food for thought. Perhaps it will others as well. I insert the survey, together with two explanatory articles from the Tribune, be printed at this point in the RECORD.

The material follows: [From the Salt Lake Tribune, May 30, 1982]

TRIBUNE SURVEY-SENIORS' LAST YEAR WORTHWHILE

<By Diane Cole) Most students in Utah's Class of '82 think

their senior ·year of high school was worthwhile. Few say their graduation requirements were too difficult, but many describe them as too easy.

These are just a few results of a Tribune survey of 910 seniors this spring. The survey also reveals wide lifestyle differences between private and public school students.

Nearly five times as many private school students as public school students said they smoke cigarettes. More than three times as many regularly drink alcohol and/or use drugs, and more than twice as many say they're "sexually active."

VIEW LIFESTYLES

Fewer private school students feel their family life is good, and fewer consider themselves religious. Also, fewer have jobs and full access to a car.

Yet these private school students appear more academically motivated than their public school peers.

In general, students with below-average grades report an even greater incidence of c~garette smoking, drug or alcohol use and sexual activity than private school students. <Since only 2 percent of all respondents fell into this category, these statistics may be skewed.)

Of students with less than a C average, 58 percent said they drink alcohol and/use drugs regularly; 37 percent smoke; 63 percent are sexually active, and 32 precent are religious. On the other hand, of students with B-plus or better only 9 percent drink alcohol and /use drugs; 3 precent smoke; 10 ptecent are sexually active, and 82 percent are religious.

MORE MALES ACTIVE

It also appears that three times as many male students as females say they are sexually active. More girls consider themselves religious, and less than half as many drink alcohol or use drugs regularly.

Fifteen schools throughout the state, including large, small, public and private institutions, particpated in the survey. They are South Rich, Parowan, Grantsville, Valley High (Jordan District), Judge Memorial Catholic, Rowland Hall-St. Mark's, St. Joseph Catholic, Wasatch Academy, Cedar City, Orem, Layton, Viewmont, Olympus, Hillcrest and East high schools.

<Administrators at Richfield, San Juan, Carbon, Roy and Mount Vernon Academy failed to return the questionnaires. Douglas W. Loosle at Richfield, for example, refused to expose his students to the questions involved.)

The survey results obviously are shewed toward students planning to attend college, according to Lerue Winget, associate state superintendent of public instruction. However, he added, the Tribune survey produced some useful information.

HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS

The skewing may be the result of many unmotivated students dropping out of school before the survey was given, Dr. Winget said, noting 15 to 19 percent of Utah's high school students fail to finish school. Also, some schools gave the surveys to English classes full of college-bound students.

The high proportion of academically inclined students shows up in the high numbers of respondents earning B-plus and better grades, taking foreign languages, completing calculus, earning college-level credit and planning to continue their education.

For example, the Tribune survey shows that 93 percent of the members of the Class of '82 will seek further education Dr. Winget said 69 percent is more accurate. The survey also indicates in 27 percent earned college-level credit in high school, but state school officials estimate only 5 percent fall into this category. ·

SOME DISCREPANCY

While 35 percent of the respondents reported having a 3.5 or better grade-average, 35 percent above 3.0 is probably more accurate, Dr. Winget said. The figures for foreign language and math also are a little high, he added.

Of those students participating in the survey, 53 percent are male, 47 percent are female. Twenty-five percent attended small schools, 75 percent are from large schools

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13589 and 9 percent of the respondents attended private schools.

Vocationally oriented students generally receive lower grades than academically oriented students, according to the survey. Also, a larger percentage of females earn the best grades for academic performance, and only 3 percent of the females surveyed plans to be full-time homemakers.

Private school students tend to receive lower grades than public students do, but private school students also seem to take more challenging courses. More of them also plan professional careers.

DISCIPLINE TOO STRICT Private school students are more likely to

say school discipline is too strict, and fewer say their teachers are too lenient. Yet few feel their teachers were too demanding.

Although more public than private school students said their graduation requirements are too easy, 23 percent of all respondents describe them as too easy.

Half of all respondents said their senior year was worthwhile, and another 42 percent described it as semi-worthwhile. Only 7 percent feel the year was a waste of time.

In written comments on the survey, it became apparent that students feel the social life and extra-curricular activities like sports greatly added to the value of the year. Students also said it's possible to either take advantage of good educational opportunities or to slide by with little effort.

REEXAMINE REQUIREMENTS

This comes at a time when the state school board is re-examining graduation requirements because of the perception that high schools aren't challenging seniors. Also, college and university officials are considering raising entrance requirements.

Students value team sports more than any other school activity. Dances and music also rank among the most important activities, while field trips and clubs are at the bottom

Question: Which classes did you focus on most the past 2 years?

of the list. Students with the lowest academic grades rated dances above sports.

More than 20 percent of the seniors said job training and career and college counseling were inadequate at their schools.

More than five times as many private school students as public school students plan to leave Utah for their college education.

The reputation of the school emerged as the most important factor in students' choice of colleges.

THE 1982 HIGH SCHOOL GRADS-FOR BETTER OR WORSE?

<By Diane Cole) Most high school teachers and administra

tors think the behavior and academic performance of this year's seniors are the same or better than previous classes.

In a survey conducted in 15 Utah high schools, The Tribune tested 124 educators' perceptions of this year's graduating class.

More counselors and administrators (39 percent> than teachers <20 percent) feel this class is academically superior to previous groups of students. Only 9 percent overall said these seniors are wqrse than those of other classes, and 66 percent said they're comparable.

On the other hand, slightly more teachers (27 percent> than counselors and administrators (22 percent) believe student behavior this year was better than in the past. Only 7 percent of all respondents said the Class of '82 is worse behaved than past groups.

LESS DRUG ABUSE The educators indicate they believe there

is less abuse of drugs and alcohol among this year's seniors.

Respondents are about equally divided in their opinions of student participation in extracurricular activities and challenging courses. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude that students today enroll in more or

1982 SURVEY OF UTAH HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS 1

[Amount in percent]

Total 2

Academics...... ........... ... ..................................................................................... . ................... ...................... .................. .. .............. . 74 Vocational......................................................................................... .................... . ............................................................................ . 26

What is your average GPA ( 4.0 is the highest) the past 4 years? 3.5 or above (B +) .... .............................. ....... .. ............... .......... ....................... . ........ .................................. ............ . 35 2.0 or below (D) .......... ................................................................................................................. . 2 Other.. ............................................................... .............................................................................. . 62

Describe your senior year: Very worthwhile ........................................................... ....................................................... . 50 A waste of time ......................................................... ........................................................ . .................................................................. . 7 Semi-worthwhile .................................. ........................................ ....................................... . 42

Describe your high school graduation requirements: Too tough .................... ...................................................................... .................. .................................................................................. . Too easy ...................... ........................................................................... ............................................................................................... .

4 23

About right ............. .......... ....... ..................................... ............ . .................................................................... . Yes, 1 ~~~; i~t~~4,i~:;:i~e11a~f u~kroiii;iieif<if ···········............ .......... ·· ············· ··································· ·· ········· ········

73 57

General..................................... .. .................... ........ . .................................................................... . 11 Algebra 1 ..... ... ...................... .. ......................... ............ ............................. .. ...................... .. ................................................................... . Geometry ..... .......................................................................................................... ............................................... .. .............................. .

22 13

College algebra or trigonometry.... ... . . ........... . .. ............. ............. ... ............... ......... .. ........ .. ............ ............ ............ . ..................... ...... . 39 Calculus ..... ..................................................................................................................................................... ........... .............................. . 14

Yes, I earned college-level credit while in high school........................................ . ........................ ........................................................................... . Describe most of your teachers:

Too demanding ...................... ................... ............................................................................................................................................... .

27

6 Too lenient............................................. .. .............. ..... .............. ............. . .............................................. . 14 About right... ............................................................................................ ............................................................................................... .

How would you describe your school's discipline? Too strict ..... ... ....................................................... .... ........................................................................................... .................................... •

79

19 Too lenient... ............................................................................. ................................... ........... .. .......... ................... .................................. . 15

Has h~~.~~'.~:~~'.~~~ :~~'.~::~~::'.~'.: :~~;: :~~::~~~: : 10, : ii'.~!. ::: : :: : :: : ::::::::::::: : :: ::: : :: :: : ::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : : : ::: : ::: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: 65

57 No, not in academic skills.......................... .... . . .................. . .......... ..... ........... . 8 No, not in career and college counseling ... .... ...................... . .................................................................... . No, not in iob training ... ........... .............. .. ............................. ............................... .......... . ........................................... , .... . No, not in life skills ........ ... ....... ............... . ....................................... .

22 22 10

What do you plan to do now? Get married within 6 months...... .. .. ......... .. .................................. . ..................................... .

less difficult classes or that students participate in more or fewer school activities.

Here is a sample of the educators' written comments on concerns about the Class of '82:

Roslyn Rappaport, Hillcrest High math teacher-"We must raise our academic expectations. Kids take the easy way out and are graduating far less prepared than they could be."

MUST IMPROVE WRITING Carol Spackman, Olympus language arts

teacher-"Student writing needs to improve, and this won't happen until teachers assign more writing. This won't happen if class loads are increased."

Rob Northness, Judge Memorial Catholic High language arts teacher-"Students would appreciate education more and standards would increase if it were seen as a privi-lege, not a right." ·

Cedar City High vocational teacher-"We have many talented, outstanding seniors. There seems to be growing numbers of students who are rude, use crude language and lack respect for anyone."

BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS Ronald L . Huber, Olympus physical edu

cation teacher-"A lot of the behavior problems today go back to the home environment and the backing from the home. We hear how test scores are dropping over the last 15 to 20 years, but we have never heard that we have more students staying in school than before. I know when I was in school, we had around 700 students in my sophomore class, and my graduation class had around 425."

Orem High language arts teacher: " If our expectations and standards are lower than 20 years age, it is simply because parents and students have insisted on it. If either group had resisted, we would have held the line. Society gets what it wants, and today, everybody has a high school diploma."

Male Female Public Private

74 73 72 92 25 27 28 8

27 44 36 27 3 1 2 2

70 54 61 69

48 52 49 54 7 7 7 7

45 40 43 36

4 3 4 5 25 20 23 16 70 76 72 80 55 59 53 94

12 11 12 4 21 24 23 11 11 16 13 14 38 39 38 48 17 10 13 23 28 26 28 19

7 5 , 6 7 14 14 15 1 78 80 78 90

22 16 18 30 14 17 17 2 64 66 65 66

55 59 56 65 10 6 9 2 21 23 22 24 22 21 22 19 11 9 10 11

13590 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 1982 SURVEY OF UTAH HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS 1-Continued

June 14, 1982

[Amount in percent]

Go on an LDS mission ............................................................................................................................................................................. .

~~ ::i~1~~~1::~~:~::~:~~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :::::::::::: What career will you pursue?

=:~ .. l.~~'. .. ~.'.~.~· ... ~~~.' .. ~~~'.~.'. : .. ~r.c~i'.~.t :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............ . Business administrator ............................................................................................................................................................................. . Salesman ........................................................................................................ .. ....................................................................................... . Engineer, computer scientist........................................ .. . ....... ................................. .. .................. .................................. . Professional entertainer (musician, actor) .................................. .............................................................................. ............................ . Writer, artist... ................................................ .. ............ .. ......................................................................................................................... . Teacher, social worker ............................................................................................................................................................................. . Skilled worker ....................................................................................... . ............................................................ . Technician .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . Professional athlete ............................ : ....................................... .. .......... ............ ........... ................................................................ ........... . Homemaker, full lime ........................................................................................................................ ... ................................................... . Other.. ................................................................................................................ ...................................................................................... .

Which school do you hope to attend? U. of U. or USU ·········································································································· ·· ·······························································'···········

i~.l~)~ : :=::~ := Out-of-state college or university............ .. ............ ........................................................................ . ................................. .

What two factors most influenced your choice of college/ university? Size of school .................................................... .............................. ... ............................................. . ............ ..................... .

w~iga:y··iiiiiii .. hciiiie::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::··:::::::::::::::::::::: .. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: It's close to home ..... .. . ......... ............. .... ........ . . ........... .. . . ....... .. .. ....... ... ......... .. ....... . .. ...... ... ....... .. ....... .. ........ . .............. ........ .. ............ . Reputation of school .................................................................... . ................. .............. ... ... ............................................ . Social life of school ...................................... . .. . .. ........... ........... ... . ..................... ....... . .......................................................................... . Parent's desires ............................... ................................... .................. ...... .............................. . ................ ........... ...... .

Yes, IH: :~~ :J~g~~= d~~rs:k frifs"~? loans ............................................................................................................................. .

None .......................................................................................... ............... .................... ....... .. ....... .. ........................ ............................... . Fewer than I 0 hours ...................................... ........................................... ................. .. ........................................................................... . Between IO and 20 hours ................................................................................ .. .................................................................................. . More than 20 hours. ........................................................................... .. ............................. ................... . .. .......................... .

Describe your family life: Good .................. .. ................................................................................ .. .............................................................................. ... . Fair .... .................................... . ......................................... ......... .. ...... ... ....... ...................................... ................... .. ............... . Poor ..................................................... .................................................... ... ........ ................................ ................................................. .

Describe yourself: I have full access to a car ...................................................................................................................................................................... .

: :i~;r~gJr\~~~1cohiii"'a.ri<i/iii .. iiSii.iiiiis·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :s:~a~~ff~:1iiiiiiiis ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Total 2 Male

3I 48 I5 18 93 92 9 15

22 23 I I

I3 I2 I 2

I5 23 2 2 4 3 9 3 7 12 6 2 I I 2 0

I5 I3

34 36 I8 17 1 1 6 5 9 8 9 10 2 1

I5 16

24 25 14 II I6 I4 4I 42 45 47 I5 14 8 7

55 55

2I 17 8 6

37 34 33 41

79 78 I7 IS 4 3

72 77 7 7

15 20 19 27 71 67

Female Public Private

I2 34 I 11 I6 2 94 92 99 I 9 8

2I 2I 33 I 1 4

I4 I3 8 0 I 0 6 I5 I9 2 2 4 5 4 5

17 IO 5 I 7 0

II 6 1 0 1 I 3 2 0

I8 15 I8

32 35 22 20 20 0 0 1 0 6 5 IO

10 IO 2 7 9 0 4 2 2

I5 II 60

23 24 27 17 15 5 18 14 37 40 42 25 42 44 52 I5 15 12 IO 8 12 56 55 58

25 20 3I 10 8 6 40 37 34 24 34 24

79 80 67 16 16 23 5 3 7

67 73 60 6 5 24 9 12 41

10 17 4I 76 72 59

1 Of the 910 questionnaires sent to 15 participating high schools, 892 were returned, for a 98 percent return rate. Utah has approximately 22,000 seniors, so some 4 percent were surveyed. The 15 schools are: Sou.th Rich, Parowan, Grantsvme. Val!ey High (Jordan) , Judg~ Memorial ~tho.lie, Rowland Hall-St. Mark's, St. Joseph catholic, Wassatch Academy, Cedar City, Orem, Layton, Viewmont, Olympus, Hillcrest, and East. Frve

schools-San Juan, carbon, Richfield, Mount Vernon and Roy-failed lo respond, so their 285 questionnaires were not counted m the return rate. of 19~'.hough principals were asked to give surveys to a broad spectrum of students, a large share of the respondents appear to be among the most academically motivated. Therefore, results may be skewed toward the best students in the Class

2 Some percentages do not total 100 percent, because more than one response was requested for some questions, some students did not answer all questions and only some answer choices are shown on this chart.

RABBI NAHUM M. BEN-NATAN

e Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, Beth Jacob Congregation in Baltimore is an important center of Jewish religious thought and cultural activity. Its great tradition of service has been carried forward under the spiritual guidance and leadership of Rabbi Nahum M. Ben-Natan.

A dedicated supporter of increased educational opportunities, Rabbi BenNatan has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of Jewish education. He has served as chairman of the Rabbinical Advisory Committee of the Board of Jewish Education, as a member of the Baltimore Board of Teacher Certification, and Licensing Board of Jewish Education, and as a lecturer in the Department of Continuing Education at Baltimore Hebrew College. His energy and concern are reflected in his work within his own congregation, and he has given a strong sense of direction and purpose to the Beth Jacob Lecture

Series, the Hebrew School, and the Sisterhood Bible Class.

Recognizing the central role of the family to a community's sense of cohesion, Rabbi Ben-Natan was instrumental in establishing a seminar for lawyers and social workers on the impact of divorce on the Jewish community. He has also served as a board member of the Associated Jewish Charities Placement and Guidance Bureau, and his personal commitment to charitable causes is eloquent testimony to his public-spirited initiative.

Mr. President, during the last decade Rabbi Nahum M. Ben-Natan has shared his wisdom and scholarship with the members of Beth Jacob Congregation. In appreciation for his compassionate leadership, the congregation will be honoring him June 16 at its annual Patrons of Education dinner. On this fitting occasion, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the outstanding qualities of this community leader.e

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH ADDRESSES FREEDOMS FOUNDATION AWARDS LUNCHEON ·

e Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, on Thursday, the 10th of June, Vice President GEORGE BUSH was the f eatured speaker at the Freedoms Foundation awards luncheon. In his speech, the Vice President stressed the fact that the heroes of our society come from all walks of life and, for the most part, do their work quietly and without fanfare. These are the people the Vice President said, who believe in the basic values of our Government and our society. The values Vice President BUSH emphasized were: "The importance of the family, of national defense, of the volunteer spirit, of vigorous free enterprise, and of Government that truly serves the people, and views that serve as its fundamental mission."

Mr. President, I ask that the complete text of Vice President BusH's remarks be inserted in the RECORD so that all our colleagues may have the

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA TE 13591 benefit of the basic truths about which he spoke.

The speech follows: REMARKS OF VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH

You know, this is about the first time in months that my audience has outnumbered my Secret Service detail.

I'm just delighted to be here to join you in congratulating the winners of your fine award~or the fine winners of your award, whichever way you want to put it.

You'll be hearing the citations shortly, so I won"'t go into very great detail myself about the admiration I have for Justice O'Connor and for the Special Olympics Committee, for the National Coalition for Growth and the Heritage Foundation, that bastion of supply siders on the Potomac. My deepest congratulations to all of you.

You know, I had the occasion not long ago to read a lecture given by Doctor Russell Kirk at the Heritage Foundation. It was titled, "Audacity, Rhetoric, and Poetry in Politics." It was one of those characteristically breathtaking Kirkian sweeps through western civilization. This one took as its premise that audacity is at the heart of all truly exciting and vital political movements. And indeed, that almost nothing is possible without it. Doctor Kirk dismissed with a cursory wave of his hand the predilection of some for the middle of the road. He quoted Richard Weaver's rhetorical admonition, "Do you drive in the middle of the road?"

Dr. Kirk quoted from Danton, T. S. Eliot, Julius Ceasar, Shakespeare, Disraeli-I think Dr. Kirk could probably quote from Disraeli in his sleep. The line I best recall was Disraeli's "Success is the child of audacity." And it's that idea that we might meditate on for a few moments today. Because we've come here to honor audacious, and therefore successful people.

Too often we tend to associate bravery, courage, audacity, patriotism with aspects of war. At the same time, I don't think any of us can have been untouched by reading the account of Mrs. Reagan laying a wreath the other day at the graves of the American soldiers who died at the Normandy beachhead. How grim those statistics still are: over 10,000 American boys killed in the invasion, the invasion which made possible the liberation of Europe. Their audacity took the form of crashing through bulletridden surf, jumping out of planes into almost certain death. Well, there were ten thousand forms of audacity shown during those days.

But what I have in mind today is the audacity of peacetime; the other thousand forms of sacrifice shown by heroes and patriots whose names, most of them, we do not know, and would not recognize. This is why occasions such as this, and awards such as these, should be taken seriously. And it is to the credit of the Freedoms Foundation that it has brought about these occasions, occasions which honor-well, patriots. One does not have to die gallantly on a beach somewhere to be a patriot.

I think through the years we've seen a changing definition of the term. During our last, traumatic decade, the decade of Vietnam and Watergate, the conventional wisdom seemed to be that there just weren't any heroes any more. The interesting thing about conventional wisdom is that-to paraphrase Voltaire-it is neither conventional, nor wise. What happened, I think, was that, given the mordant cynicism of the decade, hero's were no longer . . . fashionable. Ahbut there were still heroes. And now I think they may be back in fashion. They may look

a bit different from yesterday's heroes. But there they are-and some of them are in this room with us today.

Now, any organization that maintains its national headquarters at Valley Forge can be accused of being slightly old fashioned. But I also think that being a bit old fashioned is itself coming back into fashion. This is-heavens-not to say that America is turning to its past, reverting, regressing, or going back to her old ways.

We may simply be drawing once again on some of our more traditional values: The importance of the family, of national defense, of the volunteer spirit, of vigorous free enterprise, and of government that truly serves the people and views that service as its fundamental mission. These are values that sustain us, even as we enter new periods of history that demand change. In that lecture of his, Dr. Kirk quotes a line of Robert Frost's poem, "The Black Cottage": "Most of the change we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favor."

The Freedoms Foundation, and those it honors with these awards, reminds us that whatever the times bring-whatever turbulence, whatever hot passions, or heated rhetoric-that some truths are never out of favor, and that our successes are due to the courage of patriots, even quiet ones. The memory of Valley Forge is strong. But it is good also to contemplate what Henry Ward Beecher wrote some time ago, that: "The world's battle fields have been in the heart chiefly; more heroism has been displayed in the household and the closet, than on the most memorable battlefields in history."

Thank you, and once again, congratulations to you all.e

OCCUPATION HEALTH NURSES e Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I would like to express my appreciation for the contributions that the 12,000 members of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses make to the health and well-being of our Nation's industrial workplace.

This professional organization was founded in 1942 and has an active affiliate in my home State of Hawaii. All of the Hawaii firms that employed the six nurses who formed the Isle chapter of the national association in 1950 still have full-time industrial nurses on their payrolls.

The first companies were Hawaiian Tuna Packers, Hawaiian Telephone Co., Pan American Airlines, Dole Pineapple, Del Monte Corp., and the Hawaiian Electric Co.

In addition, association members work for Sheraton Hotels, Maui Pineapple, Reynolds Metals, the Polynesian Cultural Center, and Queen's Hospital, as well as on the military payroll at Barbers' Point, Schofield Barracks, Tripler Army Medical Center, and the Naval Regional Medical Center. They also are on the Government payroll at the Post Office, the Federal Building and the Cancer Center. In all we have 20 members at home. Although nationally 95 percent of their membership are female, there has been an increasing number of male nurses who have expressed interest in this important field.

In the workplace, managers generally recognize that an · employee's performance is directly related to his physical and emotional well-being. The occupational health nurse contributes effectively to the worker's health. Frequently, it is the occupational health nurse who first encounters the worker and gives counsel on matters of his or her family's health. He or she is involved in the early detection of symptoms which are indications of acute or chronic diseases; such early recognition results in lowered costs and less time lost from work.

There has been a persistent lack of understanding and recognition of the occupational health nurse as a member of the interdisciplinary team, consisting of nursing, medicine, industrial hygiene, safety, management, and the employee.

Occupational health nursing can be defined as the application of nursing principles in conserving the health of workers in all occupations. It involves the prevention, recognition, and treatment of illness and injury, and requires special skills and knowledge in the areas of health education and counseling, environmental health, rehabilitation, and human relations.

One realizes from this definition that this is a specialized practice occurring most frequently in an independent setting. The nurse must incorporate management/ administrative principles, public health concepts and research methods in order to provide comprehensive health care that includes more than the traditional focus of diseases and cure-oriented care. The occupational health nurse bases his or her practice on a holistic approach to the worker and the dynamic interaction between the worker and the environment, and emphasizes health promotion, disease prevention, and the preservation of well-being.

The occupational health nurse is a registered nurse; who has graduated from an approved nursing education program authorized by the State to prepare persons for licensure. After successful completion of the program, this graduate must then meet various State requirements for licensure in the State in which she wishes to practice. An ever-increasing number of occupational health nurses are prepared at the baccalaureate level in university programs approved by the National League of Nursing.

Due to the independent nature of the occupational health nurse's role, many are seeking master's degrees and nurse practitioner education; these two must meet State licensing requirements.

Also, a certification examination has been prepared and implemented to evaluate the occupational health nurse's knowledge of her special practice area. This is but another insur-

13592 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 ance to the employer and clients that the nurse has the basic knowledge and skill to practice occupational health. The occupational health nurse must practice a minimum of 5 years in the occupational health setting to be eligible to sit for this exam; recertification is required every 5 years.

In the workplace the occupational health nurse functions in a variety of ways. In a crisis such as an industrial injury he or she reacts by providing immediate and lifesaving measures until the client can be transported to a local emergency room.

Some examples of non-critical nursing intervention are palliative treatment for minor conditions; brief assessments and physician referrals, liaison between physicians and company; liaison between employees and administrators or supervisors; well health teaching; input for occupational and plant safety; department budgeting and supply ordering; and recordkeeping of worker's compensation, OSHA, insurance, and so forth.

In addition, a nurse practitioner in the occupational health setting can diagnose and treat, prescribe, initiate and perform laboratory studies, perform treatments including ultrasound, perform psychosocial evaluation, perform physical examinations, perform suturing, and improve the evaluation skills of ancillary medical personnel.

Examples of health problems that can be treated include complete physical examinations, both preemployment and periodic, including pelvic and Pap smear for females, prostate and hernia check for males; muscle strains including low back, tendonitis, and carpal tunnel syndrome, "tennis elbow," lacerations, ganglions, burns, chemical toxicity, and foreign bodies in the eye.

Other health problems that nurse practitioners in the occupational health setting can treat include headaches, dermatitis, fracture follow-up, gastritis, viremias, chalazions, and conjunctivitis. He or she treats infections including those of the respiratory tract, urinary tract, eye, vagina, and soft tissue. He or she manages chronic medical illnesses such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and arthritis. He or she provides counseling for mental and physical well-being on such problems as depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, sexuality, family planning, and stress management.

The exact cost of replacing an employee who is absent because of illness is difficult to calculate. Illness absenteeism has been considered by authorities in the industrial field to be 10 times more costly than industrial accidents. The need for such a service is evidenced by the continuing growth of occupational health programs and the increasing number of occupational health nurses <some 24,000 currently

exist). These nurses contribute to the total health picture of our Nation's work force.

The basic health care problems of prevention and promotion are becoming priority items on the agenda of the occupational health nurse. As a physician may not be involved in the health professional-client interaction, the nurse is constantly challenged to improve herself or himself as a health care provider; he or she is challenged to develop more effective strategies for health promotion and disease prevention. The occupational health nurse is meeting these challenges by supporting the premise that all workers are entitled to a safe, healthful environment, and to quality health care.e

BUS DEREGULATION IN RURAL AMERICA

e Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the National Farmers Union recently released a statement on H.R. 3663, the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982. This statement explains the reasons for the union's opposition to this measure. In brief, intercity bus service in rural areas will suffer if total deregulation is approved. We have already seen serious dislocation and loss of transportation service due to rail and airline deregulation. We must not make the same mistake again.

Out of 15,000 communities served by regular-route bus service, 14,000 have no alternative form of transportation. A large percentage of intercity bus passengers are elderly. Obviously, our rural senior citizens will be hardest hit if deregulation causes a drop in service. These are the very people who cannot afford a private automobile or are unable to transport themselves. In rural States, people must often go long distances for medical care or business needs. In such areas, dependable and affordable intercity bus service is crucial for a large, but vulnerable, portion of the population.

I will be offering amendments to H.R. 3663 when it comes before the Senate for consideration. I would ask my colleagues to join me in modifying some of the provisions in this bill so that rural States and small farming and ranching communities do not suffer a disproportionate loss.

Mr. President, I ask that the statement by the National Farmers Union be included in the RECORD.

The statement follows: MEMORANDUM-NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

JUNE 11, 1982. To: Members of the U.S. Senate. From: Paul R. Sacia, legislative assistant. Re H.R. 3663, bus deregulation.

The National Farmers Union respectfully urges you to oppose H.R. 3663. Major

. changes made during Senate Commerce Committee deliberations this spring concerning entry and exit of common carrier and charter service especially makes this bill unpalatable to our members.

Many of our rural communities are served by small bus companies. Oftentimes, the financial viability of these companies depends on the profitability of a few routes, with the aid of charter servicing, to balance losses incurred from feeder runs to small communities. H.R. 3663 so eases entry by the two dominant carriers into such profitable routes and charters that smaller carriers could be devastated by subsequent price wars.

We believe this legislation will lead to a weakening of the financial health of smaller carriers dedicated to servicing their rural customers. Our members cannot afford further transportation setbacks. Please oppose H.R. 3663.

Thank you for your consideration.e

PHILLIP RATNER e Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, Members of this body were able to see some very fine sculpture on display in the U.S. Senate Rotunda this week. The 20 works are by the local artist Phillip Ratner. Phil Ratner is from Washington, D.C., but he is known in many parts of America for his work in prints, sculpture, drawings, and other media. He is a unique and multitalented artist who has contributed much of his talent to themes associated with the Nation's Capital, and in turn, his work is displayed in many of our buildings such as the Library of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court; and now the Capitol.

I think that Phil Ratner's documentation of the immigrant experience in America in his piece "The Ellis Island Suite" will be seen and remembered for a long time to come. For his artistic depiction of Europeans coming to this country we will be able to acknowledge an important historic event and gain a lesson in humanity. For this and more, we should owe our debt of gratitude to Phillip Ratner.

I urge my colleagues to view his work and to read the following article which appeared in the Washington Post. I am certain that you will find his work studied, exceptional and characteristic of a very gifted and conscientious artist.

The article follows: [From the Washington Post, June 9, 19821

THE ELLIS ISLAND SAGA IN SCULPTURE

<By Michael Kernan) "I had these nightmares," said Phillip

Ratner. "The bronzes would be too small. Too big. Wouldn't fit through the door. But yesterday I walked into the lobby of the Statue of Liberty-and there they were!"

His whole face smiles. "Imagine! My stuff in the most famous

place in the world!" Never was a sculptor so pursued by a proj

ect. It has pursued him right into the U.S.

Senate rotunda, where 20 of his pieces are being shown this week, through Saturday.

Three years ago Ratner's wife Mimi urged him to take some time out from his lucrative art career in stained glass, tapestries and vinyl sculptures. There was plenty of money, she said, and she had her income as

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13593 executive director of the American Digestive Disease Society. Why didn't he try some sketching?

That spoke to him. For years he had been haunted by the great American saga of the Ellis Island immigrants. All four of his grandparents had come to Washington from Kiev <one grandfather was concertmaster of the National Symphony under Hans Kindler; there was Ratner's music store at 13th and G), so he started drawing immigrant scenes from old photos.

A few days later Eleanor Sreb of the American Folklife Center was talking with him about a set of his biblical lithographs that a friend had bought and donated to the Library of Congress. He mentioned the immigrant sketches. She got excited, sent him to Ross Holland at the National Park Service. Holland saw the sketches, got excited, sent him to David Moffitt at the Statue of Liberty.

And David Moffitt had a dream. He had always hoped to ring the lobby with sculptures that captured the spirit of the immigrants.

But there was no money. A week later Ratner just happened to

meet a man who took one look at the sketches and offered to donate the entire set of four-foot-high bronzes if he could add a small plaque honoring his immigrant parents.

By now slightly obsessed, the sculptor started work on 30 more pieces, smaller ones to go eventually into the refurbished Ellis Island hall. He brought his drawings to a party in Los Angeles. In an hour he had commitments for 12 pieces at $5,000 each.

Besides the eight bronzes in the statue lobby and the 30 on Ellis, there will be four life-size portrait sculptures in the statue's garden on sites set aside for them in 1935. They will portray Frederic Auguste Bartholdi, the Statue of Liberty's sculptor; Gustav Eiffel, the engineer; Joseph Pulitzer, the money man, and Emma Lazarus, the poet of the immigrants.

"The best thing for us at the National Park Service," said Holland, "is that it isn't costing the government a penny. But after all, that's how the Statue of Liberty came to us, too: paid for by the people of France."

Meanwhile, the small pieces will tour the country for the next year or two to raise money for Ellis Island, and a book of lithos and photos will be published soon. Last week Ratner presented a copy to President Reagan at the White House.

The sketches on which they are based have an appealing energy. Ratner dashed off "about a thousand for the 39 I kept." They show the world of the immigrants: family groups, brave solitary children ("we have four children ourselves"), fruit vendors, organ grinders, newsboys, necktie sellers, an Ellis Island three-tiered bed, the old people, the young couples dancing while they await processing C"I found this old piano at Ellis ... "), the laundresses and dockworkers, the forlorn ones sitting on trunks, the sleek first-class passengers ("oh yes, not all the immigrants came in steerage"), the pregnant, the weary and the justborn.

Who is Phillip Ratner, anyway? "I'm a Washington boy, born here 45

years ago, I sold shoes at the Mary Jane stores downtown when I was 14 years old. After I got out of Pratt Art Institute I spent four years in New York but came back. Everyone told me this was no place for an artist."

After getting his M.A. at American University he went to Anacostia High as an art

teacher. Stayed for 20 years. It was only in '79 that he broke away to work full time on a career that now threatens to get ahead of him. He lives in Potomac now.

"I have as much work as I can handle. And it's just starting. My next thing is a major commission for a sculpture garden in Jerusalem commemorating the Torah."

Though he has never put much stock in galleries, shows and the conventional art scene, he has a knack for getting his work shown. His sculpture portrait of the Warren Supreme Court found its way onto postcards published by National Geographic. His life-size Holocaust memorial and a stained glass Ark of the Covenant are among his several landmarks at suburban churches and shopping centers.

He works in vinyl, soft as clay, which he daubs onto welded steel armatures, bakes in a low-fire kiln and coats with bronze paint. "You really can't tell it from bronze, but it's much lighter." The figures are elongated, sometimes 12 heads tall, to give them a monumental, heroic cast, but they are not at all like the skeletal people of Giacometti, whom Ratner admires. They are character studies, the expressions suggested with a few skillful pinchings. They recall Daumier the most.

"I'm good, I'm very good, but a lot of others are too who aren't recognized, and some terrible artists who are. It's not luck but grace, a blessing. What you need to make it are talent, grace-and a couple of millionaires."•

A PERCEPTIVE VIEW OF THE NEW FEDERALISM

e Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on Sunday, May 30, 1982, readers of Newsday magazine were treated to a particularly insightful article about the administration's proposals for a New Federalism.

The author, Mr. Michael DelGiudice, is certainly one we should heed. He is currently first vice president of Shearson/ American Express Inc. and he served as director of policy management for Governor Carey in New York and as secretary to former speaker of the New York State Assembly, Stanley Steingut.

Mr. DelGiudice offers what I believe to be one of the finest accounts of the New Federalism proposals and he provides a good deal of information on what the likely consequences of those proposals might be.

Mr. President, because I consider this article such a fine contribution on a top.ic of extraordinary national importance, and because it comes from one as distinguished .and as experienced as Mr. DelGiudice, I ask that it be printed in the RECORD.

The article follows: [From Newsday, M°ay 30, 19821

REAGAN'S TROJAN HORSE

<By Michael DelGiudice> <An expert on state government contends

that concealed in President's New Federalism proposals are the seeds of economic, fiscal and social turmoil) "You've been asking for New Federalism

for years. All I can say is, you've asked for it, you've got it, and you deserve it."

That's how Alan Rosenthal, at a recent meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures, described President Reagan's plan for turning federal programs back to the states. Rosenthal, director of the Eagletion Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, has spent his career in the study of state government.

"Actually, I didn't really mean it to be so negative," Rosenthal later said, "but we all better know what we're getting into before we rush into swapping and turning back of programs without a full understanding of their impact. We need to realize that there is a direct relationship between spending and taxes, and that the New Federalism 'ain't no free ride.'"

Although a major element of the program to enact President Reagan's long-held vision of the New Federalism suffered a setback last month, we can be certain that he will not give up. Now, even more than before, Americans must beware of passage of the remainder of his proposals or any new versions of the total program to be enacted by Congress.

Indeed, the specific New Federalism program proposed by Reagan-and even the general principle of New Federalism as supported by the National Governors' Association <NGA>, the National Conference of State Legislators <NCSL), the United States Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties-could prove to be a modern Trojan horse, concealing a legion of disruptive forces never known before in this country.

Thousands of public officials are beginning to analyze the impact of the New Federalism proposals and will make every effort to support any eventual compromise, because it means more authority and responsibility for them.

But "the people" -the hundreds of millions of Americans to whom the new Federalism is supposedly dedicated-have not yet been aroused by this debate, even though they should be. It is a fitting time to focus on some basic questions about an issue that could soon affect all of us.

WHAT IS THE NEW FEDERALISM

The New Federalism is both a fundamental idea of governmental responsibilities and a specific proposal of program and revenue changes to implement the Reagan administration's vision of that idea. The basic components of the idea are (1) the withdrawal of federal responsibility for a wide variety of programs, (2) the transfer of these programs to the states and, for a limited period of time, the funding sources to pay for them, and (3) the power of the states toterminate or continue these programs and to decide how to raise the money to pay for them.

It is an idea that seems to have all the elements of motherhood-and-apple-pie polities-less federal involvement in our daily lives, more power to the people most affected by these programs, a reduction of federal expenditures and an increase in states' rights and home rule.

It is also an idea that has long been advocated by a diverse range of actors on the political scene-conservatives seeking to stop federal growth, moderate organizations such as the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations urging a "sorting out" of federal programs, and liberals advocating a more grassroots approach to government in their communities.

The idea is not new. "We've had so many different federalism proposals in the past 20

13594 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 years, I've forgotten them all," says Utah State Sen. Miles Ferry, a Republican and president of the Utah Senate, vice chairman of the National Conference of State Legislatures, and a member of the legislative, and a member of the legislative team negotiating with the administration. "Actually, this New Federalism is really the old federalism of states' rights provided in the Constitution and which we gave to Washington years ago. The states shouldn't have done this, and I support the President trying to give it back to us now."

The New Federalism as an idea is, in fact, a genuine "devolution" in the making. It is this states' rights idea that could represent the literal passing of authority from a national government responsive to a national interest, to 50 governments responsive to 50 state interests. It seeks to reverse the national policy of the past 40 years, which attempted to reduce the inequities of opportunities and services afforded Americans who were treated differently by the States.

As a specific proposal, the basic feature of Reagan's New Federalism involved a $50-billion transfer of Federal programs to the States, phased in over an eight-year period. This transfer had two basic parts, the first being a $20-billion permanent swap. Effective in 1984, the Federal government would take over Medicaid in exchange for a state takeover of food stamps and aid to families with dependent children <AFDC>.

The second part of the transfer would be a massive shift to the States of 43 Federal programs in education, transportation, community development and social services, beginning in 1984. For four years, these programs would be financed by a trust fund of existing Federal excise tax revenues of $11.3 billion and oil windfall profits taxes of $16.7 billion. Beginning in 1988, these funds would be phased out over four years, and the States would then have to decide which programs to continue and how to finance them.

Reagan has withdrawn for this year his offer to make the swap, after he and the nation's governors could not agree on a compromise. In fact, it was obvious from the outset that a basic principle of Federal responsibility was at the center of the discussions-whether the Federal government should be responsible for paying for all of the "income security" needs of individuals and families.

It was also obvious that there were, and are, three distinct political positions that simply could not be negotiated or compromised. Reagan believed that he was being generous by assuming responsibility for Medicaid and thought the States should be grateful enough to pick up the tabs for food stamps and aid to families with dependent children. He was adamant about this, and even before the final stalemate, he had threatened to take Medicaid "off the table" unless the governors changed their position.

The governors and legislators maintained that shifting responsibility to the States for the cost of income-maintenance programs, food stamps and aid to families with dependent children meant that the States would become solely responsible for income programs of needy persons and families. This they adamantly opposed, maintaining that "income security" is a Federal function and that needy persons should have equal protection from poverty, regardless of where they live.

They also contended that need is determined primarily by national economic policies that are not controlled by the states,

and that income-support programs require large and inflation-sensitive sources of funding, which only the federal government can provide.

Congressional conservatives opposed almost any kind of aid to the needy. They feared any growth in Medicaid spending, believing that the residents of less populous states would end up carrying a disproportionate and unfair burden of the costs. To dissuade their colleagues from paying for what they perceived to be "a grossly wasteful boondoggle," they began focusing on the abuses and fraud in the system.

So, the "single, bold stroke," as Reagan termed his package of proposed changes in this year's State of the Union address, is not to be. The remainder of his program is under discussion, but it, too, leaves much unanswered until the programs are transferred and the implications are fully considered.

The principal issues are: Loss of funds: The National Governors'

Association estimates that the initial trust fund allocation will be $9.1 billion short of covering the states' costs for the programs to be inherited from the federal government. The Congressional Budget Office <CBO> estimate is even higher-$15 billion. This shortage can be eliminated only by turning over more revenue or fewer programs to the states, thereby increasing the federal deficit, or by requiring the states to raise taxes to close the gap. Both options are filled with problems.

Brad C. Johnson, director of the State Office of Federal Affairs, estimates that the shortage to New York and its localities will be $800 million to $1.4 billion annually by fiscal 1984. Again, the alternatives for the federal government and the states are not attractive.

Interstate Winners and Losers: While the Administration maintains that the takeover of Medicaid and the turnback of trust fund revenues will produce a savings to the states, other analysts contend that this is based upon unreliable assumptions.

The Congressional Budget Office and the National Governors' Association estimate that 39 states would lose money and 11 would come out ahead. The Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition estimates that its states would be responsible for $14 billion, or 49 per cent, of the turnback programs, but would receive only $4 billion, or 35 percent, of the freed-up federal excise taxes.

Matching the Trust Fund: Starting in 1988, as the federal trust fund is phased out, states are supposed to decide whether to impose the same taxes to take up the slack. Even if the states were to impose all of these taxes, there would be substantial problems. All but five states have little or no oil resources and cannot replace the windfall profits tax, which finances more than half of the fund. The excise taxes-on gasoline, tobacco, alcohol and telephonesare fixed and will not expand with inflation to meet the full costs of the programs they are supposed to finance.

State and Local Tax Increases: The consequences of these risks are substantial future increases in state and local taxes. The early evidence is that the $11 billion of federal program shifts enacted last year are being replaced by the states. This year, 26 states are considering tax increases totaling $6.8 billion per year, $4 billion of which are consumer taxes-the highest level in a decade.

The probability, therefore, is that future program shifts and the withdrawal of feder-

al funds will result in even higher state taxes. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan estimates that New York State taxes will increase 10 percent under Reagan's proposals. The result of New Federalism then would have become merely a complicated exercise of tax shifting from progressive federal taxes to more regressive local taxes.

Equity and Standards Among States and Recipients: People who are currently receiving federal assistance fear that returning to a states' rights view of services will result in increased disparities in benefit levels among the states. Pressures on the states will lower the quality of the services in states unwilling to finance the programs, and it will increase taxes in states that are.

The administration recognizes this, but, as the President has said many times, "voters can vote with their feet" and move to another state. So the recipients will, as was the case in the '50s and '60s, when many poor people migrated from rural areas to cities and states that provided higher assistance levels. The result then, and the risk for the future, is that these disparities will lead to new demands for redress and further social turmoil.

State-Local Relationships: Many local government officials do not believe that there is or ever will be an effective state-local partnership. Mayor Helen Boosalis of Lincoln, Neb., chairman of the United States Conference of Mayors and a negotiator on the Federalism Committee, cites this as being the overriding issue among the nation's mayors. "I'm basically positive about the idea of New Federalism," she said, "but I'm fearful about urban programs being turned over to the states. Our track record with the state Legislature is not good. The cities just are not a priority."

She was clear about her goals: "I want a guaranteed and progressive source of revenues, and I want a real say in delivery of services. I'm doubtful I'll get either from the states."

Reapportionment: The problems of urban areas will be exacerbated by the reapportionment required this year in all states. Industrialized states will lose seats in Congress, and city and metropolitan areas will have fewer representatives in state legislatures as the number of these districts is reduced to reflect population changes in the past decade. The problems faced by mayors in the past will become even more difficult.

This is the New Federalism-a seemingly popular idea, but a program with highly uncertain consequences.

WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED?

The answer is simple-nearly everybody. Four groups of people would be affected the most-government officials, program recipients, program employees, and taxpayers.

Virtually all elected state and local government officials would be forced to make decisions about which programs to retain or cut, and what taxes to impose. These decision-makers would include governors, legislators, mayors, county executives, town and county legislators, and other local elected officials.

Also affected would be tens of millions of persons receiving assistance from the federal programs being considered for the states. These include high school and college students, the elderly, needy children, the unemployed and under-employed, neighborhood groups, transit riders and commuters, orphans, mental patients and working women.

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13595 The jobs of millions of people in the

public and private sectors-teachers, social workers, health-care professionals, and counselors-would be changed or eliminated. The operations of hundreds of thousands of agencies and institutions-schools, hospitals, clinics, transit systems, construction and building trades-could be substantially reduced.

And finally, tens of millions of individual and business taxpayers would be affected by decisions to maintain or increase the trust fund taxes now levied by the federal government, or to levy new income, consumer, property, user, and commercial taxes to pay for program decisions.

The impact could be even worse for the people and agencies that are .in more than one of the groups and, therefore, affected in more than one way-such as, by the loss, of a job, a cutback in tuition assistance, and higher taxes. The impact also could vary significantly among the states, as would the timing of the decisions.

So, nearly everyone would be affected if New Federalism were to become reality. The only uncertainties would be how, how much, and when.

WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS FOR PASSAGE?

The answer depends upon the President's motives in putting forth the program.

Many critics argue that New Federalism is a political diversion calculated to project a presidential image of favoring a popular idea but that, in reality, it is intended to distract lawmakers from other issues, such as the recession, high unemployment and the giant budget deficits. Most important, they say, it serves as a convenient rationale for cutting the federal budget.

The President seemed to anticipate this criticism by creating a serious-looking mechanism to develop a consensus program. He set up a Presidential Advisory Committee on Federalism, coordinated by Richard S. Williamson, his presidential assistant for intergovernment affairs, to negotiate with bipartisan representatives of states and localities. A state and local coalition of the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the mayors and the counties has been formed by these groups to work with Reagan's committee. They have met periodically with the White House since March.

Gov. Richard A. Snelling, <R-Vt.), chairman of the National Governors' Association and a leading negotiator for the states, carefully characterized these discussions: "It would be a great shame if anyone were to say that the New Federalism will rise or fall on the present regotiations. I think change is inevitable because of the financial restraints now being imposed upon the federal government and the Congress. They have no choice but to sort out responsibilities and costs."

Nearly all congressional observers admit that the administration's program is doomed in Congress unless Reagan is able to get agreement with the states and present a unified package to Congress.

"We've given the White House a good set of alternatives." Snelling said. "Now, it's up to them. We're waiting for a response."

As of now, the states and localities have the stronger negotiating position with the administration, since their approval is needed for the turnback proposals. If they do not like the White House program, they still can negotiate with the Congress.

There are modifications being developed. Sen. David Durenberger <R-Minn.), chairman of the government affairs subcommit-

tee on intergovernmental relations, has agreed to the principle of swapping Medicaid for food stamps and aid to families with dependent children, although he has different ideas on how to finance this. He would like to see the trust fund financed by permanent percentages of the income tax, instead of the windfall profits tax. Other suggestions include combinations of programs and revenue sources. And still others want neither program transfers nor new taxes.

Ultimately, whether any version of the New Federalism is enacted will be a question of motive. If the President wants a political position that he can talk about to the American people, then he will present his own bill and exert pressure on Congress. If he wants legislation enacted to reflect an agreed-upon federal-state concept of New Federalism, then he will continue negotiations earnestly and strive to co-opt the governors, legislators and mayors into a unified program with him.

Regardless of whether the discussions between the administration and the governors result in an agreement, Reagan will have a program in legislative form before the Congress. It is then that the states and localities must guard against the desire of both the administration and Congress to use New Federalism as an excuse to cut federal spending and reject programs. After months of study and debate, the 1981 federal budget was hurriedly enacted in a few late Washington evenings. Only after weeks of analysis was the full impact of all the actions understood-bigger-than-expected tax cuts and deeper spending cuts-all in the name of supply-side economics and New Federalism.

"The road to perdition lies in unwavering principles," Norman J. Powell, a former political science professor at the City University of New York, used to say about politics. We all need to beware of election-year efforts to use the principle of New Federalism to cut domestic social spending, but to not cut military spending, not delay existing tax cuts or levy new ones, and not finalize the budget until after the November elections. Then, beware of the New Federalism axe that may fall.

WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?

The New Federalism debate is now sufficiently far along so that most of the affected constituent groups have debated the issues .and staked out positions.

The debate, however, is very much like an old management-consultant joke about a high-priced professional's response to a client who complains that his agency is not operating efficiently.

" If his agency is centralized, I give him a full report and recomm~ndations to decentralize," the management-consultant confides. " If his agency is decentralized, I give him a full report and recommendations to centralize."

It's not very philosophical, but it makes the client feel better for a while.

A simplified description of policymaking, but it aptly describes what many constituent groups, federal officials and many congressmen are trying now to give to most Americans and taxpayers-what they want to hear. If the "old federalism" of an active, centralized federal government is not producing lower taxes, better service and lower spending, then let's try a decentralized "New Federalism." But, what else can be done?

The most effective way to make a public policy decision is to understand and acknowledge the political, fiscal and social realities of the problem and then to identify

and define a set of guidelines that can be put forth to develop a solution.

These, then, are some of the realities of the New Federalism:

The driving impetus for the New Federalism is based on Reagan's conservative indeology and federal desires to cut social spending. There is no expressed method to reform management and operations, to deliver more effective services to recipients, or to mitigate state and local tax burdens. New Federalism is an idea whose time has come to be debated, because Reagan sincerely believes its tenets, and both he and Congress must face the realities of scarce resources and the need to cut spending.

The desire of governors and local officials to support the New Federalism is genuine but essentially political. The goal of these non-federal elected officials is to have more control of programs, and that is understandable. Many have reorganized their governments and worked hard to make improvements. But having the responsibility for programs does not ensure having the resources to do a good job. Without the resources, the result would be a poor job or higher taxes-both detrimental to taxpayers and the public.

Good intentions aside, if states were given responsibility for $50 billion of new programs, the fiscal and administrative consequences would be troublesome because of inadequate revenue growth and administrative inadequacy.

States today-as the continuing budget crisis in New York typifies-have less revenues available than they did just several years ago. Between 1977 and 1980, 36 states cut their income tax rates, 22 reduced sales taxes, and nine altered their tax systems to allow for the effects of inflation.

The civil service systems would experience substantial administrative and personnel problems, since the number of state employees has been cut in recent years and some management systems have been eliminated.

The New Federalism is not a clear policy choice advocated by the American people. Every New Federalism supporter argues that " the people" are fed up with the federal government and, therefore, power must be returned the the states.

All polling data do not support this. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has conducted public opinion polls for the last 10 years, asking: "From which level of government do you feel you get the most for your money-federal, state or local?" Of the three, state governments has always ranked lowest. In eight of the past 10 years, the federal government has ranked highest.

Last year, for instance, 33 per cent of those polled indicated they believed the federal government gave them the most for their money, 26 per cent chose local government and 22 per cent picked state government. The other 19 per cent has no opinion. Among people living in the Northeast, the disparity was even greater: 36 per cent chose the federal government, 26 per cent local and 17 per cent state.

This is not to say that public policy should be based upon opinion polls. Rather, the point is that the premise that the people want government turned back to the states is wrong. In fact, they have consistently viewed the states as being the least effective level of government.

The forces of fiscal restraint will remain for the immediate future. There is no question that all three levels of government are in deficit situations. The federal deficit will

13596 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 14, 1982 exceed $100 billion a year over the next three years. Federal aid has dropped from 31.7 per cent of state and local revenues in 1980 to 25.7 per cent this year, its lowest share in 10 years, and it is likely to drop below 20 per cent in the next few years.

In this context, enacting a comprehensive New Federalism program this year is neither urgent nor prudent. The President won round one of the New Federalism issue last year, when 77 categorical grants were consolidated into nine new block grants and turned back to the states. All but three states-Calfornia, New York and New Hampshire-assumed responsibility for some or all of the transferred grants.

There has not been enough evaluation of the effects of these changes upon the recipients, state and local taxpayers, and agency employees, and much less upon the social and economic goals of the programs. Reagan's proposal simply is not ready for enactment. It contains too many elements of uncertainty, unsupportable analyses, imprecise calculations of effects, and, above all, does not take into account experience with the transfer in 1981.

The urgent federal need is to restore economic policy balance. The state and local systems are now suffering fiscal pains as a result of a decline in -general revenue, partly because of federal aid cuts. New York State received 26 per cent less federal aid this year than last year and 37 per cent less than 1980, in terms adjusted for inflation.

State tax revenues also have been declining because they are coupled to federal taxes, which have been cut. The state and local systems also have been hurt by recordhigh interest rates, smaller overall revenue growth and higher social services costs due to the recession and high unemployment.

These are genuine and severe fiscal ailments. To talk of enacting New Federalism now is like trying to move bandages around on a bleeding body-the patient's condition won't be improved, and it would probably worsen, since so much blood would be lost during the movement.

The goals of sorting out federal programs should be based on the fairness of service and the ability to pay, on a program-by-program basis. The current goal of New Federalism is to cut federal spending by looking first at levels of government and then allocating service responsibility. This is programmatically backward thinking.

The federal-state system of intergovernmental finance should be based upon a sequence of decisions that begins with a determination of the needs and priorities of our social and economic programs.

After that, a decision should be made as to which source of revenue at what level of government is the most equitable to finance those programs.

The third step is to determine the most cost-effective and politically accountable allocation of responsbility among the levels of government to deliver these programs.

What we need is a Rational Federalism that recognizes that national program priorities <defense, aid to the needy, Medicare, Social Security) should be financed by national, broad-based, progressive taxes, such as income and business taxes.

It also must acknowledge that certain programs are national and state in character and can be jointly delivered, such as transportation, community development, and employment training. These should be financed by a system of shared taxation, such as consumption taxes and user charges.

This kind of joint obligation of both costs and revenues would likely require new taxes

that should be levied nationally and shared with the states. These might include national sales or value-added taxes, and an oil or gas surtax.

If federal programs are transferred to the states, federal revenues also should be transferred, so that there are no unknown tax increases in the future.

If state programs are transferred to the federal government, local taxes must be reduced and federal taxes must be raised, so the federal deficit is not increased.

This process should be initiated on a program-by-program priority basis, so that we are addressing genuine needs and not rhetoric and philosophy. This way, all costs would be known in advance, and there would be no hidden gaps or deficits. The process should seek to achieve national equity and not encourage interstate disparities.

The first work of a Rational Federalism must be aimed at two of the nation's most urgent concerns-the rapidly increasing elderly population and the rapidly deteriorating public infrastructure.

The needs and problems of the elderly are becoming more critical each year. The Social Security system is nearly bankrupt. Cuts in social spending most severely affect the health and social services that the elderly depend upon. President Carter's National Commission on the Aging has estimated that Americans over 65 will constitute half of the dependent population within the next 10 to 20 years. The issues of housing, food, and health care must be addressed, financing responsibilities must be identified, and service delivery improved. These concerns for the elderly require a genuine federal-state partnership to solve.

A recent analysis of the federal, state, and city roads, water and sewer systems, transit facilities, jails, hospitals and ports estimated that we will need trillions of dollars over the next decade to meet our public works needs. Yet, as Pat Choate and Susan Walter, the authors of the book "America in Ruins," have stated:

"No clear allocation of responsibilities and functions exists among and between levels of government."

The United States has no capital budget plan for its federal or intergovernmental needs. This should be a high priority and a useful application of Rational Federalism.

The costs of Medicaid should be fully assumed by the federal government, and the governors are right to resist the takeover of food stamps and aid to families with dependent children. The costs of these and all other income and medical security programs should be supported by broad federal taxes.

Alexis de Tocqueville, an astute observer of American politics, wrote 149 years ago about the federal government: "It was by promising to weaken it that one won the right to control it."

Ronald Reagan did just that in 1980, and the New Federalism is his view of how to weaken it. The nation made a choice for a political point of view in electing Reagan. Now, it would be useful for all Americans to review what he is proposing and why. The process attests to the durability of our institutions and tests the political methods and policies of its players.

We should reject the rhetoric and focus on the economy and Americans' genuine needs, and not regress in the vision of a sound inter-governmental system. As already mentioned, we "the people" need to become more involved in both the process and the substance.

Debating the New Federalism seems like game theory, but it would affect nearly all of our lives. We need to lobby state, local and federal representatives as taxpayers, citizens, union members and professionals, in the best tradition of interest-group politics-before the game is over.e

RIVERSIDE YOUTH FOR AMERICA ECOLOGY CLUB

e Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today's high cost of energy serves as a motivation for the United States to develop alternative energy sources and to conserve energy presently available. I have cosponsored two resolutions here in the Senate on the need to continue tax incentives for energy conservation and renewable energy sources and to continue Federal funding for conservation and renewable energy resources.

Fortunately, the people of Pennsylvania are also working on this problem.

For their efforts to conserve our natural resources, I commend the Riverside Youth for America Ecology Club, the top energy youth group in the State of Pennsylvania. Twelve years, 2 million pounds of glass, 1 million pounds of tin, and 3 million pounds of newsprint later, the Riverside recycling programs have contributed $6,000 toward school and community projects.

Pennsylvania is proud of its youth who have accepted the challenge of today's energy problems. To the Riverside High School and surrounding community, the conservation of our Nation's energy and natural resources have become a way of life. Riverside's recognition of the importance of integrating energy education into the regular curriculum serves as a model to us all.•

RECOGNITION OF CERTAIN SENATORS TOMORROW

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on tomorrow, after the recognition of the two leaders under the standing order, the following Senators be recognized on special orders of not to exceed 15 minutes each and in the following order: Senators SCHMITT, KASTEN, PRYOR, and CHILES.


<Mr. WARNER assumed the chair.)

PROGRAM

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, when the Senate completes its business today, it will stand in recess until the hour of 9:15 a.m. on tomorrow. After the recognition of the two leaders under the standing order, four Senators will be recognized on special

June 14, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13597 orders of not to exceed 15 minutes each.

It is anticipated that after the execution of the special orders as provided for that there will be a provision for time for the transaction of routine morning business.

Mr. President, it is possible that certain matters of legislative and executive business which may be cleared on both sides will be taken up by unanimous consent during that period or thereafter. At some point, during the morning, it is anticipated that the Senate will resume consideration of the pending motion, which is the motion to proceed to the consideration of the Voting Rights Act extension. Under the order previously entered, a vote under the provisions of rule XXII to invoke cloture on further debate on the motion to proceed will occur at 3 p.m. Is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, if the minority leader has no objection, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum to proceed to the vote on cloture may be dispensed with prior to the vote that is ordered for 3 o'clock.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection.


Mr. BAKER. To continue with the program for tomorrow, Mr. President, at the hour of 3 p.m., the vote, under the provisions of rule XXII, will occur on the question of ending debate on the motion to proceed to the consideration of the Voting Rights Act. If cloture is invoked then, under the provisions of that rule, the Senate will continue consideration of the motion until completion. It is hoped that we can dispose of the motion to proceed tomorrow and reach the bill itself and make good progress on the debate on the merits of the legislative proposal.

Once again, it is my hope that we can complete action on the Voting Rights Act this week.

Mr. President, Senators are reminded once again that, because of the rather heavy agenda of items that must be completed by the Senate before the July 4 recess, they should plan to be engaged in legislative and executive business Monday through Friday of this week. I do not anticipate asking the Senate to be in session on Saturday, although Saturday sessions are a real possibility as they may be required to complete our business prior to the July 2 recess.


WELCOME TO JENNIFER KATHLEEN GARN

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, it is a real pleasure for me to announce to the Senate and to our colleagues that we have a new member of the Senate

89-059 0-86-28 (Pt. 10)

family. I often refer to the Senate family as an extended family made up of Members and staffs, and also our more immediate families. In this particular case, I am referring to the addition of Jennifer Kathleen Garn, child of Senator and Mrs. Garn, who was born on Sunday, June 13. She is a bouncing 8 pounds, 5 ounces, and I am happy to say that both Kathleen and their daughter, Jennifer, are doing well.

This is the seventh child for Senator GARN. He excels in the matter of rearing families as well as he does in legislative matters.


WELCOME TO DANIEL DIRKSEN BAKER

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise with pleasure to announce the joyful arrival of the first grandchild of the Senate's distinguished majority leader, HOWARD BAKER. On May 31, there was born into this world Daniel Dirksen Baker, son of Darek and Karen Baker, in Memphis, Tenn.

Mr. President, as one who has experienced the love of grandchildren, I congratulate Senator BAKER on this occasion. It is Mr. BAKER'S first taste of immortality. He has entered upon a new plateau in life-the plateau in life from which he can see the eternal thread of life, because he can see in this youngster, whose life is just at its beginning, a perpetuation of himself in the years to be.

I congratulate the majority leader and share in his joy.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I am grateful beyond words to the minority leader for his remarks on this occasion. I am sure that, some day, Daniel Dirksen Baker will read this RECORD and will be equally appreciative of the comments made by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, my friend, the minority leader <Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD).

Mr. President, I received word of this happy occasion on the first day I was in China. I have not yet had an opportunity to see this grandson. So I am sure, Mr. President, that my colleagues will understand that tomorrow, at some time after we conclude the necessary caucuses on both sides of the aisle-in my case, on the Republican side of the aisle-my wife and I intend to go to Memphis to have our first visit with our grandson. We shall return almost immediately. If my absence is noted, I hope my colleagues will understand why I felt that this is a matter of such urgent and high priority that, for once, even the Senate of the United States will be hard put to command my attention.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me just so I may say this?

Mr. BAKER. Certainly.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the minority leader used the right word, "plateau," a new plateau. I think that is a wonderful experience. Furthermore, I think there has been a Baker around here in the House of Representatives and the Senate since I have been here. We always want to keep plenty of Bakers around here and are glad of new ones coming along.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. May I say, this is the only Baker. I was an only male child and this is the first male grandchild. So, from that standpoint, this child bears a heavy responsibility.

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

Mr. BAKER. Yes. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I

congratulate Grandfather BAKER. I do not see any long beard, though. I do not see any wrinkles under his eyes or on his forehead. He is a young grandfather, and I know he is proud of this fine grandson.

I take this opportunity to wish the parents of this grandson good health and that this baby will enjoy the splendid record of his ancestors on both sides. I am sure if the does, some day, he will become President of the United States.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I cannot tell you how pleased I am to hear these remarks and that prediction from the distinguished President pro tempore. I hope the country is in shape for men and women of his generation to enjoy the same level of happiness and tranquility that we have had in our time and that they will see a country that will be better served for the contribution of the distinguished President pro tempore, the distinguished minority leader, and all of my other colleagues in the Senate.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, before

we celebrate any further, I think it is time for me to inquire if there is further business to be transacted by the Senate.

I understand there may be one Senator seeking time to speak in morning business. While we inquire into that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.


The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.



RECESS UNTIL 9:15 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, on inquiry, it appears that the Senator who

13598

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

June 14, 1982

I had thought might require time does

not now require time to speak. I know

of no further business to be transacted

by the S enate, and I see no S enator

seeking recognition. If the minority

leader has no further business to

transact, I move, in accordance with

the order previously entered, that the

Senate now stand in recess until 9:15

a.m. tomorrow.

T he motion was agreed to and, at

5:19 p.m., the Senate recessed until to-

morrow, Tuesday, June 15, 1982, at

9:15 a.m.

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by

the Senate June 14, 1982:

IN THE AIR FORCE

The following-named officer under the

provisions of title 10, United S tates Code,

section 601, to be assigned to a position of

importance and responsibility designated by

the President under title 10, United S tates

Code, section 601:

To be general

Lt. Gen. Billy M. Minter, FR,

U.S. Air Force.

The following-named officer under the


section 601, to be reassigned to a position of



Code, section 601:

To be lieutenant general

L t. G en. R ichard E . Merkling,

FR, U.S. Air Force.

T he following-named officer under the


section 601, to be assigned to a position of



Code, section 601:

To be lieutenant general

Maj. G en. E arl T . O 'L oughlin,

FR, U.S. Air Force.

The following-named officers for appoint-

ment in the U.S. A ir Force to the grades in-

dicated, under the provisions of chapter 36,

title 10 of the United States Code:

To be major general

Brig. G en. John A . C ollins,

FR, U.S. Air Force, Chaplain.

To be brigadier general

Col. S tuart E . Barstad, FR ,

U.S. Air Force, Chaplian.

The following-named officer for appoint-

ment in the U.S. A ir Force under the provi-

sions of chapter 36, title 10 of the United

States Code:

To be major general

Brig. G en. G erald L . Prather,

FR, U.S. Air Force.

IN THE AIR FORCE

The following A ir National Guard of the

United States officers for promotion in the

R eserve of the A ir Force under the provi-

sions of section 593(a) title 10 of the United

States Code, as amended:

LINE OF THE AIR FORCE

To be lieutenant colonel

Maj. Alfred G. Aldridge, Jr.,

Maj. Jack D. Baker, Jr.,

Maj. Dale W. Basham,

Maj. Clarence J. Brenneise,

Maj. Hubert W. Burkhead,

Maj. Charles D. Burnfield,

Maj. Joseph L. Canady III,

Maj. Myron B. Carpenter, Jr.,

Maj. Winfred N. Carroll,

Maj. Leon R. Cole,

Maj. Frank L. Cooper,

Maj. Everard R. Creek, Jr.,

Maj. Robert W. Cummings,

Maj. Ruben A. De La Vara,

Maj. Kenneth J. Jeray,

Maj. Charles R. Kinslow,

Maj. Arnold R. Leppert,

Maj. Clinton D. Magsamen, Jr.,

Maj. Brent P. Maxon,

Maj. James L. Pierce,

Maj. Robert H. Purple,

Maj. Ashton (NMN) Rollins, II.,

Maj. Ronald S. Rosson,

Maj. Ronald W. Rubin,

Maj. Preston M. Taylor, Jr.,

Chaplain

Maj. Francis L. McInnis,

IN THE NAVY

The following-named Air Force Cadets to

be permanent ensign in the line of the U.S.

N avy, subject to qualification therefor as

provided by law:

Kniff, Gregory J.

Lindgren, John T., IV

IN THE AIR FORCE

The following-named officers for perma-

nent promotion in the U.S. Air Force, under

the appropriate provisions of chapter 36,

title 10, United S tates C ode, as amended,

with dates of rank to be determined by the

Secretary of the Air Force.

LINE OF THE AIR FORCE

To be colonel

Ache, Leroy P.,

Adams, Charles C.,

Adinolfi, Jerry D., Jr.,

Aftosmis, Charles,

Ahart, Richard A.,

Ahl, Arthur W.,

Ahl, Gilbert W.,

Alba, Michael S.,

Albertson, Fred W., Jr.,

Aldinger, Richard T.,

Alexander, Lynn B.,

Allan, Donald F.,

Allbee, Thomas D.,

Allen, Jerrold P.,

Alton, Stuart L.,

Ambre, William A.,

Ames, James R.,

Amor, Jean P.,

Anderson, Charles E.,

Anderson, Norman E., Jr.,

Anderson, Richard C.,

Anduss, Larry P.,

Anibal, Edward F., Jr.,

Anway, Mark D.,

Arena, Joseph A.,

Armourlightner, Rosetta A.,

Armstrong, Robert M.,

Arnold, Francis W.,

Atchison, Richard M.,

Austin, Noel F.,

Austin, William F., III.,

Baber, Jerry W.,

Bainton, Ronald W.,

Baker, Emmett J., Jr.,

Baker, James C.,

Baker, Ronald F.,

Banks, Frederick M.,

Bannwart, James L.,

Barber, Thomas J.,

Barlock, Lawrence A.,

Barlow, Charles F.,

Barrett, Ford H.,

Barth, Roland E.,

Bates, Roy 0., Jr.,

Bauer, Richard H.,

Baughman, John S.,

Bay, Phillip E.,

Beamer, Samnuel C.,

Beatty, Frederick M.,

Bechler, Wayne R.,

Beebe, Dennis E.,

Behrens, Dennis D.,

Bell, Jerald R.

Bell, Lawrence L.,

Bell, Robert C.,

Benson, Larry L.,

Berdan, Richard L.,

Berls, Robert E., Jr.,

Berringer, Lynn T.,

Berry, Gene A., 511d R.,

Bell, La.,

Betts, Carlton L.,

Bickford, John D.,

Bigoni, Robert A.,

Billington, Gordon F.,

Biltz, James E.,

Bingham, Billy J.,

Bestgen, Robert F.,

Betts, Carlton L.,

Bickford, John D.,

Bigoni, Robert A.,

Billington, Gordon F.,

Biltz, James E.,

Bingham, Billy J.,

Birmingham, James E.,

Black, Franklin J.,

Blair, Robert L.,

Bleymaier, Joseph S., Jr.,

Blume, Jay D., Jr.,

Boaman, Richard A., Jr.,

Bodenheimer, Clyde E.,

Boergert, John R.,

Bogemann, Lawrence L.,

Bohler, Donald M.,

Bolen, Edward S.,

Boli, Fred C.,

Bolls, Larry R.,

Bond, David A.,

Borchert, John A.,

Bosse, Frederick C.,

Boynton, Gerald L.,

Bozarth, Thomas L.,

Brace, Donald C.,

Bradley, Charles W.,

Bradley, Thomas P.,

Brake, Francis B.,

Braxton, Richard B., Jr.,

Brenci, Robert L.,

Bridges, Roy D., Jr.,

Bronzo, Anthony F., Jr.,

Brookie, James H.,

Brown, Christopher H.,

Brown, Donald E.,

Brown, James R.,

Brown, Richard D.,

Brown, Ronald R.,

Brownell, Thomas F.,

Browning, Richard A.,

Brubaker, Stanley E.,

Bruce, Donald W.,

Bryan, James B., III,

Buchanan, George W.,

Buchta, Robert M.,

Buckingham, Fredric N.,

Budesheim, Stephen C.,

Buell, Alan D.,

Burch, Thomas E.,

Burke, Billy E.,

Burns, John W., Jr.,

Burr, Hiram H., Jr.,

Bush, Don G.,

Busse, Daniel E.,

Butler, David L.,

Butler, Walter 0., Jr.,

Buzard, Nancy H.,

Byrd, Ronald H.,

Caldwell, Glenn T.,

Callaway, Jay C., Jr.,

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxxxxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx xxx-xx-xxxx





xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-...

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-...

June 14, 1982

Caravaglio, Francis J.,

Carlson, Raymond A.,

Carroll, Robert C.,

Carter, William P.,

Caruana, Patrick P.,

Casey, David R.,

Casleton, Ronald G.,

Casperson, David I.,

Catherall, Michael H.,

Cavender, Dwight B.,

Chaloult, Michael P.,

Chambers, Eldon A.,

Chasteen, Calvin L.,

Chavanne, William G.,

Chittenden, Robert D.,

Church, James B., Jr.,

Churchill, Howard A.,

Cioffi, William P.,

Clark, Gary E.,

Clark, Leonard E., Jr.,

Clark, Walter L.,

Clement, Bryan B.,

Clements, Philip W.,

Cline, Vinton J.,

Coen, James K., Jr.,

Coffery, Francis J.,

Collier, Russell L.,

Colligan, John J.,

Collins, William E.,

Comfort, Gary C.,

Condon, Stephen P.,

Coniglio, Joseph G.,

Conley, John L.,

Connelly, Peter J.,

Conner, William B.,

Cook, Daryle D.,

Cooper, William T.,

Copeland, John M.,

Corbalis, Fred J., Jr.,

Cordang, Robert A.,

Cordon, Shelby N.,

Coronado, Gil, Jr.,

Corsi, James A.,

Costanzo, Lawrence G.,

Cotton, Charles E.,

Cox, James D.,

Cramer, Keith L.,

Crigger, James C., Jr.,

Cormwell, Kenneth E.,

Crook, Gordon R.,

Crooks, Thadis W.,

Crouter, John E.,

Crozier, Joseph A., Jr.,

Cruger, Sterling R.,

Cundey, William R.,

Cunniff, Robert E.,

Currin, David D.,

Curtis, Justin A.,

Curtis, Lewis E., III,

Cutter, Earl W., Jr.,

Cwynar, Richard W.,

Daisher, Philip E.,

Dalton, John C.,

Damm, Donald B.,

Danhof, Richard H.,

Dash, Ernie R.,

Daugherty, James R.,

Davenport, Cecil 0.,

Davidson, Ronald L.,

Davis, Chovine R., III,

Davis, Darol D.,

Davis, David C.,

David, John W., III,

Dayton, Hugh K., Jr.,

Deames, Billy E.,

Degroot, Frederick J.,

Demartino, Francis A.,

Dent, David R.,

Dentremont, James A.,

Desiderio, John R., Jr.,

Devaney, James E.,

Devine, Bernard G.,

Diamond, Thomas E.,

Dickman, Robert S.,

Dierlam, Mark J., III,

Dietrich, Frederick L.,

Dillenbeck, Richard C.,

Dillinger, Jay A.,

Dillon, Francis R.,

Dillon, Terrence L.,

Dinley, James E., II,

Dishman, Benton G., Jr.,

Dixon, George R.,

Dixon, Reuben T., Jr.,

Dodd, Albert S., III,

Dokken, Paul 0.,

Dombrowski, Robert F.,

Donovan, Daniel J., II,

Doran, William D.,

Doss, Glen P.,

Doty, Mickey D.,

Dowdey, John D., Jr.,

Doyle, Edward T.,

Drake, William H.,

Driggers, Milton V.,

Duganne, Robert A.,

Duigon, Theodore M.,

Dula, Brett M.,

Dumas, Charles J.,

Dumond, David L.,

Dunn, Bruce E.,

Dwyer, Paul G.,

Easter, John R.,

Eckles, Danny L.,

Edgar, John D.,

Edwards, Wilson R., Jr.,

Ehrlich, Clarence D.,

Eisenach, Clifford W.,

Eisinger, Jerry B.,

Ellenburg, Kenn R.,

Ellis, Stephen H.,

Elmer, James L.,

Emper, Neal H., Jr.,

Enloe, John D.,

Epperson, Jon 0.,

Eppig, Carl C.,

Epstein, Howard M.,

Ernst, James D.,

Ervin, Marvin S.,

Estes, Albert W., Jr.,

Evans, Stephen H.,

Evers, William A.,

Ewing, Bruce W., Jr.,

Ezzell, Jack L., Jr.,

Falbo, Francis E.,

Faloon, Robert L.,

Faulkner, Jack C.,

Faust, William M.,

Fer, John,

Ferrell, Oscar L.,

Finkbiner, Ronald R.,

Finkle, Gary D.,

Fiorino, Thomas D., Jr.,

Fischer, Joseph W.,

Fisher, John C.,

Fister, Bruce L.,

Fitzgerald, James D.,

Flake, Mark C., IV,

Flanagan, William F.,

Flasch, James 0.,

Fleming, Kenneth H.,

Flood, William G. B.,

Foley, David D.,

Foringer, Harold F.,

Forrest, Gary F., II,

Foster, Theodore P., Jr.,

Fowler, Richard B., II,

Fox, Charles E., Jr.,

Fox, John D.,

Francis, John J., Jr.,

Frazier, Herbert G.,

Fredette, John E.,

Freeman, Bruce M.,

French, Raymond L.,

Frese, Gerald W.,

Fritschie, Robert A.,

Fritzel, Roger N.,

Froeschner, Paul H.,

Frost, Stanfield, Jr.,

Frostic, Frederick L.,

Frutchey, David W.,

Fuller, John T.,

Furusho, Marvin T.,

Gadd, Richard B.,

Gallagher, John A.,

Gallop, Jon L.,

Galyen, James M.,

Gann, Benard W.,

Ganong, Gary P.,

Gardner, Phillip D.,

Garza, Frank D.,

Gensheimer, James H.,

George, Paul L.,

Geraghty, Kevin,

Gerken, Frederick E., Jr.,

Gibbs, Thomas A.,

Giblin, Richard T., IV,

Gibson, Robert H.,

Gilbert, Thomas M.,

Giles, Roger T.,

Gillis, Charles P.,

Gillogly, Harry I., III,

Gilmore, William H., Jr.,

Gleason, Edwin M.,

Glowatski, Edward A.,

Gobrecht, Charles H., III,

Goering, Robert G.,

Goggins, James W.,

Gold, Bruce J.,

Goldman, Paul T., Jr.,

Gonzales, Jose R.,

Goode, Thomas N.,

Gordinier, Peter A.,

Goss, William K.,

Graef, Claus D.,

Graham, Alex L.,

Grant, James F.,

Grant, Jerry A.,

Graw, Paul H.,

Green, Edgar A., Jr.,

Green, Gaylord B.,

Green, Robert D.,

Greene, Albert R., Jr.,

Greene, Richard S.,

Greenlaw, Peter G.,

Greenwell, Jerome E.,

Gregg, Billy E.,

Gregory, Frederick D.,

Gries, Charles E.,

Griffith, John C.,

Griffith, John G., Jr.,

Gross, Larry R.,

Grosvenor, Willard,

Grove, Norman J.,

Guenther, Hart J.,

Guthridge, Robert B.,

Gyauch, Michael P.,

Haba, Gerald E.,

Haga, John M.,

Hagemann, Kenneth L. Sr.,

Hagen, Gary E.,

Hale, Charles E., Jr.,

Hale, Frank D.,

Haluska, John J., Jr.,

Hamby, Frank J.,

Hamilton, Donald W.,

Hamilton, Raymond A., II,

Hanby, James W.,

Handley, Charles,

Handley, Edwin D., Jr.,

Handsel, Roy M.,

Hanlin, Thomas G., II,

Hansen, Orrel T.,

Hanson, Howard T.,

Hanus, Robert G.,

Hard, Donald G.,

Hardenbrook, Edward J.,

Harger, Bruce S.,

Harrell, Travis E.,

Harris, John R.,

Harris, Rufus D.,

Harris, Thomas J.,


13599

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

13600


June 14, 1982

Harrison, Billy M.,

Harrison, William C.,

Hastings, Charlie W.,

Hauth, Floyd F.,

Hayashi, Melvin,

Heacox, Donald J.,

Head, Edward J.,

Head, James W.,

Healy, Raymond G.,

Healy, Raymond V.,

Heflebower, Charles R.,

Henderson, Eldon D.,

Henderson, Lael W.,

Hennessy, David A.,

Henry, Larry L.,

Heppell, Stephen E.,

Herring, Kenneth D.,

Herrington, David J.,

Herron, Kerry G.,

Hertzog, Randolph B. E.,

Hickman, David M.,

Higbie, Richard M.,

High, John T., III,

Hightower, Larry L.,

Hill, Charles T.,

Hill, Franklin G.,

Hilliard, George, III,

Hinkel, James F.,

Holden, Charles H.,

Holden, Raymond D.,

Holt, David E.,

Hoppmann, Frederick W., Jr.,

Homey, James H.,

Horton, Claude R., Jr.,

Howe, Jack S.,

Howley, Michael J.,

Hubbard, Edward L..

Hubbard, Phillip M.,

Hughes, Donald L.,

Hummel, Dennis K.,

Humphreys, Robert E.,

Hunter, Raymond F.,

Hunter, Robert W.,

Hurd, Joseph E.,

Hutchinson, Donald L.,

Jaglinski, Charles T., Jr.,

James, Darrell R.,

Janicke, Jerome T.,

Jarman, Larry E.,

Jenkins, Robert G.,

Jester, Clifton J.,

Jones, Cleveland J.,

Jones, Reginald

Jones, Robert B.,

Judd, Thayne H.,

Kane, Bernard E.,

Kelly, Kevin J.

King, Michael

Kinnan, Joseph E.,

Kishiyamedy, George B.,

Kennington, Roy G.,

Ketter, Lawrence W.,

Kimsey, Forest M.,

Kincade, Clause G., Jr.,

King, Michael

Kinnan, Joseph E.,

Kishiyama, Arthur Y.,

Klein, Mark A.,

Kleiser, Eugene V., Sr.,

Klick, Jean E.,

Klumas, Lawrence J.,

Knight, James E.,

Knudsen, Benny L.,

Kobelski, Gerald E.,

Korpi, Raymond C.,

Koteras, Frankie J.,

Kralovec, Joseph A.,

Krimmel, William E.,

Kuehner, Gregory A.,

Lafferty, Thomas E.,

LaFrance, George A.,

Lambert, Robert W.,

Lambiase, Nicholas Jr.,

Lancaster, Lanny T. G.,

Landry, Charles D.,

Lang, James D.,

Lanning, Russell M.,

Lansell, Robert P.,

Lape, Gary D.,

Large, Charles C.,

Larkins, John B., III,

Larsen, Robert A.,

Larson, Charles A.,

Latham, Rodney H.,

Lau, Charles A.,

Lausten, Lawrence R.,

Lavoy, Alan A.,

Lazzaro, Joseph A.,

Leach, Ronald S.,

Lee, David R.,

Leggat, Robert,

Leich, Frederick H.,

Lemon, James F.,

Lenahan, Roderick,

Lennard, William R.,

Lerro, Pasquale A.,

Lester, Peter M.,

Lezy, Normand G.,

Libucha, Edward J.,

Lightsey, Robert H.,

Lison, Robert H.,

Lockhart, Thomas G.,

Loney, Charles D.,

Long, Gordon A.,

Looke, William F.,

Lopez, Manuel, Jr.,

Lopresti, Peter,

Lorber, John G.,

Lotz, George B., II,

Loughridge, Charles D.,

Lovegren, Nelson L.,

Lovelace, Cary A.,

Lovretich, Robert J.,

Luebbermann, John N.,

Lunt, John D.,

Lupia, Eugene A.,

Lyttle, Brian D.,

MacNevin, Charles H.,

Madden, John A., Jr.,

Magoulas, Jerry M.,

Mahach, Thomas G.,

Main, James R.,

Mainord, William R.,

Malcom, Charles E.,

Mangum, Dennis R.,

Manini, Gary W.,

Manolis, George,

Mansur, John W.,

Marck, Ronald V.,

Marshall, John C.,

Mason, Jerry N.,

Masson, John D.,

Mathers, James I.,

Matteis, Richard M.,

Mattioli, Daniel T.,

Mayer, Terrence,

McAlpine, Aubry J.,

McAtee, Thomas P.,

McCarthy, Michael E.,

McCauley, Thomas H.,

McChesney, Jack L.,

McClure, David 0.,

McCormick, Jack E.,

McCoy, Kenneth B., Jr.,

McCranie, John L.,

McDonald, James R.,

McDonald, Martin J.,

McGarry, Thomas A.,

McGee, David R., Jr.,

McGinty, Michael D.,

McGough, Bobby F.,

McGraw, Spencer D.,

McKenna, George W.,

McLeod, Robert K.,

McPherson, Ronald L.,

Mechanic, Jack H.,

Meche, Norwood J.,

Medlock, Michael P.,

Meehan, Robert P.,

Meisterling, Harold E.,

Melby, Carroll H.,

Merdian, Richard S.,

Merkel, Philip A.,

Metsala, James C.,

Meyer, Richard A.,

Milan, David W.,

Milberg, Warren H.,

Millar, Charles M., Jr.,

Miller, Billy J.,

Miller, Dennis R.,

Miller, Fredric L.,

Miller, James R.,

Mitchell, Charles R.,

Mitchell, William B.,

Molvar, Jan T.,

Moore, Clinton C., Jr.,

Moorman, Frank T.,

Moran, Augustus C.,

Moreland, Huey H.,

Morris, James P., Jr.,

Morrison, Cameron E., Jr.,

Morrison, John A., Jr.,

Morrissey, Leonard P.,

Motyka, Edwin J.,

Mueller, John C.,

Mullen, Michael,

Mullins, Merdith W.,

Mullins, Roger C.,

Murden, Craig E.,

Murray, Douglas J.,

Nakunz, Martin W.,

Nauseef, John M.,

Neff, Donald W.,

Neid, Edward C.,

Neill, Norman S.,

Neill, William H., Jr.,

Nelson, Ronald E.,

Nemecek, Glen E.,

Nemeth, Joseph S.,

Nesejt, Charles R.,

Nettleton, John G.,

Newman, Edwin C.,

Newton, Clyde L.,

Newton, Lloyd W.,

Nichols, Howard F., Jr.,

Nichols, James R.,

Nidiffer, Kenneth E.,

Niebauer, David J.,

Niouette, Thomas H.,

Nolan, Gerald T.,

Nottingham, Wesley D.,

Nuber, Philip W.,

Obermeyer, Ronald W.,

O'Connell, Michael J.,

O'Connor, Edward A., Jr.,

Ohman, Nils B.,

O'Leary, John R.,

O'Malley, Thomas C.,

Orlando, Anthony J.,

Osterhout, David S.,

Owens, Thomas A.,

Pace, Jack L.,

Paillex, Robert G.,

Palmer, Donald S.,

Palmer, James 0.,

Parker, Charles W.,

Parker, John L.,

Parkinson, Thomas H. II,

Parks, Edward B.,

Parrish, James E.,

Parrish, Robert J.,

Pasieczny, Reginald E.,

Pastore, Kenneth W.,

Patterson, Charles W.,

Paul, Robert L.,

Paulsen, David R.,

Paulson, James R.,

Pearson, Benjamin J. II,

Peck, Gaillard R., Jr.,

Peck, Robert C.,

Peek, James T.,

Pellek, John,

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

June 14, 19 8 2

Penas, Clark R.,

Percy, Donald G.,

Perkins, Ernest G.,

Perlotto, Richard E.,

Peters, Lawrence W.,

Petersen, Robert A.,

Peterson, Nelda M.,

Peucker, Otto W.,

Phillips, William R.,

Piccolo, Sam.,

Pimentel, Antonio T.,

Pinizzotto, Robert T.,

Piszczek, Stephen P.,

Plescha, Frank.,

Politi, John J.,

Polk, John E.,

Polk, Robert C.,

Porter, Charles P.,

Porter, Samuel E.,

Posgate, James C., Jr.,

Poucher, Frank I., Jr.,

Powell, David A.,

Pratt, Everett H., Jr.,

Pratt, Robert J.,

Pray, Harold L.,

Prescott, Paul R.,

Price, Joseph A., III,

Prinster, Richard R.,

Proffitt, Thomas 0.,

Profitt, Glenn A., II,

Quirk, John T.,

Radford, Ronnie R.,

Radloff, James L.,

Raffaele, Nicholas W.,

Ramsey, Joseph C., Jr.,

Rankin, Bobby G.,

Rapalee, Ernest W., Jr.,

Rasmussen, Kenneth H.,

Raspet, David.,

Rausch, John T.,

Reaver, Russel J.,

Redden, Joseph J.,

Reese, Thomas L.,

Reid, Danny M.,

Reid, Francis G.,

Reid, James R.,

Reidy, John A., Jr.,

Rene, Richard A.,

Repasky, Frederick S.,

Rever, Louis G.,

Reynolds, Robert R.,

Rhoden, Harold H.,

Richards, James C.,

Richardson, David M.,

Richardson, Everett B.,

Richardson, Sanford A.,

Ridgway, Robert S.,

Rinebarger, Teddy E.,

Rivera, Antonio,

Roberson, John M.,

Roberts, Gaylen C.,

Robins, Cecil C.,

Robinson, Hugh T.,

Rodgers, Raymond E., Jr.,

Rodgers, William M.,

Roellig, Richard H.,

Rogers, Glenn D.,

Rogge, Henry M.,

Romano, Rudolph T.,

Romer, Richard A.,

Rosa, James W.,

Rose, Galen J.,

Rothe, William D.,

Rougeau, Joseph M.,

Rowe, David C.,

Ruddick, Robert E.,

Rudy, James D.,

Ruffini, Thomas E.,

Rule, Carl W.,

Runkle, Richard K., Jr.,

Rush, Francis M., Jr.,

Rushforth, Charles P., III,

Russell, Albert L.,

Ryan, Robert L.,

Ryer, Richard T.,

Sabo, Francis,

Saliba, Gabriel S., Jr.,

Sammer, Dennis C.,

Samuels, Jon M.,

Sanders, Jack N., Jr.,

Sanford, Lash G., Jr.,

Sanford, Lonnie T., III

Santarelli, Eugene D.,

Satz, Dieter W.,

Saxton, Gerald F.,

Scambilis, Nicholas A.,

Scarfe, George 0., III,

Schafer, Harold G.,

Schaumberg, Robert S.,

Schloeman, Howard L.,

Schlue, Joseph W.,

Schmidt, Albert R. L.,

Schmidt, Walter K.,

Schneider, James D.,

Schnelzer, Garry A.,

Schroetel, Albert H.,

Schumaker, Arlyn D.,

Seaton, Michael B.,

Sebren, William E., III,

Seeley, Glenn R.,

Sexton, Michael E.,

Sharp, Jimmy R.,

Sharp, Paul D.,

Shea, Robert V., Jr.,

Sheetz, Roy D.,

Sheffield, John A.,

Shelton, Jack W., Jr.,

Sherman, Jay D.,

Shinol, Henry E.,

Sidebotton, Harold W.,

Sills, Joel W.,

Simcoe, Larry P.,

Simonetti, Ronald R.,

Simpson, Cleveland,

Singleton, Jerry E.,

Siravo, Robert A.,

Slaughter, John T. Jr.,

Smetek, Ronald T.,

Smialek, Walter A.,

Smiley, William A.,

Smith, Bruce N.,

Smith, Donald B.,

Smith, Gary R.,

Smith, Graham M.,

Smith, Jack H.,

Smith, Jeremy F.,

Smith, Lester C.,

Smith, Marcus C., Jr.,

Smith, Paul D.,

Smith, Riley M.,

Smith, Robert B.,

Smith, Robert B.,

Smith, Stephen B.,

Smith, William H., III,

Smits, Charles A.,

Smull, Richard N.,

Snyder, Terry W.,

Southerland, Grover R.,

Spargur, Robert E.,

Spencer, Isaac,

Sponeybarger, Robert D.,

Spory, Ralph M., Jr.,

Stafford, Roy W., Jr.,

Stanovich, Robert,

Stansell, George A.,

Steele, Edward B.,

Steele, Michael T.,

Steinmetz, Lyle R.,

Stephen, Brian G.,

Stewart, James W.,

Stewart, Laymon D.,

Stillman, Robert L.,

Storey, Francis B.,

Straume, Markus K.,

Stripling, William D.,

Stromfors, Richard D.,

Stuecklen, Klaus H.,

Sullivan, Regis A.,

Sung, William K.,

Susi, Ronald A.,

Suter, Thomas C.,

Svoboda, Leroy E.,

Svoboda, Ludvik Z.,

Swan, Richard D.,

Swann, Wesley G.,

Sykes, Larry D.,

Szachara, Walter S.,

Tagaras, Michael T.,

Tait, John C.,

Takacs, William E.,

Teachout, William C., Jr.,

Teas, George H., II,

Teigen, David H.,

Tenoso, Edwin E.,

Thatcher, Robert C.,

Thayer, John M., Jr.,

Thieme, Frank E., Jr.,

Thomas, Albert M.,

Thomas, Arnold R., Jr.,

Thomas, James H.,

Thomason, Thomas J.,

Thomes, James T.,

Thompson, Barry L.,

Thompson, Glen M.,

Thompson, Harold E., Jr.,

Thompson, Phillip E.,

Tiplady, Richard J.,

Tomasovic, Richard P.,

Tompkins, Bruce C.,

Tonda, Harold K.,

Tornow, Robin G.,

Torre, Rocco J.,

Tourino, Ralph G.,

Toy, Gary J.,

Trawick, Aldolphos,

Trotman, Virgil R.,

True, James L., Jr.,

Trusty, Monty J.,

Trusz, Raymond E.,

Tubbesing, Frank H., Jr.,

Tucker, John E.,

Turner, James R.,

Tuttle, William C., Jr.,

Urbanski, Raymond M.,

Uthe, Warren A.,

Vanpoznak, David,

Vansickle, Lawrence J.,

Vara, Richard F.,

Vedvick, Lars V.,

Venkus, Robert E.,

Verhees, Donald L.,

Vesely, Charles J.,

Vick, James L.,

Vick, John R.,

Vickery, John M.,

Vilensons, John J.,

Vogl, David J.,

Wages, Brian E.,

Walder, Glen W.,

Walker, Larry D.,

Walker, Robert G.,

Wallace, James A., Jr.,

Walling, Darrell H.,

Walrath, Barry A., ,

Walters, Roger W.,

Wang, Joseph T.,

Ward, George A., Jr.,

Warden, John A., III,

Warn, Peter W.,

Warner, David A.,

Watkins, Richard E.,

Watson, Frank C.,

Wedin, Gustave A., III,

Wehmhoner, Martin C., Jr.,

Weida, William J.,

Weil, Frederick W.,

Weisinger, William S., Jr.,

Wells, Jack M.,

Wells, William A.,

Welton, David L.,

Wendt, Douglas M.,

Weppner, Michael J.,


13601

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

13602

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

—SENATE

June 14, 1982

Wessell, Herbert W.,

West, Gerald V.,

Whisenant, Charles L.,

Whitaker, William A.,

Whitaker, William L., III,

White, Richard W.,

Whitehead, Victor W.,

Whittington, Richard J.,

Wiener, Dale 0.,

Wifall, James R.,

Wilhelm, John P.,

Willhite, Richard A.,

Williams, Merle R., Jr.,

Williamson, Gary T.,

Willis, Arthur J.,

Wilson, Dwight F.,

Wilson, Franklin E.,

Wilson, J. Leon,

Wilson, James A., Jr.,

Wilson, James R.,

Wilson, John H.,

Wilson, Murle A.,

Wojciechowski, William A.,

Wood, Thomas W.,

Woods, Jon P.,

Wormington, John R.,

Worrell, Bruce, Jr.,

Wrenn, James E.,

Wuest, William A.,

Wyatt, Ralph E.,

Wylie, John H., Jr.,

Yarnall, Carol A.,

Yocum, Allen,

Yohe, Wayne I.,

Young, James B.,

Young, Leroy C.,

Young, Thomas W.,

Zimer, Milan,

Zumbro, Paul E.,

CHAPLAIN CORPS

Arther, Donald E.,

Coltharp, Bruce R.,

Cowell, Donald M.,

Dawson, Lewis E.,

Engler, David E.,

Eustes, Alfred W., Jr.,

Heffernan, Thomas A.,

Keane, Thomas F.,

Matthews, Joseph C., III,

Schuermann, William S.,

Skipper, Bryant R.,

JUDGE ADVOCATE

Bosser, Robert L.,

Fries, Ralph R.,

Hemingway, Thomas L.,

Hilliard, John E.,

Lamport, Joe R.,

Losey, Franklin W.,

Penater, Robert F.,

Richards, Robert M.,

Sklute, Nolan,

Thornton, John C.,

Wright, Franklin E.,

NURSE CORPS

Allen, Carlton R.,

Caldwell, Nancy L.,

Chamberlain, Jacqueline F.,

Eliseo, Irene J.,

Johnson, Mary K.,

King, Maureen A.,

Kurt, Jerome C.,

Lowery, Antoinette T.,

011ino, Tiiu,

Payton, Ruth G.,

Priddy, Billy G.,

Sheeley, Juanita K.,

Wallace, Clara B.,

Wilder, William M.,

Williams, Patricia L.,

MEDICAL SERVICES CORPS

Anzai, Rodney K.,

Blalock, Franklyn T., III,

Boglin, Wiliam N.,

Borngasser, Frederick J.,

Brown, Charles W., III,

Duffy, Brian J.,

Dyer, Richard F.,

Edmonds, Robert D.,

Green, Kenneth E.,

Kimball, Ronald M.,

Lawrence, Charles W., Jr.,

McCann, Ray E.,

Rowe, Bobby G.,

Stone, Carl P.,

Stover, William L.,

BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES CORPS

Adams, George E.,

Beatty, David C.,

Behling, Edward A.,

Desjardins, Robert J.,

Graham, Roger B.,

Harrah, Cariold B.,

MacNaughton, Michael G.,

May, William 0., Jr.,

Sheffield, Paul J.,

Strate, Robert D.,

Wiesenfeld, David S.,

WITHDRAWAL

George S. Roukis, of New York, to

be a Member of the National Media-

tion Board for the term expiring July

1, 1984, vice George S. Ives, term ex-

pired, which was sent to the Senate on

February 4, 1982.

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

xxx-xx-xxxx

Date post:	11-May-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

SENATE-Monday, June 14, 1982

Documents