March 21, 1991 Csibilities of the Freedoms Foundation at Val-ley Forge; to the Committee on Post Officeand Civil Service.

By Mr. YATRON:L Con. Res. 105. Concurrent resolution

calling for a U.S. policy of strengthening andmaintaining indefinitely the current Inter-national Whaling Commission moratoriumon the commercial killing of whales, andotherwise expressing the sense of the Con-gress with respect to conserving and protect-ing the world’s whale, dolphin, and porpoisepopulations; to the Committee on ForeignAffairs.

By Mr. GLICKMAN:H. Res. 117. Resolution expressing the sense

of the House of Representatives respectingthe establishment of a system providing uni-versal access to health care; jointly, to theCommittees on Energy and Commerce andWays and Means.

By Mr. HERTEL;H. Res. 118. Resolution amending the rules

of the House of Representatives to grantfloor and speaking privileges to formerPresidents of the United States (other than aformer President who resigned from office);to the Committee on Rules.

MEMORIALS

Under clause 4 of rule XXI,45. The Speaker presented a memorial of

the Senate of the State of West Virginia, rel-ative to the desecration of the U.S. flag; tothe Committee on the Judiciary.

PRIVATE BILLS ANDRESOLUTIONS

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, privatebills and resolutions were introducedand severally referred as follows:

By Mr. BILBRAY:HiR. 1594. A bill for the relief of Peter J.

Montagnoli; to the Committee on the Judici-ary.

By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:HiR. 1595. A bill to clear certain impedi-

ments to the licensing of a vessel for employ-ment in the coastwise trade and fisheries ofthe United States: to the Committee on Mer-chant Marine and Fisheries.

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 4 of rule XXI, sponsorswere added to public bills and resolu-tions as follows:H.R. 2: Mr. DE LUGO and Mr. KLuG.H.R. 5: Mr. BEVILL, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr.

SMITH of New Jersey, and Mr. MCGRATH.HR. 14: Mr. SCHAEFER, Mr. KOLTER, Mr.

SKAGGS, Mr. DE LUao, Mr. AHERCROMSIE, Mr.McGRATH, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. DURBIN, Mr.KOPETKI, Mr. MARTIIEZ. and Mr. PARKER.HiR. 33: Mr. ROWLAND, Mr. WYDEN, Mr.

ECKART, Mr. SLATrERY, Mr. SIEORSKI, Mr.BRYANT, Mr. SCHEUER, Mrs. COLLINS of Eli-nols, Mr. RICHARDSON, Mr. BRUCE, Mr.TOWNS, Mr. KOSTMAYER, Mr. HARRIS, Mr.BERMAN, Mr. COLEMAN of Missouri, Mr. COLE-MAN of Texas, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. DE LUGO,Mr. DWYER of New Jersey, Mr. FROST, Mr.FAZIO, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Mr. GALLO, Mr. GIL-MAN, Mr. GUARINI, Mr. HERTEL, Mr.HOCBRUECKNER, Mr. HORTON, Mr. JEFFER-SON, Mr. JONES of Georgia, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr.KLECZKA, Mr. KLUG, Mr. LEVIN of Michigan,Mr. LIPiNsKa, Ms. LONG, Mrs. LOWEY of NewYork, Mr. MACHTLEY, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

MCGRATH, Mr. McDERMOTT, Mr. OLIN, Mr.PAYNE of New Jersey, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. RA-HALL, Mr. ItANGEL, Mr. ROE, Mr. SANTORUM,Mr. SISISKY, Mr. WALSH, and Mr. WEISS.K.R_ Ti: Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. QUILLEN, and Mr.

SENSENBRENNER.H.R. 78: Mr. BOESNER, Mr. KOLBE, Mr.

LEWIS of Florida, Mr. ZELIFF, Mr. QUILLEN,Mr. LENT, and Mr. SPENCE.H.R. 102: Mr. NEAL of North Carolina, Mr.

GALLO, Mrs. LOWEY of New York, Mr. INHOFE,and Mr. RAMSTAD.H.R. 103: Mr. RINALDO and Mr. AuCOIN.H.R. 105: Mr. RAMSTAD.H.R. 107: Mr. MANTON and Mr. FRANK of

Massachusetts.H.R. 118: Mr. KYL, Mr. VANDER JAGT, Mr.

ANTHONY, and Mr. FAZIO.H.R. 127: Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. AUCOIN, Mr.

UPTON, Mr. BRYANT, Mr. TALLON, Mr. DER-RICK, Mr. WEISS, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. SCHAEFER,Mr. SPRATT, Mr. RAVENEL, and Mr. KILDEE.H.R. 179: Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr.

SCHIFF, Mr. BARNARD, and Mr. WILSON.HR. 341: Mr. LENT, Mr. HUCKABY, and Mr.

VOLKMER.HiR. 394: Ms. NORTON, Mr. YATRON, Mr.

RAMSTAD, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr.GEJDENSON, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. KANJORSKI,and Mr. PARKER.H.R. 413. Mr. HUBBARD, Mr. MOODY, Mr.

PARKER, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. BONIOR, Ms.SNOWS. Mr. STALLINGS, and Mr. FLAKE.H.R. 418: Mr. HUTTO.H.t. 500: Mr. AuCoIN. Mr. CLAY, Mr. COLE-

MAN of Texas, Mr. COX of Illinois, Mr. COYNE,Mr. FLAKE, Mr. CORDON, Mr. HENRY, Mr.HOAGLAND, Mr. HYDE, Mr. KASICH, Mr.LUKEN, Mr. MOAKLEY, Ms. OAKAR, Mr.SARPALIUS, Mr. SCHAEFER, Mr. SIKORSKEI Mr.SKAGGS, Mr. SLAUGHTER of Virginia, Mr.TORRICELLI, Ms. WATERS, and Mr. ZELIFF.H.R. 516: Mr. WILSON, Mr. SANDERS, Mr.

WILLIAMS, and Mr. ToEHIcELLi.H.R. 524: Mr. QUILLEN and Mr. DOoLITrLE.H.R. 572: Mr. HASTERT.HR. 582: Mr. ABERCROMBIE and Mr. LOWERY

of California.H.R. 632: Mr. WEISS.B.R. 647: Mr. ECKART.H.R. 670: Mr. NEAL of North Carolina, Mr.

DWYER of New Jersey, Mr. VALENTINE andMr. PARKER.H.R. 673: Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota,

Mr. GORDON. Mr. PAYNE of Virginia, Mr. BRY-ANT, Mr. ScEuER, Mr. LEWIS of Florida, Mr.VALENTINE, Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. FRANK of Mas-sachusetts, Mr. COSTELLO, Ms. NORTON, Mr.KILDKE, and Mr. JEFFERSON.H.R. 677: Mr. FORD of Michigan Mr. KOL-

TER, Mrs. UNSOLD, Mr. LENT, Mr. FORD ofTennessee, Mr. WILSON, Mr. SMITH of NewJersey, Mr. PENNY, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. HEF-NER, Mr. MCCLOSKEY, Mr. QUILLEN, Mr.OWENS of New York, Mr. OWENS of Utah, Mr.CARDIN, Mr. PERKINS, Mr. MACHTLEY, Mr.GUARINI, Mr. KANJORsKI, Mr. ANDERSON, MS.SLAUGHTER of New York, Mr. SANDERS, andMr. FIELDS.H.R. 699: Mr. WEISS.H.R. 713: Mr. ROE, Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. CAR-

PER, Mr. HATCHER and Mr. PARKER.H.R. 741: Mr. HERTEL, Mr. LIPINSKI, and Mr.

SOLOMON.H.K. 747: Mr. SHAW and Mr. RAMSTAD.H.R. 766: Ms. NORTON.H.R. 784: Mr. ECKART, Mr. UPTON, Mr.

GcEKAS, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. BRY-ANT, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, Mr.MAZEOLI, Mr. STEARNS, and Mr. JONES ofGeorgia.H.R. 812: Mr. MURPHY, Mr. KOSTMAYER, Mr.

ENGLISH, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Mr. FISH, Mrs.UNsOELD, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. SHAYS, Mr.

7089PENNY, Mr. ROH. Mr. BEREUTE, Mr. TOWNS,Mr. MILLER of California, Mr. DICKINSON, Mr.LENMAN of Florida, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. LImiN-SKI, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Mr. HOAGLAND, Mr-MFUmE, Mr. FROST, Mr. BEvnIL Mr. GORDON,Mr. TORRES, Mr. RAMSTAD, and Mr. WOLPE.H.R. 828: Mr. ESPY, Mr. K.nDEE, Mr. SAND-

ERS, Mr. SANGMEISTER, and Mr. SPRATT.H.R. 841: Mrs. BOxER, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr.

PRICE, and Mr. WILLIAMS.HR. 842: Mr. JEFFERSON.H.R. 863: Mr. RINALDO and Mr. QUILLEN.H.IK 945: Mr. BAKER, Mr. HASTERT, Mr.

BRUCE, Mr. ESPY, Mr. LUKEN, Mr. WILSONand Mr. Cox of California.HiR. 961: Mr. WILSON, Mr. SIISY. Mr. JA-

CONS, Mr. FIELDS, Mr. YATRON, and Mr. BER-MAN.H.R. 976: Ms. SLAUGHTER of New York, Mr.

ASPIN, Mr. BORSKI, Mr. ROE. Mr. BONIOR. Ms.OAKAR, and Mr. MOAKLEY.Hit. 1001: Mr. ROBRABACHER.H.R. 1063: Mr. LANTOS, Mr. DICKS, Mr.

BONIcR, Mr. MANTON, Mr. MINETA. and Ms.SLAUGHTER of New YorkHiR. 1066: Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. COLLINS of Il-

linols, and Mr. WEISS.HiR. 1093: Mr. OWENS of Utah.HR. 1107: Mr. CONYERS, Mr. DAVIS, Mr.

DEFAZIO, Mr. DOOLEY, Mr. DOWNEY, Mr. ED-WARDS of Texas, Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. FASCELL,Mr. KILDEE, Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr.MCHUGH, Mr. MAVROULES, Mr. NOWAK. Mr.PANETTA, Mr. RusSO, Mr. SABO, Mr. SAND-ERS, and Mr. WOLPE.H.R. 1113: Mr. SANDERS.HiR. 1114: Mr. SANDERS.H.R. 1135: Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. LIVING-

STON, Mr. LUKEN, Mr. STALLINGS, and Mr-FAZIO.H.R. 1144: Mr. RANGEL, Mr. ROGERS, Mr.

LAGOMARSINO, and Mr. VALENTINE.H.R. 1145: Mr. SWIFT, Mr. GORDON, Mr.

CHANDLER, Mr. ENGEL, and Mr. MORAN.HiR. 1181: Mr. AUCOIN, Mr. FROST, Mr.

JONTz, Mr. KENNEDy, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. LAN-CASTER, Mr. LAFAICE, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr.WOLPE, Mr. MFUME, Mr. WHEAT, Mr. MAR-TINEZ, and Mr. STARK.H.R. 1184: Mr. DELAY and Mr. PARKER.H.R. 1188: Mr. KILDEE.HiR. 1190: Mrs. LOWEY of New York, Mr.

OWENS of Utah, Mr. KANJORSKI, and Mr.FLAKE.Hit. 12MO: Mr. KOPETSKI, Mr. DWYER of New

Jersey. Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. BOUCHER. and Mr.VALENTINE.H.R. 1205: Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr.

TALLON, Mr. DOOLEY, Ms. PELOS., Mr.INHOFE, Mr. FROST, Mr. BILSRAY, and Mr.HORTON.H.R. 1212: Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas.HR. 1213: Mrs. MERS of Kansas.HiR. 1233: Mrs. LLOYD.HiR. 1234: Mr. DOOLEY and Ms. KAPTUR.H-. 1239 Mr- BLAZE. Mr. BEREUTER, Mr.

PAYNE of Virginia, Mr. HEFNER, Mr.HOCBRUECENER, Mr. GREEN of New York.Mr. DE LUGO, Mr. FALEOBAVAEGA, Ms.DELAURO, Mr. GUARINI, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr.DEFAZIO, Mr. ANDREWS of Maine, and Mr.COSTELLO.HiR. 1240: Mr. FAZIO.KR. 1241: Mr. BRTON of Indiana, Mrs.

BYRON, Mr. CoBLE, Mr. DAboEMsEYsR, Mr.DORSAN of California, Mr. EMERSON, Mr.HENRY, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mrs. JOHNSON of Con-necticut, Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida, Mr. KLuG,Mr. LAFALCE, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. MCGRATH,Mr. MANTON, MS. MOLINARI, Mrs. MORELLA,Mr. OLIN, Mr. SANGMEISTER, Mr. SMITH ofNew Jersey, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. DWYERof New Jersey, Mr. VALENTINE, Mr. FIELDS,and Mr. PARKER.

7090 CH.R. 1244: Mr. PERKINS, Mrs. BOXER, Mr.

FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. RANEL, Mr.NEAL of North Carolina, Mrs. JOHNSON ofConnecticut, Mr. OWENS of Utah, Mr. JEF-FERSON, Mr. EVANS, Mr. WEISS, and Ms.BELSI.H.R. 1250: Mr- DELLUMS and Mr. FAZIO.. 1296: Mr. ATINS, Mr. SOLARZ, Mr.

RANaEL, Mr. THOMAS of Georgia, Mrs. VUCAN-OVICH, Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. TORRES, Mr. AN-NIINzIO, Mr. STARK, Mr. IGGS, Mr. FRANK ofMassachusetts, Mr. PACKARD. Mr. BRYANT,Mrs. LLOYD, Mr. CAMP, Mr. ZIMMER. and Mr.Espy.1R 1308: Mrs. BOXER and Mr.

HOCHBRUECKNER.H.R. 1326: Mr. EVANS and Mr. COSTELLO.H.R. 1343: Mr. MACHTLEY.H.R. 1348: Mr. EVANS, Mrs. COLLINS of Illi-

nois, Mr. SAIRPAIJUS, Mr. BRYANT, Mr. DWYERof New Jersey, Mr. CoUGHLIN, Mr. ALEXAN-DER, Mr. STUDDS, Mr. CUNNINOAM, Mr. HAM-MERSCH5IDT. Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. WYLIE, Mr.SMITH of Florida, Mr. CLAY, Mr. BURNING,Mr. BUSTAMANTE, Mr. SAWYER, Mr. WILSON.Mrs. MINK, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. KOST-MAYER, ir. JEFFERSON, Mr. LUKEN, Mr.SUNDQUIST. and Mr. BARTON of Texas.H.R. 1375: Mr. WYLIE and Mr. DREIER of

California.H.R. 1386: Ms. NORTON, Mr. WEISS, and Mr.

ENGEL.H.R. 1387: Mr. BILBRAY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr.

DOOLEY, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. KopETSKI,Ms. NORTON, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr.RAHALL, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. WOLPE. and Mr.YATES.KR. 1388: Mr. BILsRAY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr.

EVANS, Mr. FALEO.MAVAGA, Mr. KOPETSKI,Ms. NORTON, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr.RAHALL, Mr. WOLPE, and Mr. YATES.H.R. 1400: Mr. DRER of California, Mr.

VANDER JAOT, MS. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. DICK-INSON, Mr. IRELAND, and Mr. BOERNER.H.R. 1430: Mr. PANETTA, Mr. ANDREWS of

New Jersey, and Mr. KoParsKLH.R. 1443: Ms. NORTON and Mr. FAWELL.KR. 1445: Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota.HR. 1472: Mr. GRANDY and Mr. THOMAS of

California.H.R. 1494: Mr. SOLOMON, Mrs. BYRON, Mr.

JOHNSON of South Dakota, and Mr. FISH.H.R. 1510: Mrs. KENNELLY.H.. 1511: Mrs. KENNELLY.K.J. Res. 56: Ms. HORN, Mr. LAFALCE, Mr.

THOMAS of California, Mr. FAZIO, Mr. COUGH-LIN, and Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey.

:ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUS]H.J. Res. 66: Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. EcEART,

Mr. PRICE, Mr. KOPEYSKI, Mr. PARON, Mr.MAVROULES, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr.ORTON, Mr. NATCHER, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr.CHAPMAN, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. CARPER, Mr. AN-DREWS of New Jersey, Mr. HAYES of Louisi-ana, Mr. MRAZEK, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. JONES ofGeorgia. Mr. MFUME, Mr. PAYNE of New Jer-sey, Mr. HERTEL, Mr. PANETA., and Mr. Coxof California.H.J. Res. 83: Mr. MORRISON, Mr. BLILEY,

Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. DICKINSON, and Mr. LEWIS ofFlorida.H.J. Res. 134: Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr.

BONIOR, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. FAZIO, Mr. FEI-GEAN, Mr. GOODLING. Mr. GORDON, Mr.INHOFE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mrs. KENNELLY, Ms.NORTON, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. REED, Mr.SPENCE, Mr. THOMAS of Georgia, Mr. TRAFI-CANT. Mr. VANDER JAGT, and Mr. WILSON.H.J. Res. 140: Mr. BENNETr, Ms. SLAUGHTER

of New York, Mr. KASICH, Mr. HAMMER-SCHNIDT, Mr. GALLO, Mr. DYMALLY, Mr. DAN-NEMEYER, Mr. SHAW, Mrs. VUCANOVICH, Mr.JONTZ, Mr. CALLAHAN, Mr. CRANE, Mr. BATE-MAN, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. RITTER, Mr. EMERSON,Mr. RAIMSTAD, Mr. LANCASTER, Mr. MANTON,and Mr. QUILLEN.H.J. Res. 164: Mr. APPLEGATE, Mr. BILl-

RAKIS, Mr. EMERSON, Mr. FROST, Mr. GIL-CHREST, Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER, Mr. LIPINSKI,Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. TRAFICANT, and Mr.SCHAEFER.H.J. Res. 166: Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. CLEMENT,

Mr. APPLEGATE, and Mr. LIPINSKI.H.J. Res. 171: Mr. BENNNTr, Mr.

MCDERMOTT, Mr. GOODLING, Mr. MILLER ofWashington, Mr. HOYER, Mr. REGULA, Mr.SCHEUER. Mr. SPENCE, Mr. COUGHLIN, Mr.TRAFICANT, Mr. MCMILLEN of Maryland, Mr.JONES of Georgia, and Mr. NOWAK.H.J. Res. 175: Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut,

Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. THOMASof Georgia, Mr. SMITH of Florida, Mr. GOR-DON, Mr. TANNER, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. TOWNS,Mr. FASTER, Mr. SLATrERY, Mr. WOLPE, Mr.SAXTON, Mr. CLEMENT, Ms. LONG, Mr. CAR-PER, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. BARNARD, MS. NOR-TON, Mr. NICHOLS, Mr. GUARINI, Mr. MCNuL-TY, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr.MCGRATH, Mr. LEVIN of Michigan, Mr. ROE,Mr. BROWN, Mr. KOPETSKi, Mr. HoRTON, Mr.HARRIS, Mr. WOLF, Mr. GRADISON, Mr. COUGH-LIN, Mr. BILPRAY, Mr. WILSON, Mr. REAL,Mr. MCDADE, Mr. MCMILLEN of Maryland,Mr. JONT, and Mr. COSTELLO.

March 21, 1991H.J. Res. 183: Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. YATRON,

Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr. QUILLEN,Mr. FAZIO, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. BLILEY, and Mr.PORTER.H. Con. Res. 23: Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts.H. Con. Res. 50: Mr. JEFFERSON, Mrs. MEY-

ERS of Kansas, Mr. ERDREICH, and Mr. RAN-GEL.H. Con. Res. 66: Mr. SANDERS.H. Con. Res. 88: Mr. RAMSTAD, Ms. HORN,

Mr. DEFAzIO, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts,Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BRUCE,Mr. KOSTMAYER, Mr. ZIMMER, Mr. FAWELL,Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. ATKINS, Mr. DWYER ofNew Jersey, Mr. SCHEUER, Mr. PALLONE, Mr.ABERCROMBIE, Mr. OWENS of Utah, Mr. SISI-SKY, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. M=LLR ofWashington, Mr. UDALL, Mr. DICKS, Mr.WISE, Mrs. UNSOELD, Mr. CARR, Mr. MATSUI,Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts,Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. MILLER of California, Ms.PELOSI, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. RICHARDSON, and Mr.STALLINGS.H. Con. Res. 91: Mr. FASCELL, Ms. ROS-

LERTINEN, Mr. LIGHTFOOT, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr.SCFF, Mr. DWYER of New Jersey, Mr. KYL,Mr. DURBIN, Mr. REGULA, Mr. FAZIO, ir.ENGEL, Mr. GOSS, Mr. GLICKMAN, Mr. SMITHof Florida, Mr. LEVIN of Michigan, and Mr.LOWERY of California.H. Con. Res. 96. Mr. GALLEGLY and Mr. FA-

WELL.H. Con. Res. 102: Mr. IRELAND, Mr. GILMAN,

Mr. GUNDERSON, and Mrs. BENTLEY.H. Res. 99: Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. BATEMAN,

and Mr. QUILLEN.H. Res. 106: Ms. LONG, Mr. FROST, Mr. KOL-

TER, Mr. MACHTLEY, Mr. GUARINI, Mr. DELuGo, Mr. SKAGGS, Mr. SWTrr, Ms. KAFTUR,Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. RAVENEL, Mr. HEFNER,Mr. BERMAN, Mr. DONNELLY, Mr. FORD ofTennessee, Mr. BEVILL, Mr. ABERCROMBIE,Mr. ATKINS, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr.PALLONE, Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. Mr.KoPrsKI, Mr. JONTZ, and Mr. PERKINS.H. Res. 113: Mr. MILLER of Washington, Mr.

SCHEUER, Mr. GUARINI, Mr. HUGHES, Mr.JONES of North Carolina, and Mr. WEISS.

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 1 of rule XXII,43. The Speaker presented a petition of the

Lieutenant Governor, State of Alaska, rel-ative to Operation Desert Storm; to theCommittee on Armed Services.

March 21, 1991 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7091

SENATE-Thursday, March 21, 1991(Legislative day of Wednesday, February 6,1991)

The Senate met at 9:30 a.m., on theexpiration of the recess, and was calledto order by the Honorable JOHN F.KERRY, a Senator from the State ofMassachusetts.

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend RichardC. Halverson, D.D., offered the follow-Ing prayer:Let us pray:*** For there is no power but of God:

the powers that be are ordained of God.* * * For rulers are not a terror to goodworks, but to the evil. * ** For he is theminister of God. *** for good. * * *--Romans 13:1,3,4.Eternal God, Creator of Heaven and

Earth, Lord of history, Ruler of the na-tions, we thank Thee for governmentwhich Thou hast ordained to restrainevil in the world. Grant to Thy serv-ants on Capitol Hill a constant re-minder that authority comes fromThee, and that they rule by virtue ofdivine appointment. Grant to the Sen-ators, their administrative assistants,their chiefs of staff, and the directorsof committee staffs a daily awarenessthat their power is from Thee, and thatthey are accountable to Thee how theyexercise that power.Gracious God, help us all to conduct

ourselves, that our lives are well pleas-ing to Thee. In His name who is Lord ofLords and Servant of Servants. Amen.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTINGPRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will please read a communicationto the Senate from the President protempore [Mr. BYRD]The legislative clerk read the follow-

ing letter:U.S. SENATE,

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,Washington, DC, March 21, 1991.

To the Senate:Under the provisions of rule I, section 3, of

the Standing Rules of the Senate, I herebyappoint the Honorable JOHN F. KERRY, a Sen-ator from the State of Massachusetts, to per-form the duties of the Chair.

ROBERT C. BYRD,President pro tempore.

Mr. KERRY thereupon assumed thechair as Acting President pro tempore.

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITYLEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The distinguished majority leaderis recognized.

SCHEDULEMr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, under

the previous order, there will now be a2-hour period for morning business,running until 11-0 this morning, withthe first hour under the control of theRepublican leader or his designee, andthe second hour under my control orthat of my designee.Last night, a 90-minute time agree-

ment was entered with respect to theMartinez nomination, and it is my in-tention that the Senate will proceed tothat nomination at or about 11.30 a.m.this morning, with a vote to occurwhen all time is used or yielded backwith respect to that nomination.Senators should be aware that, bar-

ring some factor which causes me toalter this proposed schedule, we willtake up the Martinez nomination at11:30 and vote on it at 1 p.m., or some-time prior to 1 p.m., if time is yieldedback prior to the vote.

It still is my hope and my expecta-tion that we will complete action onthe appropriations bills conference re-ports, the two measures which we dealtwith earlier this week. And I will havea further statement on that matterlater in the day.

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I re-serve the remainder of my leader time,and I reserve all of the leader time ofthe distinguished Republican leader. Iassume the Senator from Oklahomahas been designated to control time forthe Republican leader, and I accord-ingly yield to him.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. Without objection, it is so or-dered.

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTINGREPUBLICAN LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The acting Republican leader isrecognized.Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield

8 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

MORNING BUSINESS

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The Senator from Oregon is rec-ognized for 8 minutes.

FAST-TRACK TRADENEGOTIATIONS

Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, Iwould like to speak this morning aboutthe President’s request to extend whatis commonly called fast-track nego-tiating authority-although that nameis a misnomer. It is certainly not fast.It is often not on track.What the President is asking for is a

2-year extension of his authority to ne-gotiate multilateral and bilateral tradeagreements and have those agreementscome back to the Congress and bevoted on, up or down, without amend-ment, in a certain time period.The fast-track authority does not

guarantee that you get a good agree-ment or bad agreement. That will comein the negotiations, and I think thePresident full well knows, as does Am-bassador Carla Hills, our Trade Rep-resentative, that if a bad agreementcomes back, Congress will turn itdown.The argument is made, though, that

we should not give the President an ex-tension of this fast-track authority.That instead we should just let him goahead and negotiate an agreement andthen have it brought back for our re-view and we can amend it as we wantor treat it as a normal piece of legisla-tion.There are two who have negotiations

that are going on now. One is calledthe Uruguay round, which is multi-national, 107 nations of the world in-volved in an effort to lower tariffs andtrade barriers; the other is the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement thatthe President wants to negotiate withCanada and Mexico. In those two agree-ments, we are talking about thousandsof issues-not hundreds; thousands ofissues-and thousands of compromisesthat we are asking countries on allsides to make.Let me give an example of the prob-

lem if the United States does not havethe authority to bring the agreementback to the Congress and ask for a voteon it up or down. Let us say we are ne-gotiating with Germany. Germany hasvery protective agricultural practices-We regard ourselves as the most effi-cient agricultural country in theworld, and we are. And we would likefreer access to the German market.Germany’s highly protected farmers tonot like that. They are a potent politi-cal bloc. It is a political problem forthe German Government to give usmarket access.Let us say, also, that we would like

freer access on telecommunications.

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

7092 CWe are also excellent in the manufac-ture of telecommunications and the in-stallation of systems.But in dealing with Germany and

most other European countries, mostother countries of the world for thatmatter, they have a State-owned tele-communications system, and the entirebureaucracy of the country does notlike to let another country come in andcompete with their state-owned sys-tem. If Germany gives on that, theyhave another bloc of voters who aremadSo we are saying to Germany, you

give on agriculture, you give on tele-communications. Let us say Germanysays to us, "we will consider it, but wewant you to give on cameras and opticsand textiles. You have a quota systemand highly protect your textiles, andwe think we are good at making tex-tiles. We want into the United States,and we maybe will exchange that andlet you into telecommunications, andwe will let you into agriculture, if youlet us into cameras and optics and tex-tile."The experience in negotiating agree-

ments is as follows. Those industriesand sectors whom you help really donot appreciate it. They expect theyshould have been helped, and they donot give you much credit or much sup-port when you have negotiated anagreement that helps them.The people who do not like the agree-

ment are very mad. In Germany, itwould be the farmers of Germany, ifthey give on agriculture, and it wouldbe the state telecommunications sys-tem if they give on telecommuni-cations. They are livid about thisagreement. They will do everythingthey can to kill it.What the German Government has to

be able to do and what the UnitedStates has to be able to do is to comeback to our respective legislative bod-ies and say, "Overall, we know this is agood agreement for the entire country.We have had to give something to getsomething, but on balance it is a goodagreement." And the German Govern-ment has to be able to say the samething.But, if in negotiating with the United

States, another government knowsthat this agreement Is going to comeback to Congress and can be amended-we can vote it down if we want-butcan be amended, the power of thosewho want to kill the part of the agree-ment they do not like is so overwhelm-ing they would probably succeed, be-cause those who benefit would notfight nearly as hard for it as those whothink they are hurt by the agreement.Therefore, no government in its right

mind is going to negotiate with us-letus use Germany as an example-andgive what we want in agriculture andmake their farmers mad; give what wewant in telecommunications and maketheir entire state telecommunications

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

monopoly mad. Because they knowthat in the next election those peopleare probably going to vote againstthem in the election, and then havethis come back to the United Statesand have the entire trade agreementdefeated. And all Germany has is a lossand all our President has is a loss andno one wins.The fast-track negotiating authority

simply allows the President to nego-tiate an agreement and bring it back,and we will vote on it up or down. Thatis all. Congress maintains the right toturn the agreement down.There is a genuine case to be made by

labor. They are strongly opposed to onefast-track extension, and I sympathizewith them and I fully understand theirconcerns. It does not relate to Ger-many and Europe and the Uruguayround; it relates to the so-called NorthAmerican Free-Trade Agreement whichbrings Mexico into the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement.Labor is afraid that if we have a free-

trade agreement with Mexico, a fairportion of American industry will sim-ply move south of the border where thewages are less, and all the manufactur-ing will be done there and Americanswill lose jobs.I want to say right now so it’s per-

fectly clear, if we get an agreementwith Mexico that is going to lead tothat, I am not going to support it. Iwill not support it and will urge mycolleagues to do the same.But I think in the longrun, and in the

shortrun, if there is a North Americanfree-trade agreement with the UnitedStates, Canada, and Mexico, Americanlabor will benefit.But labor’s concerns are legitimate

and have to be taken into account. Ifany agreement comes back that dep-recates and damages American labor inthe aggregate, that agreement ought tobe defeated. The points they raise arecertainly valid. I hope as we are nego-tiating these agreements, our TradeRepresentative Carla Hills will take la-bor’s concerns into account. I know shewill, but I think I can assure her thatif she does not, I, for one, will not sup-port the agreement.But without the fast-track authority,

Mr. President, we need not even haveto worry about it. There will be noagreement; no good agreement; no badagreement; no agreement. And with itwe will have lost our one great chancein the remainder of this century forAmerica to break down barriers over-seas to our products. I am afraid wewill not stay where we are, but willmove backwards into an era of protec-tionism, higher tariffs, and quotas thatwill serve the world badly, serve Amer-ica badly, and will especially servebadly American labor and Americanconsumers. I thank the Chair.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. Who yields time?

March 21, 1991Mr. NICKLES. I yield 5 minutes to

Senator DANFORTH.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. The Senator from Missouri is rec-ognized for 5 minutes.

FAST-TRACK AUTHORTrYMr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I am

pleased to follow the comments of myfriend Senator PACKWOOD. I think hehad it exactly right. My analogy wouldbe to riding a bicycle. I think in inter-national trade, you either move for-ward or you fall off. I do not think youcan afford to do nothing and stand pat.I think this is really the issue we arefacing with respect to negotiating au-thority.I know that the idea of fast-track au-

thority is something that causes con-cern to people who say, well, this real-ly is not the appropriate method ofconducting business in the Senate: tohave something proceeding on a fasttrack reach the floor without amend-ments. But the fact of the matter isthat without the fast-track concept,the fast-track procedure, there reallyis no possibility of multilateral tradenegotiations.Prior to the 1S60s, most of the trade

negotiations that our country had weremainly tariff-reduction agreements,one on one with other countries. Thoseare agreements that are manageable.But beginning in the 1960s, we startedto get into multilateral trade agree-ments involving not tariffs but so-called nontariff barriers. Those agree-ments became much more complex.They involved a number of countries atthe same time. As a matter of fact, theexperience that we had in 1967 with theKennedy Round was that Congressended up aborting the process becausewe did not have the fast-track author-ity at that point. The implementinglegislation reached the floor of theHouse and the floor of the Senate. Itwas amended so badly that it really ru-ined the deal.With that as a background, in 1974,

Congress developed the concept of fast-track, and it was at that time a com-promise-type of procedure which in-volved a quid pro quo, a tradeoff withthe administration. The administra-tion was to have a formal consultativemechanism with Congress, and withthe private sector as well, in exchangefor a process by which, when the legis-lation finally comes to the floor of theHouse and the Senate, it is not amend-able. Because of this new process, firstof all, there was, in fact, greater con-gressional input than in virtually any-thing else I can imagine that the exec-utive branch does.Second, it made it possible in 1979 for

Congress to approve the Tokyo roundeven though a lot of people thought atthat time it was not possible for us toapprove something that is as complexas this. We did it.Now we are engaged in the Uruguay

round of negotiations. These have been

March 21, 1991 C

going on since 1986. They have involved16 different areas. They have involved107 different countries. They have beenvery complicated negotiations extend-ing over a very long period of time. Itis the testimony of Carla Hills, ourU.S. Trade Representative, that if Con-gress can undo it or unravel the com-plex negotiations in floor debate, thenthe negotiations will simply come toan end.Mr. President, what has happened is

that the fast-track authority has effec-tively expired, and the administrationallowed it to expire with respect to theUruguay round even though we couldhave agreed to a deal last year. InBrussels last year, the administrationwas very tough with respect to agri-culture, walked away from the table onagriculture, and took the position thatwe were not going to sign on to justany deal. And now, because of thetoughness of the administration, wehave the possibility of making realstrides in the field of agriculture. Itwculd be an irony, indeed, if Congresswould say that our reward to CarlaHills for taking a tough approach inagricultural negotiations for the Uru-guay round would be to strip her of hernegotiating authority. To me that isno way to have a tough and consistentU.S. trade policy.I would make only one other point,

Mr. President, and it is this. I thinkthat the real issue that is before theCongress with respect to trade is akind of a follow-on to what we havebeen talking about over the last fewmonths with respect to America’s rolein the world in foreign policy issues.There are those who say that Americais really a country that is not verycompetent; we cannot do the job,whether it is involving ourselves inmessy things in the Middle East orwhether it is involving ourselves ininternational trade. We are all thumbs;we foul things up and, therefore, let usnot do anything at all. Let us bail outof the world around us and bail out ofour international responsibilities.To me, to say that we cannot even

negotiate, that we do not even have thepower to enter into meaningful nego-tiations with other countries is to saythat we have such a dim view of Ameri-ca’s prospects in the world that we donot even want to try to get anythingdone, we do not even want to try towork things out with other countriesin international trade. That kind ofpessimism, I think, is not in keepingwith the can-do experience of Ameri-ca’s past. I believe that we can competein international markets. I believe thatif we are going to be the world leader,we must compete in international mar-kets. The key to that is opening upinternational markets, and that iswhat trade agreements are all about. Itis possible that we will decide to turndown the fruits of these negotiations,but to say that we are not even going

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

to negotiate in the first place is a de-gree of pessimism which I think is notreally fitting for our country.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. Who yields time?Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield

the Senator from Washington 5 min-utes.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. The Senator from Washington isrecognized for 5 minutes.

WISEST ACTION IS NO ACTION AT ALLMr. GORTON. Mr. President, "fast

track" is a phrase that stands for au-thority granted by Congress to thePresident to enter into trade agree-ments under a set of rules by whichCongress will vote on those tradeagreements within a fixed period oftime, will vote the agreements up ordown without amendment, but willhave done so only after extensivestatutorially required consultationamong the President, his representa-tives, and Congress.Fast-track authority with respect to

present negotiations with Mexico andwith most of the rest of the worldthrough the GATT talks would haveexpired on the 1st of June of this yearexcept for an extension authorized bythe President. That extension may berepudiated by a resolution passing ei-ther this body or the House of Rep-resentatives by June 1.This is a case, Mr. President, in

which the wisest action for the Con-gress of the United States is no actionat all. All trade agreements in recentdecades which have liberalized rules re-lating to foreign trade have takenplace under fast-track authority. TheTokyo round of GATT negotiations, afree-trade agreement with Israel, and ahighly successful free-trade agreementwith Canada are the most striking ex-amples of that success.Mr. President, we cannot say, of

course, that the extension of fast trackauthority necessarily will result in in-creased international trade or in-creased exports for American manufac-turers and producers. We simply do notknow what agreements may be nego-tiated in the future under that fasttrack authority.As a consequence, we cannot be cer-

tain that we will succeed if we take theproper nonaction here in Congress andallow fast track authority to continue.On the other hand, Mr. President, we

do know that this country will suffer ifwe cancel or restrict the President’sfast track authority. No other nationwill negotiate with our Trade Rep-resentative and reach a final agree-ment with full knowledge that Con-gress can amend or change that agree-ment. We cannot have members of ourexecutive branch negotiating whenthey do not have the power to reach adeal. Congress cannot engage in thosenegotiations on a day-by-day basis,though under fast-track authority itcan and should and does consistently

7093advise the administration on what isacceptable and what is not.Growth in the American economy,

Mr. President, has been fueled by inter-national trade and by its expansion, es-pecially by expansion of our exportsover the last decade. Growth in thedecade of the 1990’s will result largelyfrom increases in international trade.As a nation with one of the freest

trading systems in the world, we par-ticularly benefit from free inter-national trade and by removing restric-tions among our trading partners. Thatcan be done only through bilateral ormultilateral negotiations. Those nego-tiations are possible only when theother parties to those negotiations canact in the belief that when they makea deal with the United States, theUnited States is likely to keep thatagreement. That knowledge will bepresent only if fast track negotiatingauthority is extended.This country will gain by freer trade,

Mr. President, and will gain almostcertainly by the extension of this fast-track authority. America certainlywill lose if we should repudiate it. Inthis case, as in some others, the bestaction the Congress of the UnitedStates can take is no action at all. Wein Congress can and should rely on thePresident and the Trade Representa-tive to negotiate treaties. We will haveevery opportunity to examine and tovote either in favor of those agree-ments, if they are in the interest of theUnited States, or against them, if wedetermine that they are not- The timeto do that is after agreements aresigned, not at this stage when we donot know what we can reach throughnegotiations-Mr. President, I thank my colleague,

the Senator from Oklahoma-Mr. NICKLES. Mr- President, I yield

Senator DURENSERGER from Minnesota3 minutes.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-

pore. The Senator from Minnesota isrecognized for 3 minutes.Mr. DURENBERGER. I thank my

colleague.

THE SUFFERING OF SUDANMr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President,

I rise to express my deep concern forthe dire humanitarian situation in theSudan. The drought and the ongoingcivil war have combined to affect up to9 million Sudanese, fully one-third ofthe country’s population. It appearsthat the 1990 drought has been worseeven than that of 1984 and 1985.The scale of human suffering in

Sudan should concern and slarm eachof us. The United States, United Na-tions, other governments, and a num-ber of private organizations have madeenormous efforts to deliver food aidand other assistance. And more aid willlikely be required as this year pro-gresses.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 21, 1991United States humanitarian efforts

in the Sudan are long standing and ex-tensive. I want to commend not onlythe current United States Embassy andAID teams in Khartoum, but alsoformer Assistant Secretary of StateMcCormick for his great work in thepast in Sudan. He has gone far out ofhis way to try to bring about help tothe Sudanese people.This year alone, Mr. President, the

United States has already committedto delivering some 250,000 tens of grainto Sudan. And we could provide asmuch as $10 to $12 million in othernonfood emergency aid. We continue tocooperate with the U.N.-sponsored Op-erations Lifeline Sudan Program,which is designed to help feed and carefor over 3 million people displaced bySudan’s ongoing civil war. Dependingon other countries’ contributions, theUnited States could provide anywherefrom one-fourth to one-third of all foodaid to the Sudan.Mr. President, even with this exten-

sive aid response, the desperate suffer-ing of the Sudanese people cannot bealleviated sufficiently without the ac-tive cooperation of the Government ofSudan. It was only 2 months ago thatthe Government even acknowledgedthat it required assistance and for-mally requested it from the United Na-tions.Even such a basic and fundamental

matter as recognizing there is a prob-lem and accepting international assist-ance has become a major achievement.Mr. President, there is a great dealmore that the Government of Sudanmust do to alleviate the suffering of itsown people. No matter how much aidthe international community donates,the people of Sudan require the co-operation of their Government in orderto benefit from that aid.Once the food arrives at Port Sudan,

it must be off-loaded from the shipsand transported throughout the coun-try. The voluntary organizations whodistribute the aid must be given per-mission to operate in the country. Im-port duties on the equipment and ma-teriel have to be reduced or eliminatedin order to make it possible to bring inthe supplies needed to operate.Even under the best of circum-

stances, the logistical problems of dis-tributing food aid throughout a des-perately poor, remote, and undevelopedcountry are daunting. Without the hostgovernment’s cooperation, it becomesimpossible.

If the political will exists, a greatdeal more can be done to alleviate themisery. The Government of Sudan hasyet to demonstrate a sustained willing-ness to address fundamental issues ofhuman suffering.Let us also recognize, Mr. President,

that the hunger and deprivation willpersist as long as the civil conflict inSudan continues. War and peace do notaffect the rainfall, but they do affect

efforts to overcome natural disasterssuch as drought. No matter how muchaid is provided, no matter how manytons of food are distributed throughoutthe country, people will continue tosuffer more than otherwise as long asthe war persists.Mr. President, drought would exist

without war. But famine can be avert-ed if there is peace. There is one con-sistent thread in famine suffering:Wherever one finds famine, one findsconflict; wars; battles. It is the con-flicts that push the drought sufferingover the edge to famine.We must recognize this reality as one

of the root causes of famine, particu-larly in Sudan. We should call on theinternational community, especiallythe United Nations, to exert its influ-ence to achieve a peaceful and rapid so-lution to Sudan’s civil war. Thedrought and crop failures are badenough, but the war is destroying thecountry and its people.Mr. President, in conclusion, I urge

my colleagues to remember the suffer-ing of Sudan. To take every oppor-tunity to urge the Government ofSudan to cooperate with internationalrelief efforts. To encourage a peacefulsettlement to the civil war. Sudan is aremote and desolate land. But its peo-ple are our brothers. They need our ef-forts. They deserve our compassion.Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield

the Senator from Kansas 3 minutes.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. The Senator from Kansas is rec-ognized for 3 minutes.

FAMINE IN SUDANMrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I

rise today to join with my colleague,Senator DURENBERGER, to express mygreat concern about the emergencyfamine situation in Sudan. SenatorDURENBERGER has laid out, I think,very clearly the tragic situation thatexists there.With the dramatic events taking

place in the Persian Gulf and the So-viet Union, the issue of famine in Afri-ca has received scant attention in theUnited States over the past 6 months.We all remember the 1984-85 African

famine, with the pictures of starvingwomen, and children with bloated bel-lies. Those tragic images shocked theconsciousness of the entire world com-munity.The famine we face this year is one of

much greater proportions than that of1985. Unless urgent and coordinated ac-tion is taken, we will soon look at thesame shocking pictures, asking: Howcould this happen again?In Sudan alone, the reality of the

numbers is difficult to comprehend: 9million Sudanese are at risk of mal-nutrition and death, of a total popu-lation of 26 million; 1.2 million metrictons of food will be needed to avert this

crisis; and several experts predict thatat least 200,000 Sudanese will die thisyear due to hunger-even if relief ef-forts begin to work effectively fromthis point onward.The famine in Sudan has been caused

by the deadly combination of a severedrought-worse than that of 1984-andcontinuing civil conflict between theGovernment of Sudan and the Suda-nese People’s Liberation Movement.Despite the tremendous food short-

ages in Sudan caused by this combina-tion, the problem of the famine is notprimarily one of the quantity of food.The resources from the internationalcommunity are available to avert thiscrisis. For example, the United Statesalone has committed over 331,000 met-ric tens of food.The real problem has been distribut-

ing the food to those in need. Over thepast 6 months, the Sudanese Govern-ment has been extremely uncoopera-tive, refusing to recognize the severityof the impending crisis. The regime inKhartoum has repeatedly delayed orcanceled relief efforts.However, the Government of Sudan

has made some progress in the pastmonth. In late February, United Na-tions Undersecretary General JamesJonah traveled to Sudan to meet withPresident Bashir. For the first time,the Sudanese Government recognizedthat the drought was an urgent matter.President Bashir also agreed that theUnited Nations should coordinate fam-ine relief operations. These stepsshould facilitate, and accelerate, reliefefforts. However, it is still unclear towhat extent these words will be trans-lated into concrete actions.For example, despite the new agree-

ment, the Government continues tcsuspend many United Nations-spon-sored flights to southern Sudan. Theseflights are essential for the continu-ation of relief efforts at this point. AllInternational Committee of the RedCross flights have been canceled by theGovernment.On March 7, United States Ambas-

sador Jim Cheek returned to Khartoumto resume United States diplomatic ac-tivity on relief efforts. Because of thegulf crisis, Ambassador Cheek, as wellas almost all of the United States Em-bassy personnel, had been forced toleave Sudan in mid-January. Becauseof the urgency of this food crisis, Am-bassador Cheek was anxious to returnand, I believe it was important that hedo so.Over the coming months, I fervently

believe that the international commu-nity must focus on the crisis in Sudan.Several actions are essential:First, we must strongly support the

United States Embassy in Khartoumand the private voluntary organiza-tions working in Sudan. The efforts ofAmbassador Cheek to coordinate andmobilize relief efforts in Sudan are cru-cially important. Assistant Secretary

7094

March 21, 1991 CHan Cohen has been very active onthis issue. Because of the critical na-ture of the famine in Sudan-as well asthe problems of hunger in the rest ofAfrica-I urge President Bush and Sec-retary Baker to become actively in-volved in this issue.Second, the United Nations has a key

role to play on famine relief, particu-larly in the Sudan. Fifty colleagues re-cently joined me in a letter to UnitedNations Secretary General de Cuellarurging him to personally make faminein Africa an item of the highest prior-ity. The recent, successful visit ofUnited Nations Under Secretary Gen-eral Jonah to Khartoum is an exampleof the type of active and energetic ac-tion the United Nations should be tak-ing to relieve the food shortages.Third, all efforts should be made to

hold the international donor commu-nity together. The intransigence of theSudanese Government has frustratedand demoralized many of the donor na-tions and private voluntary organiza-tions over the past year. -Yet, becauseof the magnitude of the crisis, theUnited States cannot go it alone. Weneed the active participation of the en-tire donor community.Fourth, we should urge the Sudanese

Government to be as cooperative aspossible. The recent, improved positionreached at the meeting with Undersec-retary General Jonah is encouraging,but much remains to be done. For ex-ample, the critically important U.N.flights remain suspended.Finally, and perhaps most impor-

tantly, we must continue to draw pub-lic attention to this crisis. Last No-vember, we held hearings in the SenateAfrican Affairs Subcommittee on theemergency in Sudan, and I call uponthe committee to hold hearings in thenear future on the problems of faminein Africa.Mr. President, 4 months from now,

the pictures of the starving childrenwill appear on our television screens.We will all be upset, calling for ways tomove food as quickly as possible. Yet,because of the logistical problems ofmoving food, at that time it will be toolate to avert the suffering and death ofhundreds of thousands of innocent Su-danese civilians.Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I corn-

pliment the Senator from Kansas, andalso Senator DuRENEERGER for their at-tention to a very critical problem.I wish to associate myself with their

remarks, and I hope to work towardsome positive constructive solutions tothe very desperate problems.Mr. President, I yield the Senator

from New Hampshire (Mr. Smi.uH] 5minutes.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. The Senator from New Hampshireis recognized for 5 minutes.Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator

from Oklahoma for yielding the time.

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

CRIME IN THE STREETS OF OURAMERICAN CITIES

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on thenight of March 21, 1962, 29 years agotoday--convicted rapist Booker Hillerykilled 15-year-old Marlene Miller. Afterattempting to rape the young girl,Hillery stabbed her through the throatwith the sewing scissors, mono-grammed with her name, that she hadbeen using to sew a dress for her 16thbirthday party. Then he dumped herbody in an irrigation ditch.Hillery, who was out on parole from

an earlier rape conviction, was ar-rested, convicted, and sentenced todeath. But this sentence was merelythe beginning of a 29-year legal strug-gle which has still not been resolved.In 1965, having once upheld Hillery’s

murder conviction, the California Su-preme Court ordered a new trial withrespect to the sentencing phase. Thereason for the reversal is that the jurythat sentenced Hillery to death hadbeen erroneously told that, if it gaveHillery a life sentence, he could be re-leased on parole. Although this wascorrect at the time of Hillery’s trial, asubsequent case created a new rule.Hillery was again tried and sentenced

to death. He filed a habeas corpus peti-tion and again the sentence wasthrown out. This time the reason wasthat a potential juror had been excusedbecause she had stated that shethought she could not sentence anyoneto death.So Hillery was tried a third time and,

once again, sentenced to death. Thistime he contended that the death pen-alty was unconstitutional under theCalifornia constitution. His sentencewas reduced to life imprisonment.Later that year, Hillery filed another

petition for habeas corpus, demandingto be released on the grounds thatblacks had been excluded from thegrand jury which indicted him. Therewas no evidence that there was any dis-criminatory intent. In fact, the judgeresponsible for grand jury selection hadasked Hillery’s lawyer to identify po-tential black jurors, declining to in-clude a potential black juror only be-cause jury service would have con-flicted with the juror’s employment.Nevertheless, after 5 years of litiga-

tion, a U.S. district court grantedHillery’s petition and ordered him re-leased or retried. That decision was af-finned by the U.S. Court of Appealsand the U.S. Supreme Court.On December 18, 1986, Hillery was

again convicted of murdering MarleneMiller in 1962, and sentenced to life im-prisonment. Within hours of the con-viction, Hillery filed a notice of appeal,which is still pending. Twenty-nineyears after Booker Hillery rammed apair of scissors through Marlene Mil-ler’s throat, the case is not even closeto being resolved.Mr. President, the case of Booker

Hillery is only another pathetic exam-

7095ple of the ways in which the high levelof crime in our Nation’s cities are thedirect result of the criminal justice-orbetter stated injustice-policies of ourcourts and legislatures. While each ofthese cases is heart-rending in itself,an examination of crime statisticshelps us realize that this case is not anisolated instance.In April 1990, the Department of Jus-

tice published a profile of felony de-fendants in large urban counties forcalendar year 1988. That study showedthat two-thirds of the felony defend-ants were known to have been arrestedpreviously. Seventy-nine percent ofthose with a previous arrest record hadat least one prior felony arrest. Onequarter of all defendants had four ormore prior felony arrests.The study also found that the aver-

age number of prior arrest charges forall defendants was three felony arrestcharges and three misdemeanor arrestcharges. When including only defend-ants who were known to have at leastone prior arrest, the average number ofprior arrests went up to four arrestcharges for felonies and five arrestcharges for misdemeanors.The study found that about one-third

of the defendants already had sometype of status with the criminal justicesystem at the time of their arrest; 41percent of these were on probation, 34percent were on pretrial release for aprevious case that was still pending.Finally, the study found that 59 per-

cent of defendants charged with violentoffenses were released before case dis-position, and 46 percent of all releaseddefendants were released on the day oftheir arrest or the following day. Onlyone-third of those defendants origi-nally arrested on felony assaultcharges were ultimately convicted offelonies.Mr. President, it does not take a

rocket scientist to figure out what allthis means: First, the major part of ourviolent crime in American cities is theresult of a relatively small number ofcareer criminals who commit crimesover and over again; second, these ca-reer criminals are in a position to com-mit violent crimes because our crimi-nal justice system processes them andturns them loose on the streets.I agree with the President that the

key to taming crime in our cities is totake the career criminals off thestreet. This means curbing frivolousprisoner petitions, insuring that dan-gerous criminals are not set free on in-nocent technicalities, and imposingtough mandatory minimum sentencesincluding the death penalty where thecrime is particularly hideous.Mr. President, the American people

are far ahead of Congress on this issue.They realize that violent crime is botha serious problem and an avoidableone. Unless Congress begins to take aleadership role in this area, I am con-vinced that our constituents will find

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

leaders who will. This Senator intendsto work with the American people, notagainst them, to put violent criminalswhere they belong-behind bars andaway from the innocent people theyprey upon.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

FOWLER). The Senator from Wyomingis recognized.Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I

thank the Senator from New Hamp-shire.I yield to the Senator from Idaho

[Mr. SYMS].The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Idaho [Mr. SyMms] is recog-nized for such time as he may use.Mr. SYMMS. Thank you very much,

Mr. President.

FAST TRACK MUST BE LOOKED ATCAREFULLY

Mr. SYMMS. Mr. President, there isa lot to be said for negotiating tradeagreements that offer the prospect ofsignificantly increasing trade betweennations. I believe open borders benefitthe countries involved and I have al-ways been supportive of efforts to ex-pand trade.Let me quote from Winston Church-

ill:We say that every [citizen] shall have the

right to buy whatever he wants, wherever hechooses, at his own good pleasure, withoutrestriction or discouragement from the State.That is our plan. * * * In pursuit of this sim-ple plan there came last year into [our coun-try], from every land and people under thesun. millions’ worth of merchandise, so mar-velously varied in its character that a wholevolume could scarcely describe it. Why did itcome? Was it to crush us, or to conquer us,or to starve us, or was it to nourish and en-rich our country? It is a sober fact thatevery single item, however inconsiderable, inall that vast catalogue of commodities cameto our shores because some [citizen] desiredit, paid for it, and meant to turn it to hiscomfort or profit.What Winston Churchill said so well,

I say simply free trade in a free soci-ety provides the maximum benefit toour citizens.The question is: How do we get there?

How do we get free trade and still havefair trade? Mr. President, I am a sup-porter of fast track, but a cautious sup-porter of fast track. We will not getanywhere if our trading partners knowthat an agreement negotiated by ourtrade team will be bent and twisted bythe Senate. They simply will not nego-tiate with us. They will not deal withus if. in fact, they think that whateverthey agree to, the Senate will changeit, and modify it, and make arrange-ments to suit every parochial interestthat any one of us might have.In fact, our trading partners have

made it clear that they will not get in-volved in a negotiation with the UnitedStates without fast track. In otherwords, no fast track, no new agree-ments, no new opportunities for us, no

new opportunities for the engines ofproduction in the United States. It isthat simple.But problems do come up, and we

need to look at them squarely at theoutset. I want to cite two or three ofthese problems that I see that we needto be able to handle. I have confidencethat our trade team will look out forand work on these issues. I think itcannot be overlooked.One of the problems is the recent at-

tempt by the provincial Government ofBritish Columbia to withdraw from thememorandum of understanding for tim-ber products. This is no small matter.This memorandum was central to thesupport of many Senators for the Unit-ed States-Canada Free-Trade Agree-ment, myself included. I have joinedwith Senator PACKWOOD to urge theUSTR to work toward the preservationof that memorandum.Mr. President, at the time that the

United States-Canada Agreementpassed the Finance Committee, it wasa tie vote, until we were able to extractthe agreement, and I happen to be theSenator that did that extracted agree-ment from former President Reagan,that he personally would set aside thetimber issue, so that it would be sepa-rately negotiated.That memorandum of understanding

was agreed to, and I think that the Ca-nadians need to understand, and theAmerican trade team needs to under-stand, that this is not the first timethat memorandum has been under at-tack. Some Canadian firms have failedto pay the full export tax or havemisclassified lumber exports as otherwood products.

After the agreement was signed in1986, for example, there was a signifi-cant increase in remanufactured woodproduct exports into the United States.These products are not subject to the15-percent surtax. I do not think thereis much question that much of this in-crease resulted from misclassification.There is another good example where

we are having problems with the Unit-ed States-Canada Free-Trade Agree-ment. The situation that comes tomind is the Saferco fertilizer project inSaskatchewan, which the provincialgovernment is subsidizing by providingsignificant equity and is guaranteeingthe owners’ commercial debt.This is a huge, state-of-the-art nitro-

gen processing complex. It will cost$435 million to build, and it will in-crease Canadian production by about 20percent in a nitrogen market alreadyfully served by existing facilities. Theplants now in operation are sufficientto serve the market and industry. Ana-lysts do not foresee any need for anyadditional supply in the future. It isdifficult for domestic fertilizer produc-ers to gauge their markets and profitmargins when a massive increase insubsidized product is on the horizon.

Fortunately, there are dispute settle-ment procedures in place to remedythese problems. How this situation isresolved will be very important to howthis Senator will view any futureagreement.Another concern we have in Idaho, of

course, is the prospect of dumping a lotof sugar product into the UnitedStates. I know a lot of industries areconcerned about the antidumping pro-visions in the GATT. The sugar indus-try, of course, is very concerned thatthe USTR is not going to be able toprotect the sugar producers fromdumping;Finally, there is the current pork dis-

pute. Currently, there is a BinationalCommission to resolve the dispute.However, the Binational Conmissionand the U.S. International Trade Com-mission do not see eye to eye on somethings. They do not agree.There are a lot of pork producers, not

only in Idaho but across the country,very little of which are the Federal va-riety. The pork producers that I talk toare very upset about the recent verdictby the binational Commission, imply-ing that there is no injury or threat ofinjury to domestic production by sub-sidized-repeat, subsidized--Canadianfresh and chilled pork producers. Fromwhat I have seen, the Idaho producers Ihave talked with make a pretty goodcase. I know Senator GRASSLEY andothers have talked about this in the Fi-nance Committee. They, too, comefrom other pork producing States.I was leery about the binational pan-

els when they were debated in the Sen-ate on the United States-Canadiantrade agreement. As I say, we cannotwin all the disputes, but it is some-thing we have to look at.A supranational dispute settlement

panel can effectively resolve problemsonly if everything-hearings, notice,analysis, and so forth-is done exactlyright. It seems to me that the systemmay not be working in this case. Whatwe should do is be cautious that we donot catch producers--in this case porkproducers-in an interagency strugglefor power, which leaves them mired, assome of my friends from Idaho said, "ina pigpen of indecision." I think it isunfair, and I sincerely hope we can re-solve this matter quickly, and that wedo not face this in the future.I have asked Ambassador Carla Hills

to look into this and to respond tosome questions about the binationalpanel, and I am looking forward tothose answers. I do think, as we moveforward to a long-term dream of formerPresident Reagan, that North Americawill become an open trading zone.

I recall that in 1976 he came to Boise,ID, in his, at that -time, unsuccessfulbid for the Presidency, and I was work-ing on his behalf in my State at thattime, and he unveiled his dream and vi-sion of a North American trade zone.

7096 March 21, 1991

March 21, 1991 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEWe have taken a big step by getting

a Canadian Free-Trade Agreement. Ihope we will have another successfulstep by getting one with Mexico. Wemust remember that we must have fairtrade, and we have to have fair rulesthat we go by. We need to move onthese free trade agreements, both onthe North America Free-Trade Agree-ment and the Uruguay round. Oureconomy and the American consumerwill benefit tremendously if thoseagreements can be successfully con-cluded.

WHY WE SHOULD CUT THE PAY-ROLL TAX AND LEAVE THEWAGE BASE ALONEMr. SYMMS. Mr. President, in my

opinion, reducing the payroll tax ashas been suggested by Senator MOY-NimHr and Senator KASTEN is good taxpolicy, it is good economics, and it isgood politics. That is why I am anoriginal cosponsor of their bill, S. 11,the Social Security Tax Cut Act of1991.When the majority leader, Senator

MrCHELL, and the rest of the Demo-cratic leadership in the Senate em-braced the idea of a payroll tax cut, Ihad great hopes that we might actuallyenact some good economic policy with-out a bruising political fight.You know, Mr. President, it is hard

to be an optimist in this town some-times. Apparently, my colleagues onthe other side of the aisle are going totry to exact a price for supporting goodeconomic policy.Apparently, they are going to try,

once again, to soak the rich by raisingthe wage cap for Social Security con-tributions from 553,400 to $125,000 ormore.

It was just last year that the wagecap for the hospital insurance part ofthe FICA tax was raised to $125,000. Ipredicted at the time that it would nottake long before the folks who believehigher taxes produce economic prosper-ity would be back to raise the rest ofthe FICA tax base.Well, it did not take them long. Just

5 months later and my prediction hascome true.Mr. President, there is a lot to be

said on this, and I see no need to say itall now. But much of what needs to besaid was explained with great clarityby Senator KASTEN in an article pub-lished in the Washington Times yester-day. I ask unanimous consent that thisarticle be printed in the RECORD follow-ing my remarks.There being no objection, the article

was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:[From the Washington Times, Mar. 20,1991]

To TE RESCUE OF PAYROLL TAx CUTs(By Robert Kasten)

Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell’srecent decision to support the Moynilhan-Kasten payroll tax cut plan is a significant

political development. But his suggestion toincrease the amount of income subject to thetax to soak the "rich" in order to make upthe revenue loss will kill it-leaving Ameri-ca’s workers and retirees in the lurch.Raising the taxable wage cap from the cur-

rent 353,400 to 3125,000--or eliminating thecap altogether-is bad policy, bad economicsand bad politics. Not only would this actionperpetuate the charade of using the SocialSecurity surplus funds to pay for other gov-ernment programs, it would reduce economicgrowth and convert Social Security into theworld’s largest welfare program.The current taxable maximum upon which

the 7.65 percent payroll tax rate is levied (6.2percent for Social Security, 1.45 percent forMedicare) is seven times higher than it wasin 1970-and it continues to rise rapidly be-cause it’s tied to the growth of average wagerates in the economy. Last year’s tax-in-crease budget plan raised the wage cap forthe Medicare tax rate to $125,000. It was onlya matter of time before this served as an ex-cuse to raise the wage cap for the Social Se-curity tax.The bill Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,

New York Democrat, and I have proposedwould cut the Social Security tax from 6.2percent to 5.2 percent for both employees andemployers over the next six years, savingbusinesses and workers a whopping $160 bil-lion. Although our legislation proposes aslight increase in the wage cap compared tocurrent law (Mr. Moynihan argues that thepercentage of wages in the U.S. economycovered by the taxable maximum has fallenbelow the traditional 90 percent to 86 percenttoday), every taxpayer would receive a taxcut.

In addition to boosting take-home pay andreducing labor costs, the Moynihan-Kastenproposal would return the Social Securityprogram to its traditional pay-as-you-go fi-nancing. Taxpayers were told that the pay-roll-tax surpluses would be placed in a "trustfund" to finance future benefits. But thesesurpluses aren’t really saved at all. Rather,they are immediately spent on other federalprograms.Judging from past comments by his fellow

Democrats, Mr. Mitchell may find very littlesupport from his own party for eliminatingthe wage base. During last fall’s floor debateon payroll tax cuts, Sen. Ernest Hollings,South Carolina Democrat, referred to use ofthe surplus to finance other federal spendingas "embezzlement." Sen. Brock Adams,Washington Democrat, put it best when hesaid, "We are masking the federal deficitwith Social Security. And, in the eyes of theAmerican public, whom we represent, this iscriminal.."This "criminal" practice would continue

under the Mitchell proposal, since therewould be little or no net tax cut-and thegovernment would continue generating andspending huge Social Security surpluass.That’s not all. Lifting the wage cap would

also cause serious harm to the economy. Weought to remember that there are two goalsthat are important-fairness and economicgrowth. If we strive for a spurious fairnessand fail to consider the need to promote realgrowth as well, we will be striking a fatalblow at our future prosperity.The Dallas-based Institute for Policy Inno-

vation calculates that while a combined 2percentage point cut in the payroll taxwould create 650,000 new jobs by the year2000, even the modest increase in the capcalled for in Moynihan-Kasten wipes out halfof this job gain. Lifting the cap entirely, orraising it to 3125,000, would wipe out all theextra Jobs, and maybe even lose Jobs.

The reason is clear: Eliminating the capwould increase the marginal tax rates on af-fected workers by up to 13.3 percent-thusraising the top rate on wages from 31 percentto 44.3 percent. This rise in marginal taxrates powerfully and directly reduces the in-centive to work, invest and produce.Perhaps the greatest danger of eliminating

the cap is the threat it poses to the long-term health of Social Security. This irre-sponsible move would break the link be-tween what workers pay into the Social Se-curity and what they get out In benefits.There are essentially two choices for policy-makers: Either give the wealthy massive So-cil Security checks commensurate withtheir payroll-tax contributions over theyears or explicitly make Social Security anincome-redistribution program.Social Security is not a welfare program;

it is a retirement program. Lifting the wagecap is, indeed, "messing" with Social Secu-rity. In the process of socking it to the rich,the "pro-envy" crowd will derail our effortto provide tax relief to 132 million workersby imperiling Social Security and economicgrowth.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, Ithank the Senator from Idaho, and Iwill yield 5 minutes to the Senatorfrom Oklahoma [Mr. NICELES].The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Oklahoma [Mr. NICxLES] isrecognized for 5 minutes.

S. 3 WILL COST A BILLIONDOLLARS--AND MORE

Mr. NICKEIS. Mr. President, yester-day the Rules Committee reported outS. 3, the so-called Campaign ReformAct.Mr. President, in looking at this bill

I think, instead of being called cam-paign reform, it should be called politi-cians’ pork barrel bill, because that isexactly what it is.

I testified before the Rules Commit-tee and said the estimated public sub-sidy in S.3 is about $1 billion over a 6-year cycle, $1 billion on taxpayers andon the general public, to subsidize poli-ticians. I do not think that is campaignreform.Some people have asked me, where

did I get those figures? I am going toput in the RECORD an analysis done bythe Republican Policy Committee tab-ulating the cost. I will go through itvery quickly.

In 1994 the cost in Senate electionsalone would be about $131 million. Overa 6-year cycle, if we would include allSenators, we would be talking about$358 million.

I will also say if you are going tohave public financing for the Senateyou are going to have public financingfor the House. The House generallyspends 1 times what the Senate does.Over a 6-year election cycle that costwould be about $550 million. Over the 6years that totals about $908 million forboth Senate and House races.

I will tell the Presiding Officer, thatdoes not include third party can-didates, it does not include very muchfor independent expenditures. It is very

49-059 0--95 VOL 137 WPL 5138

7097

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 21, 1991conservative on the so-called discountfor broadcasting, and it does not in-clude administrative expenses. Wefound out from FEC they anticipatethey will have to hire something like2,500 auditors just to comply with thisbill.So the subsidies are enormous; up to

$1 billion, maybe well over $1 billionfor taxpayers and the general public tosubsidize politicians for the next 6years. I do not think that is what tax-payers are asking for. I do not thinkpoliticians should be at the publictrough to finance their campaigns.Mr. President, I will submit all of

this background work to substantiatethese figures. But again, my colleaguesand all American people should knowwhat these subsidies are we are talkingabout.Automatically an eligible candidate

would be given communications vouch-ers, communications vouchers that arein the hundreds of thousands of dollars,depending on the size of your State. Aneligible candidate could buy broadcasttime at one-half the rate of anybodyelse.Why should politicians be able to buy

time cheaper than other organizations,even charitable organizations? And cer-tainly if we are going to mandate thatU.S. Senators get broadcast time atone-half the rate, that has to apply notonly to House candidates but I wouldexpect to gubernatorial, maybe countycommissioners, city commissioners, aswell. Why should we get a rate one-halfthe rate of other politicians?Then S. 3 goes so far as to say politi-

cians should be able to mail at one-fourth the cost of regular taxpayers.Most taxpayers are paying 29 cents fora first-class stamp. The politicianswould be able to get the same stampfor 7.25 cents. That makes no sense. Itis not fair. But that is in S. 3.Mr. President, yesterday the Rules

Committee ordered S. 3 favorably re-ported. S. 3 is the campaign finance re-form bill of the Democratic leadership.I oppose S. 3 for several reasons,

mostly because I find its costs stagger-ing and unacceptable. When I testifiedon S. 3 last week, I estimated that itwould cost $1 billion over a 6-year elec-tion cycle. These costs, which are con-servatively estimated, will be borne bythe private sector and the public sec-tion, which, of course, gets its moneyfrom taxpayers in the private sector.S. 3 provides politicians with a bil-

lion dollars of subsidies over 6 years. Itshould be opposed for that reasonalone--but the sober facts of the Fed-eral budget provide plenty of other rea-sons. This year the Treasury of theUnited States will borrow hundreds ofbillions of dollars to meet the coun-try’s financial obligations. I can hardlybelieve that the Senate of the UnitedStates is now bringing to the floor abill that will set up an entitlement pro-gram for our own political campaigns

and then take borrowed money to payfor it. S. ’s *proponents appear commit-ted to using taxes for political cam-paigns, however. In this morning’smarkup, a McConnell amendment tostrip out all taxpayer subsidies was de-feated on a party line vote.So that taxpayers may be apprised of

the billion dollar tab they are going toget stuck with, I ask unanimous con-sent that my letter to the chairman ofthe Rules Committee and a paper pre-pared by the Republican Policy Com-mittee be printed in the RECORD.There being no objection, the mate-

rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,Washington, DC, March 18, 1991.

Hon. WENDELL H. FORD.Chairman, Committee on Rules and Adminisira-

tin, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC.DEAR MR. CHAImAN: In my testimony to

the Committee last week, I estimated that S.3 could cost $1 billion over a 6-year electioncycle. These costs will be borne by the pri-vate sector and the public sector (which, ofcourse, gets its money from taxpayers in theprivate sector). The basis for my estimate isa study done by the Republican Policy Com-mittee, a copy of which is enclosed.As the study shows, if S. 3 is enacted and

all Senate candidates in 1994 avail them-selves of the benefits of the bill, costs forthat one Senate election will be about $131million. Over the six-year Senate electioncycle, costs for major party Senate can-didates will total about $358 million. If simi-lar subsidies are extended to the House, sub-sidies for major party House candidates willcost about $550 million. (This assumes thatthe costs for subsidizing House races willbear the same relationship to Senate costs as1990 receipts for House candidates bore to1990 receipts for Senate candidates.) The sumof more than 3900 million (which is probablyunderstated because of extremely conserv-ative assumptions for broadcast purchasesand independent expenditures) does not in-clude payments to minor party candidatesand does not include additional administra-tive costs. (The Federal Election Commis-sion testified that 2500 auditors would be re-quired to administer S. 3. The Commissionnow employs 25 auditors.)The Policy Committee assumed 100 percent

participation rates. This assumption mayprove to be too high; however, 100 percentparticipation rates appear Justified by thenation’s experience with the PresidentialElection Campaign Fund (only one candidatehas turned down Federal money, and hiscampaign was a costly failure) and by the in-tentions of S. ’s sponsors (who intend thebenefits of S. 3 to be so valuable that no can-didate will turn them down). Additionally, itis possible to halve the estimate of the par-ticipation rate and not substantially changethe 31 billion estimate: If one candidate(rather than two) will be eligible for S. ’sbenefits and if the noneligible opponentraises or spends 134 percent of S. ’s spendinglimit then the eligible candidate is entitledto an additional taxpayer-subsidized pay-ment equal to 100 percent of the general elec-tion expenditure limit. This payment, the"excess expenditure amount," is not avail-able when both candidates are eligible for S.3"s benefits. (The threat of a noneligible can-didate triggering payment of the excess ex-penditure amount to his or her eligible oppo-nent provides another reason for thinking

that participation rates under S. 3 will bevery high Indeed.)S. 3 provides politicians with a billion dol-

lars of subsidies over six years. It should beopposed for that reason alone-but the soberfacts of the Federal budget provide plenty ofother reasons. This year the Treasury of theUnited States will borrow hundreds of bil-lions of dollars to meet the country’s finan-cial obligations. I can hardly believe that theSenate of the United States is preparing tovote on a bill that will set up an entitlementprogram for our own political campaigns andthen take borrowed money to pay for it.

I appreciate the hearings you held on S. 3.Those hearings will help explain the bill tothe American people. To that purpose, I askthat this letter and the accompanying studyprepared by the Republican Policy Commit-tee be placed in the hearing record togetherwith my testimony of March 13.

Sincerely,DON NICKLES.

Enclosure: U.S. Senate Republican PolicyCommittee Policy Analysis, "The FiveMajor Financial Benefits of S. 3: How TheyWork and Who Will Pay" (March 12, 1991).

THE FrVE MAJOR FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF S. 3:How THEY WORK AND WHO WILL PAY

(By Lincoln C. Oliphant, Policy CommitteeLegislative Counsel)

SYNOPSIS

If S. 3 is enacted, candidates for the UnitedStates Senate who agree to limit their cam-paign spending will be eligible for five finan-cial subsidies. This paper analyzes and ex-plains those subsidies and estimates theircosts. Our cost estimates are preliminaryand incomplete, but it appears that the sub-sidies will cost about 180 percent of thespending limit. For example, in a Statewhere the general election expenditure limitwould be $1 million, an eligible candidate(running against an ineligible candidate)would be entitled to various subsidies worthabout $1.8 million. These subsidies will bepaid for by taxpayers, by broadcasters, andby others who the sponsors of S. 3 have yetto identify. There is a substantial likelihoodthat the unidentified party also is the Amer-ican taxpayer.The subsidies will amount to hundreds of

millions of dollars. If S. 3 is in force for the1994 elections, the subsidies will amount toabout $105 million if one Senate candidate ineach race participates and to about $131 mil-lion if both Senate candidates participate. Ifthe House of Representatives gets involved,add another couple of hundred million dol-lars.

I. INTRODUCTIONS. 3 is the leading campaign finance reform

proposal of the 102d Congress because it issponsored by the Democratic leadership andbecause it is similar to a bill that passed theSenate last year (S. 137). This month, theRules Committee is holding three hearingson S. 3 and other campaign reform bills, anda bill can be expected on the Senate floorthis spring.The bill’s Democratic sponsors say the key

(and nonnegotiable) feature of S. 3 Is itsspending limits. Under S. 3 candidates forthe United States Senate who (1) agree tolimit their campaign spending,’ (2) raise arelatively small amount in contributions of$250 or less, 2 and (3) comply with other re-quirements of the acts will be entitled tofive major financial benefits, viz.

Half-price broadcast media rates,

Footnotes at end of article.

7098

March 21, 1991 CLow cost mailing rates,Funds to respond to independent expendi-

tures (the "independent expenditureamount"),Funds to match "excessive" spending by

an opponent (the "excess expenditureamount"), andVouchers to buy broadcast air time ("voter

communication vouchers").This paper considers each of these benefits

to "eligible candidates" 4 in the order thatthe bill bestows them.II. THE GENERAL ELECTION EXPENDITURE LIMITAND A HYPOTHETICAL MILLIONN DOLLARSTATE"The general election expenditure limits

under S. 3 run from 3950,000 (for about 20States) to 35.5 million for California. 5 Thesegeneral election limits, which the Appendixlists for each of the fifty States, are used todetermine three of the five financial sub-sidies of S. 3. Still, the value of the subsidiescan only be estimated after various assump-tions are made.We have tried in every case to state our as-

sumptions openly. If our assumptions arevalid, the subsidies to a major party can-didate for a seat in the United States Senate(when his or her opponent is not eligible forthe subsidies) will amount to about 10 per-cent of the general election expenditurelimit. If both major party candidates are eli-gible for subsidies, the benefits to each willbe about 112 percent of the expenditure limit(for a total subsidy of 224 percent).Readers who disagree with our assumption

can assign other values and reach their ownconclusions-which may be either higher orlower than our own. We are fully aware thatour estimates are entirely dependent on ourassumptions. Nevertheless, we hope to dem-onstrate that both the assumptions and theestimates are sound and helpful.In the Appendix, we estimate the value of

the subsidies only for those States that willhave Senate races in 1994. With the numbersin the Appendix we do provide a basis for es-timating S. Ts total costs for one election.However, this paper’s primary purpose is notto "cost out" S. 3 but to explain S. Fs finan-cial benefits in a typical Senate race. Tohelp us achieve that purpose we use oneState where the general election expenditurelimit is an even $1 million. That spendinglimit is hypothetical, but it Is close to S. S’sactual limits for about one-half of the 50States. 8 The rules and ratios for our "milliondollar State" may be applied to Senate racesin every State, however.El. THE SUBSIDY PROVIDED BY rHE PRIVATE

SECTOR: HALF-PRICE BROADCAST MEDIA RATESUnder current law, for the 45 days before a

primary or run-off election and for the 60days before a general or special election, abroadcaster may not charge political adver-tisers more than the "lowest unit charge"for "the same class and amount of time forthe same period."

7 S. 3 will amend currentlaw

s so that an "eligible candidate" who is

running for the Senate will be entitled to (1)the "lowest unit charge" during the 45 dayspreceding the primary or run-off election,and (2) one-half of the "lowest unit charge"during the period (of whatever length) begin-ning the day after the primary or runoffelection (whichever is later) and ending onthe day of the general electionY The half-price rates are available only to an eligiblecandidate.Unlike the other benefits of S. 3, this sub-

sidy is provided directly to Senate can-didates by the private sector (here, the own-ers and employees of broadcast stations and

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA1their advertisers) without first filtering themoney through the Department of the Treas-ury or some other agency or instrumentalityof the United States Government.

0

The rationale for the broadcast subsidyseems to be that campaigns cost too muchand that broadcasters are rich enough tosubsidize them. For example, in his introduc-tory remarks on S. 3, the Senate MajorityLeader said:"The cost of campaign advertising on tele-

vision has skyrocketed in recent years-growing more than 10 fold between 1974 and1988. In the typical competitive Senate cam-paign more than 50 percent of the cost is at-tributed to television advertising. Many can-didates spend the last few weeks of the cam-paign in nonstop fundraising simply to turnthe money over to television stations ...."The proposal in this legislation is ...

modest. It attempts to maintain market fac-tors by relating the cost of election advertis-ing to the cost of commercial time so thatcandidates still must pay based on theviewership of the programming. I expect thisproposal will be resisted by many in thebroadcast Industry but campaign advertisingis a very minor part of their overall advertis-ing-less than 1 percent of total television adrevenues.""Even if campaign advertising does con-

stitute less than one percent of total tele-vision advertising revenue, political adver-tising on broadcast television totalled 3203.3million In 1990.1 Presumably, the industrywill indeed resist this subsidy; an industrythat is being ordered to sell its product atone-half the going rate is unlikely to be com-forted by a claim that "market factors" arebeing "maintained." "sThe half-price broadcast rate will con-

stitute a subsidy of at least one-half milliondollars to an eligible Senate candidate wherethe general election expenditure limit is $1million. This is so because the eligible can-didate gets $500,000 in broadcast vouchers(explained below), and that 3500,000 plus anyother funds the eligible candidate spends onbroadcasting will be matched, dollar-for-dol-lar, by the half-price subsidy that broad-casters are being compelled to provide.

In truth, the eligible candidate will get $1million in advertising, and he will pay ...absolutely nothing. In a State with a $1 mil-lion general election limit, an eligible can-didate will receive M500,000 in vouchers whichhe or she will then use to buy $1 million inbroadcast time (because the time must besold at one-half the regular rate). Therefore,an eligible candidate gets $1 million in ad-vertising and spends no cash. (Presumably, agood portion of that unspent cash also willbe spent on broadcast purchases, and thoseadditional purchases of time will bematched, dollar-for-dollar, by the subsidy re-quired of the broadcast industry.) Thenoneligible candidate, on the other hand,will find himself or herself in the outdatedand curiously capitalistic position of havingto pay 3100,000 for half-a-million dollars ofbroadcast time.There may be a tendency to think that the

broadcast subsidy (one-half regular rates)and the broadcast vouchers (equal to one-half the general election limit) combine togive the eligible candidate a fourfold benefitwhereby $4 of advertising can be purchasedfor $1. But the benefits are infinitely morevaluable than that: An eligible candidatewill receive broadcast benefits equal to thegeneral election expenditure limit withoutspending a single dollar bill. One-half ofthose benefits will be paid for by the broad-cast industry, and one-half will be paid for

T 7099from the still-mystertous Senate ElectionCampaign Fund (see below).We summarize the value of this subsidy in

the following table. (We repeat this table foreach of the subsidies that follow.)Estimated value of subsidies to eligible can-didaies under S. 3 in Staie where general elec-tion spending limit is $ million

General election expenditurelimit ......................................... $ ,000-00-

Subsidies:Half price broadcast rates 5 0,0DReduced mail rates .....................................Independent expenditureamount ..................................................

Excess expenditure amount ........................Voter communication vouchers ..................This subsidy is worth at least 50 percent of

the spending limit We emphasize that thisestimate is rock solid because it sits on therock bottom. Our estimate for the value ofthis subsidy will be too high if and only if aneligible candidate does not spend all of his orher broadcast vouchers. Since the vouchersare free to the eligible candidate and canonly be spent on broadcast time to tout thecandidate, we hold firmly to the thoughtthat this estimate is cheap.IV. THE SUBSIDy PROVIDED BY THE TAXPAYERS:

LOW COST MAILUnder current law, certain diplomats,

1 4

blind persons and others who "cannot use orread conventionally printed material be-cause of a physical impairment,"’

5 persons

overseas who are posting ballots for elec-tions in the United States,

6 and nonprofit or

political or other qualified organizations,’ 7

receive substantial mail subsidies. Thesesubsidies are paid for out of the general reve-nues of the United Statess unless Congressfails to appropriate the amount authorized)’In the case of a failure to appropriate, therate is to be increased to make up for theamount "that the Congress was to appro-priate." wS. 3 will give eligible candidates pref-

erentiai rates for nmail. The preferentialrates will be (1) for first-class mail, one-fourth of the regular rate, and (2) for third-class mail, two cents per piece less than thefist-class rate. This subsidy comes to an endwhen the total amount paid for reduced-ratemail (i.e., the sum of first-class postage andthird-class postage at the reduced-rateprices) exceeds five percent of the generalelection expenditure limIt for the can-didate.

2

Up to the 5 percent cap, therefore, eligibleSenate candidates will be able to mail afirst-class letter for 7.25 cents (Le, one-fourth of the regular rate which is now 29cents) and a third-class letter for 5,25 cents(i.e., 2 cents less than S. S’s reduced rate forfirst class mail). Postal rate structures arecomplicated and it is somewhat difficult tocompare rates, but we are informed by thePostal Service that, with respect to firstclass rates, there is no comparable rate re-duction for any other group; with respect tothird class rates for non-profit organizations,the average rate per piece is 9.5 cents.We estimate the value of the mail subsidy

at 10 percent of the general election expendi-ture limit. This subsidy apparently is to bepaid for by taxpayers, not stamp buyers perse, because section 104(b) of the bill providespermanent authorizing authority for an ap-propriation=The eligible candidate’s spending and not

the subsidy is capped at 5 percent of the gen-eral election limit. In a state where the gen-eral election limit is 31 million, an eligiblecandidate could buy 000-00- of first-classpostage before reaching the 350,000 spending

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 21, 1991limit because each letter costs only one-fourth of the regular rate. Therefore, if all ofthe postage were used on first-class mail thesubsidy would be $150,000 ($200,000 receivedminus $50,000 paid). If the $50,000 were spenton third-class postage, our eligible candidatewould receive a subsidy of about $50,000 be-cause the third-class subsidy is roughly 100percent ($100,000 of third-class postage couldbe purchased for $5.00O).|In measuring the cost of this subsidy we

assume that an eligible candidate with a $1million general election limit will divide hisor her use of the postal subsidy so that$150,000 of postage will be procured with thecandidate’s $50,000. Therefore, the subsidy is3100,000 (3150,000 received minus $50,000 paid),or 10 percent of the general election limit.Estimated value of subsidies to eligible can-didates under S. 3 in State where general elec-tion spending limit is $1 million

General election expenditurelim it ......................................... $1,000,000

Subsidies:Half price broadcast rates ........ 50,000Reduced mail rates ............. 100,0Independent expendituream ount ................................................

Excess expenditure amount ........................Voter communication vouchers ..................We estimate that this subsidy is worth 10

percent of the spending limit, although itcould range from about 5 percent of thespending limit (if only third-class postage ispurchased) to 15 percent (if only first-classpostage is purchased). We place our estimateat the midpoint. By doing so we knowinglydiscount the incentive to use more first-classmail (and receive additional subsidies worthtens of thousands of dollars).V. SUBSIDIES TO CANDIDATES THROUGH THESENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND TO BE PR-VIDED BY PERSONS AS YET UNIDENTIIED

A. The Senate Election Campaign FundThe three subsidies discussed in this sec-

tion will come out of a Senate Election Cam-paign Fund. Unfortunately, S. 3 does not saywho will put money into the Fund. In part,it is said, that silence is in deference to theHouse’s constitutional prerogatives on tax-ation. In part, that silence is intended to ob-scure the prospect that taxpayers are aboutto be told to pick up the tab for Senators’campaigns. Some of our reasons for thinkingthat taxpayers will be handed the bill--overthe objections of Republican Senators--aregiven below in subsection E, "Who Will Payfor the Senate Election Campaign Fund?"There are some things about S. 3 that its

sponsors are not revealing (such as the detailof who pays), but there are other things thatwe do know: We know, for example, that S.3 establishes "on the books of the Treasuryof the United States a special fund to beknown as the ’Senate Election CampaignFund’," and we know that S. 3 appropriatesto the Fund for each fiscal year an amountequal to "any contributions by personswhich are specifically designated as beingmade to the Fund." 2 We do not know whowill be assigned to make these "specificallydesignated" "contributions," but we doknow that S. 3 will offer the following bene-fits to be paid out of that phantom fund:

B. The Independent expenditure amountUnder S. 3, an eligible candidate will re-

ceive a payment from the Senate ElectionCampaign Fund to counteract independentexpenditures that are made or obligated tobe made during the general election period(1) in opposition to the eligible candidate or(2) on behalf of the eligible candidate’s oppo-nent.A This benefit, the "independent ex-penditure amount," is not limited to eligible

candidates facing noneligible opponents. Ifan election involved two eligible candidates,each would be entitled to a payment of theindependent expenditure amount

3 4 Current

law does not, of course, provide any com-parable benefitRelatively small independent expenditures

would not trigger the payment of the inde-pendent expenditure amount from the Sen-ate Election Campaign Fund. Under the bill,independent expenditures that are made orobligated to be made during any general, pri-mary, or runoff election period must be re-ported to the Federal Election Commission ifthey exceed $MOOO.n Only reported amountstrigger a payment. Therefore, an independ-ent expenditure of exactly $10,000 would notbe reported and would not be matched by apayment of the independent expenditureamount. This is the case even if there arehundreds of separate, truly discrete inde-pendent expenditures of $10,000. However,any independent expenditure above $10,000must be reported and would be matched if itwas made during the general election pe-rio.

3

The independent expenditure amount isunlimited, but we value it at 2 percent of thegeneral election expenditure limit. Our esti-mate is based on F.E.C. numbers showingthat in the 1987-8 election cycle independentexpenditures equaled about 2 percent of allspending on Senate campaigns.

4 We have

not attempted to apportion that spending tothe general election period.Estimated value of subsidies to eligible can-didates under S. 3 in State where general elec-tion spending limit is $1 million

General election expenditurelimit ......................................... $1,000,000

Subsidies:Half price broadcast rates ........ 500,0Reduced mail rates ................. 10,000Independent expenditureamount .................................. 20,000

Excess expenditure amount ........................Voter communications vouch-ers ............................................................

We estimate this subsidy to be worth 2 per-cent of the spending limit Surely we arelow. Many observers believe that when directspending is limited independent expenditureswill increase greatly. There is perhaps an in-dication of this likelihood in the history ofthe presidential system, which of course haspublic financing and spending limits. In the1988 election, presidential candidates re-ceived $213.8 million, and independent ex-penditures totalled $14.1 million or 7 per-cent.

3 4

C. The excess expenditure amount

Under S. 3, an eligible candidate will re-ceive a payment from the Senate ElectionCampaign Fund to counteract his or her(noneligible) opponent’s (1) spending, (2) obli-gation to spend, or even (3) receipt of con-tributions, that is in excess of the bill’s gen-eral election expenditure limit. This pay-ment is the "excess expenditure amount."Unlike the independent expenditure amount,the excess expenditure payment doesn’t Justequal that spending which the bill’s pro-ponents find objectionable, it often exceedsit

s ’ Current law does not, of course, provide

any comparable benefit.For a major party candidate,

a 2 the excess

expenditure amount is two-thirds of the gen-eral election spending limit payable when-ever the nonellgible opponent spends orraises more than 100 percent of the generalelection limit but less than 133.33 percent ofthat limit. Therefore, in a race for U.S. Sen-ate where the general election expenditurelimit is $1 million, as soon as the noneligible

candidate raises, spends, or obligates tospend $1,000,000-plus-one-dollar the eligiblecandidate is entitled to a check drawn on theSenate Election Campaign Fund for $666,667.Once the noneligible candidate in our hypo-thetical State spends or raises more than$1,333,333 (13333 percent of the general elec-tion spending limit), the eligible candidate isentitled to another check for 3=5,333. Hence,if the noneligible candidate raises or spends$333,334 above the million dollar limit, he orshe triggers a payment of 31 million to his orher eligible opponent. If the noneligible can-didate raises or spends more than 133.3 per-cent of the general election spending limitthen all spending limits are removed for theeligible candidate.In the table, we value the excess expendi-

ture amount at only two-thirds of the maxi-mum allowable amount, i.e., an amountequal to two-thrids of the general electionexpenditure limit. Remember, this amountbecomes available to an eligible candidatewhen the nonellgible candidate raises orspends one dollar above the general electionlimit.Estimated value of subsidies to eligible can-didates under S. 3 in State where general elec-tion spending limit is $1 million

General election expenditurelim it ......................................... $1,0 0,000

Subsidies:Half price broadcast rates ........ 500,000Reduced mail rates ...... Q ............ 100,000Independent expenditureamount .................................. 20,000

Excess expenditure amount ...... 666,667Voter communication vouchers ..................This value is particularly difficult to as-

sess even though we have only three choices100 percent, 66.6 percent, and zero. We as-sume that a noneligible candidate will raise,spend, or obligate to spend at least one dol-lar over the general election limit That onedollar decision will, of course, trigger a two-thirds of a million dollars windfall to his orher eligible opponent. Our difficulty with theestimate vanishes, however, when we assumethat both candidates are eligible. In thatcase, neither candidate is entitled to an ex-cess expenditure amount and we can safelysay that the subsidy disapeare. Estimates forSenate races where both candidates are eligi-ble can be found in the Appendix.

D. Voter communication vouchersAn eligible, major party candidate is enti-

tied to "voter communication vouchers" inthe amount of 50 percent of the general elec-tion expenditure limit. These vouchers maybe used only to purchase broadcast time ofat least one minute but not more than fiveminutes during the general election period.

3 4

After the F.E.C. certifies that a candidate iseligible, the Secretary of the Treasury issuesvoter communication vouchers. These are inturn used to purchase broadcast time andthen turned back to the Secretary by thebroadcaster for payment at face value.

3 4

Funds for the payment are to come from theSenate Election Campaign Fund. Currentlaw does not of course, provide any com-parable benefit.

Estimated value of subsidies to eligible can-didates under S. 3 in State where general elec-tion spending limit is $1 million

General election expenditurelimit ......................................... $I,60 0,060

Subsidies:Half price broadcast rates 500,000Reduced mail rates ................... 100,000Independent expenditureamount ................................. 20,000

Excess expenditure amount ...... 666,667Voter communication vouchers 000-00

7100

March 21, 1991 0Voter communication vouchers may be

valued with precision; they are equal to 50percent of the general election expenditurelimit.

E. Who will pay for the Senate ElectionCampaign Fund?

In his introductory remarks on S. 3, theMajority Leader said:

"I recognize there will be those who will beconcerned that taxpayers could be asked tohelp pay for cleaner[,) more competitivecampaigns. But this isn’t a novel idea; wehave been doing it in Presidential electionssince 1976. The cost of this is quite minor andlike the presidential system would be fi-nanced by the voluntary checkoff on the taxreturn."=

If a checkoff system is used, as the Major-ity Leader suggests it will be, all taxpayersare handed the bill, not just those who checka box on their form 1040. Those who checkthat box determine how much money istransferred from the general fund to theelection fund, but they do not themselvespay the bill, and neither do they increasetheir tax liability nor reduce the size of theirrefund. (The current Form 1040 reminds tax-payers that, "Checking ’Yes’ will not changeyour tax or reduce your refund.") The samedesign is in prospect for S. 3.Senate Republicans oppose using tax funds

to pay for the political campaigns of Mem-bers of Congress. During last year’s debateon a campaign finance reform bill, S. 137,Senate Republicans led a fight to eliminateall taxpayer-financed subsidies from the bill.Republicans lost that battle--but not thewar, which rages on-when a McConnellamendment was defeated by only threevotes. Not one Republican voted against thatamendment. By contrast, 49 of 51 Democratsvoted against it.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEAfter defeat of the McConnell amendment;

Senator Exon proposed that the bill’s bene-fits be paid by individual taxpayers whowould redirect a part of their income tax re-fund to a campaign finance fund. Unlike thecurrent checkoff system, the Exon planwould have reduced a taxpayer’s refund.That amendment failed 39-to-60." SenatorBoren’s sense-of-the-Senate amendment tothe same effect as the Exon amendment wasthen adopted, 55-to-44.w Amendments ex-pressing the sense of the Senate do not, ofcourse, bind the Senate or the House or any-one else, and the idea that taxpayers willdesignate enough of their tax refunds to aSenate Election Campaign Fund so that Sen-ators can finance their re-election cam-paigns is, to say no more, improbable.Improbability is indicated by the current

plight of the Presidential Election CampaignFund, which is not funded by payments thatreduce refunds but which nevertheless is fac-ing serious financial difficulties. ’There willbe a shortfall in the [Presidential] Fund,"says the Chairman of the F.E.C. "This mayoccur as early as next year’s Presidentialelection. It will occur in the 1996 electionsabsent corrective legislative action."

4 As

costs have risen, participation has droppedoff. In 1989, the percentage of tax returnsshowing a "check of"’ fell below 20 percentfor the first time."

VI. CONCLUSIONUnder our assumptions, an eligible can-

didate in a State with a 31 million generalelection expenditure limit is entitled to anestimated $1,787,000 in subsidies if his or heropponent is not an eligible candidate. Thisratio of 1 to about 1.80, which may be toohigh or too low, will hold for every State. Ifboth candidates are eligible major party can-didates, the combined subsidy for both cam-

7101paigns will equal about 32,240,000, or 2.24times the general election expenditure limitfor one candidate. (The subsidy for an elec-tion when both candidates are eligible can-didates is calculated by omitting the excessexpenditure amount and then doubling theresult.) Estimates for the 1994 Senate elec-tions can be seen in the Appendix.Three of the five subsidies will be paid for

by persons as yet undisclosed. Taxpayers andbroadcasters have already been assigned topay for the other two subsidies.This paper does not purport to provide a

comprehensive estimate of costs. We makeno estimate for administrative costs for ex-ample." Our estimate for the independentexpenditure amount Is probably far too low;nearly everyone expects independent expend-itures to balloon If direct campaign spendingis capped. Costs for minor party candidatesare sure to climb, perhaps steeply," Our esti-mate of the subsidy for the half-price broad-cast rates may be far too low because it ac-counts only for the eligible candidate’s votercoamunication vouchers. Our estimate forthe cost of the excess expenditure amount isan honest guess. How can it be anything elsewhen the value of that benefit is either 100percent or 67 percent of the general electionexpenditure lmit or zero? And, of course, allaggregate estimates--ours and everyoneelse’s-are functions of participation rates,which are unknowable. Based on the presi-dential model, however, we believe that par-ticipation rates will be very high, (John B.Connally is the only presidential candidate-among dozens during a generation, who hasrefused money from the Treasury.)We look forward to a more comprehensive

estimate of the costs of S. 3.

APPENDIX.-SPENDING UMITS AND ESTIMATED SUBSIDIES UNDER S. 3

State 1999 voting age population General eettion arpenddm 1994 Senate ee 1914 osIesolaw sa" 1. 1994 estiated s&* rolanit one e0ib eaojdaae n gefflpe eanrdates

MabamaAlaska .... ________ArizonaArkansas .....CaliforniaColeradoCannatro ___________t___Delaware _-Radda -

HawaiiIdahoNIeois _Idans.~ ___Iowasi ......--

Kansaslcts

laulianaMaine

Massachusetts .----.

MichiganMinnesata __ __MsismoiMfssnui . . . . .Montana __NebraskaNevada . ...................New HampshireNew Je’_New Made _ __ _ -Newlsi __-NEW YorkNerti Camlina . ... . ..Nerth Dakota __

Oklaoa __hoPen esylvera a........Rhode [and____- -____South CarlinaSth DakotaTennasee . . ..

UtahVe sl ntY-aliniaWazhinqtonWestir nia .........

WiconsinWkinran

3.000-00-000-00-

2,575,0OO1,000-00-)21,000-00

2,453.0O2,000-00-504,0OO9,799.ooo4.000-00-000-007111,0W9

8,678,0004,133,0OO2,132,0OO1,89.9,OO2,760,0OO3.109.00917=OO03,5m3.004,576,0(]6.929.9OO

1,6i2.0OO3.914,0OO

1.197,OOO973,09

1.914,0OO

4.929,9OO491,999000-00-

2.31.0002.129,0OO9,99O

519.003.695.0OO12.000-00-1,16,000425,00

4,015.0OO13,45.0OO

1.000-00-0

3,6M.000919,000

$IfOOOOO1,172,50D95000.0

1.143.70D1,13.900

000-00-3,49701.759.095a,00095a,000

2,769.501.000-001 039,00000-00-

1.228,0001.3Z700950,00I459.99

1,744,0OO2,000-00-

1,5562o000-00-950,OOO950,O0950104,932,100959,000

4,0011,00

1,83Z250000-00-

2,000-00-

2,899.9

950.00O95010

3,609.50O000-00-0000-00

1.753,750

I2,200

950.M9

1,48,61)(9%0.ooo1.713.6oo1.46,OOO

$1,000-00-

1199,999

M90.3,049,50

950,0

1.633-W9

950,OO1,744,0002.307.2M

955,600

95,OO950,0110

4.932JO

2912,14116,ODD

4,OOO,00O000-00-

2,62U.5O

2.9975095.0O0

30500O

94,001.753,751,000-00-

910, o0

1,483,00950,ooo

4.91O.1OO

9.0o9.999

1310,1105,4|9245O

ZM4l444

1310,O00Z627=03.139,29O2.4r00.959

2JOIJ601.710.09o1.710.00D1.710.M9O

13X9,550

13109.00

000-00-

4.72199

3,000-00

2.34.001.000-00-1,11499

26,499JO1,710,00

2.562,492,12.SS

6.83L440

3,000-00

321,11763196,.,605.000-00-3,2,512.140,14

I047.9m42.129OO08.60,OO9

508|4.400

6,491,4402.1z99901

31,329335,m26.912N2.199,OO03.028,499

000-003,19,403,222.|SOO

7102 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 21, 1991APPENDIL-SPENDING LIMITS AND ESTIMATED SUBSIDIES UNDER S. 3--Continued

Stale 1990 suing age population election ependiture elections 1994 estimated subsidy for 1994 estimated subsidy for

e linal one eligible candidate two eligible candidates

TOt 7993,110D 58,509.81) 105,317,000 00-000.131

SA uniq e formula applies to Nen Jersey. c tOt-"5034b)(2)."

FOOTNOTES

*The spending limits for the general election areexplained in section 2H of this Paper. Spending limitsfor a primary election are 67 percent of the generalelection limit or 31,000-00-ever is less. Thelimit for a runoff election is 20 percent of the gen-eral election expenditure limit. Sec. 1Ol-"25(d)".(hin form of citation, which is used throughout thispaper, signifies a reference to that part of section101 of S. 3 that proposes to add new subsection 502(d)to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971("FECA,1" which is codiied at 2 U.S.C. 431’To become eligible, a candidate must raise 10 per-

cent of the general election expenditure limit incontributions of S210 or less from individuals. One-half of those inudlviduals must reside within the can-didate’s State. The contributions must be made by"written instrument identifying" the Contributorand must be made after January 1 of the calendaryear preceding the year of the general election. Sec.101-"502(e)".’For example, the filing reqairement of subeece.

101-"5(b)-(c)" ’ , the recerdkesping and audit re-

quirements of sec. 101-"56’", and the limitation onthe use of personal or family funds of sec. 101-"50".t

This is the term to denominated a candidate whohas agreed to the requirements of the bill and istherefore eligible for its benefits. See. sec. 1d-"99110)".S. 3 provides that the general election expendi-

ture limit is, ". .. [T]he aggregate amount of ex-penditroes for a general election by an eligible can-didate and the candidate’s authorized committeesshall not exceed the lesser of- (A) $5,00,000; or (B)the greater of- (I) 9K3,Oi; or (iti) $4000, pIns (1) 30cents multiplied by the voting age population not inexce of 4,00.00, and (11) 25 cents multiplied by thevoting age population in exce of 4,=000. " Sec.lMl-"Oif(h)(i)". New Jersey gets its own formula.Se 101-"103(bX2y’. Despite the name of the term,an eligible candidate can spend substantially morein the general election than the formula allows. Forexample, an eligible candidate can spend up to 25percent above his or her limit if that amount israised from individuals within his or her State inamounts of $10 or les, sec. 101-"95(b)(4)", and canspend up to 15 percent above the limit (or s30.000plus an amount the F.FC. approves, whichever isless) for qualified legal and accounting fees, sec. 10-

eThe limit likely will be $99,000 for Alaska, Ar-kanss, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine. Montana.,Nebraska, Nevads, New Hampshire, New Mexico.North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah.Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. and about $1million for Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut. Iowa,Kansas. Miissippi, oklahoma, Oregon, and SouthCarolina.

1 4 7 U.S.C. 315(b) (198). In the summer of 1990, theFederal Communications Co sion conducted anaudit of television and radio stations to measurecompliance with the roles requiring the lowest unitcharge for political advertisements. Sixteen of 20television stations and four of eight radio stationswere found to be in noncompliance. Broadcastershave complained for years that the F.C.C-’s roles arcomplex, confing, and costly. In September, 1990.the Commission lesued new guidelines requiringbroadcasters to disclose all rates and the avallabil-Ity of package optios available to commercial ad-vertisers and prohibiting broadcasters from creatingnew classes of time that result in higher rates forcandidates. "FCC Iesues New Lowest Charge Gulde-lines," 119 Broadcsting 30 (Sept. 10, 1990).’Section 315 of the Communications Act of 193. 47

U.S.C. 315, will get a thorough going over if S. 3 isenacted. Section 103(a) of the bill amends subsection315(b) to require the 50 percent rates; section 103(b)adds to section 315 two new subsections on preemp-tion and voucher; and section 202 rewrites sub-section 315(a) the equal time requirements.

See. 101-"350(a)(1)" & Subsea. 103(a). In each case,

the lowest unit charge is "determined at the rateapplicable to broadcasts of 10 seconds for the sametime of day and day of week." Subsec. 103(a). Duringany period In which the rules on "lowest unitcharge" are in effect (whether for eligible or

noneligible candidates). the broadcaster may notpreempt the air time that a candidate hais purchasedunless preemption is "unavoidable." Subsea. 103(b).

0Tm major campaign finance reform bills spon-sored by Republicans also would regulate broadcastrates, but generally just by guaranteeing that non-preemptible time could be purchased at preemptiblerates. See. sec. 501 of S. 6 (non-preemptihle timernst be sold at the lowest unit rate for preemptibletime during the final weeks of an election) & titleIII of S. 143 (same). However, title V of S 7 requiresthat non-preeaptible time must be sold at the low-est unit rate for preemptible time and also requiresbroadcasters to provide 5 hours of free time (most ofit daring the last few weeks before the election) dar-ing every 2-year election cycle.n137 Cong. S. 479 (daly ed. Jan. 14, 1991) (remarks

of Sen Mitchell).07his number Is from the Television Bureau of

Advertising (telephone interview). In 199 the Na-tienat Association of Broadcasters testified before aCongreoonal committee that political advertisingaccount for one percent of total revenues in largemarkets and feor percent in small markets. "Sub-committee Bashes Broadcasters on Lowest UnitRate." 115 Broadcatine 48 (Sept. 19. 1999).0

From the industry’s point of view. half-pricerates are being piled on lowest unit rates, which ap-parently they don’t like either: "Lowest unit chargeis ’a flat-out, polltician-ordered broadcaster subsidyfor politicians.’ [former F.C.C. Chairman MarkFowler told a cheering audience [of the National As-sociation of Broadcasters]. He said there’s nothlinlgwrong with broadcasters making cheap advertisingtime available for candidates: ’The difference-in-deed the rub-is that government put its big, thickthumb on the cales of Jstlice by ordering all this tooccur.’ - - * Fowler, who was interrupted repeatedlyby applause. * * - received 0-second standing ova-tions at the beginning and conclusion of his speech.a * a" "Record 40,388 in Daas." 7 CommunicationsDaily 2 (April 1. 1997).1n39 U.S.C. 217 (199).39 U.S.C. 3403 (1913).039 U.S.C. 3406 (1911).39 T.J.C. 36 (1m).

m39 U.S.C. 2401(c) (1998) (permanent authoriza-tion).

039 U.S.C. 37 (19 .sold.-Sec. ld0-"04(a)(2)" & sec. 104(a).The bill does not appear to amend 39 U.S.C. 3627.

Therefore. unlike the other classes of subsidizedmail listed in the text, If Congress falls to appro-priate funds to cover the costs of the subsidy theshortfall may have to be made up by all stamp buy-ers and not just by those using the class ofmall thatis being subsidized, which otherwise is the require-ment of section 29. On the other hand, the failureof the bill to amend section 3627 may mean that thesubsidy will end if Congress does not make an an-nual appropriation. Conversations with members ofthe Rules Committee staff lead us to the conclusionthat there is some unintentional ambiguity in themall subidy provisions and that an amendmentmay be forthcoming."For third-class mall, we are comparing the sub-

sidized rate under S. 3 with a rate that is alreadybeing subsidized. Neither rate reflects the actualcost of delivering a letter. In short, we understatethe value of the subsidy.

Sec. 101-"105a)".-Here, Sec. 101-"306(d)", and elsewhere through-

out the bill, If the Senate Election Campaign Funddoes not have enough money to provide a fall pay-ment, the candidate is given a pro rate share.

Sec. 101-"504(a)(3)" & see. 101-"504(b)".-Sec. 16-"304A(b)"."Sec. 101-"504(’o)(2)". The iection-by-section sum-

mary of S. 3 says, -Eligible candidates would receivepublic funds to respond to independent broadcast adsexceeding $10,000 from any source daring the generalelection period." 137 Cong. Rec. S 478 (dly ed Jan.14,1991) (remarks of Sen. Ford). We see no evidence,however, that the Independent expenditure amountis available only if the independent expenditure isfor ’broadcast ads." Any independent expenditurewhether for broadcast ads or not, will trigger the

payment of the independent expenditure amount Ifthe expenditure is above 310,00.

-Net receipts (not expenditures) for Senate can-didates in the 1987-99 cycle were $19.3 million. Inde-pendent expenditures in Senate campaigns totalled$4.2 million (84 percent of which were for not againsta candidate). "FRC Final Report on 1999 Congres-sional Campaigns Shows $459 Million Spent." F.E.C.press release Oct. 3L 1999, pp. 5, 13.30,,FEC Releases Final Report on 199 Presidential

Primary Campaign," F.E.C. press release Aug. 25,1989 at 1.reSec. 101-"i54(a)(3)". see. 101-"504o)(1)XB)", &

see. l01-"’50(b)O)".32Here, sec. 191-"504(b(3)(BY’. and elsewhere

throughout the bill, different roles apply to minorpsrty candidates.-See. l01-"5D4(dX2)".-Se. 101-"504(a)(4)" & see. 000-004(c)"."See. 101-’)6(c)".

- Id.- 137 Cong. Rec. S. 479 (dally ed. Jan. 14, 1991) (re-

marks of Sen. Mitchell)."136 Cong. Ree. S. 1110 (daily ad. July 30. 1990)

(amendment no. 243). See also, 139 Cong. Rec. S11229 (daly ed. July 31, 1990) (Kerry amendment no.2443).

t136 Cong. Ree. S. 1107 (daily ad. Aug. 1, 1991)(amendment no. 2448)."136 Cong. Re. S. 11493 (dally ed. Ang. 1. 1991)

(amendment no. 2449).41 Statement of John Warren Mc~arry, Chairman.

F.E.C., before the U.S. Senate Comm. on Rules andAdministration at 1 (Mar. G, 1991) (imeo)."Id. See also. "Campaign Fund Faces Shortfall As

More Taxpayers Check No," 49 Cong. Q. Weekly Rpt.000-00- (Mar. 2.1991).OaCf.. S. Rpt. 000-003 [to accompany S. 137, 101st

Cong., 2d Seas. 23 (1990) (C.B.O.’s estimate for addi-tional F.E.C. administrative costs)."in 198. of the fifteen presidential candidates

who received Federal funds there was one minorparty candidate (Ms. Fulani) and one other can-didate (Mr. LaRouche) who ran as a Democrat batwhose bona fides were questioned.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleaguesand friend from Wyoming.Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I

thank the Senator from Oklahoma forhis powerful explanation of that pro-posal which indeed will confront us all.I think the American public is demand-ing we do campaign reform and de-manding we do it in a sensible way, andwe will not escape that obligation.I see my friend from Delaware is

present and I yield 4 minutes to theSenator from Delaware.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Delaware [Mr. ROTH] is rec-ognized for 4 minutes.Mr. ROTH. I thank the Chair.The remarks of Mr. ROnH pertaining

to the introduction of S. 721 are locatedin today’s RECORD under "Statementson Introduced Bills and Joint Resolu-tions.")

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yieldback the floor and thank my friend anddistinguished colleague from Wyoming.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Wyoming has 2 minutes re-maining.

March 21, 1991 0EXTENSION OF MORNING

BUSINESSMr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that we be per-mitted to proceed for an additional 7minutes.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, there-

fore in view of that, I yield to myfriend from Montana 4 minutes.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Montana [Mr. BURNS] is rec-ognized.

THE MIDDLE EASTMr. BURNS. Mr. President, last

weekend about 17 Senators, bipartisan,visited the Middle East. We all cameaway with different impressions anddifferent thoughts of the Middle Eastand the activities and the actions thatwere taken there.We tend to forget sometimes that

Saddam Hussein was the man whomade the first move. There was a timewhen we wrenched with our decisionsthat had to be made here in the U.S.Senate, and those decisions were madeand they were made in the right direc-tion and we proceeded.But as I visited Kuwait City last

weekend, it reminded me of somethings we are doing in this Congress Ithink we ought to be mindful of or bereminded of every now and again.What Saddam Hussein did to a city in

7 months might be happening to ourcountry and our cities, only spreadover a longer time, maybe in 70 years.When you go into a city that you havevisited just 4 years ago and see its vi-tality and its modern conveniences andthe amenities that Americans are usedto completely trashed and destroyed-it was a ghost city, and we in the Westknow what ghost cities look like: nopeople, no utilities, such as water orpower, the ability to handle sewage orwaste. None of those amenities or ne-cessities to run a city was evident, andwith the fires from those oil wells out-side and the rain in cities on the build-ings that were once white, that weredingy and streaked from the rains ofthe spring.I got to thinking, do we invest in this

country, in our infrastructure calledtransportation, called communica-tions, called utilities, such as elec-tricity and water and all these thingsthat it takes, that we have to providefor our society--completely destroyed,a city taken to its knees.I would remind our colleagues here,

not only in the Federal Government,but also in our State and county gov-ernments, -that the investments thatwe make in infrastructure, such asbridges, such as roads, such as elec-tricity, such as water and power, howimportant they are to us in our abilityto compete with the rest of the world.

DNGIESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

Sometimes we move our priorities,and I have moved mine. We respond toreactions and kneejerk reactions ofsome social programs that do notwork.I am always reminded of a comic

strip I saw a couple of weeks ago. Ithink it was Shoe. This guy says, "Ireact to my problems. I throw moneyat them. And the only thing that dis-appears is my money. The problem re-mains:’So as we start to allocate dollars

working in this budget-and the Amer-ican people have told us that this na-tional debt and deficit spending is theNo. 1 priority. But they also have an-other priority, called the maintenanceof infrastructure.All you have to do, Mr. President, is

go and look at Kuwait City. What wasdone in 7 months, we are doing to our-selves, also, over a period of years. It ishappening before our eyes, and we arenot realizing it.That is what I brought back from the

Middle East, other than a force thatwas moved in short time, present posi-tions, and an operation that went offwithout a hitch. Those young men andwomen of our country should be con-gratulated for a job well done. What wewant to do is bring them home.But I just want to remind my col-

leagues that we should take a look atour infrastructure.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time

of the Senator has expired.Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair and I

thank my leader, and I yield the floor.Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator

from Montana for his graphic descrip-tion of his visit to Kuwait.How much time remains, Mr. Presi-

dent?The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator has 4 minutes remaining.

SUPPORT OF THE EXTENSION OFTHE FAST-TRACK AUTHORITYMr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want

to express my strong support of thePresident’s request to extend the fast-track past the May 31, 1991, deadlineset by the Congress in the OmnibusTrade and Competitiveness Act.We really have before us two great

opportunities to improve the slowing ofthe United States economy-specifi-cally, the Uruguay round of GATT andthe North America Free-Trade Agree-ment. Historically, Congress and theexecutive branch have recognized thatthe negotiation of and the implementa-tion of free-trade agreements requiresa very special kind of cooperation. Thisrelationship has worked very success-fully over the years. The proof of thisis the inclusion of the fast-track proce-dures in the trade legislation in 1974,1979, and the 1988 Omnibus Trade andCompetitiveness Act.Fast-track provides two essential

guarantees for us: A vote on the imple-

7103menting legislation within a fixed timeperiod; and, two, no amendments to thefinal agreement. These guarantees areabsolutely essential to negotiating anyagreement. Without them, the finalpackage will be unraveled by every sin-gle special-interest group in the UnitedStates, every single one that comesdown the pike. More importantly,many countries will not commencetrade negotiations without an assur-ance of the fast-track procedure. Wemust be able to ensure that the finalagreement reached can be voted on in-tact.The Uruguay round of GATT and the

North American Free-Trade Agreementrepresents good policy-good trade pol-icy, good economic policy, and goodforeign policy.Over the last decade, we have become

increasingly aware of the critical rolethat international competition andtrade play in our economy. From 1982to 1989, imports increased from 3254 bil-lion to $430 billion, while exports in-creased from $212 billion to 364 billion.This $178 billion expansion accountedfor 40 percent of the 4-year growth inthe U.S. gross national product. Thebalance of trade during that same timeperiod increased from $42 billion to $129billion. Despite our international tradeefforts, imports continue to greatly ex-ceed exports. We must realize that do-mestically, we just are not going to beable to consume a great deal more thanwe currently are. We cannot. Withoutactively pursuing all avenues to in-crease exports, the balance of pay-ments will continue to deteriorate.The so-called Hollings resolution

aiming to derail the executive branch’sability to negotiate trade agreementsis not appropriate. The language of thedisapproval resolution makes it so veryclear that fast-track authority wouldbe eliminated for both multilateral andbilateral agreements. If that passes, wewill not have either the NAFTA or theUruguay round. Essentially, a voteagainst fast track is a vote againsttrade.We cannot fool ourselves by thinking

that any final agreement on the pro-posed trade agreements will be wel-comed globally. Yet, if we were toeliminate the fast-track procedure, wewill irreparably damage prospects for afavorable conclusion to trade agree-ments and the international competi-tiveness of the United States.We cannot deceive ourselves by di-

minishing the importance of the fast-track provision. We have before us adecision which will determine the di-rection, as well as the strength, of U.S.trade policy in the future.I urge my colleagues to support the

President’s request to extend the fasttrack, and commend Carla Hills for hersuperb work in this effort.Mr. President, I than the majority

leader for this opportunity of a specialorder to express some of the views and

7104 Cobservations and feelings of those of uson our side of the aisle. The majorityleader is always the most courteousabout that, and we appreciate it.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair thanks the Senator from Wyo-ming.The Senate continues in a period of

morning business until 11:30 this morn-ing, in which Senators are permitted tospeak. The time between now and 11:30will be under the control of the major-ity leader or his designee.Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I sug-

gest the absence of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

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

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

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

LiEBEsAsx). Without objection, it is soordered.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. GRAHAM. MTr. President, I alsorequest unanimous consent that Mr.Richard Legatski, a congressional fel-low serving on my staff, be granted theprivilege of the floor during my re-marks this morning and during any fu-ture floor consideration of the bills Iam about to introduce.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.(The remarks of Mr. GRAHAM pertain-

ing to the introduction of S. 733through S. 737 are located in today’sREcORD under "Statements on Intro-duced Bills and Joint Resolutions.")Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unan-

imous consent to speak for 10 minutes.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

THE SUBMAARINE INDUSTRIALBASE

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I requestedtime this morning to talk about a seri-ous problem that threatens to endan-ger the national security of the UnitedStates. I am talking about our declin-ing defense industrial base and thelong-term consequences of decisionsmade today about the procurement ofweapons systems. More specifically,my subject is the serious threat to oneof our most important assets, our sub-marine construction capability.

It seems to me that our Nation inthis century is bound to make thesame error after every major war: todisengage, to disarm too much toosoon. Our premature pullback from Eu-ropean affairs after World War Idoomed the League of Nations systemand allowed the rise of Adolf Hitler.After World War II, our fast disar-mament was taken as a signal by Sta-lin that he could complete his seizure

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

of central Europe and disregard theYalta provisions on free elections.Compounding the error, the Nation’s

defense industry was left to decay-forcing us to take extraordinary meas-ures to prepare for the Korean war. Itwas in fact the lack of military readi-ness that, 3 months after the beginningof the Korean war, prompted Congressto pass the Defense Production Act.Parts of this act are still in forcetoday.

In an article in the April-June 1953issue of the Federal Bar Journal, Rob-ert Finley of the Office of Defense Mo-bilization presented an Army estimatethat if $10 million had been made avail-able only for maintenance during eachof the 5 years preceding Korea, between$200 and 300 million would have beensaved in subsequent rehabilitationcosts.Finley wrote:The great expense and delay which could

have been avoided in the period of buildupsince Korea, had more of the facilities ofWorld War II been retained and maintained,requires no elaboration. In the years follow-ing the war * * * large numbers of plantswere sold and many of those retained werepermitted to deteriorate. It is evident thatthese mistakes must not be repeated.One widely cited example is the case

of machine tools. In his book "Indus-trial Mobilization: The Relevant His-tory," Roderick L. Vawter points outthat an excess of machine tools afterthe war caused them to be dumped bythe War Assets Administration at 15cents on the dollar. This drove 34 ma-chine tools companies out of business,leaving the United States in 1951 withone-third the machine tool capacitythat had existed at the start of WorldWar II.My speech here is a warning that

something even worse than what hap-pened to the machine tool industrymay befall our submarine industry, un-less we make wise decisions with re-spect to the future of that industry.Let me be more specific. Our prin-

cipal submarine builder, the ElectricBoat Shipyard in Groton, CT, in 1 re-cent year received construction awardsfor five new submarines. Now, Congressand the Pentagon face decisions thatmay result in a few years in ElectricBoat having no more than one sub-marine to build every 2 years, far lessthen what is necessary to keep thisvital national asset in business. If welose Electric Boat, we will lose a cru-cial component of our defense indus-trial base.When I called Electric Boat our sub-

marine builder I did not mean to slightthe other still functioning submarineyard in Newport News, VA. It is also atremendous asset of our Nation. Thefact is, however, that Electric Boat isdedicated exclusively to submarineconstruction, it has no other businessto survive on, and only Electric Boat isqualified to build every class of sub-marine we have in our inventory. Of

the three classes presently in construc-tion, Electric Boat is building all threeat the same time, the other shipyard,Newport News, only one.The question at hand is the impend-

ing decision on the procurement strat-egy of the new Seawolf-class attacksubmarine. Originally, this programwas planned to launch a fleet of 29Seawolfs. After repeated cutbacks weare now down to 9 ships planned andeven this figure is not immune to fur-ther reductions; 29 Seawolfs could havekept 2 shipyards working in healthycompetition, just as was done with theprevious Los Angeles class of attacksubmarines. A program of merely ninesubmarines, however, will probably callfor a different procurement strategy.

Electric Boat is now constructing thelead ship of the class. It won the awardin genuine competition. Instead of con-tinuing with a competitive strategy,though, the Navy is now prepared to di-rect the award for the second ship toNewport News, presumably to presevethe option for a competitive acquisi-tion strategy.A little explanation is in order here.

Anticipating a directed award to New-port News, last year’s Defense Appro-priation Act ordered that the contractfor the second Seawolf be awardedcompetitively. The act also providedthat the Secretary of the Navy mayconsider "all applicable factors" inmaking his award. This language is, ofcourse, so broad that you could pilot aTrident through it and the Secretarynow faces the decision whether tomake the award based on price or to di-rect the award to the higher bidder-and justify the decision on the basis ofsome other applicable factor.Mr. President, it is my firm belief

that if Electric Boat’s bid is lower thanthat of Newport News, it would be amistake to direct this award to thehigher bidder for several reasons. Itwould be unfair, extremely costly, andwould lead to the opposite of its in-tended effect, the preservation of oursubmarine industrial base.

It would be unfair, because ElectricBoat won the lead ship award in faircompetition and is entitled to the ad-vantages that come with that victory.That is the name of the competitivegame. To direct the second award toNewport News would negate those ad-vantages fairly won, and would de factoaward a second lead ship to NewportNews which it did not win in fair com-petition. With the 1-year pause thatwas built into the program betweenSSN-21 and SSN-22, an at least 3-yearbreak between two ships would beforced upon Electric Boat, enough towipe out most of its fairly gained ad-vantages and its descent on the learn-ing curve.Such a directed award would be ex-

tremely costly on at least two ac-counts. The first premium we wouldpay is the price difference the See-

March 21, 1991

March 21, 1991

retary of the Navy may be willing tooverlook. The second premium wouldbe the approximately $230 million inextra cost that would result from the 3-year construction break at ElectricBoat.Mr. President, at this point, I ask

unanimous consent to have printed inthe RECORD those cost differentials.There being no objection, the mate-

rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:These costs include:$84 million in unabsorbed overhead, which

directly impacts existing construction con-tracts.$126 million due to loss of savings, result-

ing from the inability to efficiently roll overtrades from the lead ship to the next followship. Key experience developed on the leadship would be lost due to at least a three-year production gap.$20 million in increased vendor material

costs, resulting from a break in productionas well as additional certification.Mr. DODD. Far from preserving the

submarine industrial base, such a di-rected award would, in its long-termconsequences, actually undermine it bydriving Electric Boat out of business.It simply cannot survive on less thanone submarine per year. That is thereal threat, it simply cannot survive onless than one submarine a year. Anyrealistic student of the business knowsthat competition with this small num-ber of units-nine ships or fewer-willactually mean alternating directedawards to the two shipyards. Thiswould bring Electric Boat at most fivesubmarines in 10 years, which is simplynot enough to carry its overhead,skilled work force and its techno-logical and design superstructure-thebest in the world.

It is important to emphasize that allElectric Boat builds is submarines,while Newport News has a huge back-log of noncompetitively awarded con-tracts for new construction of aircraftcarriers and aircraft carrier overhaulsand expects further carrier awards inthe following years. Mr. President, theSeawolf contract for Newport Newsmeans more; for Electric Boat it meanssurvival.I strongly hope that our future sub-

marine construction will support twocapable shipyards. If that will be thecase, we can always pay the premiumlater to bring in Newport News as thesecond producer who, Electric Boat,will be able to survive on its otherbusiness while keeping its submarineskills.Mr. President, we must now allow

the errors of the past to be repeated.The cold war may have eased, but wearm ourselves against the capabilitiesof our adversaries, not against their de-clared or putative intentions. At atime when the Soviets have launched19 submarines in the past 2 years andhave double the number of attack sub-marines we have, and 50 percent moreballistic missile submarines, it is im-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

operative that we safeguard this tre-mendous asset we have in our sub-marine industry. I call on all my col-leagues, the Secretary of Defense, andthe Secretary of the Navy, to unite inan effort to save our submarine indus-trial base with a well-considered long-term policy.Mr. President, 2 days ago the Defense

Appropriations Subcommittee, underthe leadership of Senator INouYE, helda very constructive hearing, in whichit invited both yards, Newport News aswell as the Electric Boat Division, toprovide testimony as to their thoughtson the present Seawolf award and theirfuture capabilities of providing a long-term consistent industrial base for sub-marine construction. The Secretary ofthe Navy, Mr. Garrett, testified aswell. A number of Senators attendedthat hearing. Senator RuDmANi, SenatorSTEvENs, and Senator SPEcT’R partici-pated in those hearings.I strongly urge our colleagues who

have any interest at all in this indus-trial base question to review that testi-mony and to listen to the questionsthat were raised.

It was an extremely valuable andworthwhile hearing, to cast light onexactly this problem.My intention is, over the coming

weeks, to discuss the broader issue ofindustrial base policy. While we all ap-preciate the tremendous good newsover the last several years and theprospects for arms controls with theSoviet Union, I think it is vitally im-portant to recognize that while thosetalks are going forward, and glasnostand perestroika seem to still be surviv-ing-barely, I point out-they have atremendous program underway in theSoviet Union.As I mentioned earlier, they have

some 19 new submarines in the last 2years to our 1 that has been launched.You do not have to have a Ph.D in in-dustrial base policy to understandwhat is going on here. If we lose thepremier submarine contractor in thiscountry, then this Nation will havesuffered a major loss.We are not talking about a sewer

contract team. We are talking aboutsomething that goes to the very heartof this Nation’s ability to provide forits national security with the most de-fensible leg of our triad.Mr. President, I hope our Pentagon,

and those responsible for reviewingthese matters, will consider the seri-ousness of this issue and what is athand here. It is not the interest of justone particular State or region of thatState. That is hard enough to under-stand. We can accept that. We under-stand with base closings and mergers ofvarious labs and so forth that is goingon, and some of that is going to be nec-essary. All I ask is that there be con-sideration of maintaining the indus-trial base in this country.

7105My fear is that we are not giving

enough consideration to that policy,and we are shutting down these facili-ties and consolidating and merging tosave dollars because of the budget con-straints, but little or no thought isbeing given to the long-term industrialbase needs of this Nation as it appliesto its national security.As I said, Mr. President, this has

gone on in every single case. We havepaid a dear price in every single in-stance because we did not pay atten-tion to industrial base policy.I urge my colleagues to look at the

testimony from the hearing conductedby Senator INOuYE the other day. Itwas a very worthwhile and importanthearing on this issue.

STATEMENT ON SEAWOLF

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Iagree with my distinguished colleaguefrom Connecticut about the impor-tance of a fair and objective competi-tion for the second Seawolf. The up-coming decision is of enormous impor-tance for a number of reasons. First,this decision will have a major impacton southeastern Connecticut. I have re-cently met with the workers of Elec-tric Boat [EB] and have felt their anxi-ety. I realize that thousands of jobsmay be on the line in the most eco-nomically vulnerable part of our State.And these workers are also located inthe part of the country that is suffer-ing the most from the current reces-sion, New England. This is not an ab-stract decision to be made in a vacu-um. People’s livelihoods are at stake.But it is also a vital issue for the

U.S. taxpayer. Real cost savings arebest achieved in a stable production en-vironment and the most cost-effectiveway to fund the Seawolf Program is toensure a steady production rate at EB.If the fiscal year 1991 Seawolf is notawarded to EB, there will be a 3-yearproduction gap at the Connecticutshipyard. EB therefore will have to layoff much of its newly trained Seawolfwork force and halt its production line.The Seawolf Program will sacrifice sig-nificant production and learning curveimprovements.To be more precise, Electric Boat and

the Navy itself have estimated thatthere would be an immediate loss tothe Government of $335 million due tothe following negative repercussions:The lost learning curve would result

in a $140 million loss.Unabsorbed overhead would cost the

Government S120 million.The disruption of vendor supplies

would result in a $40 million loss.Rehiring and training costs would

end up costing $35 million.I repeat, all told, this comes to 3335

million.Nor do these numbers include the

price differential between the two com-petitors’ bids for the second SeawolfiLogic supports the belief that ElectricBoat has submitted the lowest bid- No

7106 Cdoubt, this is in large part due to itsmastery of the new modular system ofconstruction. The modular system,which EB pioneered when constructingTrident submarines, involves buildinga submarine in intact sections ratherthan from the keel up. Newport Newsbas yet to implement this new andcheaper method.Some have asserted that the second

Seawolf must go to Newport News topreserve an industrial base of two nu-clear submarine yards. However suchan award will likely have the oppositeeffect, leading to the elimination ofEB.EB must have at least one submarine

a year in the budget to survive becauseit has a significantly smaller backlogof work than Newport News and onlybuilds submarines. Newport News iscurrently building 10 submarines andthree carriers through 1997. It was re-cently awarded the multiyear carrierEnterprise nuclear refueling overhauland expects more such carrier majoroverhauls later in the decade. It willbegin building another carrier in 1995.Thus, Newport News will have a stablework force at least through 1997.

In contrast, EB has a workload 40percent smaller than Newport Newsand is currently laying off workers. EBwill lose half its work force if it onlygets one submarine a year. Its futurewill be even more tenuous if it isawarded only one submarine everyother year. This is the expected out-come if Newport News receives the sec-ond Seawolf and awards alternate be-tween yards at the Navy’s planned con-struction rate of one Seawolf a year.Mr. President, I would like to salute

the fine work performed by the Senatorfrom Hawaii, chairman of the DefenseSubcommittee of the AppropriationsCommittee. Last Tuesday, he held anexcellent hearing in which Jim Turner,head of Electric Boat, made many ofthese same arguments.Senator INOUYR has also directed in

last year’s appropriations bill a fairand objective competition based onprice and quality. He knows that polit-ical pressures and bureaucratic inertiashould not drive the decision. I want tocompliment the senior Senator fromHawaii for insisting on a fair competi-tion. The taxpayers owe him a vote ofthanks.I also intend to remain vigilant in

order to assure that a fair competitiontakes place. I expect that the tax-payers will insist that all of us in Con-gress be vigilant as well. At a time ofdeclining defense budgets, this is notime to throw away money on poorProcurement practices. This is a timeto think of the national interest.

ON U.S. SUBMARINE INDUSTRIAL BASEMr. DODD. Mr. President, this week

your Defense Appropriations Sub-committee took testimony on the ac-quisition strategy of the new Seawolf-class submarine. Through this hearing,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA

wps the chairman of the subcommitteeapprised of the status of the industrialmobilization base for submarine con-struction and does he have any conclu-sions in this regard?Mr. INOUYE. The testimonies of the

heads of the two shipyards engaged insubmarine construction and the Sec-retary of the Navy leaves me withgrave concerns as to our ability tomaintain the current industrial mobili-zation base of two shipyards and thesuppliers of critical components withinthe acquisition levels projected atpresent. It is my intention to ask theSecretary of Defense for a more de-tailed review of this matter. The cur-rent instability of the international en-vironment and the lack of any reduc-tion in Soviet submarine constructionindicate that it may not be in the in-terest of our national defense to allowa significant degradation of our indus-trial mobilization base at this time.Mr. DODD. Following up on that, Mr.

President, did the Senator receive tes-timony on the proposed acquisitionstrategy for the Seawolf Attack Sub-marine Program?Mr. INOUYE. The Secretary of the

Navy is presently reviewing proposalsin response to a competitive solicita-tion for the fiscal year 1991 ship. Thereis a serious question, however, whetherthe projected acquisition level will besufficient to maintain a long-termcompetitive acquisition strategy forthe program. The Electric Boat ship-yard builds only submarines and hasstated that it requires one submarineper year to stay in business. The New-port News shipyard builds both attacksubmarines as well as carriers and hasstated that it would need a half shipper year to maintain its attack sub-marine construction activity. If one re-sult of competition is potentially los-ing one of the nuclear capable sub-marine construction yards entirely andreducing the capability of the othersignificantly, this is not the -time totake that path.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair recognizes the Senator fromDelaware, [Mr. BIDENJ{S3838}.Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent I be able to proceedfor 10 minutes as if in morning busi-ness.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMMr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise for

two purposes today.POICE BRUTAL=TY

One is to discuss very briefly theissue that has riveted the attention ofthe Nation, and that is the subject ofpolice brutality.I have spent the entirety of my pro-

fessional life as both a practicing at-torney and as a Member of the U.S.Senate over the last 24 years dealing

[E March 21, 1991with the criminal justice system. Andit falls to me the responsibility. aschairman of the Judiciary Committee,and having worked on that committeefor years and years, to deal with the is-sues relating to the criminal justicesystem, including the issue of policebrutality.Mr. President, I have turned on the

television every morning, and on everymorning show I watched, since thedreadful incident, we have all observeda home videotape machine replayed1,000 times, as it should be, in Los An-geles.I have now listened and heard with

equal anger and horror about the pros-pect of a similar circumstance havingoccurred in the city of New York-without video-but the allegation thata young man, a car thief, may havebeen suffocated. We are going to hearmore, as we should, about incidentsand alleged incidents of outrage thathave occurred at the hands of some po-lice.What I am starting to hear now dis-

turbs me almost as much. Every time Iturn on the television, there is a psy-chologist on talking about the pres-sures on police, the implication beingthat all police engage in this kind ofactivity, that this is somehow a wide-spread phenomenon throughout the Na-tion.Mr. President, I am labeled one of

those people on civil rights and civilliberties issues as being on the left. Iam labeled as one of those people, andoften criticized for being too concernedabout civil liberties and too outspokenabout civil rights issues.So I do not come at this from the

perspective of someone who is auto-matically expected to be supportive ofthe police whenever anything happens.But it does disturb me, and therefore Ifeel compelled to speak this morning. Ihave had the opportunity, as I said, forthe last two decades, to learn moreabout the criminal justice system thanI ever wanted to know, quite frankly.And the fact of the matter is the over-whelming-the overwhelming-major-ity of the police in this Nation do notengage in such activity.Let me put it in perspective for just

a moment, and I am not going to takemuch of the Senate’s time this morn-ing. According to the Justice Depart-ment’s most recent accounts, there areabout a half million police officers inAmerica, about 500,000 law enforcementofficers in this country. And accordingto Attorney General Thornburgh, therewere about 2,500 incidents of reportedpolice brutality this year.That is horrible and we should ferret

it out; we should go after those who en-gage in that brutality, and they shouldbe given the strictest measure of thelaw applied to them. But this is equalto about one reported incident of policebrutality for every 200 police officersthere are in the Nation, and every re-

March 21, 1991 0

ported incident does not necessarilymean it occurred.But let us assume it did; that every

reported incident, I say to the Presid-ing Officer, who was attorney generalof his State, and had probably-eachState attorney general has slightly dif-ferent jurisdictions and authority, butI expect he had jurisdiction over suchmatters.And I would also note that there were

about 14,300,000 arrests in the year 1989by these half million police officers. Solet us put this in perspective. A halfmillion police officers, over 14 millionarrests made by those police officers,and 2,500 reported cases of police bru-tality. That means that in 99.9 percentof all the arrests made in this coun-try-99.98 percent of all the arrestsmade in this country-there wag no al-legation of brutality.I am not a fan of the man who heads

the Los Angeles Police Department. Ihave said publicly that although thatis a local responsibility to determinewhether or not he stays, were I themayor, were I one of the commis-sioners, I would be pleased to see himhand in his resignation. And I contendthat were I there, that would be my po-sition.We have no authority, the Presiding

Officer and I, to determine who is goingto be the presiding chief of police inany city or municipality, nor shouldwe.But the fact remains, notwithstand-

ing what we saw on that video-and itwas horrible, inexcusable-it is hard tobelieve that not only the people whowere engaged in, but those who werewatching, in authority, are not cul-pable for that activity. Again, that isfor juries to decide, not for me to de-cide, as a trier. I am no trier of fact,and/or the jury in this case. But theyshould be prosecuted, and peopleshould be made to pay for what hap-pened.I can assure you and assure my col-

leagues that for every citizen whowatched that videotape and felt a senseof anger and rage, there were 10 timesas many police officers who watchedthe video and felt a genuine sense ofrage, because they knew what wouldcome next; that notwithstanding thefact they put themselves in a cir-cumstance more dangerous than theyhave ever been placed as a group in thehistory of this Nation, with 23,000 mur-ders last year, tens of thousands ofcrimes committed, that notwithstand-ing that fact, they knew what wouldhappen once that was put on thescreen, as it should have been. The peo-ple would look at them and say: Youwear a blue uniform; are you like that?And they are not, Mr. President.So I just rise from my seat today to

try to put it in perspective; put boththe beating in perspective-it is inex-cusable, and it should be prosecuted.And we should look to see if any more

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

of it is occurring. We should be forevervigilant, because it does occur and willoccur and has occurred and will con-tinue to occur because of the nature ofthe business and the nature of humannature.But it is not only not the majority, it

is not even close to a representation, inthis Senator’s view, of how police offi-cers operate in this country.Again, 500,000 police officers, roughly

14,300,000 arrests, and 2,500 incidents.All of them are bad, the incidents, but99.9 times out of 100 is without inci-dent.

COMMIrTE REPORTMr. BIDEN. A second subject, Mr.

President, and very briefly: I am veryproud of the Judiciary Committee’sstaff, and we have been issuing on afairly regular basis reports that havebeen greeted by the professional com-munity, by those who know the issueson which we speak, almost uniformly ifnot uniformly, with praise.I rise for two purposes today on this

matter. A, to praise the staff for the re-port that we are releasing today: Vio-lence Against Women; the Increase ofRape in America in 1990. Not unlike thereport we recently released showingthat America had the highest murderrate in its history, and the highest ofalmost any industrialized country inthe world: 23,000 murders on a per cap-ita basis.If we had the same murder rate that

Britain had, we would have had 2,300murders, not 23,000, in this country.But today, we are releasing the find-

ings of the majority staff report, whichreveals that the extent of the rape epi-demic that has spread across this coun-try is real. And here are some of theconclusions. In 1990, more women wereraped than in any year in U.S. history.In 1990, the number of rapes in thiscountry reported to authorities ex-ceeded 100,000 for the first time. Therewas over a 6-percent increase in thenumber of rapes from last year, an in-crease of 5,929 attacks, the largest inover a decade; 1990 continued a 3-yeartrend of increases in the number ofrapes, and, further, the 1990 increasesgrew nearly three times greater than1989. Last year half of the States, 29,set all-time records in the number andrate of rapes.What do all these things tell us?

Well, the simple but horrible fact isAmerican women are in greater perilnow from attack than they have everbeen in the history of this Nation. Un-fortunately, it has taken these findingsto again prove that our society and thelaws must change to address the prob-lem.Mr. President, it is in the spirit of

trying to deal with this problem that Ihave introduced once again this yearthe Violence Against Women Act inthis Congress. I hope my colleagues, inconsidering the details of that legisla-tion, which I will be speaking to at

7107length at a future date, will considerthe report on rape as well as other fac-tual data which will point out thatAmerican women are more at risktoday than they have been at any timein our history, and we must do some-thing about it.I thank the Chair and I thank my

colleagues.Mr. CHAFER. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that I might pro-ceed as in morning business for 6 min-utes.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.Mr. CHAFEE. First, Mr. President, I

wish to thank the distinguished seniorSenator from South Carolina for per-mitting this. I know that he was pre-pared to go ahead with another matter.

THE AWARDING OF THE SEAWOLFSUBMARINE CONTRACT

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wouldlike to address a matter which is ofgreat importance to the Nation and tomy home State. Sometimes we have ajuxtaposition where a parochial con-cern also coincides with a national con-cern, and that is the situation we havebefore us today; namely, the awardingof the contract for the second SSN-21class submarine. This contract to beawarded would be for the second one;namely, SSN-22, the Seawolf attacksubmarine.The Secretary of the Navy is cur-

rently considering competing bids forthe second Seawolf submarine. Thebids have come in from General Dy-namics’ Electric Boat Division, whichhas its principal facility in New Lon-don, CT, and the other facility inQuonset Point, RI, and Newport NewsShipbuilding of Virginia.Originally, it was expected that a sig-

nificant number of Seawolf-class sub-marines would be built and that thetwo yards could compete effectively forthe business and, through the competi-tion, there would be savings for theU.S. Government.The Navy awarded Electric Boat the

contract for the first Seawolf. It was acompeted contract. Electric Boat wonit, and it was anticipated that the sec-ond one might go to Newport News.The two yards would then competethereafter for the subsequent sub-marines.There are several factors why thin

strategy might result in significantlosses to the American taxpayer andour national security interests. Thefirst factor relates to the possible lossof a critical industrial base. The secondrelates to the actual cost of the pro-gram itself. Both of these factors arguein favor of a decision to award the sec-ond Seawolf to Electric Boat.Recent cutbacks in defense spending

has reduced the number of Seawolfs tobe built to as few as five or six vesselsover the next 5 years. In other words,

7108 oat a rate of one per year. This numberis insufficient to allow two yards toproduce the ships.I think we also should be aware of

the fact that Newport News producessurface ships-principally aircraft car-riers, the only builder of aircraft car-riers in our country, and also the onlybuilder of nuclear-powered surfaceships. Also, Newport News producessubmarines. And that yard has a sig-nificant backlog of business, which isexpected to keep that yard busy wellinto the current decade and probablyinto the next century as well. ElectricBoat, on the other hand, produces onlysubmarines and has a much smallerbacklog. Newport News is thriving withits present submarine and surface shipcontracts, but without the Seawolfcontract, Electric Boat most likelywould shut its doors in the mid to late1990’s. If the United States is going toretain two nuclear-capable shipyardsable to build nuclear-powered sub-marines, then this contract, in myjudgment, should go to Electric Boat.Another factor, Mr. President, which

is paramount is the bottom line cost tothe American taxpayer. It is my under-standing that the bid for the secondSeawolf submitted by Electric Boat isapproximately $80 to $100 million lessthan the bid submitted by NewportNews for the second submarine, for theSeawolf SSN-22. It is only logical thatthis would come about because New-port News never built a Seawolf andwould have significant firat-time start-up costs. ,There are also substantial costs asso-

ciated with an interruption of produc-tion at Electric Boat should this num-ber two submarine go to Newport News.These costs are estimated to amount toabout $220 million in additional coststhat the Navy would incur if there wasan interruption in production at Elec-tric Boat. In other words, by keeping acontinuous flow of production at Elec-tric Boat, by making Electric Boat thebuilder of the Seawolf submarine, therewould be not only savings for the sec-ond boat, as I have pointed out, but ad-ditional savings in the future.Mr. President, in closing, I will point

out that there are great savingsachieved even though one yard is thesole source of supply for a particularboat; for example, the Trident pro-gram- The Trident submarine has onlybeen built at Electric Boat.Now, some say the only way to get

reduced cost is through competition.That is not necessarily so. I will pointout that if you take a basis of 100 man-hours--in the construction of the firstTrident submarine we will use the fig-ure of 100 for the total number of man-hours for the construction of that firstTrident submarine. As a result of thecontinuous construction that ElectricBoat has had for the Trident sub-marine, when they built the 12th ves-sel, they were not spending a factor of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENAT

100 man-hours in the construction ofthe Trident; they were spending 54. Inother words, there had been a 46-per-cent reduction in the number of man-hours for the construction of sub-marine No. 12, as opposed to the con-struction of submarine No. 1. Eachyear, Mr. President, each year, witheach successive submarine, there was adecline in the number of man 7 hoursspent in the construction of that sub-marine. The beneficiary was the tax-payers of the United States of America.So, Mr. President, I believe it is in

the Nation’s best interest that thatsecond Seawolf be awarded to ElectricBoat.I thank the Chair and I thank the

distinguished junior Senator fromDelaware, the chairman of the Judici-ary Committee and the manager of thebill coming up, for permitting me toproceed.

V-22 WINNER OF THE COLLIERTROPHY

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise tobring to the attention of the Senate avery significant event involving theBell Boeing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor de-velopment team.As you know, Mr. President, every

year the National Aeronautic Associa-tion [NAA] presents an award, the Col-11cr Trophy, for what it views as "thegreatest achievement in aeronautics orastronautics in America." The NAAmakes its determination based on"demonstrated actual use in the pre-vious year."I am delighted to report the selection

of the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor team asthe recipient of this year’s Collier Tro-phy. As I said, Mr. President, thismarks a very significant event for theV-22 team as the Collier Trophy iswidely considered the most prestigiousaward of its kind in the United States.Without objection, Mr. President, I askthat the text of the NAA’s award an-nouncement be placed in the RECORD.There being no objection, the an-

nouncement was ordered to be printedin the REcoRD, as follows:BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY TILTROToR TEAM

WINS COMI TROPHYThe National Aeronautic Association

(NAA) has named the Bell Boeing V-22 Os-prey Tiltrotor Team winner of the coveted1990 Collier Trophy.The V-22 Osprey is a tiltrotor aircraft that

can takeoff, hover and land like a conven-tional helicopter. However, by tilting its en-gine nacelles forward, the V-22 can fly like aturbo prop aircraft-swiftly, comfortablyand efficiently. The V-22 can fly at speeds inexcess of 300 knots; or it can hover or it canalso fly with its rotors at any angle, fromzero degrees through 90 degrees.The Collier Trophy is awarded by NAA "for

the greatest achievement in aeronautics orastronautics in America demonstrated by ac-tual use in the previous year."The selection committee of more than

forty aviation leaders selected the V-22 fromamong ten nominations submitted by the

E March 21, 1991aviation community. The Collier Trophy iswidely considered the most prestigious avia-tion award made in the United States. It wasfirst awarded in 1911 to Glenn Curtis for hisachievements in developing a seaplane.The citation accompanying the trophy

reads:’To the Bell Boeing Team for the develop-

ment of the V-22 Osprey Tiltrotor, theworld’s first large-scale tiltrotor aircraft."The Committee selected the V-22 because

of its belief that tiltrotor technology haslong-term significance for meeting objec-tives of both military and civil aviation. TheV-22’s combat capabilities include: speedstwice as fast as a helicopter; twice the rangeof helicopters; increased payload; increasedsurvivability; self-deptoyability; increasedreliability and improved maintainability.The V-22 provides the U.S. military a majoradvance in vertical lift capability and canfulfill mission requirements for all servicesincluding diverse military combat readinessroles; such as, troop assault, long-rangesearch and rescue, anti-submarine warfareand many other highly specialized missions.The potential inherent in the V-22 also

represents a major advance for the nation’scivil transport needs and is a key to easingcurrently congested airports. The ability oftiltrotor to move commuter passenger traf-fic and freight with only minimal invest-ment In landing site infrastructure can leadto rapid development of civil tiltrotor air-craft and their integration into the nationaltransport infrastructure. The rise of atiltrotor industry in this country also hasmajor Implications for our nation’s balanceof trade since tiltrotor technology remainsas American technology and one with consid-erable potential.The V-22 represents a major step forward

in use of digital electronic flight controls,advanced composite materials and state-of-the-art transmissions, cross-connectingshifting and associated gear boxes. The air-craft’s flight control systems cost less,weight less and are more reliable than con-ventional mechanical control systems foundin helicopters. The system is triply redun-dant, virtually eliminating the possibility ofthe controls becoming inoperable. The V-22is constructed of advanced composite mate-rials, primarily carbon spoxy laminates andfiberglass. Lighter and stronger than metaland less susceptible to corrosion,composities allow the V-22 to carry heavierpayloads, improve its survivability in com-bat, and significantly reduce its mainte-nance costs. A V-22 can operate on a singleengine because its cross-connecting shaft al-lows one engine to drive both rotor systems.The V-22 is being developed under the aus-

pices of the U.S. Naval Sir Systems Com-mand by the industry team of Bell Heli-copter Textron, Fort Worth, Texas, and Boe-ing Helicopters, Philadelphia, PA. In addi-tional a nationwide network of over 1,800suppliers provided the components and sys-tems for this advanced all-composite air-craft.The National Aeronautic Association is

the National Aero Club of the United States.Its primary mission is the advancement ofthe art, sport, and science of aviation andspace flight by fostering opportunites to par-ticipate fully in aviation activities and bypromoting pubic understanding of the impor-tance of aviation and space flight to theUnited States.Mr. GLENN. The V-22 Osprey is a

tiltrotor aircraft that can takeoff,hover, and land like a conventionalhelicopter. However, by tilting its en-

March 21, 1991 Cgine nacelles forward, the V-22 can flylike a turboprop aircraft-swiftly, com-fortably, and efficiently. The V-22 canfly at speeds in excess of 300 knots; orit can hover or it can also fly with itsrotors at any angle, from zero degreesto 90 degrees.I have long been a proponent of the

continued development of the V-22Tiltrotor Program. Indeed, I believethe V-22’s unique technology is notonly a ready replacement for the Ma-rine Corps’ aging helicopter fleet, moreimportantly, it also will fill criticalvertical lift requirements for all theservices.Mr. President, I am, of course, very

happy and gratified to see that an es-teemed committee of leaders in avia-tion share my, as well as many of mySenate colleagues’, views and decidedto honor the V-22 tiltrotor team. Com-peting in a field of 40 nominees, the V-22 team rose to the top because the se-lection committee recognized thetremendous potential embodied bytiltrotor technology.Mr. President, I have often spoken on

this floor about the unprecedented ad-vances the tiltrotor technology offersto both military and civil aviation. In-deed, I have often come to this floorand extolled the V-22’s capabilities in ashorthand way which underscores justwhat the V-22 program offers us: TheV-22, as a replacement for conventionalhelicopter uses and capabilities, goestwice as far, twice as fast, with one-third more payload.The simplicity of that statement, Mr.

President, belies the revolutionarytechnology the V-22 represents. Mili-tarily, the V-22 is one of the greatestadvances we have for conventional war-fare enhancement. It meets flexiblereadiness strategy needs by providingincreased mobility, allowing for rapiddeployment, with breakthrough orleapfrogging potential.In terms of increased combat capabil-

ity, the formula I used before, whentranslated, means the V-22 will provideroughly twice the range that our besthelicopter has to project troops rapidlyand converge on target areas. It willaccomplish this not only twice as fast,but from twice as far. Obviously, thisincreases our combat capability tre-mendously.With tiltrotor technology, the V-22

can land on ships at sea and in forwardlanding zones. In addition to thetiltrotor technology, the V-22 hasgreatly increased survivability, betternight flying capability, under theweather capability, and a better navi-gation system than our current heli-copters. It also has the capability torefuel in the air, contributing to its ex-tensive range.

Its construction takes advantage ofrecent technological developments.The V-22 uses composite materials,making it a lighter structure, which, inturn, reduces the weight penalty of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

tiltrotor’s wing. The composite mate-rials, when used in building the rotorsthemselves, produce a greatly in-creased hover efficiency when com-pared to current rotors. Its digital elec-tronic flight controls offer the pilot in-creased reliability, triple redundancy,and fly-by-wire capabilities.

In sum, I agree with the NAA’s as-sessment that the V-22 represents oneof our Nation’s greatest achievementsin aeronautics. However, Mr. Presi-dent, I feel I need to stress how impor-tant it is that the tiltrotor technologyremain one of our Nation’s highest pri-orities. The V-22 program, while ap-proved year after year by Congressagain requires congressional support,because its existence has again beenthreatened by the administration.I believe the Department of Defense

should continue the V-22’s fun scaledevelopment. It must also continuesupport for the program so that weavoid developing this groundbreakingtechnology only to have it sold back tous by another country with greaterforesight.Moreover, Mr. President, while the

need for the V-22’s tiltrotor technologyis most immediate for military appli-.cation, it Is not difficult to envision itsalmost unlimited application for civilaviation. I would go so far as to saythat it will radically change the face ofcivil aviation.Our national transportation system

is a key to our Nation’s economic de-velopment and growth. We have whatappear to be insoluble problems withcongestion and air traffic flow in vir-tually every metropolitan area. I be-lieve civilian use of tiltrotor tech-nology would go a long way towardproviding a solution.The tiltrotor can be independent of

large airports and long runways. Heli-copter-style terminals or vertiports,constructed at a fraction of the cost ofairports and requiring significantlyless space, appear to offer an efficientshort haul national transportation anddistribution system for both passengersand cargo.I would bet there are not too many of

us, Mr. President, who did not wish wehad a system like that today. Contin-ued recognition of the advancementtiltrotor technology offers us and con-tinued congressional support will go along way toward having it tomorrow.As I have said before, Mr. President, Istrongly believe the V-22 is an excel-lent investment for our country.Mr. President, I congratulate the

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey TiltrotorTeam for its great achievement in win-ning the 1990 Collier Trophy.Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the

floor.

7109NAMIBIA’S FIRST YEAR OF

INDEPENDENCEMr. SYMMS. Mr. President, in to-

day’s Wall Street Journal is an articleI encourage all my colleagues to read.The article by Margaret Calhoun, ti-tled "Namibia’s First Democratic Gov-ernment May Be Its Last," provides anexcellent overview of Namibia’s firstyear of independence under the SWAPOgovernment.Ms. Calhoun has had great experience

working in this area. I know her per-sonally. I highly recommend this formy colleagues to read.We all remember the extensive nego-

tiations and work done by this Govern-ment and others to secure Namibia’sindependence. A number of Senators,including myself, have paid particu-larly close attention to this region ofthe world for several years. We haverecognized the importance Namibia, inparticular, plays in securing peace andfreedom in southern Africa.As Ms. Calhoun states:If Namibia’s fragile democratic construc-

tion begins to unravel, it could have a nega-tive impact on the delicate negotiations to-ward more democratic government underway in neighboring Angola and South Africa-Ms. Calhoun also points out the need

for the United States to take a moreactive interest in Namibia’s push fordemocracy. She notes, "After spending$100 million to supervise Namibia’sspending $100 million to supervise Na-mibia’s elections, it is surely worth-while for the United States Govern-ment to invest a little more time andresources to give Namibia’s neighbors aneeded example of what unhappily is ararity in Africa-a functioning andprosperous democracy.Again, I commend this article to my

colleagues for their edification and Iask unanimous consent that the articlebe printed in the RECORD.There being no objection, the mate-

rial was ordered to be printed in theREcoRD, as follows:[From the Wall Street Journal. Mar. 21, 191NAMIsIA’s FIRST DEMOCRATIC GOvasiMr

MAY BE ITS LAST(By Margaret Calhoun)

Namibia, once a hot item on the worldagenda, seems to have been forgotten.Today, Namibia celebrates the first anniver-ry of the adoption of its remarkably demo-cratic constitution, the culmination of itsindependence from South Africa.Namibia elected the assembly that wrote

its constitution in November 19. under thesupervision of election monitors from theUnited Nations. The outcome was a govern-ment dominated by the Soviet-backed gue-rills movement, Swapo (the South West Afri-ca People’s Organization). At the end ofSwapo leader Sam Nujoma’s first year aspresident, political experts are beginning toquestion whether democracy will in facttake root in Namibia, or whether Swapo isreturning to its Marxist predilections. If Na-inibla’s fragile democractic construction be-gins to unravel, it could have a negative im-pact on the delicate negotiations toward

7110 cmore democratic government under way inneighboring Angola and South Africa.The appointment of Swapo’s former chief

of security, the notorious Solomon "Jesus"Hawala. known as the "Butcher ofLubango." to the post of commander of theNamiblan Defense Force, was deeply unset-tling to many Namibians. Mr. Hawala wasimplicated in the mass detention, torture,killing and disappearance of thousands ofNamibians in camps in Angola and Zambiaduring the guerrilla war against South Afri-can occupation. The Council of Churches inNsmibia expressed its alarm at the appoint-ment.The real test of Swapo’s intentions, how-

ever, is the economy. Will Swapo succumb tothe totalitarian temptation? Namibia, acountry of 1.5 million citizens with a landmass almost as large as France and Germanycombined, is heavily dependent on mining,which accounts for 40% of its gross domesticproduct of $2.55 billion. Namibia is Africa’sfourth-largest exporter of non-fuel minerals,and the world’s fifth-largest uranium pro-ducer. The country has substantial coal re-sources and diamond deposits that rankamong the world’s richest. Because Namibiais a desert-only 1% of its land is arable-itsonly hope for development is to maintain acompetitive economic environment for itsextractive industries, and to foster second-ary industries, such as tourism. But Swapohas already begun to set a tone that is dis-maying foreign investors, visitors and aiddonors.Namibia has been pressing for direct

grants from foreign governments rather thaninvestment--so long as those grants areavailable for use at Swapo’s complete discre-tion. When the German government proposeda 3100 million 30-year loan at 2% interest andwith a 10-year grace period last fall, Swaporejected even those mild conditions. Al-though Swapo has failed to welcome privateinvestors, it is generating many new jobs inthe public sector-jobs that are availableonly to Swapo party members.With 40.000 school graduates expected this

year, and an estimated 40,000 exiles return-ing to Namibia to seek gainful occupation,Swapo has been hard-pressed to meet itscampaign slogans of employment for every-one. Public sector job creation for the Swapofaithful may be intended to swell Swapo’svoter rolls in time for the upper chamberelections next year. A two-thirds majority inthe upper chamber, or National Council,combined with its present two-thirds major-ity in the Assembly would permit Swapo torewrite the Constitution if it chose to do so.Omninously, in a recent radio interviewMoses Garoeb, Swapo’s party boss, said thecountry’s first elections were "contrived,"and that "the multi-party democracy pre-vailing in Namibia is not necessarily thetrue choice of the Namibian people."Swapo may well secure that two-thirds

upper chamber majority, thanks to its con-trol of the electronic media. While the printmedia remain largely free, the majority ofNamiblans obtain their news from the state-owned radio network. The government hasstarted to restrict religious broadcasting, analternative to its programming. Some pro-grams have been canceled, and new editorialguidelines against "evangelism" or "divi-siveness" are strictly enforced.To complicate Namibia’s domestic politi-

cal problems, rumors have begun to circulatein Windhoek of covert collaboration withAngola’s Marxist MPLA government. OnOct. 16, the Namibian, the Windhoek papermost sympathetic to Swapo, conceded that

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENAT

units of the Angolan army had crossed intoNamibia and abducted 18 men for service inthe Angolan military. It is an open secret inNamibia that the M’ILA and Swapo signed asecurity pact In May that permitted theNPLA to use military bases in Namibia’snorth.These connections are highly dangerous to

Namibia’s political stability, because of thetribal sympathies between northern Na-mibia’s Owambo people and the Ovimbundu,the tribal base of the rebel Unita movement,But Swapo appears to be putting its ideologyahead of its domestic political needs. Nordoes international pressure seem to make adifference: Swapo has been warned by a U.S.Senate amendment that the $10 million aidpackage would be jeopardized by any in-volvement in the Angolan war.

It would be easy to dismiss Namibia as aminor player in Africa. The real significanceof the developments in Namibia, however,lies in its strategic placement between An-gola and South Africa. Angola’s ruling com-munists, the MPLA, will be more wary of en-tering into an electoral process that empow-ers the armed resistance, Unita, if Swapodemonstrates an intolerance for its legal op-position and maneuvers to alter its constitu-tion. Similarly, right-wing parties in SouthAfrica could point to Namibia and argue thatdemocratic elections only serve to empowerdictators, who then proceeded to undo thesystem of multi-party democracy which gavethem their power. If Swapo behaves, it coulddispel the assertion of South Africa’s Con-servative Party that "power sharing withoutdomination" does not work in the ThirdWorld. If not, it will justify it,Swapo has claimed that Namibla’s "model

democratic state" "will make the biggestcontribution against apartheid." But if theSwapo government cannot preserve Na-mibia’s fragile political consensus, stimulateeconomic growth, reassure private investorsand establish law and order, it faces the fateof too many decolonized African states, andwill stand little chance of competing withEastern European countries for developmentaid it is so anxious to procure. Namibia willnot have a second chance.President Bush. upon meeting Mr. Nujoma

when he came to Washington in July, praisedthe Namibian president for his "pragmatic"political and economic policies. Mr.Nujoma issued an urgent plea that Ameri-cans not forget Namibla. After spending $100million to supervise Namibia’s elections, itis surely worthwhile for the U.S. governmentto invest a little more time and resources togive Namibia’s neighbors a needed exampleof what unhappily is a rarity in Africa-afunctioning and prosperous democracy.

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ACT

Mr. SYMMS. Mr. President, I wouldlike to note that today in the House, inthe cther body, a large bipartisangroup of Congressmen, CongressmenOLIN, McEwEN, Espy, ROBERTS, STEN-HOLM, and a couple of dozen others, areintroducing companion legislation tothe Senate bill 50, the Private PropertyRights Act.I would like to take this oppotunity

to discuss that legislation and why it isso important to this Nation, and sotimely at this time.Rather than list down all the many

reasons why the Private PropertyRights Act ought to become law, I

F March 21, 1991would rather list the reasons someonemight give for not supporting S. 59, andthen tell you why those reasons do nothold water.Reason No. 1: We do not need the Pri-

vate Property Rights Act because,when compared with the problems ofhunger, housing, crime, unemploy-ment, and other issues, property rightsis just not that important.Mr. President, anyone who makes

that argument does not understandthat these other issues--hunger, hous-ing, et cetera-cannot be solved with-out private property. Furthermore,they are probably forgetting some oftheir American history.In 1772, the Boston Town Meeting

called together a committee. Becausethey were feeling especially harassedby King George that day, they askedthis committee to "state the rights ofthe Colonists * * * as men, and as sub-jects; and to communicate the same tothe several towns and to the world."The chairman of that committee was

a great American patriot, SamuelAdams. Sam Adams took 2 weeks towrite his treatise on the Rights of Man,and he began his task with the declara-tion that:The absolute rights of Englishmen and all

freemen, in or out of civil society, are prin-cipally personal security, personal liberty,and private property.Throughout the succeeding revolu-

tionary period, these three rights weretime and again recalled-life, liberty,and property. They appeared in article1 of the Bill of Rights of Virginia, andin that same article in the Bill ofRights of Massachusetts. They eventu-ally were written that way in the fifthamendment of the U.S Constitution.

It was only in drafting the Declara-tion of Independence that Thomas Jef-ferson slightly altered the phrase toread, "life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness."

In later years, he explained why hechose those words. It was not becausehe felt that the right to pursue happi-ness was somehow more importantthan the right to private property.Rather, he explained, "A right to prop-erty, is founded in our natural wants,is the means with which we are en-dowed to satisfy those wants." To Jef-ferson, the pursuit of happiness, andthe right to private property, were in-extricably linked. You could not obtainone without the other. I would imaginethat, to President Jefferson, Monti-cello was his ideal of a "pursuit of hap-piness."Two centuries later, the institution

of private property has lived up to Jef-ferson’s expectations. America’s agri-cultural productivity, leadership inmedical and engineering technology,and wealth of entreprenural oppor-tunity can all be traced to the incen-tives inherently created by privateproperty rights. It is truly the meansthrough which we pursue happiness.

March 21, 1991 CSo, I put it to you, Mr. President,

that it would be foolhardy to say thatprivate property rights are just "not asimportant" as the many other issuespressing in Congress today.Reason No. 2: We do not need the Pri-

vate Property Rights Act because noone’s private property is really beingthreatened.Considering that in 1990 alone the

Federal Government issued 63,000 pagesof fine print regulation on the use ofprivate property, it is not hard toimagine some of this regulation plac-ing severe limitations on property use.If property owners feel that a regula-tion has "gone too far," that theirproperty rights have been taken with-out compensation, they may sue theGovernment under the fifth amend-ment.The U.S. Government is currently

facing well over a billion dollars insuch outstanding takings claims. Justin 1990, several of the largest takingsjudgments in the history of the UnitedStates were handed down by the U.S.Claims Court, with the single largestjudgment of all time, the Whitney Ben-efits case, totaling near $120 million,being ’affirmed by the Federal circuitas recently as February 1991.

In California, property owners whocan afford legal costs are winningabout 50 percent of their takingsclaims before the intermediate appealscourts. And according to a recently re-leased report by the Congressional Re-search Service, property owners wonregulatory taking cases before the Fed-eral courts in 1990 more often thannot-astonishing when you considerthat the Federal Government wins 9out of 10 times in other areas of law.As you can see, Mr. President, it is

simply not accurate to say that "noone’s private property is being taken."At least the Federal courts disagreewith that statement.That leads us to:Reason No. 3: We do not need the Pri-

vate Property Rights Act, because wealready have the fifth amendment.The CRS report I just mentioned

made this finding:Plaintiff property owners were vindi-

cated-that is, a taking was found-in justunder one-half of the cases. Looking solelyat the regulatory taking decisions, however.takings were found somewhat more often.

It has always been the case that,when Americans feel the Governmenthas failed to respect a basic constitu-tional right, they may sue, demandingthat their rights be honored. As a mat-ter of equity, however, we have neverheld that rights should only be ex-tended to those who can afford to suethe Government for them. The cost oflegal action is not small, $40,000 to$50,000 up front. The disturbing factbrought out by the CRS report is this:Those property owners who can affordthis cost, win more often than not.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEThose who cannot afford to sue, cur-rently have no protection.That is why the Private Property

Rights Act is so important. By buildingproperty rights considerations into theregulatory process in the first place,the rights of all Americans, not justthe wealthy, are protected.No, Mr. President, it is not enough to

say, "but we have the fifth amend-ment, isn’t that enough." The duty ofprotecting and preserving the constitu-tional rights of Americans does not fallon the shoulders of the individual, it isa duty of the government.Reason No. 4: If private property

rights are respected, vital protectionsfor public health and the environmentwill be undermined.Actually, those who propose this ar-

gument do not really understand prop-erty rights. No one’s property right al-lows them to jeopardize someone else’slife, liberty or property.As Justice William Henry Moody, a

Franklin Roosevelt appointee to theSupreme Court, noted, "Our social sys-tem rests largely upon the sanctity ofprivate property; and that state orcommunity which seeks to invade itwill soon discover the error in the dis-aster which follows."That disaster may well include the

destruction of our environment, for, assurprising as it may sound, privateproperty is the world’s most powerfulforce for environmental protection.The current EPA Administrator, BillReilly, recently noted upon returningfrom a trip assessing environmentaldamage in Eastern Europe, "Many en-vironmental principles areundefendable in the absence of privateproperty."Administrator Reilly’s observation

can be easily explained by the prover-bial saying:Give a man the secure possession of a

bleak rock, and he will turn it into a garden;give him a nine years lease of a garden, andhe will convert it to a bleak rock.The principle is true. It is private

property ownership that makes anowner care about the quality of his en-vironment, that creates a true sense ofstewardship for the land and its re-sources. The American environmentalcommunity, at its grassroots level, isnothing more than a coalition of pri-vate property owners who want to de-fend their private property rights fromthe pollution and degradation of theirneighbors and their Government. Un-dermining private property rightsthrough excessive regulation will notfoster greater environmental protec-tion.Reason No. 5: Last, Mr. President,

there are those who argue that the Pri-vate Property Rights Act is just toomuch hassle for our Federal agencies.That it will force them to spend toomuch time considering the impact oftheir regulations on private property,and not enough time on regulating.

7111First, let me say that the adminis-

tration has reviewed the text of S. 50,and argues strongly against that state-ment.But for me, Mr. President, this just

brings us full circle back to the ques-tion, "are private property rights im-portant," or in other words, "is thehassle worth it."I would like to call my colleagues’

attention to a poll recently conductedby the Soviet Academy of Sciences,asking young Russians what it is theyreally want, what rights and freedomsthey are most eagerly seeking. Here iswhat resulted:-Waav THE Naw GENERATIoN OF RUssi5_s

REALLY WANTThe Institute of Sociology at the Soviet

Academy of Sciences recently conducted apoll of 1050 Russians between the ages of 18and 25. The poll covered six regions of theRussian Republic, constituting a majority ofthe population and three-quarters of the ter-ritory. The respondents were selected fromall basic social and professional categories.Here is what that survey revealed:Do you want complete freedom of press,

radio and T=? yes, 58 percent; no, 36 percent,remainder, undecided.Do you want Russia to be able to govern it-

self, and secede from the U.S.S.R.? Yes, 70percent; no, 19 percent, remainder, unde-cided.Do you want a form of government other

than socialism? Yes, 74 percent, no, 17 per-cent; remainder, undecided.Do you want private ownership of land?

Yes, 85 percent; no, 10 percent; remainder.undecided.As you can tell, Mr. President, the

millions of citizens in the Russian Re-public want, above all else, to simplyown their property, their farm, theircar, their apartment, they want some-thing that is theirs, to care for, toprosper, to build.Even if the administration did not

believe that the Private PropertyRights Act does not impose too muchburden on regulatory agencies, i wouldsay, "So What?" We are sworn to de-fend the constitutional rights of Amer-icans, not the convenience of the regu-latory agencies. If it takes a littlemore hassle to get respect for constitu-tional rights, then that hassle is cer-tainly well deserved.So I hope you can see, Mr. President,

why a bipartisan group of Senators andCongressmen, supported by small busi-ness, farm and civil rights groups haveproposed the Private Property RightsAct. The act requires that Federalagencies adopt administrative proce-dures to "assess the potential for tak-ing private property in the course ofregulatory activity, with the goal ofminimizing such where possible."These procedures may be similar tothose required by current Executive or-ders, but must reflect the court’s cur-rent interpretation of what constitutesa "taking of private property." Thisassessment enables agencies to draftregulations that impose on propertyrights as little as possible, while still

7112achieving their goals. Aspublic interest is serveproperty rights are proteacostly court battles, azneed not pay compensationthat could have been avoiI ask unanimous conse

ter from the Vice PresUnited States encouraginsan group to move thisprinted in the RECORD.There being no objecti

was ordered to be priREcoRD, as follows:

THE VICE FWashington,

Hon- STEVE SYMms,U.S. Senate,Washington, DC.DEAR SENATOR SYMMS: I an

sure you that we welcome yotforts to protect private propcAdministration supports yourtiative in The Private Propeto protect private property aintentional government interencourge the Federal agencynecessary expenditures.Proper management of Fed

programs and effective programion require thoughtful analtion is taken. Executive Ordquires a Federal agency to atit acts, whether a proposed golatory policy or action wouldUal rights in property and t3stitution’s obligation to paytion_ The legislation which yand others are sponsoring wothe management of Federal pvent inadvertent Federal enprivate property.Recent judicial decisions S

government has taken propsuited in financial judgmentexcess of 3120 million fotakings." As the courts focusthe consequences of Federalprivate property rights, ttionally-requird Federal pazconsequent burden on the taxly to increase. Financial retgues for evaluating the risksbefore, rather than after, thecurs.Your bill, S. 50, is vitally

to improve Federal managerduce government liability. Tion looks forward to workiisecure prompt passage of tination.

Sincerely.

HONORING JOHN DEMr. KASTEN. Mr. Pre

today to recognize a tilate John R, DeGeorge oWLJohn DeGeorge was a

petty officer. He was aspirit-a man willing to rensure the safety of otherIn 1989, during a canoe

cise, one of John’s shipmaoverboard and toward daids. With no thought of hiJohn rescued his fallen frihimself swept to his death

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

a result, thed, individualected withoutod taxpayerson for takingsded.nt that a let-ident of thethis biparti-

legislation be

on, the letternoted in the

RESIDENTT,March 21, 1991.

writing to as-

Last week, the Navy honored John’sheroism with the Navy Marine CorpsMedal. I can think of no more appro-priate tribute to a man who embodiesthe highest virtues of our country. Iask my colleagues to join me in ex-pressing gratitude for his example-andsincere condolences to his family.

CONCLUSION OF MORNINGBUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morningbusiness is now closed.The Chair recognizes the Senator

from Delaware [Mr. BiDEN].

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ur important ef-erty rights. The NOMINATION OF BOB MARTINEZ,legislative inl- OF FLORIDA, TO BE DIRECTORrty Rights Act OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROLowners from un- POLICYvention, and tos to avoid un- Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate gooral regulatory to executive session to consider theto implementa- nomination of Bob Martinez, of Flor-ysis before ac- ida, to be Director of National Druger No. 12=10 re-5k itself. before Control Policy.vernment regn- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without"take" individ- objection, it is so ordered. The Senatebigger the Con- will move to the nomination. The clerkjust compensa- will report.ou, Sen. Boren, The legislative clerk read the nomi-tuld strengthen nation of Bob Martinez, of Florida, toprograms to pre- be Director of National Drug Controlcroacbment 0n Policy.

Leading that the Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, par-erty have re- liamentary inquiry, how much time isobligations in available on this nomination?or "regulatory The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underincreasingly on the previous order there is 90 minutes,regulation on equally divided. The Senator from

these conitita- Delaware is recognized.iments and thepayer are like- Mr. BIDEN. Before I begin, I have agponsibility ar- slight bit of housekeeping, Mr. Presi-of these costs dent. For the 45 minutes under the con-obligation oc- trol of the Senator from Delaware, I

have requests that amount to 43 min-important both utes at this moment. So any Senatortent, and to re- who is seeking an opportunity to speakhe Administra- to this nomination, I would respect-ig with you tos critical legis- fully request, come to the floor as soon

as possible to let us know of that re-quest so I can reallocate the time, if

DAN QUAYLE. need be, among Members who have alittle more time now.Mr. President, at the outset of the

GEORGE hearings on the nomination of Gov.sident, I rise Bob Martinez--and I say Bob Martinezre hero-the as opposed to Robert since that is how’f Milwaukee, he refers to himself, not to be dis-

respectful-to be Director of the Na-naval chief tonal Drug Control Policy, I stated

man of noble that before we should confirm bin weisk his life to needed the answers to several ques-

tions.training exer- First, did he have the personal andtes was swept ethical qualifications for the job? See-angerous rap- ond, did he have the experience andLa own safety, background for this position? And,lend-but was third, what did he believe were the

drug director’s responsibilities and

March 21, 1991what role did he believe the drug direc-tor should play? In other words, whatdid he think his job was? Finally, whatwas his vision for our Nation’s struggleagainst the drug epidemic?On the question of the nominee’s eth-

ical qualifications which were put intosome additional question just beforethe hearing began by a nationally tele-vised program containing some allega-tions, I asked him about these allega-tions that were leveled against him.Governor Martinez flatly denied anywrongdoing relating to these issues.Based on his answers, the FBI back-

ground report, and the committee’sindependent investigative efforts whichbegan long before the allegation resur-faced just prior to the hearing-all ofthese issues have been and had been in-vestigated by the majority and minor-ity staff investigators and by the FBI-nothing emerged that is in any way, inmy view, sufficient to disqualify thenominee from holding this drug direc-tor’s post. He is an honest and ethicalman and on that basis he should not bedenied the post.Second, regarding the nominee’s

background and experience, particu-larly his record as the Governor of theState of Florida and mayor of one ofits largest cities prior to that, I believethat his answers and responses weresomewhat less reassuring. His antidrugrecord in Florida in the early days ofhis administration demonstrated, inmy view and in the view of many of thewitnesses who appeared before us, apoor understanding about the effective-ness of drug education and treatmentefforts in the fight against drug abuseand the drug plague.As a matter of fact, it was alleged

there was an outright hostility towardthe notion of education and treatment.However, a thorough review of the Gov-ernor’s record-which was reinforcedby the testimony of outside witnesses,some of whom came to criticize theGovernor-painted a picture of an evo-lution of the Governor’s philosophy onthese points, in my view. By the timehe completed his tenure as Governor,he had begun to conclude that edu-cation and treatment were absolutelynecessary elements in fighting the drugproblem in this country. And, by theend of his tenure, the nominee sup-ported efforts to expand drug abuseeducation and treatment efforts in theState of Florida.More important still, he testified

that he currently believes-and I per-sonally asked him this question-thateducation and treatment do work in re-ducing drug abuse.You might say why did you have to

ask him the question? It was not mere-ly his background, but the former DrugDirector at the outset of his tenure in-dicated he did not think educationworked. This Drug Director is on therecord, and his record as Governor indi-cates that he believes that that is the

March 21, 1991 Ccase. Though I do not believe that Gov-ernor Martinez currently places a suffi-ciently high priority on drug educationand treatment, it is clear that hethinks prevention efforts should play acritical role in the national drug strat-egy. And I am hopeful, quite frankly,that the evolution in his philosophywhile Governor will continue duringhis tenure as Drug Director.Third, on the question of the nomi-

nee’s views about the duties and pow-ers of the Drug Director, again here hisanswers were mixed. Quite frankly, Ibelieve he failed at the outset, at least,to appreciate the extensive powers thatCongress has given to the nationalDrug Director. Still, on balance, thenominee seemed to understand the re-sponsibility of the Drug Director to de-velop a national drug control strategyand a budget. And I believe he has beenfurther educated to the powers that hehas and the desire of the Congress forhim to exercise those powers, particu-larly through the budget process andthe mechanisms that he has availableat his disposal to, very bluntly, makeother Federal agencies from the Treas-ury Department to the State Depart-ment and so on understand that na-tional drug policy is our highest do-mestic priority.This brings me to the fourth and

most important issue confronting thecommittee in giving our advice andconsent to this nomination. What isGovernor Martinez’ vision for the na-tional drug strategy? What is his visionfor the Nation’s struggle against thedrug epidemic?As I stated at the outset of these

hearings, I was particularly interestedin three critical areas where I believedthe administration’s strategy is defi-cient: Hard core cocaine addiction,which fuels the demand side of the drugequation and, I might add, also fuelsthe brutality and the crime side of theequation where they create more vic-tims, not only of consumption, but ofabuse at the hands of the drug abuserstealing your car, your television, yourwallet, and anything else that may bein sight.Second, preventing the cultivation of

coca in the Andean nations, the supplyroute of our drug problem. I believe theadministration has been somewhat de-ficient there as well.The third deficiency is in providing

comprehensive drug education in morethan one State in this country. Thereis only one State in this country--andI might say it is the State of the Pre-siding Officer, the Senator from Con-necticut-where there is comprehen-sive drug education. Absent that com-prehensive drug education, I believethis leaves the door open for this gen-eration of children to become the nextgeneration of addicts.

In each of these areas, the area ofdrug education, the area of cultivationof the coca leaf in the Andean nations,

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA

and in dealing with hard core cocaineaddiction, Governor Martinez agreedthat we need to do more to make a sig-nificant dent in the drug epidemic.To the extent there were differences

between the nominee’s testimony andmy views on how forcefully we mustmove in these three areas, our dis-agreements may stem more from thenominee’s need to support the policiesof the President than from a fundamen-tal dispute between Governor Martinezand myself on these issues. And, quitefrankly, even if there is a root dispute,it is not sufficient reason at this pointfor me to vote against the Governor,because I am convinced he wishes toattempt to work out, as I sincerely do,a cooperative effort to arrive at a con-sensus national drug strategy.I still have some questions about

Governor Martinez’ understanding ofthe power of the office he is about toassume and about his ability and will-ingness to confront powerful Cabinetmembers and the Office of Managementand Budget over policy and funding is-sues.This is one of the reasons why I still

lament the fact the President has not,as was intended by the Congress, al-though we cannot demand it, made thenational Drug Director a Cabinet mem-ber.But, frankly, the President made the

Drug Director’s job a great deal harderback in 1989 when he decided to excludethe Director from the Cabinet. Thatsends a signal to other Cabinet mem-bers that the Director’s clout with thePresident and his clout generally, andit is hard to influence Cabinet deci-sions when you are not at the Cabinettable.However, Governor Martinez’ most

important qualification may in fact behis personal relationship with thePresident of the United States. I hopethat he is willing to use this relation-ship and the authority he has to makea forceful case in what is obviously anumber of turf wars that occur withinthis giant bureaucracy that every ad-ministration is compelled to attemptto deal with.Despite the concerns I have raised, I

have pledged that I would work withthe President and with Governor Mar-tinez to draft a truly bipartisan na-tional strategy. And I have the clearand distinct impression that GovernorMartinez truly, personally feels com-mitted to this war and, further, that heis truly willing and able to understandthe need to have cooperative relation-ships with the Congress in order tocome along with a consensus so thatwe can all rally behind the nationaldrug strategy and funding.The fact that he was Governor of a

State with such a large problem also, Ibelieve, gives him some additional in-sight into the need for this coopera-tion.

rE 7113So, Mr. President, I am going to

urge, and I do urge my colleagues tosupport the nomination of GovernorBob Martinez to assume this importantpost-Now I yield the floor, and yield to my

colleague, Senator THuRMoaN.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

KERazy). The Senator from SouthCarolina is recognized.Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I

rise today to voice my strong supportfor President Bush’s nominee, Gov-ernor Robert Martinez, to be the Direc-tor of the National Drug Control Pol-icy Board.President Bush nominated governor

Martinez on January 22, 1991. The Judi-ciary Committee held 2 days of con-firmation hearings on February 26 and27. Governor Martinez testified beforethe committee, as well as several otherwitnesses, who appeared to expresstheir views regarding his nomination.On March 7, the Judiciary Committeefavorably reported his nomination tothe full Senate by a vote of 11 yeas and3 nays.Mr. President, upon careful review of

Governor Martinez’ background and ex-perience, I find that he is well preparedto lead our Nation’s antidrug effort. Heis a 1957 graduate of the University ofTampa where he earned a bachelor ofscience degree in social science. Gov-ernor Martinez continued his educationand obtained a master’s degree in laborand industrial relations from the Uni-versity of Illinois in 1964. Following hisstudies, he was a school teacher, laborrelations consultant, and businessmanbefore entering a life of public service.Governor Martinez has an impressiverecord of public service in the State ofFlorida where he was Governor from1987 to 1991, and mayor of the city ofTampa from 1979 until 1986. During histerms as mayor and Governor, hegained valuable hands-on experience indealing with the scourge of drugs atthe local and State level.Governor Martinez’ record consist-

ently illustrates his commitment anddesire to work toward eliminating theproblem of illicit drugs in our society.In 1987, President Reagan recognizedGovernor Martinez’ interest in thisarea and appointed him to the WhiteHouse Conference on a Drug-FreeAmerica. In 1988, Governor Martinezearned the distinction of being the firstGovernor in our Nation to appoint aState "drug czar" to coordinate Statelevel antidrug activities. GovernorMartinez also created a Governor’sDrug Policy Task Force in Florida tostudy drug fighting activities in hisState. He unified the efforts of the Na-tional Governors Association to com-bat drugs more effectively by creatinga special task force to fight drugs atthe national level.Governor Martinez also proposed and

implemented several innovative meth-ods to combat drugs in his home State.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 21, 1991

He implemented our Nation’s firstcomprehensive drug-free workplaceprogram for State workers, and heworked with the Florida Chamber ofCommerce to discuss ways privatebusiness could implement drug freework policies. Governor Martinez pro-posed and fought for vital initiatives,such as drug-free school zones to keepdrug dealers and pushers away fromchildren. He successfully fought for en-actment of mandatory prison terms foranyone selling, buying, or deliveringdrugs within 1,000 feet of a schoolyard.Additionally, he recognized the grow-ing need to help drug addicted womenand their cocaine-exposed infants to re-covery by launching educational andtreatment programs.Mr. President, several distinguished

individuals and organizations havevoiced their strong support of GovernorMartinez for the position of Director ofthe National Drug Control PolicyBoard. It is important to note that hehas the bipartisan endorsement of hishome State Senators: Senator MACKand Senator GAHAM. As well, Gov.Lawton Chiles of Florida, formerly adistinguished Member of this body,wrote in support stating:As Director of the Office of National Drug

Control Policy, Governor Martinez can bringa unique perspective. His service as teacher,Mayor and Governor afford him an experi-ence level that will assist in developing a na-tional strategy for dealing with drug policyissues: a policy that recognizes the value ofa state-federal partnership and emphasizeseducation, prevention, treatment and law en-forcement strategies. For these reasons, Isupport Governor Martinez. * * *Others who recommend his confirma-

tion include, Congressman LAwRENCECOUGHLiN, Congressman CLAY SHAw;Gov. Michael Castle of Delaware andGov. John Ashcroft, of Missouri; andthe Honorable Robert Butterworth, at-torney general for the State of Florida.A number of law enforcement groupsincluding the National Troopers Coali-tion, Fraternal Order of Police, and theFlorida Department of Law Enforce-ment have endorsed his nomination. Aswell, numerous individuals and organi-zations who work to treat and preventsubstance abuse support Governor Mar-tinez’s confirmation. Father SeanO’Sullivan, who has been involved inthe treatment and prevention of sub-stance abuse for the past 22 years, tes-tified at Governor Martinez’s confirma-tion hearing and stated:In my estimation, if Governor Martinez

could do nationally what he accomplished inFlorida, the people of this Nation would bein his debt. I believe * * * that GovernorMartinez has a very balanced approach tounderstanding the tensions between the de-mand and the supply side * * * I believe hehas come a long way in understanding thevalue of prevention.Ms. Shirley Coletti, founder of Oper-

ation PAR, an acronym for ParentalAwareness and Responsibility, thelargest most comprehensive substance

abuse program in the southeast spe-cializing in education, prevention, re-search, treatment and rehabilitation,also testified in strong support of Gov-ernor Martinez.Mr. President, in closing, I believe

that Governor Martinez has a provenrecord that demonstrates he is highlyqualified, and that he possesses thehands-on experience and knowledge toserve in an exemplary manner as Direc-tor of the National Drug Control Pol-icy Board. He has a reputation as onewho is tough, but fair, when it comesto addressing drug problems. I believethat, once confirmed, he will diligentlywork to insure that our Nation’s battleagainst illicit drugs is effectivelywaged to rid our society of the scourgeof drugs and the harm that they cause.For these reasons, I strongly support

his confirmation and urge my col-leagues to vote in favor of this nomi-nee.Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 3

minutes to my friend from illinois.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Illinois is recognized.Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I do not

question that Governor Martinez is afine, decent person. Almost everythingthat my colleague, Senator THURMOND,just said, I agree with completely.When Governor Martinez came into

my office to visit with me, I said theone thing that I think is essential is anagreement by the drug czar to restricthimself and not participate in partisanpolitics. We do not permit that for theDirector of the FBI or the CIA by tra-dition, and by tradition we should notdo that for the drug czar.I was one of two who voted in this

body against Bill Bennett for drugczar. It turned out to be one of the bestvotes I ever cast in this body. WhenBill Bennett, as drug czar, went aroundthe Nation campaigning at Republicanrallies and Republican dinners, and soforth, somehow we just did not conveythe message that that is not the properthing to do.And so after his position as drug czar,

he was designated to become chairmanof the Republican National Committee.It turned out to be a very natural tran-sition from being drug czar to beingchairman of the Republican NationalCommittee. As it turned out, he has de-clined that opportunity.But Governor Martinez has declined

to say. "I am not going to participatein partisan politics." Just as we havein the Director of the CIA and Directorof the FBI someone who refrains fromthat kind of participation, the drugczar of this Nation ought to do thesame. It seems to me that is basic if weare serious about this drug war.And so, Mr. President, I am going to

vote "no." I am aware it is going to beapproved, but it is the same vote I amgoing to cast if we have a Democraticadministration and we do not get thatkind of commitment from whoever the

Democratic President would designate.I am going to vote against that nomi-nee, too.We have a good tradition with the

FBI and the CIA: you refrain from par-tisan politics. We ought to have thatsame kind of tradition for the drugczar. I am going to continue to vote noon any nominees until we get that kindof a commitment from the nominee.I yield back the remainder of my

time.Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise

today to cast my vote in support ofRobert Martinez to be Director of Na-tional Drug Control Policy. I am hope-ful that, as Director, Mr. Martinez willfollow through with the assurances hegave to me, and other members of theJudiciary Committee, during his con-firmation hearings.Before receiving his testimony I had

concerns regarding the nomination ofGovernor Martinez. I was concernedthat he would over-emphasize thecriminal justice side of the antidrug ef-fort. However, during the hearing, inresponse to questioning from SenatorteNNEzy, Senator THuRMOND and oth-ers, Governor Martinez indicated thathe believed a more balanced approachwas in order. On one occasion he statedhe believes "that everyone who wantstreatment ought to have it * * *[E]veryone that wants treatment thatis there for the purpose of freeing him-self and herself from addiction or stay-ing on a program ought to have treat-ment." According to the nominee, thatwill be part of his policy recommenda-tion. (Transcript, February 26, at 86-87.)

In addition to recognizing the need totreat drug abusers, Governor Martinezspoke to the issue of education, and es-pecially education of our youth. Whenasked about the effectiveness of drugeducation, Martinez said:I have a tremendous amount of faith that

education will work, it is working, and theproof of it will be when these primary young-sters reach those middle school years. (Tran-script, February 26, at 245.)And when queried about drug edu-

cation programs in the classroom, Gov-ernor Martinez again indicated his sup-port, saying "the earlier, the better."(Transcript, February 26, at 141.) Theseand other statements on the treat-ment, education and prevention as-pects of the drug war have assisted mein reaching my decision. But I also hadconcerns in two additional areas.Prior to hearing testimony on the

issue of political campaigning whileDirector of the Drug Policy Office, Ihad concerns that the office would beused as a pulpit for partisan politics.Chairman BIDEN and Senator SIMONshared my concerns. But upon specificinquiries on this matter, GovernorMartinez assured the committee thathe would refrain from political activ-ity, and that he would not partake inpartisan activities involving congres-

7114

March 21, 1991 Csional elections. Specifically, he saidthat he "will never mix politics, withthis office." And in support of his re-mark, expressed hope that he could de-vote himself full-time to the Office ofDirector. (Transcript, February 26, at69.) This promise-Governor Martinezsaying that he will not degrade the Di-rector’s office by engaging in partisanpolitics-reduced my concern in thisarea.Finally, and perhaps most Lnportant,

I was greatly disturbed by the shorttenure of Governor Martinez’ prede-cessor. During the confirmation of Wil-liam Bennett, Mr. Bennett indicated tothe committee that he was "commit-ted" to the drug war. We now see by hisearly departure, after less than 2 yearsas Director, that he was not as com-mitted as he appeared. Therefore, Isought assurance from Governor Mar-tinez that he would not leave as quick-ly if confirmed.I believe that true success in the

drug war will only ’result from manyyears of effort. And, as in the privatesector, a long-term commitment fromtop management is a key to long-termsuccess. I do not believe that the Direc-tor of National Drug Policy can com-bat the drug problem for 2 years, resignthe position, and then claim victory.That simply is not enough time forachieving the long-term goals of thenational strategy, or simply learningthe job. But Governor Martinez gaveme a personal commitment to stay inthe office of Director until asked tostep down by the President, or untilthere is a change in the White House.Without this long-term commitmentby the nominee, I could not have sup-ported his confirmation.Mr. President, .I assure you that I

will closely monitor Governor Mar-tinez’ progress as we work together onissues involving drug control. But Rob-ert Martinez’ experience as Governor ofFlorida, and especially his statementsbefore the Judiciary Committee, indi-cate that he has the potential to be-come an effective Director. I look for-ward to his confirmation, and wish himmuch success in his new job.Thank you, Mr. President.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

ORDER OF PROCEDUREMr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Martineznomination be temporarily laid aside,and that the Senate go into legislativesession to consider a resolution which Iwill shortly send to the desk, and thatupon disposition of the resolution, theSenate return to executive session toresume consideration of the nomina-tion of Governor Martinez.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

CONGRESSIONALL RECORD-SENA

EXTENDING A WARM WELCOME TOPRESIDENT LECH WALESA

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, onbehalf of myself and Senator DOLE,Senators MsKUL5Xi, MURxOwSxi, SIMON,BmzN, and THURMOND, I send a resolu-tion to the desk, and I ask that it bestated and immediately considered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows:A resolution (S. Res. 90) extending a warm

welcome to His Excellency, President LechWalesa of the Republic of Poland, and forother purposes.Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder if

the clerk might read the resolution.Mr. MITCHELL- I ask that the reso-

lution be stated in its entirety.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will read the resolution.The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows:S. REs. 90

Whereas Poland has made an historic tran-sition from communism to democracy;Whereas Poland has held the first free and

direct elections for President in its history;Whereas Lech Walesa, internationally rec-

ognized as a leader of the struggle for democ-racy and human rights, was elected Presi-dent of Poland on December 9, 1990;Whereas, under President Lech Walesa’s

leadership, Poland is continuing on its con-rageous course of fundamental economic andpolitical reform; andWhereas President Lech Walesa is making

his first State Visit to the United Statessince his election: Now, therefore, be itResolved, That the Senate hereby-(1) extends a warm welcome to His Excel-

lency Lech Walesa, President of the Republicof Poland, upon the occasion of his StateVisit to the United States;(2) recalls the special and historic ties be-

tween the people of the United States andthe people of Poland;(3) applauds the continued commitment of

President Lech Walesa and his governmentto fundamental economic and political re-form;(4) reaffirms the strong support of the Sen-

ate and the people of the United States forthe independence and security of Poland;(5) looks forward to continued close con-

sultation and cooperation with the Govern-ment of Poland on issues relating to securityand stability in Europe; and(6) commends the decision of the Bush Ad-

ministration to reduce substantially thedebt owed by Poland to the United States,applauds the decision of the Paris Club to re-duce substantally Poland’s burden of foreigndebt, and urges Poland’s private creditors torespond in a similar fashion.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shalltransmit a copy of this resolution to thePresident of the United States with the re-quest that he further transmit such copy toHis Excellency Lech Walesa, President of theRepublic of Poland.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the immediate consider-ation of the resolution?There being no objection, the Senate

proceeded to consider the resolution.

[E 7115Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield? Will the Senator add meas a cosponsor?Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unan-

imous consent we add all Republicansas cosponsors.Mr. MITCHELL. I ask unanimous

consent that all Members of the Senatebe added as cosponsors.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so orderedMr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, We

are honored to welcome to the Senatethe Honorable Lech Walesa, Presidentof Poland- President Walesa has visitedus previously in his private capacity.Today he represents the people of Po-land as their democratically electedleader.Through his inspirational leadership

and tireless dedication to the causes offreedom and democracy, PresidentWalesa has been a pioneer in the effortto transform the former Communistdictatorship in Central Europe intoparliamentary democracies. His will-ingness to undertake the burdens ofthe Presidency of Poland during thisdifficult time of transition and reformis testimony to his recognition thatthe effort to create democracy does notend with the elimination of one-partyrule. Rather, the difficult struggle tobuild a free and open society, with eco-nomic and political opportunities forall, must be pursued with increased en-ergy during the difficult transition pe-riod.In passing this resolution, the Senate

expresses its welcome to PresidentWalesa and the strong support of theSenate and of the American people forthe courageous and difficult stepsbeing taken in Poland. The Polish ex-ample should serve as a model for othercountries in Central Europe as theypursue economic reform. The Polishpeople must know, and we hope theywill know, that America is ready andwilling to provide assistance and sup-port for their efforts.Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am

pleased to join with the distinguishedmajority leader, Senator MrTCHELL;with our colleagues, Senators Mnamsmand MuRxowsn, the two Polish-Amer-ican Members of the Senate, and withmany other Senators in cosponsoringthis resolution.We are very honored to have Presi-

dent Walesa with us today in the Sen-ate.When the history of the past 2 years

is written-2 years of momentouschange around the world-one of thefirst chapters will be about LechWalesa.I had the very exciting experience of

visiting Poland on the very day thatthe Polish Parliament elected the firstnon-Communist government in morethan a half century. A couple of dayslater, I went to the city of Gdansk,where Poland’s democratic revolutionwas spawned. I met there with Lech

7116 CWalesa, and found out for myself that-in this age when public relations ex-perts fabricate most of our so-calledheroes--Lech Walesa was the realthing.He has been with us before as the

leader of the democratic revolution inPoland and a Nobel Prize winner. He ishere today as the first democraticallyelected President in the history of Po-land.So today we greet him with a new

title: Mr President. But at the sametime we greet him still, and foremost,as a friend of the United States, and afriend of freedom.Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Sentaor from Illinois is recognized.Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I simply

want to very briefly join in saying Ithink this is an appropriate resolution.Senator DOLE properly called him the

real thing. Poland has made incrediblycourageous decisions.I was particularly pleased that Presi-

dent Walesa is keeping Mr. Balcerowiczon as the Finance Minister there.I join in praise for President Bush for

the steps he has taken. Let me just addmy appreciation to the Secretary ofthe Treasury, Nick Brady, and to theAssistant Secretary of the TreasuryMulford, for their hard work in thiswhole question of Polish debt.

It is extremely important to the fu-ture of Poland and the administration.I do not hesitate to criticize themwhen I think they are wrong, as I did afew minutes ago on this floor. But onthis occasion they have acted respon-sibly and well. I commend them forwhat they are doing. I am pleased to bea cosponsor of the resolution.Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, back in

June of 1990, four of us, Senators BEAD-LEY and myself, and CongressmanLEACH and Congressman RoSTENxow-Sn, sent a very strong letter to thePresident of the United States stronglyurging him to deal with the Polish debtquestion.We believed then, and we believe

now, that Poland’s external debt ofsomething in excess of $38 billion hadto be dealt with for Poland to have anychance at all of progressing economi-cally.I just want to publicly compliment

President Bush for two things. Weasked him to take two actions when wewrote him last year. One was to askthe Paris Club, a group of industri-alized nations, to whom the Poles oweda great deal of money, to relieve a sig-nificant portion of that debt.Quite frankly, at the end of World

War ]1, Mr. President, the Germansowed a great deal of money, and we,the United States and other nations,concluded that we were not going tomake the same mistake we made at theend of World War L when we had helpedto create an environment where weseemed to demonstrate to people in

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA)

Germany that democracy was synony-mous with economic failure.So we concluded that it was critical

to forgive the German debt, eventhough we had just been in a bitterwar. We did it for our own safety’ssake.I am delighted to see that the Presi-

dent has moved to convince the othernations to whom the Poles owe a greatdeal of money to forgive a significantportion of that debt. And now we, theUnited States, are engaged in a similaroperation, the second action we hopedthe President would take. Without thattaking place, I see little possibility ofthe bold economic plans that the Polesare making now coming to fruition.As I have said on many occasions, I

do not want my sons, who are soon tograduate from college, to have theirsons studying in college what theystudied about the period of Europeangovernments between the end of theWorld War I and the beginning of WorldWar IL I do not want my grandchildrenlearning about a period where therewas an opportunity for democracy tosurvive-and it can only survive wherethere is economic prosperity-and de-mocracy having failed because therewas no economic prosperity.There can be no prosperity, in my

view, in Poland, absent debt forgive-ness. That is underway now, and itgives Poland a seriouis chance for suc-cess. If Poland makes it, I believe therest of Eastern Europe also has a realchance.Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, I rise

today to welcome the freely electedPresident of Poland, Lech Walesa. Thisis his first visit to the United States asPresident of Poland.

It is a historic event that should bemarked with an equally historic ges-ture on our part. That is why I supportthe resolution introduced by Mr.LIEHERMAx forgiving a major share ofPolands’ debt.By reducing Poland’s debt, the Amer-

ican people would be helping that coun-try move from communism to a free-market economy. We must encouragethis positive movement toward democ-racy.The Polish people must be com-

mended for leading the revolution ofeconomic and political change inCentral Europe over the last 2 years.The people and the Government of Po-land have committed themselves to adramatic transformation of their econ-omy from a command economy to onebased on free market principle. But un-fortunately, this change has come at avery high price.The process of change in Poland has

been difficult, causing the Polish peo-ple great hardship. The burden of for-eign debt has made the process of eco-nomic transformation more difficultfor the people and the Government ofPoland.

I[ March 21, 1991Mr. President, it is my belief that the

people and the Government of Polandshould not have to bear the burden ofdebt accumulated by the former Com-munist regime. A reduction in Polishforeign debt would be an importantway to help the people and the Govern-ment of Poland.I urge my colleagues to support this

resolution. The Polish people have hadto cope with 45 years of Communist op-pression. Let us not make this historictransformation from tyranny to free-dom any harder.Let us relieve the Polish people of

this economic burden and reward themfor their courageous fight for liberty.Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise

today to join my colleagues in welcom-ing Lech Walesa, the President of Po-land, to the United States. On his lastvisit here, he was just an electrician,albeit an electrician who had changedhis country and the world. Today he isthe President of his country.I would also like to commend the

multilateral efforts to reduce Poland’sdebt. Poland’s transition to democracyand free markets is one of the most im-portant historical processes of our era,and debt reduction will play an impor-tant role in encouraging that process.I do not need to remind my col-

leagues that the process of transitionwhich is underway in Eastern andCentral Europe Is far from complete.Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungaryhave made the fundamental commit-ment to change, and are now strug-gling with the practical realities of thetransition. The ultimate success ofthat transition depends to a great de-gree on how the governments and peo-ple of this region manage to rebuild theeconomy of their countries.The boldest and most sweeping re-

form program has ben undertaken inPoland. It includes banking, currency,and tax reform, strict wage control,the reduction and elimination of sub-sidies, privatization of state enter-prises, and dissolution of uneffectiveones. The other nations in Central Eu-rope-and perhaps the Soviet Union aswell-are watching Poland’s progressvery closely, and gauging their own re-form efforts according to the resultsthere. Therefore, helping Poland meanshelping all Eastern and Central Europemake the changes necessary to bringdemocracy and free markets to the re-gion.One of Poland’s most urgent prob-

lems is its debt burden. Poland cur-rently owes about $33 billion to foreigngovernments and about $11 billion tocommercial banks. Without a signifi-cant reduction, Poland will probablynot be able to complete her bold andradical program. The steps taken so farby the Polish Government have shownpositive results. The currency is stable,Government spending is restricted, andhyperinflation has been stopped. But asa result of the drastic economic meas-

March 21, 1991 0

ures which were necessary to trans-form an economy ruined by 40 years ofcommunism, new problems haveemerged. Recession is severe, unem-ployment has risen, and a standard ofliving has fallen.Negotiators from the major indus-

trial countries recently completedtheir talks on Polish debt relief. TheUnited States, pursuant to a resolutionI introduced in October 1990 calling forgreater efforts to provide debt relief,took the lead in calling for meaningfulcuts, not just token measures and fur-ther rescheduling. The creditor coun-tries should cut Poland’s debt burdenin halt This is good news and will gofar in helping Poland. Individual coun-tries can and should go further thanthe general agreement. Poland deservesit. Furthermore, I hope that the com-mercial banks will follow the lead oftheir governments and take similarmeasures to reduce Poland’s debt.Poland will not become a free market

democracy as long as the debt built upby the Communist government slow itsgrowth. The best investment this coun-try can make is an investment in de-mocracy. Poland has made the com-mitment to democracy, and I am gladthat we are following through with ourcommitment to help Poland.Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I be-

lieve there is no further debate.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the resolu-tion.The resolution (S. Res. 90) was agreed

to.The preamble was agreed to.Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I

move to reconsider the vote by whichthe resolution was agreed to.Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that mo-

tion on the table.The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

EXECUTIVE SESSIONThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order the Senate now re-turns to executive session to resumeconsideration of the Martinez nomina-tion.Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, may I

inquire of the Chair how much time re-mains for debate on that nomination?The PRESIDING OFFICER. There re-

mains 1 hour and 10 mintutes.ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that upon the com-pletion of the debate, either throughthe use of the fAll 1 hour and 7 minutesor the yielding back of time, that therethen be a period for morning businessuntil 2 p.m., and that the vote on theMartinez nomination occur at 2 p.m.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, Sen-

ators should be aware then that we aregoing to complete the debate on the

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA,

Martinez nomination. Then there willbe a period for morning business. Thenthere will be a vote on the Martineznomination at 2 p.m. Senators shouldbe aware of that. There will be a roll-call vote on the Martinez nominationat 2 p.m.I thank the distinguished managers

and other Senators for their coopera-tion enabling us to act on this matter.Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in

support of the nomination of RobertMartinez to be the National Drug Con-trol Policy Director. After an extensivereview of this nominee’s background, Ibelieve that the President has made anexcellent selection in Governor Mar-tinez. I thought that he handled him-self very well at his confirmation hear-ing. He answered an of our questions ina straight-forward, forthright manner,and I am convinced that he dem-onstrated a real commitment to thefight against the war on drugs.As a Senator of a predominantly

rural State-a State with a lot of littleairstrips, a kind of crossroads of theWest-I have a particular concernabout what the Federal Governmentcan do to assist in the interdiction ofdrugs in these areas. I believe that thisnominee shares those concerns.During the Judiciary Committee

hearings, we learned that GovernorMartinez brings a wealth of experienceto this important position. As the Gov-ernor of the State of Florida, he hasfirsthand experience in dealing withdrug trafficking and abuse. Drug push-ers have used Florida, because of its lo-cation, as a main point of entry intothe United States for illegal drugs.Throughout his tenure, Governor

Martinez continually fought thisscourge through innovative as well astime-tested interdiction techniques.Let me touch on some of the high-

lights of his drug fighting efforts. Dur-ing his tenure, Florida was named byFederal agencies as a role model Statein the drug battle. It is listed amongthe top 10 States for per capita spend-ing on drug treatment. Between 1987and 1989, Florida increased its spendingin support of drug treatment by 33 per-cent, an increase in spending greaterthan the increase experienced by manyof the other States during the sametime period.Governor Martinez served as the Na-

tional Governors Association lead Gov-ernor on substance abuse and drug traf-ficking issues. He implemented the Na-tion’s first comprehensive statewideDrug-Free Workplace Program. He hasbeen a leader in developing comprehen-sive plans and promoting interagencycoordination of prevention services atthe State and local level. He was alsoone of the first Governors to employthe services of the National Guard inthe interdiction efforts of his State.And let us not forget that GovernorMartinez is a Spanish-speaking publicofficial who has direct experience in

rE 7117dealing with the leaders of Central andSouth American countries. He has metwith many such leaders while promot-ing Florida business and trade. This ex-perience and familiarity will serve himwell in his new role.I am particularly impressed with his

commitment to fight drug traffickingon the demand side of the equation. Asa prior school teacher, he knows first-hand the need for strong antidrug edu-cation programs. Indeed, while Gov-ernor, once or twice a month he wouldtravel around his State to a student’shome, accompany the student toschool, sometimes on the schoolbus,and teach the student’s class. One ofthe subjects was drug education. I be-lieve that he will truly be a leader inthis area of our efforts.Governor Martinez comes highly rec-

ommended by such groups as the Na-tional Federation of Parents for Drug-Free Youth and Informed Families ofDade County. They are particularlyimpressed with his efforts in the areaof drug prevention, focusing on thehome and the individual.Mr. President, it is clear that Gov-

ernor Martinez’ experience has pre-pared him for the challenges of this im-portant national office. I believe thathe will fulfill his role in an honorableand highly successful manner. This isan office that should not remain va-cant for any length of time. I urge allof my colleagues to vote in favor ofthis nomination.Last, I want to pay tribute to the dis-

tinguished chairman of this commit-tee, the Judiciary Committee, SenatorBiDEN, the Senator from Delaware, andthe distinguished ranking minorityleader on the committee, SenatorTHURMOND, from South Carolina. Bothof them have been foremost leaders inthe fight against drug abuse in thiscountry, not only on the supply side ofthe equation but on the demand side.I have to say Senator BiDEN in par-

ticular has spent as much time on thisissue as any Member in Congress. Hehas done a terrific job. He has beenconcerned about all aspects of drugpushing, drug abuse, and drug rehabili-tation, all other aspects of the issuesinvolved in the whole panoply of drugissues. I want to say he has been a fore-most leader in the Congress in helpingus to try to resolve some of these prob-lems.Naturally the administration, natu-

rally other Members of Congress, natu-rally myself, want to listen to him andwant to work with him in trying tohelp in any way we possibly can.Senator THURMOND has himself been

an effective and wonderful leader onthe Judiciary Committee. These twogentlemen have worked hand in handtogether in so many good efforts in thebest interests of country. I want to payspecial tribute to both of them as onewho works rather closely with both of

7118 Cthem and who thinks very highly ofboth of them.I would feel bad if I did not at least

say a few words about the great effortsboth of them have made in this par-ticular battle.I wish Bob Martinez well. I hope ev-

erybody will vote for him. I think astrong, substantial vote will help himin the work he is going to do. I thinkwe are all going to be very proud ofhim as the ensuing months occur.I thank you, Mr. President, I yield

the floor.Mr. LEARY. Mr. President, I want to

emphasize my reservations about Gov-ernor Martinez’ nomination to be Di-rector of the Office of National DrugControl Policy.Congress passed legislation to create

a Cabinet-level drug czar because weneed the best available talent to leadus in our war against drugs. The drugczar coordinates all of the Federal,State, and local agencies with antidrugresponsibilities, he oversees ’ inter-national initiatives to decrease drugproduction at the source, and he makessure that our criminal justice systemkeeps pace with the Nation’s quicklychanging needs.The drug czar is our voice when it

comes to defining goals and leading thecharge. An effective drug czar must un-derstand that a "war on drugs" meansmore than rhetorical tough talk andglitzy political slogans. Ending thisNation’s drug crisis will take time andit will take money.We need a leader who can look the

President or his fellow Cabinet mem-bers in the eye and say "no," or "thatis not good enough," or "we need morefunding." We need a creative, open-minded coordinator-someone who canbalance punishment for drug pusherswith programs to prevent young peoplefrom turning to drugs and programs tohelp those who have already beentaken in by the scourge. And we needsomeone who will fight this battle on abipartisan front, without politicizinghis important office.The President has the prerogative to

nominate competent officials to carryout his policies. Thus far, the adminis-ta-tion’s drug control policy has been alot of tough talk without the muscle toback it up. The nominee’s record asGovernor of Florida reflects the sameapproach. Governor Martinez focusedon punitive measures-at the expenseand neglect of treatment and preven-tion-and after 4 years in the state-house with drug control as his majorgoal, Florida’s drug problems gotworse, not better.

In voting for Governor Martinez’nomination I am granting the Presi-dent his prerogative. I am only sorrythat the administration did not takethis opportunity to show a seriouscommitment to ending this Nation’sdrug crisis. The office which GovernorMartinez will assume has great poten-

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENAT

tial-to mobilize the American people,to mobilize government at every level,and to fight effectively against thedrugs that are destroying the very fab-ric of our society. The office deservesmore credit, and more respect, thanthe administration gives it.Finally, I impress upon Governor

Marinez my hope that he will encour-age a more balanced national drug con-trol strategy. At his confirmationhearings, Governor Martinez seemed toembrace the need for increased treat-ment and prevention programs. In histestimony he stated, "if confirmed, Iwill continue to request increased ap-propriations for expanded treatmentcapacity. This is an area of great im-portance." I am taking Governor Mar-tinez at his word. I hope he does not letthe American people down.Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have a

good deal to say about Governor Mar-tinez. But let me speak for a moment,while we are waiting for some of ourcolleagues who wish to speak to arrive.Let me speak to the policy that Gov-ernor Martinez is going to be saddledwith at the outset.The President’s national drug policy,

obviously, is well intended. I believe itis seriously deficient. The Presidenthas concluded, and its former Directorconcluded, that we should focus on cas-ual drug users more than any other as-pect of the problem, although they dofocus on all aspects of the problem.This is a matter of proportion when,

in fact, casual drug use among particu-larly our young people is going downand down and down, and the adminis-tration can and should, and the Con-gress can and should, claim some creditfor that. But the fact of the matter isthat in the 4 preceding years prior tothere even being an existing drug czar,there was a genuine precipitous andsteep decline among the casual users inthis Nation.The picture we are missing, Mr.

President, is that there has been an in-crease in the number of hardcore users,or what we would term in the street:The addict.Mr. President, I have had an ongoing

debate with the administration. Theyuse a statistic that indicates that lastyear there were 862,000, or thereabouts,hardeore cocaine addicts in America,when in fact, Mr. President, our studiesshow that there were over 2.3 millionhardcore cocaine addicts.Mr. President, in this year’s drug

strategy, submitted to us for the con-sideration of My committee in the Sen-ate, the President said: "We have madegains; we now only have 660,000 hard-core cocaine addicts." It had gonedown almost 200,000, according to theirreports, based on a household survey,which I think we were able to point outwas fatally flawed, as they say. Everyexpert in the field acknowledges that itis flawed, by the nature ’of its meth-odology.

. March 21, 1991So, Mr. President, the President put

in place a drug strategy, calling forcertain weapons in that strategy, fromtreatment, to police, and based on thenotion that there were 660,000 hardcorecocaine addicts in America.During the first hearing that I held

on this matter, the administration ac-knowledged that they were off; thatnumber was not accurate. They said:We knew it was inaccurate all thetime, but that survey was the onlybasis we had on which to make thejudgment. So they said, during thecourse of the hearing: We will now stip-ulate, Senator BIDFN, that there are atleast 1.7 million hardcore cocaine ad-dicts in America.I believe, and I think our studies

show-and it was greeted uniformly bythe so-called experts in the communityas being accurate-that there are clos-er to 2.2 to 2.4 million. They said, OK;let us assume that the number is only1.7.Now you have just, in a matter of 3

days, from the time you submittedyour report to me, which said 660,000hardcore cocaine addicts, within aweek’s period, you said, "All right,Biden, there were really not 660,000;there are 1.7 million." I complimentyou for the increased recognition ofthat side of the problem.I said, "Now that you have told me

that, how are you going to amend yourdrug strategy to accommodate this ac-knowledged significant change in yourthinking?"They said, "We are not going to."I said, "I do not understand."They said, "There is no need for us to

change our strategy."I said, "I am somewhat bewildered. I

thought the strategy for attacking thedrug problem in America bore some re-lationship to your assessment of theextent of the problem."I suspect we would all say, if we

thought there were only 100 cocaine so-called crack babies going to be bornnext year instead of 300,000 going to beborn next year, we would have a dif-ferent strategy relative to dealing withaddicted mothers; 100, well, that doesnot mean we are going to go out andput out 1 billion dollars’ worth of re-sources to deal with 100, as bad as it is.We might decide to put that $1 billioninto health care or other things.But, if we think there are 300,000 then

it is a problem requiring a differentinput.Well, I said I am confused now. At

the outset, you said, here is my strat-egy and my strategy is at least in partpremised on the fact there are 660,000hardcore addicts. Now you say 1.7 mil-lion hardcore addicts, and you do notchange your strategy.Mr. President, we are, by everyone’s

admission, in a very, very difficultarea. We are attempting to deal with asecond epidemic--I say second becausethe first one was at the turn of the cen-

March 21, 1991 Ctury-the second drug epidemic in thisNation. The consequences are obvious.Cocaine addiction brings on cocaine-in-duced psychoses and paranoia. Wher-ever there is cocaine there is violence.I sometimes say facetiously to make apoint, if you have to live in an apart-ment complex full of cocaine addicts oryou have to live in an apartment com-plex full of heroin addicts, go with theheroin addicts, not because they arebetter, but because heroin takes youdown; it does not cause you to go rn-ning around knocking down doors andshooting people..But cocaine has the exact opposite

effect on the brain. Cocaine, to use thephrase of a leading researcher fromYale University, creates a "lightningstorm in the brain." That is why somany people die when cocaine is intro-duced into an area, not just because ofthe trafficking in cocaine, but becausethe people who are hooked on it dostrange antisocial things, and manytimes they are violent.Mr. President, all the crimes we have

out there now that are being commit-ted related to drug addiction are not inlarge part as a consequence of the cas-ual user, who should be stopped be-cause he will become a hardcore user ifwe do not in many instances; they arethe consequence of somebody who ishooked on, to use the vernacular, adrug, and these cocaine addicts are theones who are going out shooting peopleand mugging people and, in their do-mestic quarrels, turning around andhitting people with everything fromhammers to whatever is near them,and they are our most important prob-lem now. We do not direct nearlyenough attention to that in the Presi-dent’s drug strategy.That is why, on behalf of myself and

the Democrats, I offered an alternativestrategy, not to be obstreperous, not todisagree with the President, but be-cause I truly believe that we have to doone of three things with those hardcoreaddicts.One, we have to turn around, put

them in jail, and while in jail treatthem for their problem; otherwise-weput last year, and I have to yield to mystaff for a moment here, the estimatethat, nationwide, over 3.6 million folkslast year were released from jails andprisons who were still drug users, whostill had a problem. So we either haveto lock them up and treat them or getthem into treatment before they arelocked up or we are going to shootthem or they are going to shoot us. Imean, you do not have to be a rocketscientist to understand that. So, if youhave a’couple million people walkingaround the streets with a serious prob-lem-I am not suggesting we treatthem merely because it is the Christianthing to do, the noble thing to do, thehuman thing to do, but out of ournaked self-interest, either lock themup for the rest of their lives, execute

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA

them, or treat them, or they will beback.So, Mr. President, the adiministra-

tion’s position is one that has to be al-tered, in my opinion.I see one of my good friends and the

chief sponsor of our nominee has madeit to the floor, the distinguished Sen-ator from Florida. I am delighted toyield the floor to him, if he wishes atthis moment to speak on behalf of thenominee, and I ask unanimous consentthat his time be yielded from the timecontrolled by the Senator from SouthCarolina.Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I so make

that request.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered. The Senatorfrom Florida is recognized.Mr. MACK. Thank you Mr. President.

I thank the Senator for yielding thetime.Mr. President, I rise in strong sup-

port of the Honorable Bob Martinez,nominee as Director of the NationalDrug Control Policy Office.As a fellow Floridian and friend of

Governor Martinez, I am well aware ofhis eminent qualifications for this po-sition. As I indicated to the Senate Ju-diciary Committee, I am pleased Presi-dent Bush has chosen an outstandingcandidate to serve as this country’snext drug czar.Bob Martinez is a seasoned veteran of

the drug war. With Bob’s combinedbackground as educator, mayor, busi-nessman, and Governor of the State ofFlorida, he has initiated and imple-mented innovative strategies to re-spond to Florida’s drug crisis. Bob’sstrong record is reflected through hiscommitment to clean up Florida’scities and streets.As Governor, Bob appointed this Na-

tion’s first State "drug czar" to coordi-nate antidrug efforts in Florida. Hecreated the first Drug-Free WorkplaceProgram for State government workersand provided for formal training ofteachers in substance abuse education.Bob introduced Florida’s drug-freezones for our schoolchildren. In addi-tion, he also imposed mandatory mini-mum sentences for individuals con-victed of drug activity near publicparks and playgrounds, public housingfacilities, colleges and universities,again in an effort to protect our youth.Furthermore, Bob Martinez kept Flor-ida’s streets free from career criminalsby successfully seeking passage of atough repeat-offender law.During Bob’s tenure as Governor,

Florida was among the top 10 Statesfor per capita spending on drug treat-ment. In fact, between 1987 and 1989,spending on drug treatment in Floridarose nearly 50 percent faster than theaverage of all other States.As a direct result of Bob’s strong

stand against drugs, Florida was "eval-uated by Federal agencies as one of the

[E 7119Nation’s role models in the drug bat-tle" in November 1990.In addition to Bob’s accomplishments

within our State, he was involved inthe National Governors Association,where he served as lead Governor onsubstance abuse and drug-traffickingissues. In this capacity, he presentedPresident Bush with a plan for anti-drug efforts on behalf of the NationalGovernors Association.Governor Martinez also coordinated

drug information exchanges with otherState Governors and traveled exten-sively abroad to promote and securecooperation of the international com-munitr in the war on drugs-Prior to introducing Bob Martinez to

the Senate Judiciary Committee, Iasked myself the question what type ofperson would make an ideal Director ofthe National Drug Control Policy Of-fice. It seems to me this person shouldhave experience with the drug war atthe local and State level, experienceworking with children in our schools toteach them the evils of drugs and anoverall proven record in the area ofdrug control. With these points inmind, I am confident the ideal personfor this job is Gov. Bob Martinez. WithBob’s unique experiences, he will be ef-fective in uniting Federal, State, andlocal governments in shaping an effec-tive and well-balanced antidrug strat-egy.I urge my colleagues to follow the

lead of the Senate Judiciary Commit-tee and to act favorably on Gov. BobMartinez’ nomination.Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum and ask unanimous con-sent that the time be equally charged.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.The clerk will call the roll.The assistant legislative clerk pro-

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

unanimous consent that the order forthe quroum call be rescinded.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.The Senator from Massachusetts is

recognized.Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I op-

pose the nomination of Robert Mar-tinez to be Director of National DrugControl Policy.A President is entitled to consider-

able discretion in appointing his top of-ficials. On occasion, however, an execu-tive branch nominee is identified witha policy so contrary to the public in-terest that the nominee should be re-jected.Governor Martinez favors a fun-

damentally flawed approach to the Na-tion’s efforts to combat substanceabuse. Unless we modify that approach.we will never be able to deal effectivelywith this worsening national problem.Surveys indicate that casual drug use

has dropped over the past 5 years. Buthard core use-the kind that causes

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

crime and violence-remains a nationalepidemic. Two years after PresidentBush held up a bag of crack on nationaltelevision, our streets are no safer.The administration continues to be-

lieve that if they just increase sen-tences, build more prisons, and jailmore addicts, drug crime will decline.Police, prosecutors, and prisons are in-dispensable, but we must reinforce ef-forts with treatment and prevention.We must treat addicts before they

commit crimes, and educate childrenabout drug abuse before they turn toaddiction and criminal activity.Under Governor Martinez, however,

Florida became a case study of the im-balance in our Nation’s war on drugs.The State had the highest crime rate

in the Nation. It also ranked first inthe Nation in its rate of incarceration.But it ranked 21st in the funding ofsubstance abuse treatment programs,and 32d in the funding of preventionprograms.Only one out of every four citizens of

Florida who needed treatment receivedit during the Martinez years. Nothingin his record or his testimony beforethe Judiciary Committee convinces methat the nominee possesses a genuinecommitment to reducing the demandfor drugs through treatment and edu-cation.The situation in Florida was espe-

cially bleak for women. The State’s10,000 pregnant substance abusers stooda 15-percent chance of finding treat-ment for their addiction. If they foundtreatment, it was after an average waitof 61 days.Otherwise, they were likely to join

the list of tens of thousands of Florid-ians arrested every year for possessionof drugs. Once arrested, they joined thearmy of addicts marching through therevolving doors of the State criminaljustice system, only to be put back onthe streets as addicts with criminalrecords.The State’s drug strategy was a pub-

lic safety failure in another major re-spect. Because the courts and prisonswere flooded with nonviolent addicts,thousands of violent offenders had tobe released before their sentences hadexpired.During the Martinez years, the aver-

age murder sentence actually served inFlorida decreased by 40 percent. Theaverage robbery sentence served de-creased by 42 percent. Overall, the av-erage sentence served decreased by 38percent.At the end of the Martinez adminis-

tration, Florida inmates served, on av-erage, only a third of their sentences,the lowest rate in the Nation. Thebottomline on these drug policies isclear: Law enforcement cannot do thejob alone.The Martinez administration contrib-

.uted to a worsening cycle of addiction,arrest, and the return of violent crimi-nals to the streets. That cycle might

have been broken if the State had mademore treatment available to more sub-stance abusers in the first place.The nominee’s law enforcement cre-

dentials are also called into questionby his views on gun control. Drug-re-lated violence in our cities is escalat-ing. The 102d Congress must take rea-sonable steps to halt the proliferationof guns in our society. Yet at this con-firmation hearing, Governor Martinezexpressed his opposition to Federal leg-islation to deal with this critical as-pect of the drug problem.

It is time for the Nation to develop anew and more effective strategy tocombat drug abuse and drug crime.The best way for us to begin is to

vote against this nomination, and Iurge the Senate to do so.I hope my colleagues, prior to the

vote, will take a look at the report onthe nomination prepared by the Judici-ary Committee. At the back of the re-port are various charts which reflectthe points that I made earlier in mycomments about the number of treat-ment opportunities for adults in Flor-ida, the number that need treatmentand the number that are actually re-ceiving it. The other chart is the treat-ment opportunities for women in Flor-ida; for all women and then for preg-nant women.Of 10,000 pregnant women who are

substance abusers, 1,500 are actuallyreceiving treatment. The State of Flor-ida actually prosecuted a woman inFlorida for distributing drugs to herunborn child-in other words for beinga pregnant addict. We found that shehad actually asked for treatment dur-ing her pregnancy, was unable to gettreatment, then was subsequently ar-rested after she gave birth.Included in the report is a chart

showing the spending priorities inFlorida. It gives a clear reflection ofthe explosion of spending on prisonsand jails; from approximately $500 mil-lion in 1987, up to $850 million by theyear 1991.For substance abuse treatment, the

chart is virtually flat. I think it wentfrom $35 to $42 million. The point hasbeen made during the debate about thesignificant increase in Florida’s treat-ment budget. When you go from $37 to$42 million, that might reflect somepercentage increase, but in terms ofreal dollars and purchasing power, it iswoefully inadequate.Then the final chart shows the re-

volving door in Florida, which I thinkis enormously interesting. You had 50percent of a Florida sentence beingserved in 1987, but in 1988, it is 41 per-cent of the sentence served.What is interesting here is the rela-

tionship between percent of sentenceserved and the failure rate, which re-flects recidivism. This chart demon-strates that the percent of time actu-ally being served is constantly goingdown during the Martinez years. It

goes from 53 percent of the sentence in1987 to 41 percent in 1988, to 34 percentin 1989, to 33 percent in 1990. The totalamount of time that is spent in jail isgradually going down. Then if you lookat the other part of the chart, you seethat the recividism rate for those re-leased from jail goes from 30 percent in1987 to 43 percent in 1990. That is be-cause they are flooding the systemwith nonviolent addicts and letting outmurderers, burglars, rapists, and thosethat are committing other crimes of vi-olence.No one is suggesting that this prob-

lem is not complex and difficult. Thereare no easy solutions. But it is clearthat we must deal with the demandside as well as the supply side. Goingback to 1988, the Congress gave a veryclear indication, after a long, very con-siderable debate and discussion in a bi-partisan way, that we ought to haveapproximately 50-50 expenditures interms of the demand side and the sup-ply side.We know we have interdiction, we

have prosecution, we have education,we have rehabilitation, and we knowthat there has to be a balance. TheCongress made that clear. But theReagan administration and the Bushadministration have put about 71 insupply side programs, and the demandside gets the 29 percent that remains.And that demand-side percent wouldhave been a lot less if the Congress didnot include the Byrd amendment in1989 which added $800 million to the de-mand side. This money was added withthe reluctance of the administration,quite frankly, and Senator BYRD over-came that reluctance to win support inthis body and in the Senate-House con-ference. So some adjustment was made.Mr. President, it seems to me that

looking back on the Martinez record,there is very, very little in terms of hisservice as Governor that would indi-cate a real understanding of the impor-tance of both education and treatment.When we see what the bottom line is ofthe nominee’s push for mandatory sen-tences and his lack of support fortreatment, it seems to me that he hasdisplayed an insufficient understandingof the drug issue.So for those reasons, and the reasons

I have outlined here and in the report,I will vote against the nomination.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Florida is recognized. Whoyields time?Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that my time beequally charged to both sides.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise

to speak in favor of the nomination ofGov. Bob Martinez to the position ofDirector of the National Drug ControlPolicy. Mr. President, I know Bob Mar-tinez. I have worked with him as ateacher, as a leader of teachers, as a

March 21, 19917120

March 21, 1991

mayor of a large city, and as Governorof the fourth largest State in America.That background prepares a person toprovide the coordination of the varietyof programs that have been establishedby this Congress in order to lead Amer-ica’s efforts against drugs.As a teacher he has demonstrated his

understanding of the importance ofeducation as a strategy in terms of ouroverall drug policy. As mayor of alarge city, he has dealt with the fail-ures of adequate treatment and preven-tion programs. As Governor he had theresponsibility to lead our State interms of law enforcement. Those arethe dimensions of the job of the na-tional drug coordinator. I believe thatBob Martinez is well prepared to carryout this responsibility and I urge theCongress to confirm the nomination ofPresident Bush.The directorship is one of the most

important positions in the FederalGovernment. He is dealing with anissue that has been identified for over adecade as one of the key concerns ofAmerica. It is one of the key chal-lenges to the realization of America’sfuture. We cannot afford to lose thewar on drugs. The director will be akey general in assuring that we score avictory.Bob Martinez is a former teacher,

leader of teachers, mayor and Governorof the fourth largest State. Some of mycolleagues have reviewed this nomina-tion and have asked what kind of per-son should we have as our nationaldrug coordinator? Some have suggestedwhat we need is a creator of new pro-grams, an innovator, a person whowould add to our arsenal of tactics inthe war on drugs. My position is thatwe have spent the better part of 10years developing those programs. Whatwe need now is not a person who willhave as his primary job the develop-ment of new programs, but rather toeffectively make the existing programswork.Some have suggested that what we

need is a cheerleader, a promoter,someone who can raise the nationalconsciousness as it relates to our waron drugs. We have had that kind of per-son for the last 2 years, Mr. President.I do not believe this Nation needs to beconvinced that drugs are a seriousproblem. I do not believe this Nationneeds to be convinced it is going totake a multiple set of tactics in orderto achieve our strategic goal.No, I believe that we need a person

who can make the existing programswork; one who will have the hands-onbackground and hands-on commitmentto that definition of the job of director.

It has been suggested that Bob Mar-tinez is to be discounted because he hasa close relationship with the WhiteHouse. Many of us would have pre-ferred the office of director of our Na-tion’s war on drugs to have been morelike the shorthand characterization of

czar that is so frequently used. Thefact is we did not pass a czar. Wepassed a director who depends on theoften voluntary compliance of manyother people in order to be effective.

In the final analysis that voluntarycompliance is going to be tested by theability of the director to pick up thephone and call the White House andask for that support from our Com-mander in Chief in the war on drugs. Ibelieve the very fact that GovernorMartinez has a close relationship withPresident Bush and with the WhiteHouse will be one of his greatest assetsin terms of accomplishing the purposeof the directorship.Bob Martinez is equipped to carry

out this role. He is prepared to providethe style of management that this jobrequires today.Bob Martinez taught school at

Hillsborough County, FL, and was se-lected to be the leader of the teachersof that community. As a teacher, BobMartinez understands the power of edu-cation in the war on drugs. He under-stands the balance between educationand enforcement. He is a former mayorof one of the fastest growing cities inour Nation, Tampa FL. As a big citymayor, he understands the impact ofcocaine; he understands the effect ofcrack on the spiraling rate of crime. Heknows what the needs of the local po-lice are. And, perhaps more important,he has seen the Federal Governmentfrom the perspective of local govern-ment.As Governor of the fourth largest

State in the Nation, Bob Martinez un-derstands the vulnerability of our Na-tion’s coastlines. He knows the needfor effective local, State, and Federalpartnership in cooperation in law en-forcement, education, prevention, andtreatment.Bob Martinez is prepared. He is ready

to serve our country. He is equipped todo the job. I ask my colleagues to joinme in supporting President Bush’snomination of Bob Martinez for Direc-tor of the office of national drug con-trol.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

AKAXA). Who yields time?Mr. GRAHAM. -Mr. President, I sug-

gest the absence of a quorum, and askthe time for the quorum call be equallycharged to the two sides.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered. -All time on the majority side has ex-

pired.Mr. MOYNIHAN. Then I ask there be

an additional 5 minutes permitted themajority.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered. The Senatorfrom New York is recognized.Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I will

vote for Governor Martinez to be theDirector of National Drug Control Pol-icy, but with no enthusiasm; indeed,with a sense of what a failed oppor-tunity, and perhaps what a mistake injudgment we made when we created theposition in the first instance. And, inany event, the potential of the posi-tion, if it did exist, has certainly notbeen realized.

It has been a failure and at some lev-els a disgrace. We have politicized apublic health problem, a problem oflaw enforcement, of societal standards.We have done everything the 1988 legis-lation intended not be done. Nothingmore painfully illustrates this than thefact that the original incumbent of thisoffice was evidently desiring to leave itand become head of a political party, inthis case, the President’s party.

In 1988, the record will show, I wasmuch involved in the drafting of thelegislation. Senator NUNN and I wereappointed by the distinguished Presi-dent pro tempore to deal with the mat-ter. We were cochairs of a task force-I tried to address the question of

treatment. On the House side there hadbeen very powerful legislation directedto law enforcement.As much as one understands the in-

stinct of lawyers-law enforcement-itwas necessary to think of a publichealth problem also in public healthterms. The particular advent of crack,Mr. President, was not reported in lawenforcement journals. It was reportedin a lead article in the Lancet, the pub-lication of the British Medical Associa-tion, published by a Dr. Allen and asso-ciates from the Sandilands Rehabilita-tion Hospital in the Bahamas where, in1983, a new form of free-base cocaineappeared. It was the most powerfuleuphoriant the world yet encountered.Dr. Allen, who has a degree from the

Harvard School of Public Health, saidit would be the reality. As he describedin some of his clinical notes in Com-prehensive Psychiatry: One day in 1984,a man appeared who, the previous day,had cut the head off his dog, drank itsblood, and then stabbed his cousin todeath-a man who had not previouslyexhibited violent behavior. What Dr.Allen learned was the advent of some-thing called crack cocaine.As I recall, the paper, which I will

print in the RECORD, was called "Epi-demic Free-Base Cocaine Abuse: CaseStudy from the Bahamas." Dr. Allensaid it will spread to the United States.We paid no heed. The Centers for Dis-ease Control in Atlanta was deaf tothis warning. It failed utterly to seewhat was coming, and so in the legisla-tion that created the Office of NationalDrug Control Policy, under the Direc-tor we created two deputies, and we

7121CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 21, 1991

tried to conceptualize between theterms supply and demand.Supply is what comes into the coun-

try; supply is what is available. De-mand is when one purchases it for aprice. We thought they would be givenequal allocations of resources. Wemade the first deputy for demand amedical position, obviously, and wethought we would get a response out ofthe epidemiologists of the country, outof the medical profession.Mr. President, I would like to make a

point about which I can only speakwith a measure of tentativeness butwith a long experience, which is to saythat there is very little prestige inscience, and specifically in medicalscience, for dealing with drug addictionand abuse. Why prestige in sciencecomes and goes, I do not know. Thereis a shelf of Nobel Prizes awaitingthose scientists who crack the AIDSvirus, virology being one of the mostadvancing of current fields-full ofprestige, full of achievement.Anyone who finds a blocking agent

for crack cocaine might find himself orherself under suspicion.Dr. Vincent Dole, a distinguished

professor at Rockefeller University inNew York, and Marie Nyswanderproducted a blocking agent for heroinand got precious little credit, if that,Mr. President. A Lasker Award was fi-nally given to Dr. Dole, after Dr.Nyswander passed on.- There is a problem here. The medical

profession probably does not under-stand it because they do not inves-tigate things like this and others whodo have not bothered.The fact is that very little attention

was paid to our insistence in legisla-tion that said treatment had to begiven equal priority. It was not. Even,to be very blunt, having found thatthere was a good epidemiologist, a doc-tor at Yale who was working in thefield who happened to be a Republican,and having got the job, he said, in ef-fect, what am I supposed to do?So we went on to our ritual incanta-

tion of frying the kingpins, and suchlike avoidance of a problem which is,in the first case, a public health prob-lem as well as a law enforcement prob-lem. Behavior problem, yes, but behav-ioral in the context of a new environ-ment, existence of an addictiveeuphoriant that did not exist before; amutant, a new strain to which the spe-cies was suddenly exposed.There was very little comment on

this. There was no attempt to teach,not much effort to learn. It was baf-fling. Perhaps we will not, in fact, everdo much about this subject; it will runits own course. Epidemics run theirown course. Epidemics crash. They donot go on forever. They sometimes endwhen everybody susceptible has died,and sometimes not. We know the epi-demic curve.

In the meantime, the only event thathas happened about treatment in theperiod since the creation of this jobthat I am aware of is the very ener-getic initiative of Gail Wilesky, thehead of the Health Care Financing Ad-ministration, to make treatment forcocaine addiction eligible for Medicaidreimbursement. It was not under thebureaucratic structure that said, let ussee, heroin addiction, we have a treat-ment called methadone; yes, come in,we will give you the treatment; we willcharge you according to the rule bookhere. But there will be no treatmentfor cocaine addiction. You could notcharge it to anything so, therefore, youwere not eligible for reimbursement.Therefore, no research went on, thekind of clinical research we hope to seehappening in the urban hospitalsaround the country.We brought that to the attention of

Dr. Wilensky and she responded verywell. We now have Medicaid reimburse-ment. Pregnant women ferociously ad-dicted to crack cocaine were appearingin New York hospitals and being toldthere is nothing we can do for you.Even as we know that this particulareuphoric, as most will, becomes aver-sive after a while and you would like toget off it.

In the meantime, Mr. President, hav-ing heard almost nothing from the dep-uty Director, much less the Director ofNational Drug Control Policy. Neitherhave we heard anything, Mr. President,from the Director of the National Insti-tute of Drug Abuse that will spend al-most $446 million in the coming fiscalyear, $416 million this year; nearly halfa billion dollars. What they do with itI dare not imagine. They do not teach.They do not teach us.

If it were in order, I would stand hereand propose the abolition of the Na-tional Institute of Drug Abuse as anexample to others; but we are in execu-tive session. They have a real problemon their hands, and what they do withtheir money or their time no one cansay.They do not try to reach out to those

of us who live with this problem, as aNew York Senator has to do. Not at all.Why are we spending this money?

Can they offer any explanation? Canthey show you anything they haveachieved, anything they expect toachieve, anything that will in any wayrespond to our initiative in creating aDirector of National Drug Control Pol-icy?That word "control" is a suspicious

word. It speaks of law enforcement.You are dealing with a health epi-demic. That child in utero with amother using crack cocaine has notbroken any laws but will very likelylead a broken life.We hear nothing from them. What do

they do? Where do they go? Where arethey?

It is a form of avoidance. It is a re-flection of the problem on this subjectin medicine. The medical professionhas never been easy with this issue. Ihave never understood fully why. Part-ly because all these drugs begin asmedicines.Morphine began in the 1840’s as a dis-

tillate of opium, and it was a pain-killer, and God bless. Anyone withIrish teeth such. as mine would rue theday that he lived in an age before mor-phine was available. The hypodermicneedle was invented in the same era. Itwas massively used in the Civil War.Morphine addiction became known as"soldier’s disease." It had an aura thatyou had been at Antietam.Heroin came along, a further inten-

sification, as a treatment for morphineaddiction. Heroin is a trade name. Youcan see it advertised at the turn of thecentury. People who made Bayer aspi-rin tried this out on their employees. AGerman firm, of course. It made themfeel heroic. Thus, heroin.Cocaine was a distillate of coca

leaves. It appeared during the 1880’s.Sigmund Freud first wrote on the useof cocaine to treat morphine addiction,as I recall.But somehow the problems of addic-

tion have never held the attention ofthe medical profession in any way pro-portionate to the problem.

If this was a very rare disease, well,perhaps few people would deal with it.The disease model would be undevel-oped. But this is a common disease.This is a disease of children in utero.In the city of New York we are begin-

ning to get the first first-grade class ofchildren who could have been born tomothers who were using or had usedcrack cocaine, and the journalistic ac-counts are very disturbing, indeed.If there are any accounts of the Na-

tional Institute of Drug Abuse, Mr.President I do not know about them.What in the hell are they doing with

this $416 million? What are they doing?I hope they are watching. I hope theyare listening because this Congressconsciously sought to give drug treat-ment equal status, rank and funding,with law enforcement. We need ablocking agent of some kind for thebrain, which is one organ we still donot seem to really understand. We gotwith it heroin in the form of metha-done.Silence since we passed the bill; in-

difference on the part of the Director.I do not know whether anybody

asked Governor Martinez about hisviews. I do not hold any brief againstGovernor Martinez. I wish him well. Ihope he might hear some of these re-marks. In the meantime, I do ask theNational Institute of Drug Abuse, whatis their justification for continuingtheir existence?The Congress made a very important

decision in creating the position of Di-rector of National Drug Control Policy,

7122

March 21, 1991known as drug czar. I have never asso-ciated the term "czar" with good gov-ernment particularly. I associated"czar" with Siberia and punishmentsand revolutions and God knows what.But, in any event, I do think it was adisappointment this position was po-liticized early.I trust Governor Martinez will know

better than to continue that practice. Ihope he will attend to the statute thatsays treatment is to have equal rankand prestige with law enforcement; notneglecting treatment but attending toit. That is what the statute says. Thatis what Congress expected. That expec-tation has not been fulfilled at all atthis time.Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-

sent that the earlier mentioned articleby Mr. Allen be printed in the REcoRD.There being no objection, the article

was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Lancet Mar. 1, 1986]EPIDnc FREFBASE COCAINE ABUSE

(Case Study from the Bahamas)James F. Jekel, Henry Podlewski, Sandra

Dean-Patterson, David F. Allen, NelsonClarke, Paul Cartwright, Department of Epi-demiology and Public Health, Yale Univer-sity, School of Medicine, New Haven, Con-necticut, USA: Community Psychiatry Clin-ic, Nassau, Bahamas; National Drug Council,Nassau; and Sandilands Rehabilitation Hos-pital and Sandilands Hospital Drug Clinic,Nassau.

SUMMARYBeginning in 1983, a sharp increase was

noted in the number of new admissions forcocaine abuse to the only psychiatric hos-pital and to the primary outpatient psy-chiatric clinic in the Bahamas. For the twofacilities combined, new admissions for co-caine abuse Increased from none in 1982 to 69in 1983 and to 523 in 1984. Although there wassome evidence for a rise in cocaine use dur-ing this time, as the drug became cheaperand more available, a primary cause of thismedical epidemic seemed to be a switch bypushers from selling cocaine hydrochloride,which has a low addictive potential, to al-most exclusive selling of cocaine free base,which has a very high addictive Dotentialand causes medical and psychological prob-lems. Although the use of free cocaine baseis rising around the world, this is the firstreport of a nationwide medical epidemic duealmost exclusively to this form of the drug,although similar problems are reported withsmoking coca paste in South America.

INTRODUC’rIONThe past decade has seen an increase in the

use of cocaine in the United States and UK.This drug is not generally perceived as beingas harmful as herion’ 4 However, data areaccumulating to suggest that cocaine is, in-deed, a very dangerous drug. 5 8Data from the US National Institute on

Drug Abuse point to a 91 percent increase incocaine-related deaths between 1980 and1983.9 Kleber and Gawin 7 have suggested thatcertain drugs have a low proclivity for pro-ducing compulsive-addictive behaviour, sothat, say, less than 15% of people using suchdrugs become addicted; examples are alcoholand marijuana.

Footnotes at end of article.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEAt the other extreme are drugs such as

heroin and nicotine that lead to a compul-sive-additive use pattern in most users. Co-caine may lie at either of these extremes, de-pending on the methods of use.

7 For example,

nasal inhalation of cocaine ("snorting") orchewing coca leaves is unlikely to lead to ad-diction while smoking ("Freebasing") or in-jecting ("shooting") the drug is. A switch inthe pattern of cocaine use from snorting tofreebasing could thus produce a big increasein the number of addicts without a change inthe prevalence of cocaine use.Some are talking now of a cocaine "epi-

demic" because use Of the drug seems to berising steadily.

2 It would be more accurate to

talk of a "long-term secular trend" because"epidemic" suggests a sudden imbalance be-tween the forces that promote and retard adisease. However, a change in cocaine use Inthe Bahamas does not meet the criteria foran epidemic of cocaine abuse.Our study was initiated by -physicians in

the Bahamas who were concerned about anapparent rapid increase in cocaine abuse Inclinical settings. Several sources were exam-ined retrospectively to see if this clinicalperception of a recent large increase in co-caine-related admissions to Psychiatric fa-cilities was accurate.

MELrTHODSThe only psychiatric hospital in the Baha-

mas is the government-run Sandilands Reha-bilitation Hospital (SRH) on New Provi-dence. Patients are referred there from theother islands. In 1980, almost two-thirds ofthe Bahamian population lived on New Prov-idence, mosCt of them in Nassau. The otherthree hospitals in the Bahamas (two on NewProvidence and one on Grand Bahama) sel-dom accept drug abuse patients and have fewpsychiatric patients.The main community mental health clinic

in the Bahamas is the Community Psychia-try Clinic (CPC) in Nassau. Most patientswho do not go to private psychiatrists orother private physicians use the SRH out-patient services or the CPC. The two smallgovernment clinics in Freeport and EightMile Rock saw 47 cocaine addicts in 1984,only 14% of the total seen by Bahamian men-tal health clinch and only 9% of those seen atall government facilities. Drug abuse pa-tients seen in emergency rooms are referredto SRIL Data from the CPC and the SRH onpsychiatric cases provide a more completepicture than could be obtained In most areasof the world. Unfortunately, age and sex spe-cific population data from the 1980 censuswere not yet available so we could not cal-culate incidence rates. However, because thepopulation was stable over the period of thisstudy, data on trends of new cases are almostas interpretable as rates. An incident case ofcocaine abuse was defined as the first admis-sion to the CPC or the SH for cocaineabuse, even if other diseases were present. Ifthe predominant drug in a polydrug user wascocaine, the case was considered a cocaineabuse admission.

Data sources* The CPC publishes a monthly summary ofcases. We focused on new patients. Alcohol-ism, non-cocaine-related drug abuse, and co-caine-related drug abuse were studied fromthe beginning of adequate records in 1982 upto June 30, 1985. Monthly admissions to theSRH were available for 1980-84 and thesedata indicated the number admitted for alco-holism and/or drug dependence (and whetheror not cocaine was the primary drug) anddistinguished first from repeat admissions.Admissions to CPC and SRH for alcoholism

7123showed a slow, steady increase and will notbe discussed further.Drug abuse patients among the wealthy

minority on the Bahamas will usually seekcare outside the CPC or SRH (including theUnited States) and some cases from the fam-ily islands are treated by local physicians.However, there is no evidence of a change inthe accessibility of care or the referral pat-terns in the Bahamas so changes in the pat-tern of new admissions reported here do re-flect changes in the scale of cocaine abuse inthe community. Some patients may havebeen admitted to both the CPC and the SRH,there being no central data system. to ex-clude such duplicate entries. However, doc-tors who work at both places feel that over-lap will have been very small. During thestudy period, only 4 drug patients admittedto the SRH were referred from the CPCLikewise, in discussion with most of the fewprivate psychiatrists on New Providence, itwas clear that few of the Bahamian drugabusers they see are not referred to the CPCor the SRt. We conclude that the combinedincidence data on new drug abusers from theCPC and the SRH cover most people in theBahamas whose use of cocaine or other drugscaused problems severe enough for them toseek medical assistance.

RESULTSComnunity Psjchiatry Clinic

The CPO opened in 1980 but new and re-turning patients were not distinguished inthe clinic statistics until 1982. Fig. 1 showshow quarterly numbers of new cocaine-relat-ed admissions have risen from none in 1982 to299 in 1984, there being a probable decline in1985. During the early phases of cocaine ap-pearance in the CPC, some of the cocaine usemay have been recorded only as "drugabuse" or "drug dependence", but the num-ber of such cases would have been small. Ifthe patient used several drugs (as most did),the drug that seemed to have precipitatedthe problems for which they sought help wasrecorded.Drug abuse increased from 1% of the clin-

ic’s patients in 1982 to 9% in 1982 to 39% in1984, and was 31% in the first 6 months of1985. The big increase in 1984 was due almostentirely to cocaine dependence- Cocaine-re-lated new admissions really began in thethird quarter of 1983. New cases of depressionand/or schizophrenia have been fairly stableover time, suggesting that the Increase indrug patients was not primarily due to in-creased clinic awareness.

Sandland Rehabilitation HospitalSRH has a long tradition of treating acute-

ly ill alcoholics and drug addicts from thewhole of the Bahamas. 86% of the 1984 drugadmissions were from New Providence.Although there were a few cocaine-related

admissions during the first three quarters of1983, a marked increase began in the lastquarter of 1983. The number of first drug ad-missions for which cocaine was the primarycause increased sharply from 1 in 1980 to 224in 1984 (fig. 2). The number of first admis-sions due primarily to other drugs was morestable. So great was the increase in admis-sions for cocaine abuse that recording of ad-mission numbers became less complete afterNovember, 1984; numbers for the last quarterof 1984 are estimated from those for Octoberand November.Often a patient would be admitted with

drug abuse and symptoms suggestive of un-derlying psychiatric disease. Usually theparanoia, hallucinations, and so on were dueto the drug use, so whenever cocaine or otherdrug abuse was indicated as being importantthe patient was considered a drug admission.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 21, 1991Made of cocaine use

Smoking (freebasing) accounted for 98 per-cent of cocaine-related referrals in 1984. Co-caine base (known in the Eastern USA as"crack") is produced when cocaine hydro-chloride powder is treated with alkali. It isvolatile with modest heating and is easilyabsorbed through the lungs and rapidlytransmitted to the brain. Some experiencedaddicts made their own freebase cocaine inthe early 1980s but most did not know how todo it or did not bother, and the predominantform used to be snorting. By 1934 the pusherswere selling only the freebase form, smokedusing a home-made pipe ("camoke"). Whencocaine is smoked up to 80 percent of itreaches the brain, and the "rush" can beginin 8-12 s, producing a short period of ecstasy.This fleeting sensation is most powerful onthe first use of cocaine and though addictsseek to repeat it the same sensation is notexperienced againThe most common pattern of usage varies

from a few hours, during which time the usermay consume 4-5 g cocaine, to a few days ofintermittent use, usually over a weekend,during which time up to 10 g may beconsumed. Most patients report using thedrug at freebasing parties or "base houses".

Clinical spectrumCocaine-dependent individuals usually

seek help during or after some crisis, finan-cial, social, medical, or psychological. Forexample, an addict whose money had gonemight seek help on his own initiative orunder pressure from family. friends, or em-ployers. Others, who had had to steal to sup-port the habit or whose addiction had madethem violent, were referred by the courts.The most common physical were seizures,

severe itching ("the cocaine bug"), loss ofconsciousness ("tripping out"), cardiac ar-rhytbmia, vertigo, pneumonia, gastro-intes-tinal symptoms, and avitaminosis associatedwith severe malnutrition. Several addictswere referred from maternity wards.The cocaine addicts often presented with

severe depression, manifest by unkempt ap-pearance, insomnia, anorexia, withdrawal,and suicidal ideation. There were at least 10cocaine-associated deaths, 5 of which weresuicides. Cocaine psychosis was common; thepatient would present with severe agitation,impaired judgment, paranoid ideation, in-tense denials, violent behaviour, threats ofsuicide or homicide, and hallucinations. Inperiods of lucidity they would try to misleadthe physician, and a relative or friend wasneeded to confirm the psychotic state.

Dmnogruphic characteristicsFor 1984, 81 percent of cocaine admissions

to SRH were males and male drug abusers ingeneral were aged 11-56 years (mean 25). Co-caine users tended to be slightly older thanother drug users (26 vs 22.5 years). Femaledrug addicts were aged 15-39 years (mean 24years). Almost all patients were Bahamian.

Other forms of surveillanceMost patients seen at the Sandilands Hos-

pital drug clinic were referred after dis-charge from the SRH so data from this clinicwere not included. About 60 percent of thepatients seen were using both cocaine andcannabis, although it had usually been co-caine that had precipitated the hospital ad-mission. Neither suicide nor drug-relateddeath is usually recorded on death certifi-cates in the Bahamas so we decided not touse vital statistics as a surveillance method.Police statistics showed some increase instreet drug arrests in 1984, but not of themagnitude suggested by the clinic and hos-pital admission data. In 000-00 drug arrests

averaged 1094 a year with no clear trend overtime. There were 1501 arrests for 1984, an in-crease of 37 percent.

DISCUSSIONIn the Bahamas, data from public psy-

chiatric services demonstrate an epidemic ofcocaine abuse requiring medical care. Canna-bis and alcohol were often used to controladverse symptoms from cocaine use. In early1983 something-a major change in the inci-dence of new drug users, especially cocaineusers, or in the method of use-upset the pre-vious drug-use equilibrium, suddenly forcinghundreds of people to seek treatment forcomplications of drug abuse.The most obvious explanation is that co-

caine was suddenly introduced to the islandsor that its price fell. Former addicts, whowere on cocaine in the 1911s, confirm that co-caine powder had been available, if expen-sive, for years, but that In late 1982 or early1983 the drug suddenly became much moreplentiful as production in South America in-creased. The street price of cocaine in Nas-sau fell to one-fifth of its former level.Ex-addicts also told us that at about the

time that cocaine became more plentiful andcheaper drug pushers switched from sellingpowdered cocaine ("snow") for nasal inhala-tion or injection to the pure alkaloid form("Rocks" or "freebase") which is used exclu-sively for smoking. It suddenly became verydifficult to obtain powder in Nassau. Bymaking this change, the drug pushers wereforcing all cocaine users to become addicts.Many pushers are themselves addicts andhave to sell the drug to feed their own hab-its. Selling freebase guarantees an eagermarket for the increasingly available co-caine.Smith"

o claims that an important reason

for the increase in cocaine deaths in the SanFrancisco area was higher potency cocaine.Siegel ’ reported that the recovery of cocainefree base from pure cocaine hydrochloride,using various street kits, ranged from 41% to72% and, although the kits removed some ofthe adulterants, some lignocaine and ephed-rine, for example, was often left with the co-caine. Ex-addicts indicated that the streetcocaine powder in Nassau had usually been"cut" (diluted) about 50% before sale. Al-though we have no direct data about cocainepurity, the sources for the cocaine remainedsimilar; nor is the extraction process perfect.Changes in levels of purity seem to be an in-adequate explanation for our findings.We conclude that the medical epidemic of

cocaine-related physical and psychiatricproblems in the Bahamas was related to theinteraction of the availability of cheaper co-caine and a switch from powder to free base.Monitoring the method of selling may be

critical both for Western nations, the targetsof the cocaine market, and for developingnations such as the Bahamas via which thedrug is shipped and those South Americancountries that produce it. We found surveil-lance of medical services to be a quick andeffective way of monitoring some aspects ofthe drug situation in the Bahamas, and itcould be in the self-interest of target nationsto assist producer and trans-shipment coun-tries not only to control drug abuse but alsoto maintain an intensive surveillance sys-tem. As cocaine freebasing becomes morepopular and particularly if the vending pat-tern switches to the freebase form (as isstarting to happen in some US cities), emer-gency rooms, mental health clinics, and pay-chiatric hospitals will need to prepare for anunprecedented influx of drug addicts.Supported in part by grant from Council

for International Exchange of Scholars, US

Information Agency. J.F.J. Is a Fulbrightfaculty research fellow. We thank Dr. Nor-man Gay, Minister of Health, Common-wealth of the Bahamas: Ms. Barbara Mclin-ley Coleman, National Drug Council; and Mr.Moses Deveaux, Sandilands RehabilitationHospital for their support. And we pay trib-ute to the memory of Chrysostom Finlaysonwho, besides providing critical insight forthis paper, gave his life in the war againstdrugs.Correspondence to J.F.J., Department of

Epidemiology and Public Health, School ofMedicine, Yale University, P0 Box 3333, 60College Street, New Haven, Connecticut06510, USA.

REFERENCES1Siegel RK. Cocaine smoking, J Psychcactive Drugs

1982; 14: 000-005.2’Robins LN, The natural history of adolescent

drug use. Am J Publ Hith 1984; 74: 65W-57.30’Maey PH, Bachman JG. Johnston LD. Period,

age, and cohort effects on substance abuse amongAmerican youth. Am ) Pub[ Health 1984; 74: 000-00.4Fae JJ, Young RT, Levitt C. Cocaine abuse: the

evolution from coca leaves to freebase. J Drag Edsc1981; 11: 000-00.’SpOtt JV, Shontz FC. Dreg-induced ego states 1:

Cocaine: phenomenology and Implications, Int ) Ad-dictfos 1984; 19:000-00.t m

Howard RE. Rueter DC. Davis (J. Acute myocar-dial infarction following cocaine abuse In a youngwoman with normal coronary arteries. jAMA 1985;254: 95-96.7X3eber RD, Gawin FH. The spectrum of cocaine

abuse and its treatment. J Clie Psychiatr 1984; 45:18-23.’Bozarth MA. Wise R. Toxicity associated with

long-term intravenous heroin and cocaine self-ad-ministration in the rat. JAMA 185; 254: l81OPolln W. The danger of cocaine. JAMA 1985; 254:

18."0Smith DE. Cited In Med Ness Dec. 10, 184:6.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, thehour of 1:30 has appeared. I respectfullyyield the floor, my colleague from NewMexico having arisen.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is

there any time remaining?The PRESIDING OFFICER. There

are 23 minutes on the side of the Sen-ator.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I as-

surne there will be others who desire touse some of the time.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from New Mexico is recognized.Mr. DOMENICOL I yield myself 2 min-

utes.Mr. President, I rise today to support

President George Bush’s nominee forNational Drug Control Policy Director.That is actually his title. I do notknow the former Governor of the Stateof Florida very well. I have met withhim and acquainted myself with himsince he was nominated. I knew himfrom a distance. I have now had an op-portunity to look into his backgroundand his efforts both before he was Gov-ernor and after he was Governor. I haveno doubt he will do a good job for thisPresident and our people.Many in Congress remain very con-

cerned about the drug problem in thiscountry. We have put a lot of new lawsin place, a lot of new funding. We havecreated this new policy position withSecretary and Cabinet status.We have seen some statistics which

would indicate we are gaining in somerespects in this war on drugs. But they

7124

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

are very, very paradoxical because, onthe other hand, we are losing. While weare gaining in terms of fewer partici-pants in illegal drugs overall, and fewerhigh school students, those who arestaying in school, the hard drugs, thecrack, and that type of drug, which hassuch enormous potential for harm,seems to be gaining in use.So we still have a very big job in

front of us. It is a war. This is a bigenough one to ruin America’s society,if it continues at the pace that is cur-rently in the streets of the UnitedStates, in our homes, and in ourschools.So I am very hopeful that this nomi-

nee is going to do a good job.Mr. President, on November 23, 1990,

President George Bush announced hisintention to nominate Florida Gov.Bob Martinez as the second NationalDrug Control Policy Director. ThePresident called the appointment, abattlefield promotion for a leader whohas earned his stripes on the frontlines. As former Governor and mayor,Bob Martinez will be especially effec-tive in joining hands with local leaders.As a teacher who spent 7 years in theclassroom, he knows the long-term keyto winning this effort to stop drugabuse before it starts.I rise today in support of the Presi-

dent’s nomination of Governor Mar-tinez to this important position. Hehas a strong record of experience infighting the plague of drugs. As thesouthernmost point of the continentalUnited States, Florida has been be-sieged by illegal drug smuggling andthe problems resulting from drug-relat-ed crime and use. As Governor, Mar-tinez vigorously responded to the crisisin Florida with some of the Nation’smost innovative antidrug policies. Hishands-on experience at both the Stateand local levels make him uniquelyqualified to tackle the problem at a na,tional level.Mr. President, standing on a strong

and committed record, Governor Mar-tinez will be a challenging nationalcommander in the fight against drugs,a leader capable of uniting Federal,State, and local governments behind aneffective and balanced antidrug policy.There are many examples of his

strong leadership. Bob Martinez wasthe first Governor to appoint a Statedrug czar to coordinate antidrug ac-tivities and agencies in Florida.He was appointed by President

Reagan to the White House Conferenceon a Drug-Free America in 1987, wherenational leaders gathered to discussthe fight against drugs. Among otherinitiatives proposed by the conference,their recommendations to increase ca-pacity and accountability in the treat-ment system, drug test in the through-out the criminal justice system, andenforce drug-free schools policy withclear sanctions were subsequently in-

eluded in President Bush’s nationaldrug control strategy.Governor Martinez led Florida in im-

plementing the Nation’s first com-prehensive Drug-Free Workplace Pro-gram for State government workers.He inaugurated the program by takingthe first drug test himself.Understanding drugs as a security

threat, Governor Martinez was one ofthe first State leaders to bring the re-sources of the National Guard into thedrug fight to assist other agencies incargo inspections, air reconnaissance,observation, and transportation.He coordinated drug information ex-

changes with other Southern StateGovernors and New York GovernorCuomo, went to Florida to seek guid-ance because of the extraordinary suc-cess of Florida’s drug laws.The Spanish speaking Governor trav-

eled to Colombia, Bolivia, and Panamato meet with their leaders and supporttheir efforts, especially the Colombiancrackdown against the drug lords. Heencouraged President Bush to lend fullUnited States assistance to the Colom-bian effort.Mr. President, he also has a strong

record in the area of criminal justiceand drug testing. Governor Martinezdoubled the State’s prison capacity,constructing more beds than the pre-vious 20 years and increasing the pris-on budget from $417 million to $1 bil-lion.The Governor encouraged using pris-

oners to build over 14,000 new prisonbeds, raze crack houses, and maintainhighways and parks. This programsaved the Florida taxpayers over 3359million.The Governor proposed the expansion

of the death penalty provision to in-dlude major drug traffickers. This pen-alty, similar to the Bush administra-tion’s proposal, permits the use of thedeath penalty for traffickers of largeamounts of cocaine and heroin.Mr. President, I believe that Gov.

Bob Martinez will prove to be a veryfine leader as National Drug ControlPolicy Director. I am very pleased thatPresident Bush has chosen him to fillthis position, and I intend to supporthis nomination.I thank the Chair. From our side, we

are prepared to put in a quorum callunless there is something else.I suggest the absence of a quorum,

Mr. President.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask for

the yeas and nays on the Martineznomination.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second? There is a sufficientsecond.The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President I rise

with some reluctance to support thenomination of Robert Martinez to beDirector of the Office of National DrugControl Policy. Governor Martinez em-bodies an approach toward the drugcrisis that is nearly 180 degrees counterto my own. Only my respect for thePresident’s traditional right to choosethe members of his leadership teamand my hope that Governor Martinez iscapable of learning from the stark re-alities of his prospective job compel meto vote to confirm him as the Nation’ssecond drug czar.Mr. President, I have strong reserva-

tions about the nominee. I am fearfulthat Governor Martinez will continuethe Bush administration’s misguidedoveremphasis on enforcement as op-posed to rehabilitation, on supply asopposed to demand. This policy is re-flected in the fiscal year 1992 drugbudget request which, while adding $1billion to the war on drugs, unwiselycontinues to provide 70 percent of fundsto law enforcement activities and only30 percent to treatment efforts.There is little in Martinez’ record as

Governor of Florida to suggest that hehas plans to deviate from this formula-As my distinguished colleagues Sen-ators KENNmDY, MErzENAUm, andSIMON note in their minority opinion inthe Judiciary Committee’s report onthis nomination, during Governor Mar-tinez’ tenure in Tallahassee, the Stateranked 21st in the Nation in substanceabuse treatment funding and 32d inprevention funding. When he took of-fice in 1986, Florida was spending about$35 million in substance abuse treat-ment; by 1990, that level had risen toonly $42 million. In contrast, he boost-ed spending on corrections from 3514million to $859 million. As a result ofGovernor Martinez’ supply orientedpolicy, more than 45,000 Floridians in1987 alone were arrested on drug pos-session charges, the majority of whomwere not hardened criminals and thuscould probably have been rehabilitatedat much less financial and social costthan it did to arrest, prosecute, andimprison them.This wild imbalance in priorities

may reflect a troubling predispositionon Governor Martinez’ part to viewdrug addicts as criminals beyond re-demption, as individuals who warrantno further consideration beyond nightarrests and a cold jail cell. If so, this isa shallow and pessimistic view of thehuman condition, and a shortsightedone as well. By focusing on catching,prosecuting, and incarcerating drug of-fenders, he ignores the fact that mostof the thousands arrested on drug pos-session charges during his tenure werenot violent criminals, but troubled in-dividuals who, if they had access to

March 21, 1991 7125

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

drug education and treatment pro-grams, could have been given an oppor-tunity to turn their lives around. With-out addressing this possibility, it is farmore likely that these individuals willremain addicted, continue to break thelaw, and cost the taxpayers hundreds ofmillions of dollars in enforcementcosts. Paradoxically, by crowding theprisons with nonviolent offenders, Mar-tinez also forced the early release ofviolent criminals, a counterproductivepolicy if ever there was one.Mr. President, no one understands

better than I the importance of a lawenforcement component to any effec-tive drug program. I have authored leg-islation-included in modified form aspart of last year’s crime package-toincrease criminal penalties for sale anddistribution of crystal methamphet-amine, or ice as it is known on thestreets. I have supported Federal law-enforcement grants for my State tobeef up the ability of our police au-thorities to arrest drug pushers anddrug abusers. I have encouraged addi-tional funding for the Coast Guard intheir drug interdiction efforts.But I also recognize tht these are

essentially stopgap solutions. This Na-tion must attack the root causes ofdrug abuse-poverty, alienation, andignorance. If we are serious about thiscrisis, we will attack drugs throughprevention and education programs inhomes, in classrooms, in workplaces, aswell as in the streets. We need torefocus antidrug efforts and marshalour national resources to providegreater access to more effective treat-ment for those seeking it. We particu-larly need to protect drug-exposed in-fants and preserve families. Women arebearing drug-addicted children becausethere are no treatment slots avail-able-much less ones that will allowthem to keep their families intact.Mr. President, these are the types of

programs that we need to emphasize. Iam not sure that Governor Martinez isup to this challenge, particularly as heis apparently unwilling to forego usingthe drug policy office as a bully pulpitfor political messages. Senators SIMONand MErZENBAUM raised this particularconcern at the recent Judiciary Com-mittee hearings, in which the nomineecould not absolutely assure then thathe would refrain from politicizing theoffice of drug czar of from making cam-paign speeches. It is ironic, and per-hape tragic, that our first two drug pol-icy directors have been political ratherthan professional appointments.Mr. President, these are harsh words.-

But I say them in the hope that Gov-ernor Martinez, a reasonable and hon-orable man I am sure, will heed themin his new office after he is confirmed.I hope that the Governor understandsthat addressing an entire Nation’s drugproblem requires a larger perspectiveand deeper understanding than he hashitherto demonstrated as a State offi-

cial. I hope that he finds time to listento those of us who call for a more bal-anced approach to a national crisis-one that it is no exaggeration to saythreatens our social, economic, and po-litical institutions. It is only this hope,and the respect I hold for the executivebranch’s traditional prerogatives, thatallows to me to set aside my reserva-tions and support Governor Martinezfor this important position.Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the

individual who becomes the next Direc-tor of National Drug Control Policyhas a unique opportunity to build onrecent successes.Since September 1989, the Federal

Government has implemented amultipronged national strategy to at-tack the use and the trafficking in ille-gal drugs.This comprehensive strategy-involv-

ing not only governments at all levelsbut the private sector as well-hashelped to change the country’s attitudetoward illegal drugs and those who useand traffick in them--especially to-ward those who are casual or rec-reational drug users.And, after decades of hoping that the

problem would "just go away," theAmerican people-the vast majority ofwhom are lawabiding citizens-are fi-nally speaking with one voice: drug useis wrong-, it will no longer be tolerated;and it must stop.This unambiguous message-re-

flected in most reputable nationalpolls--is probably more important thanany government initiative. And it isgetting through loud and clear.So, as I view it, we are at a critical

juncture in the war against drugs.And that is where the Office of Na-

tional Dreg Control Policy and its Di-rector come in.As I have stated before, the one thing

that the Director of national drug con-trol policy can do best is to be thetough "voice" of a coordinated cam-paign against those who-because oftheir disregard for the rights of law-abiding citizens-are at war with ourcommunities.Another role is to be an advocate for

antidrug education and drug treat-ment, as well.But education and treatment-on-de-

mand programs--although appealing-should not be supported blindly, with-out any accountability and actual re-duction in the drug using population.Because it is utopian to suggest that

we know how to educate the whole pop-ulation against using drugs, or knowhow to successfully treat every drugaddict, and simply lack more money todo so.No one can say how well Governor

Martinez will exercise the bully pulpitas drug czar.Nor, can anyone say to what extent

he will resist the urge to simply spendmore money.

But-based on his appearance beforeour committee and his private meetingwith me-I support his nomination tobecome the next Director of the Officeof National Drug Control Policy.My support is based on my expecta-

tion that Governor Martinez will con-tinue the successful strategies thathave marked our recent national drugcontrol policy.Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, when the

Bush administration took office over 2years ago, this Nation was told thatour most urgent national prioritywould be a war on drugs. In his inau-gural address, President Bush promisedto rid this Nation of the plague of co-caine, and to commit the resources ofhis administration to a successfulstrategy of interdiction, tough crimi-nal sentences for drug offenders, andtreatment and education.The President’s first drug czar, Wil-

liam Bennett, came to the positionwith no background at all in either lawenforcement or drug treatment andprevention. The Bennett era wasmarked by high visibility speech-mak-ing, talk show appearances, and oneliners that served primarily to makeWilliam Bennett a household word, buthad little discernable impact on druguse in this country. I well recall Mr.Bennett’s promise to make the Districtof Columbia a litmus test of his na-tional strategy. Despite Mr. Bennett’shectic, campaign-style, public appear-ance schedule, he could never find thetime to testify before the District ofColumbia Appropriations Subcommit-tee, which I chair. Despite his personalpromise delivered to the citizens ofYakima County, WA that "help is onthe way" he never took the time to re-vise his "high intensity drug traffick-ing" strategy to include that belea-guered community in his plan.Now we are presented with a second

drug czar with a demonstrated lack ofappreciation for the urgent need for astrategy that will work. Nothingspeaks more eloquently of GovernorMartinez’ failure to grasp the nature ofthe problem than does his own recordas Governor of Florida. During thattime, Florida ranked 1st in the Nationin incarcerations, 21st in substanceabuse treatment funding, and 32d inprevention funding.Mr. President, this Nation already

leads the entire world in the rate of in-carceration of citizens. The entire Fed-eral budget could be devoted to build-ing more prisons, and we would stillhave a drug problem. I want to see anational drug policy that commitsfunds to prosecuting and imprisoning.We need early intervention throughprograms like DARE. I want to seecities and towns, and counties likeYakima, WA, get a fair share of theFederal resources devoted to this waron drugs.This war is being fought, not just in

courtrooms, but in schoolrooms, and in

7126 SMarch 21, 1991

March 21, 1991 Crehabilitation and treatment pro-grams, and through outreach effortsthat keep pregnant women from turn-ing the next generation of children intococaine-abused infants.If President Bush is to succeed as our

Commander in Chief in the domesticwar on drugs, he should find the bestexpert available for this crucial posi-tion. He should be nominating "theNorman Schwarzkopf of Drug Strate-gies" to this post. With all due respectto Governor Martinez, there is very lit-tle evidence that he has the experience,the vision, or the commitment, to bethat kind of a leader. Therefore, I with-hold my consent on this nominee.Mr. SANFORD. Mr. President, I

would like to make a statement re-garding the nomination of Bob Mar-tinez to become the director of the Of-fice on National Drug Control Policy. Iam aware of the debate that occurredduring his nomination hearing in theLabor Committee and I regret I wasnot able to participate in the discus-sions. I share the concern of the Sen-ators who are in opposition to Mr. Mar-tinez’ appointment as drug czar be-cause of his strong focus on law en-forcement and supply-side policies. Theadministration needs to recognize theimportance of treatment and rehabili-tation programs in the drug war effortsand it needs to make funding of thoseprograms a priority.This country is facing a crisis. The

debilitating effects of drug abuse havereached all parts of our society. Wedesperately need to develop a new andeffective national drug strategy.The administration in the past has

been successful in deflecting attentionfrom the persistence of heavy drug usein our inner cities. It was cited thatdrug use has gone down, but I wouldargue as would many others that drugaddictions have increased. If the ad-ministration continues to underesti-mate the size of the addict population,there will continue to be a lopsideddrug war and a lack of balance betweensupply and demand efforts.No one disputes the fact that the war

on drugs is a multifaceted battle. Sub-stance abuse is a disease which must betreated, just as drug dealers are crimi-nals who must be arrested and jailed.Demand reduction efforts must receiveas much attention as supply reductionefforts if drug abuse is truly to be con-trolled. Education components mustwork in unison with enforcement meas-ures. Treatment must be a part of ourprogram to stop the proliferation ofdrugs.I challenge Mr. Martinez to be sen-

sitive to the various facets of drugabuse control and to promote policiesthat bring parity to the administra-tion’s efforts in controlling the demandand supply of illicit drugs. I also chal-lenge him to craft policies which wouldallow Federal programs to work withthose that are developed in commu-

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

cities to fight drug use. We must en-courage communities to fight back, forwithout the cooperation and coordina-tion of our communities, the drug waris war against the poor, theuneducated, minorities, and ruralfolks.I am aware that the State of Florida

is believed to be the entry point forover 70 percent of the cocaine smuggledinto the United States, thus interdic-tion programs are essential. However,should Mr. Martinez nomination beconfirmed, I challenge him to remem-ber that he is now leading the cam-paign against drugs in respect to theentire country. I trust that he will re-flect considerably on his 7 years as aneducator, and teach America the vitalrole that education must play if we areto win this war. It is through educationand improved social conditions that wemust show our citizens not to turn todrugs in despair.

In the wake of our successful mili-tary campaign in the Persian Gulf, wemust now turn our attention to the do-mestic campaign that needs to bewaged at home. I implore Mr. Martinezand the administration to carefullyconsider all facets of the drug war incrafting their drug policies and havevision enough to recognize the impor-tance in providing adequate treatment,rehabilitation, and education programsin fighting the war on drugs. Our mostprecious resources, our citizens, mustnot be forgotten in our efforts to con-trol illicit substances.Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President,

I rise today to support the President’snomination of Bob Martinez to be thenext Director of the Office of NationalDrug Control Policy. The Martineznomination has been endorsed by animpressive array of political and civicleaders, drug treatment and preventionorganizations, and law enforcement of-ficials. I am pleased to add my name tothat list. Bob Martinez is an excellentchoice to lead America’s war on drugs.Henry Ford once remarked, "The

question, ’Who ought to be boss?’ islike asking ’Who ought to be the tenorin the quartet?’ Obviously, the manwho can sing tenor." I believe thatPresident Bush has chosen the right"tenor" for the job. Bob Martinez hasalready proven that he is an innova-tive, effective leader in the war ondrugs.When he served as the mayor of

Tampa, Martinez played a key role inforging the national drug policy rec-ommendations of the U.S. Conferenceof Mayors. And during his 4 years asGovernor of Florida, Martinez madethe battle against drug importationand abuse a high priority. He galva-nized public support and initiated sev-eral successful innovative programs inFlorida to combat drugs. In a Statethat was believed to be the entry pointfor over 70 percent of the cocaine thatis smuggled into the United States, the

7127leadership of Bob Martinez broughtabout Florida’s first drop in drug relat-ed crimes in years.Bob Martinez believes in a holistic

strategy to fight drug abuse, througheducation, enforcement, and treat-ment. As a former educator, Martinezis especially supportive of programsthat educate America’s youth to thedangers of drugs. He is committed tothe expansion of treatment programsfor the victims of drug abuse. He willbe a tough, but fair, enforcer of our Na-tion’s drug laws. And as a formermayor and Governor, Bob Martinez willbe especially sensitive to the need for aState-Federal partnership in combat-ing drugs.Mr. President, I hope that my col-

leagues will join me in confirming BobMartinez, the President’s outstandingchoice for the next Director of the Of-fice of National Drug Control Policy.Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President,

President Bush’s nomination of Gov.Bob Martinez for Director of the Officeof National Drug Control Policy comesat a crucial point in this Nation’s ef-fort to fight drugs. When Congress cre-ated this position, it did so in responseto a crisis which threatened our coun-try’s future. Under the direction of thefirst Director, William J. Bennett, theOffice of National Drug Control Policytook the first step toward developing acoordinated drug strategy, and the Waron Drugs began.Since that time, progress has been

made. There are encouraging signs thatour efforts are paying off. But the drugcrisis is still a reality. In many ways,we have just begun to realize howstrong an impact illegal drugs have onall levels of our society. Drug use hashad a startling influence on our com-munities, from the State and local lawenforcement officers who hold the lineon crime and violence in the streets, tohealth care professionals who struggleto meet the special needs of drug de-pendent mothers and their children.The War on Drugs has not been wonand it will be up to the next Director ofthis Nation’s drug policy to see that itis fought with all the power and wis-dom this Nation can muster.I supported the nomination of Gov-

ernor Martinez in committee, and willvote for his confirmation. As Governorof Florida, a State which has experi-enced its own dreg crisis, he is wellaware of the problems that illegal dregtraffic creates. Miami is one of the fivedesignated high intensity drug traf-ficking areas, and Governor Martinezknows how important cooperation be-tween the Federal Government andState and local agencies is to imple-menting an effective drug strategy. Hisinvolvement in developing a plan onsubstance abuse and drug traffickingfor the National Governors’ Associa-tion will be helpful in developing andimplementing our Nation’s plan tofight drugs.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 21, 1991

As I stated earlier, this is a criticaltime in our country’s War on Drugs.Governor Martinez will have to exer-cise strong leadership to continue theprogress achieved thus far. With a crit-ical eye, he will have to define whichprograms outlined in the drug strate-gies of the past have yielded the mostpositive results, and fight for their con-tinuation. He will also have to elimi-nate those initiatives which have notbeen successful and determine whatcan be done in their place. I hope thathe will take the time to visit each ofthe high intensity drug traffickingareas to see first hand how accuratelythe priorities of our Nation’s drug con-trol policy reflects the needs of thecommunities hardest hit by the War onDrugs.We place in his hands a tremendous

responsibility-to respond to the needsof Federal, State, and local agencies,to ensure the continued vigilance andcommitment by the administration tothe War on Drugs, and to work withmembers of the appropriate commit-tees to forge a sound drug policy thatadequately addresses the problems oftoday while anticipating the problemsof the future. As a member of the Ap-propriations Subcommittee whichoversees the funding of the Office ofNational Drug Control Policy, I will beespecially interested in the prioritiesset forth by Governor Martinez as hedefines the agenda for drug control ef-forts in the 1990’s.

It will not always be easy. It will re-quire the same thoughtfulness andcommitment that our country exhib-ited in- declaring a military victory inthe Persian Gulf. If we truly are wag-ing a war on drugs, I hope that Gov-ernor Martinez will step forward anddemonstrate the leadership necessaryfor us to win. I wish him the best ofluck in this endeavor and look forwardto working closely with him upon hisconfirmation.Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, few jobs in

the Government are more difficult-and more important--than that of Di-rector of the Office of National DrugControl Policy.And few Americans are more quali-

fled to serve in this position than BobMartinez.As a public school teacher, as mayor

of Tampa, and as Governor of Florida,Bob Martinez has fought on the frontlines against the drug traffickers whopoison our communities and our chil-dren.Governor Martinez knows what

works and what doesn’t. He knows wecan’t moollycoddle drug dealers andkingpins. He knows the necessity fordrug treatment centers. He knows thatour children must continue to be edu-cated about the dangers of drugs.Mr. President, under the leadership

of President Bush, we are makingprogress in the war against drugs. Pub-lic attitudes are turning against those

who use or sell narcotics. Studies showthat drug use seems to be decreasing.Resources for law enforcement andtreatment are at record levels. And ourCentral and South American allies areworking with us to put drug cartels outof business.There is, however, much more work

to be done. More criminals to be lockedup, more victims to be treated, morecartels to close down, more children tosave.In closing, let me ask my colleagues

to give Governor Martinez the time todo his job. Over 70 committees in theHouse and Senate exercise some au-thority over narcotics. Sometimes itseemed that former Director Bennettwas up here everyday for one hearingor another.The gulf war was a success because,

once the war started, Congress didn’tmicromanage or second guess our gen-erals.Let’s do the same here. Let’s resist

the temptation to micromanage thewar against drugs. Governor Martinezhas the experience, the skills, and thesupport of the President needed to getthe job done. Let’s allow him to do justthat.Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to

express my strong support for the con-firmation of Bob Martinez as drug czarof the United States.Governor Martinez will bring to this

position a wealth of experience andknowledge. The Governor’s testimonybefore the Judiciary Committee lastmonth was further testament to hisdedication to the war against drugsand his ability to lead the Nation inthis fight.As mayor and Governor of a State

beseiged by illegal drug smuggling,drug abuse, and drug-related crime,Governor Martinez brings a unique per-spective which is invaluable to imple-menting a nationwide strategy involv-ing all levels of government.As a junior high and high school

teacher for 7 years, he is fully aware ofthe pressures our young people faceduring their most vulnerable years,and the support they need to steerclear of drugs. Educating kids aboutthe dangers and real-life consequencesof drug use is key to putting drug deal-ers out of business and winning thedrug war.Governor Martinez has been a leader

in the drug war both on the State andnational level. He was the NationalGovernor’s Association’s spokesman ondrug issues, traveled to a number ofSouth American drug producing coun-tries to support antidrug efforts, in-cluding the Colombian crackdownagainst the drug lords, and was ap-pointed by President Reagan to theWhite House Conference on a drug-freeAmerica in 1987.Among his accomplishments as Gov-

ernor, Governor Martinez led Floridain implementing the Nation’s first

comprehensive drug-free workplaceprogram for State government work-ers; expanded the concept of drug-freezones in Florida by imposing manda-tory minimum sentences on individualsconvicted of drug activity near publicparks and playgrounds, public housingfacilities, colleges and universities; de-veloped alternative forms of incarcer-ation for nonviolent offenders, includ-ing boot camps; doubled the State’sprison capacity, constructing morebeds than in the previous 20 years; sup-ported a program which saved the Flor-ida taxpayers over $359 million byusing prisoners to build prison beds,raze crack houses and maintain high-ways and parks; and successfully pur-sued a plan to target career criminalsby imposing stiffer penalties for repeatoffenders.Governor Martinez has the knowl-

edge, experience and initiative to leadthe Nation in the fight against drugs.Bob is an excellent choice for the joband I hope that the Senate will give itsfull support for his nomination.Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will

support this nomination.Most Americans think of illegal drug

use as an almost exclusively urbanproblem. There is no doubt drugsplague all our big cities; it is a problemof tragic proportions.Yet some Americans think of rural

America, places like Montana, as anoasis-a place free from the scourge ofdrugs.I wish this were the case. Unfortu-

nately it is not:Earlier this year, nine people were

charged with conducting a sophisti-cated scheme to launder Colombiandrug money in northwest Montana;Last year, I joined with Senator

PRYOR in requesting a General Ac-counting Office study of the rural drugproblem. GAO found that the preva-lence of substance abuse in rural Amer-ica is roughly the same as that inurban America;According to testimony by Pete Dun-

bar, the former U.S. district attorneyfor Montana, before the Senate Judici-ary Committee, Montana is a majorcenter for the production of meth-amphetamine-a deadly drug some-times called Crank.Mr. President, last year, with the

leadership of the distinguished chair-man of the Judiciary Committee, thisbody passed a rural drug initiative aspart of the crime bill. I am proud tohave helped draft this important pieceof legislation.However, as the above examples

point out, much work remains to bedone. We cannot walk away from thisproblem; we cannot turn our backs onrural Amercia.As drug policy czar, Governor Mar-

tinez must make eliminating thescourge of rural drugs a top priority.I have personally brought this mat-

ter to the Governor’s attention. From

7128

March 21, 1991 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

our discussion, I am satisfied he will beresponsive to this urgent need of ruralAmerica.For this reason, I am pleased to sup-

port his nomination. I look forward toworking with Governor Martinez in theyears ahead.Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am

pleased to lend my strong support toGov. Bob Martinez as Director of theNational Drug Control Policy.As a nation, we have clearly dem-

onstrated our ability to successfullyshore our resolve and commit our re-sources and effectively and decisivelywage war. With this same strength ofpurpose, we must continue to battlethe scourge of drugs. One child born ad-dicted to crack, one teenager slain, is aprice our society can ill afford to bear.In my travels throughout my State

of Indiana, I have visited neonatalunits overwhelmed by drug addictedbabies. I have listened to children in-creasingly fearful of violence in theschools, I have heard mothers anxiousabout the intrusion of gangs, I havetalked to police chiefs and prosecutorsabout a criminal justice system over-whelmed.And yet, I have also sensed a new re-

solve to do the hard work of recaptur-ing our schools and neighborhoods, ofcleansing our communities from theplague of drugs. Drug use in any formis no longer tolerable to the sociallyresponsible. We cannot in good con-science divorce the violence we see onour streets from each individual’s deci-sion to abuse drugs. Among the heart-ening successes of our efforts to date-first time drug use among high schoolstudents is at its lowest point in over adecade and casual drug use has de-clined by more than 30 percent.Former drug czar, William Bennett,

thoughtfully has drawn the battlelines. We must consistently apply stiffsocial sanctions to discourage drug useand we must compassionately helpthose seeking treatment and assist-ance. I was pleased to sponsor legisla-tion last session allowing schools to in-stitute random drug testing for thosestudents engaging in extracurricularactivities. Our young people must learnthat drug abuse has consequences.Finally, we have a message to the

drug terrorists of the world. Do notprovoke the wrath of this great Nation.Our military has demonstrated its an-paralleled ability to precisely pinpointtargets and to effectively protect ourshores. We are serious and we are com-mitted. We are determined to prevail.Governor Martinez has been on the

front lines of the drug battle. TheState of Florida has been a testingground for interdiction efforts andcrackdowns on distribution networks. Iam confident that he will demonstratethe same commendable leadership ashis predecessor, and I commend thePresident on his nomination.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wouldlike to express my support for thePresident’s nomination of Gov. BobMartinez to be the National Drug Con-trol Policy Director. This is a vitallyimportant position, and I believe thePresident has chosen his nominee well.As we all know so well, the war on

drugs calls for a three-pronged ap-proach. First, we must increase our ef-forts to control drug trafficking sothat less drugs will be available. Sec-ond, we must ensure that there areenough programs for treatment and re-habilitation of people who currentlyuse drugs. Third, and certainly as im-portant, we must educate your young-sters so that they will not become drugusers. Governor Martinez, who is also aformer mayor and teacher, understandsthe need for all three facets of this pro-gram. Moreover, he has already re-sponded to the challenge.Due to its proximity to many of the

drug producing countries in LatinAmerica, Florida has been inundatedwith drug smuggling drug-relatedcrime and drug use. In response, in1988, Governor Martinez was the firstGovernor to appoint a State drug czarwhose mandate was to oversee and co-ordinate antidrug activities and agen-cies in Florida. While Governor, he en-listed the help of the National Guard toassist other agencies with cargo inspec-tions, air reconnaissance, and transpor-tation. During his governorship, flor-ida was evaluated by Federal agenciesas one of the Nation’s role models inthe drug battle.During his governorship, Florida

ranked among the top 10 States for percapita spending on drug treatment.While other States increased govern-ment support for drug treatment by anaverage of 23 percent, Florida increasedsuch support by 33 percent. As a result,in his last year in office, Florida drugtreatment operated at 91.6 percent ofcapacity, compared to the nationwiderate of 79.4 percent. Governor Martinezcreated drug free zones in Florida toensure a safer environment for schoolchildren.Mr. President, these are just a few of

the many accomplishments of Gov. BobMartinez. Governor Martinez has beenin city government, he has been ateacher and he has served as Governorof one of the Nation’s largest and mostpopulous States. He will bring withhim the perspective of each of these po-sitions to his job as Director of the Of-fice of Drug Control Policy. I welcomehis leadership in this area and hopethat my colleagues will vote in favor ofhis nomination.Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am

pleased to voice my support for thePresident’s choice to head the Office ofNational Drug Control Policy. Andonce again, I would like to take thisopportunity to commend the chairmanof the Judiciary Committee for hisswift action in scheduling hearings on

this nomination and for his leadershipin the manner in which the hearingswere conducted. As always, he was fairand patient during those hearings. Thechairman and our distinguished rank-ing member were both tireless andthorough during the long hours of tes-timony.We have a fine nominee here--as is

usual from our President. GovernorMartinez has had real hands on experi-ence in fighting the drug war. He hasshown us signs of winning the war inFlorida. He has at least won quite afew battles-he has some very good"firsts" to his credit, too.He was the first--as Governor-to ap-

point a drug czar to lead the fightagainst drugs at the State and locallevel and he led Florida into becomingthe first State to implement a Drug-Free Workplace Program for State gov-ernment workers--this included drugtesting-and he took the first test him-self.He was appointed by President

Reagan to the White House Conferenceon a Drug-Free America in 1987. There,he led the Nations’ Governors in pre-senting recommendations which werelater incorporated into PresidentBush’s drug strategy-increase ac-countability and capacity in treatmentsystems, drug testing throughout thecriminal justice system, drug freeworkplaces and drug free schools, toname but a few.As Governor of Florida, he led the

fight for licensing of more effective andreliable drug testing techniques- He isalso a strong advocate of alternativeforms of incarceration for criminals.His State was one of the first to imple-ment alternative forms of incarcer-ation, such as boot camps, for firsttime and nonviolent offenders.Governor Martinez implemented

teacher training for substance abuseeducation and channeling of asset for-feiture funds back into law enforce-ment activities: He supports the policyof letting the criminals pay the costsof law enforcement. He is also a leaderin the effort to involve other countriesin the war on drugs and has traveled toColombia, Bolivia, and Panama andwas a leading advocate behind thePresident’s effort to lend full U.S. as-sistance to the war on drug lords in Co-lombia. His fluency in Spanish hasbeen of great benefit in dealing withour fine South American neighbors. Hehas all of the tools for the job. He willdo it well.So indeed, the Governor comes before

the Senate with a splendid record. Heis certainly highly qualified to assumethe post as Director of the Nation’sdrug control strategy.I urge his confirmation.Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President,

today I will vote against the confirma-tion of Robert Martinez, to be the newDirector of National Drug Control Pol-icy. I regret to cast such a vote, be-

49-059 0-95 Vol. 137 (PL 5139

7129

7130cause I genuinely respect the Presi-dent’s right to considerable discretionin appointing his advisers. I am con-vinced, however, that the continuingproblem of drug abuse in our countryposes far too serious a threat to our fu-ture, and our children’s future, to voteany other way.The devastation wrought by drug

abuse, to families, communities andour entire society, is tremendous; andalthough we have made some progressin our effort to combat illicit drug use,much remains to be done. The task athand demands strong, yet balanced,leadership, both from Congress andfrom the administration. We simplycannot continue the status quo. Wemust make a renewed and serious com-mitment to providing our Nation withthe type of leadership we need to get usout of the mess that drug abuse hasgotten us into. Unfortunately, I do notbelieve that Robert Martinez will pro-vide that leadership.The legislative mandate to the Direc-

tor of National Drug Control Policy isclear: The Director is to head a com-prehensive national campaign againstillicit drug use. The Director must re-solve the difficulties that necessarilywill arise when so many different agen-cies of the Federal Government-andState governments--are involved in aunified effort of this magnitude. TheDirector must balance the fiscal de-mands of interdiction, law enforce-ment, education, and treatment.The Director, with duties such as

these, must be determined and aggres-sive. He must be committed to theissue, and he must be experienced. Thisis where I fear Governor Martinez fails.I believe this for two reasons.

First, as Governor of Florida, RobertMartinez showed very little regard forthe value of drug abuse treatment andeducation. Instead, he focused almostentirely on law enforcement, and on in-carceration in particular. During histenure, Florida led the country in percapita incarceration, and he increasedspending on corrections from $514 mil-lion to $859 million. At the same time,according to a study by the NationalAssociation of State Alcohol and DrugAbuse Directors, Florida ranked 21st inthe United States in substance abusetreatment funding and 32d in preven-tion funding. When he left office, Flor-ida possessed the highest crime rate inthe country.

It is painfully apparent that incar-ceration alone will not solve our Na-tion’s drug problems. An effective drugstrategy demands a balanced approach:We simply must make a serious com-mitment to both supply and demandreduction. Unfortunately, I do not be-lieve that Governor Martinez is com-mitted to supporting and improvingour drug abuse education and treat-ment efforts.I am also concerned that Governor

Martinez, who will be responsible for

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

establishing Federal policy regardinginternational and domestic drug en-forcement, lacks "hands-on" experi-ence in managing law enforcementagencies. Before being elected Florida’sGovernor in 1986, it is my understand-ing that Governor Martinez was ateacher, a small business owner, andthe mayor of Tampa.The job of Director of National Drug

Control Policy is not conducive to on-the-job-training. The Director must beable to deal effectively with the lawenforcement aspects of illicit drug use.There is nothing in the Governor’sbackground to support a conclusionthat he has the necessary expertise,and this troubles me.Mr. President, I will conclude by

stating again that I regret having tocast a vote against this nomination.But drug abuse is one of the most seri-ous problems we face. It threatens todestroy an entire generation, and allthe talk in the world will not bring usone step closer to arresting thatthreat.We need action, and we need it now.

We need a leader committed to the en-tire fight. We need a leader willing toembrace a comprehensive battle strat-egy. Thank you.Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, accord-

ing to public opinion polls the war ondrugs is not the priority issue that itused to be with American public. Theformer National Director of Drug Pol-icy, William Bennett, claims the rea-son is because we are on the verge ofvictory. The truth, however, is thatother issues, including the Persian Gulfand the domestic economic issues havelately occupied the attention of theAmerican people.Make no mistake about it: the drug

war has not been won. In many ways, itstill has not begun. The declaration ofwar may be 10 years old, but the Presi-dent still has not laid out a thoughtful,long-term strategy that mobilizes theresources of our Nation against the useof drugs.The President’s nomination of former

Gov. Bob Martinez of Florida raisesquestions about how the administra-tion plans to fight the war on drugs.I intend to vote for the confirmation

of Governor Martinez, but I do so withserious reservations.Governor Martinez is a decent and

capable public servant. However, hisapproach to the drug war in Florida isproof that he is not a man of vision onthis issue.The Governor spearheaded one of the

most aggressive crackdowns on drugsand crime in the United States duringthe 1980’s. He implemented strict pris-on time for casual drug use, but justlisten to what the Washington Postsaid about the Governor’s tough ap-proach:Overwhelmed by a seemingly endless num-

ber of drug offenders pouring into prisons.Florida’s corrections department has been

March 21, 1991forced to slash the sentences of inmates atever more rapid rates-and it is releasingthem in droves.As a result this conservative law-

and-order State is now the Nation’sleader in the early release of convictedfelons and punishment for crime is de-clining precipitously.This happened despite the fact that

the Governor invested more than $350million in building new prison space.The Governor was so preoccupied withlocking people up that he neglected thetreatment side of the equation.While the Governor was slamming

the door on casual drug users, less thanone out of every four Floridians whoneeded substance abuse treatment wasreceiving it. While the prison system inFlorida overflowed, only one in six ado-lescents in Florida who needed sub-stance abuse treatment was receivingit. While Florida was one of the firstStates to criminally prosecute awoman for maternal substance abuse-a woman who had unsuccessfullysought treatment-substance abusetreatment was only available for 15percent of all pregnant addicts.During the Martinez years, Florida

ranked 21st in the Nation in terms offunding for treatment and 31st in termsof funding for prevention.The point is that in fighting the war

on drugs, Governor Martinez hasproved to be a supply sider. Using thatstrategy he has not been very success-ful in fighting the war on drugs in theState of Florida. I have read nothing inGovernor Martinez’ testimony beforethe Senate Judiciary Committee thatwould lead me to believe that he wouldchange his approach on the nationallevel.We need a new Federal strategy. The

current one, which allocates nearly 70percent of our resources to the supplyis simply not working. The inner citiesof cur Nation are drug invested killingzones. Despite the tough talk comingfrom the administration on drugs, vio-lent crime, 70 percent of which is drugrelated, has increased 5 percent acrossthe country.The trend of violent crime is espe-

cially disturbing among the youngblack male population. The FederalCenter for Disease Control has saidthat homicide was the leading cause ofdeath for black males of ages 15 to 24.Among factors contributing to the ris-ing number of killings, the CDC listed"immediate access to firearms, alcoholand substance abuse and drug traffick-ing. * * *,,No one is suggesting that we don’t

want to provide more resources to ourlaw enforcement agencies. I have beena proponent of increased resources forlaw enforcement since I came to theSenate. I authored legislation last yeardoubling the amount of funding forState and local law enforcement.But I also recognize that the only

way to actually win the war on drugs is

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

curb America’s drug habit, and the Martinezonly way to accomplish that is through try so de,treatment and education. Currently, tic thatwe are only treating 20 percent of those an educawho seek and want treatment. We are fight agonly educating 55 percent of our kids. identifyWe can do much better than that. nationalWe need a National Director of Drug take mr

Policy who will make a commitment correct tito treatment on demand and to educat- The Fing all of our children about the dan- questiongers of drugs. I am hopeful that once consent tGovernor Martinez fully appreciates tinez tothe breadth of the problem, that he Controlwill make such a commitment. have beeMr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise call the r

today to support the nomination of The assBob Martinez to be Director of Na- the roll.tional Drug Control Policy. In doing The Fso, I also wish to express my deep con- DODD). Acerns about the direction taken by our the Chainnational drug policy and my hope that The re,under the direction of Bob Martinez, nays 12, awe will see a more active as opposed toreactive drug control strategy.As chairman of the Labor, Health

and Human Services, Education and AkakaRelated Agencies Appropriations Sub- "’

Bentoencommittee, I strongly believe that sidenthere must be more of an emphasis on Bonddrug education, treatment and preven- Borention in this country’s national drug Bealecontrol strategy. Unfortunately, only rown30 percent of current funds allocated to Bannthe war on drugs goes for prevention Bumprs

Burdickand treatment programs. BursWe must ensure that our drug control Byrd

policy contains adequate funds to edu- Chescate our young people of the dangers of Coats

Cochr’andrugs and drug abuse, to take steps to Cohenprevent the use of and the addiction to Conraddrugs, and to treat those in our society CraigCranstnwho have fallen at the hands of these DA-Itodangerous and violent drugs. DanforuhThe answer is not and will never be DeConcnflixon

to simply build more prisons in order ioto simply lock these people away with- Doleout the benefit of drug education and DomenIcitreatment, only to eventually set them Durenbergerfree at the end of their sentence, still Exon

addicted to and not educated about thedangers of drug use. AdamsThere have been reservations sur- Bigaman

Daschlerounding nominee Coy. Bob Martinez’s Fordability to recognize the importance ofdrug education and treatment pro- So, thegrams in the war against drugs. While Mr. BIEI believe that this country is in no po- reconsidersition to allow on-the-job training to nation wathe Director of our National Drug Con- Mr. TB]trol Policy, I also think that Governor motion orMartinez will recognize, support, and The mocome to believe in the importance of agreed to.drug education and treatment pro-grams.The war on drugs is entering a criti- LE

cal phase. The easy victories have been The PIwon. While casual drug use and drug the previcuse among the middle class is down, return tohardcore drug use remains constant. Mr. BIDWhile the Nation’s attitude towards the absentdrugs has changed, the Nation still The P:needs someone who will be able to com- clerk willmunicate and coordinate a national The assdrug strategy. It is my hope that Mr. ceeded to

will be that person this coun-,perately needs. I am optimis-Mr. Martinez’ experiences astor and a leader in Florida’sInst drugs will permit him tohe current deficiencies in ourdrug control strategy andmediate and swift actions tohem.’RESIDING OFFICER. Theis, Will the Senate advise ando the nomination of Bob Mar-be Director of National DrugPolicy? The yeas and naysa ordered, and the clerk willo11.distant legislative clerk called

PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.re there any other Senators inher who desire to vote?Suit was announced-yeas 88,S follows:Rollcafl Vote No. 41 Ex.]

YEAS--8FowlerGarnGlennGortonGrahamGrammGrassleyHardnHatchHatfieldHeflinHeinzHelmsHollingsInouyeJeffordsJohnstonKassebamnKaatenKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanLottLugarMackMcCain

NAYS-12GoreKennedyMetzenbanmPryor

McConnellMikutski

MitchellMoynihanMrkowsklNickleNulnn

PackwoodFellPresaeerReldRegleRobbRockefellerRothRudmanSanfordSeymourShelbysimpsonSmithSpecterStevensSymmsThurmondWallopWarnerWirth

SarbanesSesserSimonWellstone

nomination was confirmed.PEN. Mr. President, I move tothe vote by which the nomi-

a confirmed.LRMOND. I move to lay thatithe table.tion to lay on the table was

GISLATIVE SESSIONRESIDING OFFICER. Underins order, the Senate will nowlegislative session.EN. Mr. President, I suggestce of a quourm.RESIDING OFFICER. Thecall the roll.istant legislative clerk pro-call the roll.

7131Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

MORNING BUSINESSMr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that there now be aperiod for morning business, with Sen-ators permitted to speak therein.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE] is rec-ognized.Mr. GORE. I thank the Chair.(The remarks of Mr. Goax pertaining

to the introduction of Senate JointResolution 101 are located in today’sRxcoRD under "Statements on Intro-duced Bills and Joint Resolutions.")Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Arkansas.Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, what

is the parliamentary situation?The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ate is presently in morning business.

UNITED STATES-JAPANESERELATIONS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I willonly take 60 seconds.I want to add my voice to the chorus

of outrage that has been expressed, es-pecially in the agriculture communityof this country, about what happenedin Japan last Sunday when rice, and Ithink it was Arkansas rice, displayedin a trade show in Japan was orderedremoved.When there was some hesitancy by

the displayers who were exhibitingthese rice packages, it is my under-standing the police were brought in,and they said: Either you remove thisrice from display or we are taking youto the slammer.I wish I had been there. I have never

spent any time in a Japanese jail, andI do not have any such desire. But Ipromise you, if I had been there, Iwould have allowed them to escort meto their jail. It is one of the most in-sulting, outrageous things that hsever happened in American-Japaneserelations.

It is not just because it is rice. It isthat we have a 550 billion trade deficitagainst the Japanese annually, everyyear; that we open our markets, auto-mobiles, everything else, to the Japa-nese, and some of us from rice-produc-ing States have fought for years to getour rice sent there.They subsidize their rice farmers to

the tune of about $900 a ton, and wewill sell them all the rice they want forabout $200 a ton. Think about the dis-parity in the price, with the kind ofsubsidies they are providing for theirrice farmers. Then tell us: We do not

March 21, 1991

7132 Ceven want the Japanese people to seeyour rice and demand it be removed.I hope the President will get involved

in this, Mr. President, and say to theJapanese people, to the Japanese Gov-ernment, and especially those incharge of their trade relations with theUnited States, we are offended to thecore about this unseemly event.Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator

from Michigan.

UNFAIR JAPANESE TRADEBARRIERS

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on thatsame subject, let me say that when Iread those reports, I shared the sameoutrage as my good friend from Arkan-sas. We have seen evidence of unfairtrade practices against American prod-ucts across the board. Very few of usrepresent States which have not beennegatively impacted by unfair barriersin Japan to our products.In Michigan, it is agricultural prod-

ucts; it is automobile parts; it is tele-communications equipment; on and on.We have been talking about this nowfor a decade. We go back in quotationsall the way to President Nixon sayingthat we are turning the corner on tradewith Japan; they are opening up theirmarkets.Mr. President, we have had rhetoric

now for about two decades, and this re-cent incident is nothing short of anoutrage. For Japan to threaten to putin jail an American who simply wantsto display an American product, in thiscase rice, is something which is so of-fensive that our President ought to geton the telephone to the Prime Ministerof Japan and tell him to modify thatlaw or somebody is going to go to pris-on, and make a point of it. We cannottolerate a one-way street in trade anylonger. It is intolerable.Mr. President, a lot of folks get upset

at Japan, and I am one of them. But Iam more upset at our own Govern-ment. If Japan wants to keep our prod-ucts out, that is their decision. If theywant to put quotas and tariffs and bar-riers on American goods, that is theirdecision. If we tolerate it, that is ourdecision. But we should not tolerate it.We have had a weak trade policy fortoo long. This recent incident in Japanover rice is only the most dramatic evi-dence of a very weak trade policywhich has resulted in a one-way street.We are not perfect. People say, well,gee, we have quotas and we have tar-iffs, too. We are not perfect. But com-pared to Japan and other countries, weare very much better than they ae.Mr. President, I am glad that my

friend from Arkansas raised this sub-ject. It is our current plan in the sub-committee that I chair on Govern-mental Affairs to hold a hearing into

,ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENAI

what happened in Japan last Sunday.We are not going to let this one rest.This did not end with that threat to

put an American in jail because he orshe wanted to display Arkansas rice.This incident did not end in Japan lastSunday. We are going to drive home toour trade representatives and our ad-ministration that American policy isweak, and the product of that weak-ness is what happened in Tokyo. Wehave to change our policies here to re-spond to what they are doing to us overthere.I thank the Chair, and I yield the

floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Georgia.

DESERT STORM SUPPLEMENTALAUTHORIZATION AND MILITARYPERSONNEL BENEFITS ACTMr. NUNN. Mr. President, in a mo-

ment, I would like to lay before theSenate the Persian Gulf SupplementalAuthorization and Personnel BenefitsAct of 1991. This bill, when it is intro-duced, will represent the agreement be-tween the House and the Senate on theDesert Storm Supplemental Authoriza-tion and Military Personnel BenefitsAct for fiscal year 1991, which wepassed in the Senate last week, andwhich the House also passed last week.We worked very hard this week with

a number of committees in the Senateand the House to complete work onthis bill. The Veterans’ Affairs Com-mittees, the Governmental AffairsCommittees, the Agriculture Commit-tees, the Labor Committees, as well asthe Armed Services Committees, haveall been involved in working out thiscompromise. The Senate leadership hasalso been very involved.Mr. President, I express my thanks

to all of these committees for the spiritof cooperation which has allowed us tocomplete work on this important billin such a brief and timely fashion. IParticularly want to thank the leader-ship and their very competent staff, be-cause without their leadership in thismatter, we could not have done it inthis timeframe.With the need to complete the bill

this week, we have worked out thiscompromise bill without a formal con-ference. When it is adopted by the Sen-ate, it will go to the House for final ac-tion later today. And then, if passed bythe House, to the President for his sig-nature.Mr. President, I ask unanimous cen-

sent that a joint explanatory state-ment in the nature of a conference re-port statement of the managers ex-plaining this compromise bill be print-ed in the REcoRD at the conclusion ofmy remarks.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.(See exhibit 1.)

E March 21, 1991Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this bill

provides additional funds during fiscalyear 1991 to pay for the costs of thePersian Gulf war. It gives the DefenseDepartment increased flexibility tomanage military personnel levels inthe aftermath of the war. It authorizescertain benefits for the military menand women involved in the war. It es-tablishes certain reporting require-ments of Department of Defense tokeep Congress informed on the cost ofthe war, and to provide Congress withan after-action report on the conductof the war; and it authorizes additionalfunds during fiscal year 1991 for the De-partment of Energy.

AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS FOR THE COSTS OFTHE PERSIAN GULF WAR

There was very little difference be-tween the House and Senate bills in theauthorization of funds to pay the costsof the Persian Gulf war. Like the ver-sion adopted by the Senate, this com-promise bill establishes a mechanismto ensure that foreign contributions inthe defense cooperation account areused to pay for the costs of the war tothe maximum extent possible. The $15billion in U.S. taxpayer funds author-ized for the new Persian Gulf conflictworking capital account may be usedto pay for the costs of the Persian Gulfconflict only to the extent that foreigncontributions are not available to paythese costs.The bill includes important safe-

guards to maintain appropriate con-gressional oversight over the transferof funds in the defense cooperation ac-count and the Persian Gulf conflictworking capital account to pay for thecost of the Persian Gulf conflict. Thetransfer authority in the bill can beused only after the Secretary of De-fense provides the Congress with a no-tification and a period of 7 dayselapses.The notification must include: First,

a certification that the amounts pro-posed to be transferred will be usedonly to fund the incremental costs ofOperation Desert Shield/Storm; second,a list of the amounts to be transferredand the accounts to which the transferwill be made; and third, a descriptionof the programs, projects, and activi-ties to which the funds are proposed tobe transferred. If the transfer is fromthe working capital account, the noti-fication must also explain why foreigncontributions have not provided suffi-cient funds to permit transfers fromthe defense cooperation account.On a monthly basis, the Secretary of

Defense will provide an accounting oftransfers in a report to the Congressand the General Accounting Office.These notification, certification and

reporting requirements ensure thatCongress will continue to oversee theexpenditure of funds to pay for thecosts of the Persian Gulf war in themonths ahead.

March 21, 1991 C

WAIVER OF PERSONNEL CEILINGS

The committee bill also includes im-portant authority requested by the De-fense Department to waive certainmilitary personnel end strength andgrade ceilings for fiscal year 1991 be-cause of requirements resulting fromOperation Desert Shield and OperationDesert Storm. These waivers are nec-essary to minimize personnel turbu-lence and involuntary separations asthe military services draw down theirstrength as projected in their budgetsin the aftermath of the Persian Gulfwar.

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

Mr. President, we had a very gooddiscussion during the Senate floor de-bate on the personnel benefits in thisbill for the military members servingin Operation Desert Shield and DesertStorm and their families. SenatorMIrTcHELL and Senator DOLE appointeda task force under the capable leader-ship of Senator GLENN and SenatorMcCAIN, and this task force developeda consensus package of benefits thatwas included in the Senate-passed bill.I am pleased to report to my col-

leagues that almost all of the benefitsin the Senate bill are in this com-promise bill. These include:An increase in imminent danger pay

from $110 per month to $150 per month;An increase in the servicemen’s

group life insurance benefit from$50,000 to $100,000;Medical special pay for activated re-

servists;An increase from $3,000 to $6,000 in

the death gratuity;Family assistance and child care en-

hancements;Transitional health care for reserv-

ists;A delay in the reduction of

CHAMPUS mental health benefits;Assistance for reservists who are

farmers and ranchers and who were ac-tivated for the Persian Gulf war; andAuthority to waive certain require-

ments for Government student loans.In addition to these Senate provi-

sions, this bill includes several provi-sions from the House-passed bill. Theseinclude:An increase from $60 to $75 in the

family separation allowance;Authority to pay basic allowance for

quarters to certain activated single re-servists; andA delay in the proposed increase in

the deductible for military familiesunder the CHAMPUS program.In addition to these benefits for mili-

tary members and their families, thisbill contains increases in certain veter-ans’ benefits. The bill provides wartimeveterans’ benefits to military memberswho served on active duty during thePersian Gulf war. The monthly benefitsunder the Montgomery GI bill for ac-tive and reserve military personnel arealso increased.

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

In developing the Senate package ofbenefits, Mr. President, the bill re-ported by the Senate Armed ServicesCommittee contained $358 in benefitsto which $142 was added by the Senateleadership package. In our negotiationswith the House, we agreed on a totalpackage of $655 million, of which $255million would be for veterans’ benefitsand $400 million for benefits for Activeand Reserve military members andtheir families.Mr. President, this is a good benefit

package that recognizes the sacrificesof our dedicated men and women inuniform and their families. I want toagain acknowledge the hard work ofSenator GLENN and Senator MCCAIN,the chairman and ranking minoritymember of the Manpower and Person-nel Subcommittee, for their extraor-dinary efforts in this area over the last3 months.

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS

This compromise bill also containsthe two important reporting require-ments related to the Persian Gulf warthat were adopted in the original Sen-ate bill.The first reporting requirement in-

cludes procedures for ensuring thatthere will be a complete accounting ofall expenditures and sources of fundingrelated to Operation Desert Shield andDesert Storm. This provision is similarto H.R. 586 which was recently passedby the House of Representatives.The second reporting requirement

calls for a comprehensive assessmentof the conduct of the war by the De-fense Department.The lessons learned from the strat-

egy, tactics, logistics, personnel poli-cies, and other aspects of the PersianGulf conflict will have a major impacton the decisions in this and futureyears about our national defense pos-ture. This bill includes the Senate pro-vision that requires the Department ofDefense to make an assessment, afterthe cessation of hostilities, on the con-duct and "lessons learned" of Oper-ation Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

sUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION FOR THSEDEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Finally, Mr. President, this bill in-cludes a supplemental authorization of$623 million for the Department of En-ergy in fiscal year 1991. $283 million ofthis amount is for operating expensesat the Rocky Flats plant at Golden,CO. The remaining $340 million is forhigh-priority environmental compli-ance and cleanup activities in the De-partment of Energy.

cONCLUSION

Mr. President, I am hopeful that theCongress will be able to complete ac-tion on this important legislation thisweek. This bill authorizes funds to payfor the costs of Operation Desert Shieldand Operation Desert Storm, and rec-ognizes the sacrifices of the military

7133members and their families who servedin this conflict.

In closing I want to express my ap-preciation to the leaders, SenatorMITCsELL and Senator DOLE, and theirstaffs for their help on this legislation;to the Members of the other Senateand House committees who cooperatedin getting a compromise bill; and ofcourse to Senator WARNER and theother members of the Armed ServicesCommittee and to Chairman AsnN,Congressman DicKNsON, and the mem-hers of the House Armed Services Com-mittee for their help and cooperation.This is a good bill, Mr. President. Iurge my colleagues to support it.Mr. President, there is one provision

in this bill which the House still doesnot completely agree with, although Ihope they will accept it- This issue in-volves one that Senator WARNER fromVirginia, my colleague and ranking Re-publican on the Armed Services Com-mittee, has worked on very hard, alongwith a number of other members of thecommittee. It involves the Service-men’s Group Life Insurance Program,known as SGL.The Senate bill increased the maxi-

mum amount of coverage under theSGLI Program from the current $50,000to $100,000. Beyond the war period it-self, this increase will not cost the Fed-eral taxpayers anything, because theSGLI Program is financially self-sus-taining with premiums in peacetime.Military members currently pay 8cents per $1,000 of coverage.The Senate bill also provides a retro-

active gratuity to the survivors ofmilitary members who died since thestart of the Persian Gulf conflict, thatis, since August 2, 1990, equal to theamount of the military member’s SGLIcoverage at the time of death. This ret-roactive gratuity would be paid to sur-vivors of military members whosedeath was in conjunction with or Insupport of Operation Desert Storm, orattributable to hostile actions in re-gions other than the Persian Gulf, asprescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

If a military member died during Op-eration Desert Shield or Desert Storm,for example, and had $50,000 coverageunder the SGLI Program, his or hersurvivor would get an additional$50,000, for a total benefit of $100,00.LThe cost of this retroactive benefitwould be approximately 25 million,and would be paid for by Department ofDefense funds.Mr. President, the House has agreed

to the retroactive increase in the SGLIprogram, but they are reluctant at thistime to agree to the prospective in-crease in the SGLI benefit to $100,000that is in this bill.Mr. President, I hope the House will

agree to this increase.In the first place, increasing future

SGLI benefits will not cost the Govern-ment any more money in peacetime.This is life insurance for the troops,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 21, 1991

and the troops pay the premiums. Theaverage term life insurance policy inthe United States today is over$100,000, and the maximum SGLI bene-fit should be raised to $100,000 also.More importantly, Mr. President, the

House readily agreed to the retroactivegratuity which in effect doubles theSGLI benefit to $100,000 for some mili-tary members, so it is important thatthe future maximum benefit be$10000. We do not want to create a sit-uation where the widow of a militarymember killed in hostile action beforethis bill is enacted gets $100,000 inSGLI benefits, but the widow of a mili-tary member killed after this bill is en-acted gets a lesser amount.Mr. President, the retroactive and

prospective increases in SGLI coverageto $100,000 in this bill are importantbenefits for military members andtheir families particularly those whohave been hit so hard with grief duringthis conflict. I hope these increaseswill be agreed to by the House.I hope this will be agreed to by the

House.EXHIT 1

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT-PERSIANGULF CONFLICT SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZA-TION AND PERSONNEL BENEFITS ACT OF 1991This statement explains the provisions of

the Persian Gulf Conflict Supplemental Au-thorization and Personnel Benefits Act of1991.On February 22, 1991, the General Counsel

of the Department of Defense forwarded tothe Congress a proposed supplemental au-thorization bill for fiscal year 1991. On March13, 1991, the House of Representatives ap-proved KR. 1-175, the National Defense Sup-plemental Authorization Act for Fiscal Year1991. On March 14, 1991, the Senate passed S.578, the Department of Defense Desert StormSupplemental Authorization and MilitaryPersonnel Benefits Act for Fiscal Year 1991.On March 19, 1991, the Senate received H.R.1175, amended it with the text of S. 578,passed It, and returned it to the House.The following joint explanatory statement

explains the compromise agreement that hasbeen reached by the Senate and HouseArmed Services Committees and other com-mittees on the differences between the textsof ILK 1175 and S. 578.In this joint explanatory statement, the

phrase "the House bill" refers to H.R 1175,as passed by the House on March 13. Thephrase "the Senate amendment" refers toH.R. 1175, as passed and amended by the Sen-ate with the text of S. 578 on March 19. Thephrase "the final bill" refers to the com-promise agreement.TITLE I-AUTHORIZATION OF FISCAL YEAR LiSUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPER-ATION DESERT STORMThe House bill contained a series of provi-

sions (sees. 000-007) that would authorizesupplemental appropriations for OperationDesert Storm for fiscal year 1991. Section 101would authorize, during fiscal year 1991, theappropriation of the balances contributed tothe Defense Cooperation Account to pay forthe incremental costs associated with Oper-ation Desert Storm or the replenishment ofthe working capital account established insection 102. Section 102 would establish thePersian Gulf Working Capital Account andwould authorize $15 billion to be appro-

priated to the account during fiscal year1991. This section would specifically limitthe availability of appropriations for trans-fer to pay for the incremental costs of Oper-ation Desert Storm to the extent that fundsare not available for transfer from the De-fense Cooperation Account. Section 103would authorize the transfer of amounts ap-propriated from the Defense Cooperation Ac-count and appropriated to the Persian GulfWorking Capital Account to appropriationaccounts as necessary to meet the costs ofOperation Desert Storm. Section 104 wouldauthorize the transfer authority necessaryto make adjustments in the military person-nel and operation and maintenance accountsto pay for the incremental costs associatedwith the military operations in the PersianGulL Section 105 would establish certain no-tification and reporting requirements to befollowed by the Secretary of Defense beforeImplementing any transfer of funds from theDefense Cooperation Account, the PersianGulf Working Capital Account, or betweenthe military personnel and operation andmaintenance accounts. Section 106 would re-quire the Secretary of Defense to providemonthly reports of transfers made pursuantto the authority in this title to the congres-sional defense committees.The Senate amendment contained similar

provisions’(secs. 000-002).The final bill contains the House provi-

sions with technical amendments.The authorization of transfers provided in

the final bill is based on the understandingthat the Secretary of Defense will develop aprocess for the resolution of any concernsthat may be raised by the congressional de-fense committees with respect to transfersauthorized by this title. This process shouldinvolve the four congressional defense com-mittees, but should be more streamlinedthan the process currently used with respectto approval of transfer. It is expected thatthe four congressional defense committeeswill expedite consideration of all transfer re-quests and will register any concerns withDoD over any proposed transfer within sevendays. The traditional paperwork used byDoD to report transfers to the Congress isnot necessary in the case of transfers for theincremental costs of Operation DesertStorm. This approach will preserve the con-gressional oversight role over the expendi-ture of funds to pay the incremental costs ofOperation Desert Storm.

TITLE HI-WAIVER OF PERSONNEL CEILINGSAFFECTED By OPERATION DESERT STORM

The House bill contained provisions (sec.211 and sec. 212) that would: (1) authorize theSecretary of Defense to waive the activeduty, selected reserve, and reserve activeduty end strengths prescribed for fiscal year1991 in the National Defense AuthorizationAct for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 000-000);and (2) authorize the President to waive thestrength ceilings applicable to senior en-listed grades for the duration of the PersianGulf conflict.The Senate amendment contained a simi-

lar provision (sec. 201), except the authorityto waive the end strengths and grade ceilingswould be vested in the Secretaries of theMilitary Departments, and the grade ceilingwaivers would include not only the seniorenlisted grades, but the active duty and full-time reserve officers field grades, and thegeneral and flag officer grades as well.The final bill contains the Senate provi-

sion.

TITLE Il-BENEFITS FOR PERSONS SERVING INARMED FORCES DURING THE PERSIAN GULFCONFLICT

Part A-Military Compensation and BenefitsIncrease in imminent danger pay (sec. 301)

The House bill contained a provision (sec.222) that would pemanently increase the rateof imminent danger pay from $110 per monthto $150 per month, effective January 16, 1991.The Senate amendment contained a simi-

lar provision (sec. 301), except the authorityfor the increase would be temporary and theeffective date would be retroactive to August1,1990.The final bill contains the Senate provi-

sion.Faimy separation pay (sec. 302)

The House bill contained a provision (see.223) that would: (1) increase family separa-tion pay from $60 to $75 per month, effectiveJanuary 16, 1991; and (2) authorize familyseparation pay to dual military coupleswithout dependents, effective January 16,1991.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill contains the House provision

amended to delete the portion on dual nili-tary couples without dependents.Use of home of record for determination of vari-

able housing allowance for reservists (sec. 303)The House bill contained a provision (sec.

225) that would require that the variablehousing allowance being paid to members ofreserve components called to active duty inconnection with the Persian Gulf conflict becalculated using the rates to which the mem-bers are entitled in the areas of the mem-bers’ home of record in lieu of permanentduty location.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill contains the House provision

amended to substitute the principal place ofresidence for home of record.Medical, dental, and non-physkian special paysfor reserve, recalled, or retained health careofficers (sec. 304)

The House bill contained a provision (sec.226) that would provide authority for pay-ment of active duty special pays to reserveoptometrists, veterinarians, nurse anes-thetists, and other non-physician health careproviders called or ordered to active duty inconnection with the Persian Gulf conflict. Inaddition, section 226 would authorize pay-ment of those special pays to physicians,dentists, optometrists, veterinarians, nurseanesthetists and other non-physician healthcare providers who (1) are involuntarily re-tained on active duty under section 673(c) oftitle 10, United States Code, (2) are recalledto active duty under section 688 of title 10,United States Code, or (3) voluntarily agreeto remain on active duty for a period of lessthan one year in connection with the PersianGulf conflict.The Senate amendment contained a simi-

lar provision (sec. 302).The final bill contains the House provision.Waiver of board certification requirements (sec.

305)-The House bill contained a provision (sec.

227) that would authorize continued paymentof board certification pay to physicians, den-tists, and other health care providers whohave completed residency training and werescheduled for board certification, or re-certificationu, but were unable to completethe certification process due to a duty as-signment in connection with the PersianGulf conflict.

7134

March 21, 1991The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill contains the House provision

amended to condition the payment of thesepays on the completion of certification re-quirements by affected personnel within 180days of their release from their duty assign-ments in connection with the Persian Gulfconflict or such additional time after thatperiod as determined to be necessary by theSecretary of Defense.

Foreign language proficiency pay (sec. 306)The House bill contained a provision (see.

228) that would require that foreign languageproficiency pay be paid to members of thearmed forces assigned to duty in connectionwith the Persian Gulf conflict who meet alleligibility criteria for such pay except thatthey have not been certified by the Sec-retary concerned to be proficient in a foreignlanguage necessary for national defense pur-poses.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill contains the House provision

amended to condition the payment of thesepays on the completion of certification re-quirements by affected personnel within 180days of their release from their duty assign-ments in connection with the Persian Gulfconflict.Increase in the amount of death gratuity (sec.

307)The House bill contained a provision (sec.

231) that would amend section 1478(a) of title10, United States Code, to establish a stand-ard death gratuity rate of $6,000 for allgrades, effective August 2, 1990.The Senate amendment contained a simi-

lar provision (sec. 306), except the authorityfor the $6,000 death gratuity rate would betemporary and effective January 16, 1991.The final bill contains the House provision

amended to make the provision temporary-Serktcemen’s Group Life Insurance gratuity

(sec. 308)The Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (see. 332) that would authorize the pay-ment of a gratuity to the survivors of servicemembers who died after August 1, 1990 andthe effective date of the SGIM increase equalto twice the amount of SGLI coverage of thedeceased at the time of death. The gratuitywould apply only to service members whosedeaths were in conjunction with or in sup-port of Operation Desert Storm, or attrib-utable to hostile action in regions other thanthe Persian Gulf designated by the Secretaryof Defense.The House bill contained no similar provi-

slon.The final bill contains the Senate provi-

sion.Payment for accrued leave (sec. 309)

The Senate amendment contained a provi-sion (sec. 303) that would ensure that survi-vors of military members are entitled to thepayment for the unused accrued leave of amember who dies while on active duty on thesame basis as provided for members in sec-tion 1115 of the National Defense Authoriza-tion Act for Fiscal Year 1991.The House bill contained no similar provi-

sion.The final bill contains the Senate provi-

sion.Removal of limitation on the accrual of savings

of members in a missing status (sec. 310)The House bill contained a provision (sec.

232) that would amend section 1035(b) of title10, United States Code, to remove the ceilingon savings deposits for service members car-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEried in a missing status as defined in section551(2) of title 37, United States Code, duringthe period of the Persian Gulf conflict.The Senate amendment contained a simi-

lar provision (sec. 04).The final bill contains the House provision.

Basic allowances for quarters for certain mem-bers of the reserve components without de-pendents (sec. 310A)The House bill contained a provision (sec.

224) that would require payment of basic al-lowance for quarters to reserve componentmembers without dependents called to activeduty in connection with the Persian Gulfconflict who are unable to occupy their pri-mary residence that is owned by the mem-ber, or for which the member is responsiblefor rent.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill contains the House provision

amended to clarify the intent of the Houseprovision.

Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

Repeal wartime and national emergency prohi-bitions on the payment of certain pay and al-lowances

The House bill contained a provision (sec.221) that would repeal the prohibition on thepayment of imminent danger pay and familyseparation allowance during times of war ornational emergency declared by the Con-gress.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill does not contain the House

provision.Foreign duty pay

The House bill contained a provision (sec.229) that would increase the current foreignduty pay for enlisted personnel to a flat rateof $25 per month.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill does not contain the House

provision.

Transitional commissary and exchange benefitsThe House bill contained a provision (sec.

245) that would require the Secretary of De-fense to prescribe regulations allowing amember of a reserve component called or or-dered to active duty in connection with thePersian Gulf conflict to use commissary andexchange stores during the 180-day period be-ginning on the date of the release of themember from active duty. Use of these storeswould be authorized in the same manner andto the same extent as authorized for servicemembers on active duty.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill does not contain the House

provision.Benefits explanation for reserve members upon

demobilizationThe House bill contained a provision (sec.

246) that would require the Secretaries of theMilitary Departments to provide individualpre-separation counseling on a variety ofsubjects to service members upon their dis-charge or release from active duty. The Sec-retary of Defense would be required to en-sure that the Service Secretaries, in carry-ing out section 1142 of title 10, United StatesCode, provide particular attention to theneeds of members of the reserve componentswho were called or ordered to active duty forservice in connection with the Persian Gulfconflict The Secretary of Veterans Affairswould be required to detail personnel of theDepartment of Veterans Affairs for service

7135at each principal site at which such servicemembers will be released from active duty.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill does not contain the House

provision. However, the Secretary of Defenseis expected to carry out the intent of theHouse provision.

Part B-Military Personnel Policies andPrograms

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Grade in which retired officers are recalled toactive duty (sec. 311)

The House bill contained a provision (sec.242) that would authorize the Secretaries ofthe Military Departments to recall retiredmilitary officers to active duty in the high-est grade they held while on previous activeduty.The Senate amendment contained a simi-

lar provision (sec. 305).The final bill contains the Senate provi-

sion amended to clarify the intent of theSenate provision.

Temporary CHAMPUS provisions regardingdeductibles and copayment requirements (see.312)

The House bill contained a provision (sec.243) that would delay the implementation ofthe increase in the CHAMPUS deductiblemandated by section 712 of the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991from April 1, 1991 to October 1, 1991, in thecase of dependents of active duty personnelwho are serving or have served in the Per-sian Gulf theater in connection with the Per-sian Gulf conflict.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill contains the House provision.The Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (sec 31) that would allow CHAMPUShealth care providers to waive any require-ment for payment by the patient ofcopayment charges during the Persian GulfWar period, provided that CHAMPUS healthcare providers who grant such waivers do notincrease the amount charged to the federalgovernment for the service for which thewaiver is granted.The House bill contained no similar provi-

sion.The final bill contains the Senate provi-

sion amended to specify that this provisionwould apply to dependents of military per-sonnel serving in the Persian Gulf and re-quire certification by the health care pro-vider on cost.

Transitional health care (sec. 313)The House bill contained a provision (see-

244) that would extend transitional healthbenefits to reservists called or ordered to ac-tive duty in connection with the PersianGulf conflict and to active duty personnel in-volnntarily retained on active duty undersection 673c of title 10, United States Code.Section 244 would authorize eligibility fortwo months of medical care in military med-ical treatment facilities or under CHAMPUSunless the former service members and de-pendents are covered by an employer-spon-sored health insurance plan.The Senate amendment contained a simi-

lar provision (sec 307), except that the tran-sitional health coverage would be for 30 daysand would not include involuntarily retainedpersonnel.The final contains the Senate provision

amended to include involuntarily retainedpersonnel under the transitional health cov-erage being authorized.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 21, 1991

Extension of certain Persian Gulf conflictprovisions (sec. 314)

The House bill contained a provision (sec.247) that would remove fiscal year con-straints on spending in support of the Per-sian Gulf conflict established in title XI ofthe National Defense Authorization Act forFiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 000-000; 104Stat. 1634 et seq.).The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill contains the House provision.

Study of Department of Defense policies relatingto deployment of military service memberswith dependents or service members from fami-lies with more than one service member (sec.315)The House bill contained a provision (see.

248) that would require the Secretary of De-fense to carry out a study of departmentalpolicies relating to the family interests andresponsibilities of reserve component mem-bers called or ordered to active duty and ofactive and reserve component service mem-bers deployed overseas. The study would ex-amine the responsiveness of such policies tothe needs of service members and the con-sistency of existing policies among the Mili-tary Departments. The Secretary of Defensewould be required to submit a report to Con-gress on the findings of the study no laterthan March 31, 1992.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill contains the House provision.

Adjustment in the effective date of changTes inmental health benefits as a result of Oper-ation Desert Storm (sec. 316)The Senate amendment contained In provi-

sion (sec. 308) that would delay the effectivedate of certain changes in CHAMPUS mentalhealth benefits required by section 788 of theNational Defense Authorization Act for Fis-cal Year 1991. and the companion provisionof the Department of Defense AppropriationsAct, 1991, from February 000-00- to February00 -00-.The House bill contained no similar provi-

sion.The final bill contains the Senate provi-

sion amended to change the effective date ofthe changes in CHAMPUS mental healthbenefits from February 15, 1991 to October 1,1991. The Office of CHAMPUS is directed tonot absorb any of the costs associated withthe change in benefits made by this sectionwhich exceed the S36 million budgeted forthese benefits by this Act.

Sense of House on the sepa ration of certainmembers from their infant children (sec. 317)The House bill contained a provision (see.

241) that would amend chapter 41 of title 10,United States Code, by inserting a new sec-tion that would preclude female memberswith a child under six months of age frombeing (1) called to active duty, if a memberof a reserve component, or (2) assigned to aduty location or circumstance that requiresthe child to live at a different location, if amember of the armed forces on active duty.Section 241 would provide the same exemp-tions to male service members who have solecustody of a child under the age of sixmonths.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill contains the House provision

amended to express the sense of the House onthis issue.

Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

Sense of Congress regarding the provision ofmedical care by Germany to dependents ofmembers living in GermanyThe House bill contained a provision (sec.

249) that would express the sense of Congressthat the President should request the Gov-ernment of Germany to provide without re-imbursement medical care to military de-pendents living in Germany in order to re-place military medical personnel and equip-ment deployed to the Persian Gulf region totreat casualties resulting from the PersianGulf conflict.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill does not contain the House

provision.Morale telephone calls

The House hill contained a provision (sec.250) that would express the sense of Congressthat the Secretary of Defense should con-tract with private telephone companies, orestablish alternative telephone arrange-ments, to provide at least ten minutes of freetelephone calls a month for each member ofthe armed forces serving in the combat zonedesignated in connection with the PersianGulf conflict.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill does not contain the House

provision. However, the Secretary of Defenseis expected to carry out the intent of theHouse provision.Sense of Congress regarding the need for in-creased participation of civilian health careproviders in CHAMPUSThe Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (sec. 332) that would express the sense ofCongress urging civilian health care provid-ers in the United States to participate or in-crease their participation in the CHAMPUShealth delivery system.The House bill contained no similar provi-

sion.The final bill does not contain the Senate

provision. However, the Secretary of Defenseis expected to take initiatives to encouragecivilian health care providers to participateor increase their participation in theCHAMPUS health delivery systems consist-ent with the Senate provision.Part C-Veterans Programs and Benefits

Legislative Provisions AdoptedDefinition of period of war (sec. 332)

Section 101(11) of title 38. United StatesCode, defines the term "period of war" as in-cluding the Spanish American War, theMexican border period. World War L WorldWar II the Korean conflict, the Vietnam era,and the period beginning on the date of anyfuture declaration of war by Congress andending on the date prescribed by presidentialproclamation or concurrent resolution ofCongress.The House bill contained a provision (sec.

301(a)) that would add to the definition of pe-rinods of war the "Persian Gulf War", the pe-riod beginning on August 2. 1990. and endingon the date thereafter prescribed by Presi-dential proclamation or by law.The Senate amendment contained a simi-

lar provision (sec. 362).The final bill contains this provision.

Pension eligibility (sec. 333)Section 501(4) of title 38 defines certain pe-

riods of war for purposes of eligibility for theVA need-based pension programs for non-service disabled, wartime veterans, and thesurviving spouses and dependent children of

deceased wartime veterans. Under section541(f) of title 38, for a surviving spouse to beeligible for a pension, he or she must havemarried the veteran by a specified date. i.e.not later than 10 years after the terminationof the period of war in the cases of veteransof periods of war after World War .The House bill contained a provision (sec-

tion 301(b) that would (1) add the "PersianGulf War" to the definition of periods of warfor pension eligibility purposes, and (2) pro-vide for pension eligibility for a survivingspouse of a Persian Gulf War veteran if thespouse marries the veteran before January 1,2001,The Senate amendment contained a simi-

lar provision (sec. 363) which would providepension eligibility for a surviving spouse ifthe marriage occurred not later than 10years after the termination of the PersianGulf War.The final bill contains the substance of the

House provision.Period of services for dental benefits (sec. 334(a))Section 612(b)(1) of title 38 requires VA to

furnish outpatient dental services for a den-tal condition or disability which is service-connected but not compensable in degree if(1) the condition or disability is shown tohave been in existence at the time of the vet-eran’s discharge from active duty service, (2)the veteran had served on active duty for aperiod of not less than 180 days immediatelyprior to discharge or release. (3) the veteranapplied for treatment within 90 days afterdischarge or release; and (4) the veteran wasnot provided, within the 90-day period imme-diately before the date of discharge or re-lease, a complete dental examination and allappropriate dental services indicated by theexamination as needed. Under section621(b)(2), the Service Secretary concerned isrequired to furnish each individual, at thetime of discharge or release from activeduty, written notice of this benefit andrecord the member’s receipt of the notice.The House bill contained a provision (sec.

303(c)) that would reduce from 180 days to 90days the minimum active-duty service re-quirement for eligibility for this benefit (aswell as for the notice provision) for veteransof the Persian Gulf War.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill contains the House provision.Presumption relating to psychosis (sec. 334(b))Under section 602 of title 38, an active

psyshosis developed by any veteran of WorldWar 11. the Korean conflict, or the Vietnamera within two years after discharge isdeemed to be a service-connected conditionfor the purposes of entitlement to VA healthcare if the psychosis was developed beforeJuly 26, 1949, in the case of a World War Itveteran, before February 1. 1957, in the caseof a veteran of the Korean conflict, or beforeMay 8, 1977, in the case of a Vietnam-era vet-eran.The House bill contained a provision (sec.

303(d)) that would make this presumption ap-plicable to a veteran of the Persian Gulf Warwho developed a psychosis within two yearsafter the veteran’s discharge and the enddate of the Persian Gulf War.The Senate amendment contained a sini-

lar provision (sec. 364(a).The final bill contains this provision.

Eligibility for medicines for veterans who arehousebound or in need of aid and attendance(sec. 334(c))Under section 612(h) of title 38, veterans of

the Mexican border period, World War I,World War IZ the Korean conflict, or the

7136

March 21, 1991 CVietnam era who receive additional VA serv-ice connected disability compensation, or in-creased VA non-service connected disabilitypension, by reason of being permanentlyhousebound or in need of regular aid and at-tendance, are entitled to be furnished suchdrugs and medicines as may by prescribed forthe treatment of any illnesses or injuriesfrom which they may suffer. VA is also re-quired to continue furnishing drugs andmedicines to any such veteran whose pensionpayments have been discontinued solely be-cause the veteran’s annual income exceedsthe applicable maximum for pension pay-ments, if the veteran’s annual income doesnot exceed that maximum by more than$1,000.The House bill contained a provision (sec.

303(e)) that would extend this entitlement todrugs and medicines to veterans of any "pe-rnod of war", rather than veterans of the pe-riods specified in present section 612(h) oftitle 38, who meet the requirements of sec-tion 612(h). In conjunction with the amend-ment proposed to be made in the definitionof "period war" by section 301(a) of the bill.this provision would provide eligibility toPersian Guld War veterans, and veterans ofsubsequent war periods, who meet those re-quirements.The Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (sec. 364(b)) that would add service dur-ing the Persian Gulf War to the war serviceperiods on which eligibility under section612(h) may be based.The final bill contains the House provision.

Expansion of readjustnent counseling eligibility(sec. 334(d))

Section 612-A of title 38 provides that, uponthe request of any veteran who served on ac-tive duty during the Vietnam era, the Sec-retary of Veterans Affairs shall furnish coun-seling to assist the veteran in readjusting tocivilian life. The counseling must include amental and physical assessment. A veteranwho is furnished readjustment counselingunder this section is also entitled to receivefollow-up mental-health services to completetreatment indicated by the assessment. Im-mediate family members are also eligible forconsultation, professional counseling, train-ing, and mental health services if such serv-ices are determined to be essential to the ef-fective treatment and readjustment of theveteran. In addition, VA has authority toprovide the counseling and related mentalhealth services by contract.Section 612B of title 38 authorizes the Sec-

retary to establish a program to furnish VAcounseling to veterans who are former pris-oners of war to assist such veterans in over-coming the psychological effects of deten-tion or internment as a prisoner of war.The House bill contained a provision (sec.

303(b)) that would amend section 612B to au-thorize the Secretary to furnish counselingservices in any VA facility to any veteranwho (a) is a former prisoner of war, or (b)served on active duty in a theater of combat(as defined by the Secretary of Defense) afterAugust 2, 1990, to assist the veteran in over-coming any psychological problems of theveteran associated with such service.The Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (sec. 364(c)) that would amend section612A to expand entitlement and eligibilityfor readjustment counseling and other serv-ices under that section to include veteranswho served on active duty after May 7, 1975,in areas in which United States personnelwere subjected to danger from armed con-flict comparable to that occurring in battlewith an enemy during a period of war (as de-termined by the Secretary of Veterans Af-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

fairs in consultation with the Secretary ofDefense).The final bill contains the Senate provi-

sion.Reports by Secretary of Defense and Secretaryof Veterans Affairs concerning services totreat post-traumatic stress disorder (sec. 335)The House bill contained a provision (see.

303(g)) that would require the Secretary ofDefense and the Secretary of Veterans Af-fairs each to submit to the Congress two re-ports providing (1) an assessment of the needfor rehabilitative services for members ofthe armed forces who participated in thePersian Gulf conflict who experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); (2) a de-scription of the available programs and re-sources to meet those needs; (3) the specificplans of each Secretary for treatment ofPTSD, particularly with respect to any spe-cific needs of members of reserve compo-nents; (4) an assessment of needs for addi-tional resources in order to carry our suchplans; and (5) a description of plans to co-ordinate treatment services for PTSD withthe other department. The first reportswould be due not later than 90 days after en-actment of this measure and the second, ayear later.The Senate amendment contained no pro-

vision.The final bill contains the House provision.

Increase in Servicemen’s Group Life Insuranceand Veteran’s Group Life Insurance maxi-mums (sec. 336)Subehapter I of chapter 19 of title 38 sets

forth the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance(SGLI) and Veterans’ Group Life Insurance(VGLI) programs. Under that subchapter, theSecretary of Veterans Affairs is authorizedto purchase from commercial life insurancecompanies a policy or policies of group lifeinsurance to insure against death any active-duty service member and certain members ofthe Ready Reserve and Retired Reserve. Eli-gible service members and reservists areautomatically covered in the amount of350,000 but may elect coverage of less than350,000 or to not participate in the programat all. Premium payments for SGLI are de-ducted each month from the basic pay ofservice members and are calculated withoutregard to the extra hazards of active dutyservice. SGLI coverage is provided free ofcharge for 120 days following separation fromactive duty. After separation from activeduty, veterans who participated in the SGLIprogram may participate in the Veterans’Group Life Insurance (VGLI) program.VGLI provides five-year term group life in-

surance in amounts ranging from 35.000 to$50,000. A veteran may not obtain more in-surance under VGLI than the veteran hadunder the SGLI program. At the end of thefive-year term, the veteran has the right toobtain an individual life insurance policy ata standard rate from any company partici-pating in the SGLI program.The Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (sec. 336) that would increase from$50,000 to 100,000 the maximum amount ofServicemen’s Group Life Insurance (SGILI)and Veterans’ Group Life Insurance (VGLI)and provide that. effective on the date of en-actment, the amount of SGLI be increased tothe amount equal to twice the amount pro-vided for on the day before the enactment.The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in con-sultation with the Service Secretaries, wouldbe required to take such action as is nec-essary to ensure that each person affected bythe increase in SGLI is notified of the in-creased insurance coverage and is afforded

7137the opportunity to make an election, within120 days after the date of enactment, not tobe insured In the increased amount.The House bill contained no similar provi-

sion.The final bill contained the Senate provi-

Sion.Amounts of benefit payments under the chapter30 program for active-duty servicenembers(sec. 337(a))Section 1415 of title 38 establishes the

amounts of monthly educational assistanceunder the chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill(MGIB) program for active-duty servicemembers as follows: (1) $300 for full-timestudy for those serving on active duty forthree years or more, (2) $250 for full-timestudy for those serving two years on activeduty, and (3) in both cases, appropriately re-duced rates determined by VA for part-timestudy.The House bill contained a provision (sec.

304(a)) that would increase the monthlychapter 30 payments for full-time study to(1) 3400 for those serving on active duty forthree years or more, and (2) 3300 for thoseserving two years on active duty.The Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (sec. 366(a)) that would increase themonthly chapter 30 payments for full-timestudy to (1) $310 for those serving on activeduty for three years or more, and (2) $259 forthose serving two years on active duty.The final bil contains a provision that

would increase, In fiscal years 1992 and 9,the monthly chapter 30 payments for full-time study to (1) 3350 for those serving on ac-tive duty for three years or more, and (2) $275for those serving two years on active duty.After fiscal year 1993, the Secretary of Veter-ans Affairs would have authority to continuethe increased rates and to increase the ratesto reflect increases in the cost of livingAmounts of benefit payments under the chapter

106 program for reservists (sec- 337(b))Section 2131 of title 10 establishes the

amounts of monthly educational assistanceunder the chapter 106 MGIB program for in-dividuals serving at least 6 years in the Se-lected Reserve as follows: (1) $140 for full-time study. (2) $105 for three-quarter-timestudy, and (3) 370 for half-time study.The House bill contained a provision (sec.

304(b)) that would increase the amount ofmonthly chapter 106 payments to (1) 3200 forfull-time study. (2) 3150 for three-quarter-time study, and (3) 3100 for half-time study-The Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (sec. 366(b)) that would increase theamount of monthly chapter 106 payments,bat only for reservists who are ordered to ac-tive duty during the Persian Gulf War, to (1)$145 for full-time study. (2) 3108.75 for three-quarter-time study, and (3) 372.50 for half-time study.The final bill contains a provision that

would increase, in fiscal years 1992 and 1993.the amount of monthly chapter 106 paymentsto (1) 170 for full-time study, (2) 3128 forthree-quarter-time study, and (3) $85 for half-time study. After fiscal year 1993, the Sec-retary of Defense would have authority tocontinue the increased rates and to increasethe rates to reflect increases in the cost ofliving.Membership on educational benefits advisory

committee (sec. 338)Section 1792 of title 38 requires member-

ship on the Veterans’ Advisory Committteeon Education (VACE) to include veteransrepresentative of World War IL the Koreanconflict era, the post-Korean conflict era.the Vietnam era, and the post-Vietnam era.

7138 cThe Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (sec. 370) that would add veterans of thePersian Gulf War to those who must be rep-resented in the membership of the VACE.The House bill contined no similar provi-

sionThe final bill contains the Senate provi-

sion.Reasonable accommodations for disabled

veterans (sec. 339)Section 2021 of title 38 provides that, in the

case of a person who is eligible for reemploy-ment rights under chapter 43 of title 38, whohas applied for reemployment under the pro-visions of that chapter, and who is no longerqualified to perform the duties of his or herprevious position by reason of a disabilitysustained during reserve training or active-duty service, he or she shall be offered anyother position in the employ of the employerfor which he or she is qualified and whichwill provide like seniority, status, and pay,or the nearest approximation, of the pre-vious position.The Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (sec. 373) that would require an em-ployer to make reasonable accommodationsto requalify an individual to perform the du-ties of his or her previous position. For thepurposes of this provision, the term "reason-able accommodation" would have the mean-ing provided in section 101(9) of the Ameri-cans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.12111(9)).The House bill contained no similar provi-

sion.The final bill contains the Senate provi-

sion amended to clarify that (1) an employerwould not be required to make accommoda-tions if the employer can demonstrate thatthe accommodation would Impose an unduehardship on the operation of the employer’sbusiness, and (2) exclude certain small em-ployers from this requirement. Until July 26,1994, the requirement would apply to employ-ers who have 25 or more employees for eachworking day in each of 20 or more calendarweeks in the current or preceding year. Afterthat date, the requirement would apply tothose who have 15 or more employees foreach working day in each of 20 or more cal-endar weeks in the current or preceding cal-endar year.

Retraining of former employees (sec. 340)Section 2021 of title 38 (in conjunction with

section 2024) generally requires an employerto restore to employment a person wholeaves employment for active-duty service,active duty for training, or inactive-dutytraining, and who applies for reemploymentwithin a prescribed period after release fromservice if that person is still qualified to per-form the duties of the position.The Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (sec. 372) that would require that an em-ployer make reasonable efforts to requalifythe individual to perform the duties of his orher previous position.The House bill contained no similar provi-

sion.The final bill contains the Senate provi-

sion.Entitlement for VA-guaranteed loans (sec. 341)

Under section 1802(a) of title 38, basic enti-tlement for VA home loan benefits is author-ized for (a) veterans who served on activeduty at any time during World War I, theKorean conflict, or the Vietnam era andwhose total service was for 90 days or more,and (b) veterans of only peacetime servicewho served at least 181 days on active duty.Generally with respect to those who enteractive duty service after September 7, 1980,

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENAT

section 3103A of title 38 imposes a minimumservice requirement under which title 38 ben-efits are available only to those who serve atleast two years on active duty, or the full pe-riod for which they were ordered to activeduty, or who were discharged early by reasonof hardship or service-connected disability orin certain other circumstances.The House bill contained a provision (sec.

308) that would extend eligibility for homeloan benefits to Persian Gulf War veteranswhose total service is for 90 days or more.The Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (see. 371) that would extend home loaneligibility to Persian Gulf War veteranswhose total service is for 90 days or more andwho also meet the minimum service require-ments of section 3103A of title 38 (primarilyreservists whose period of activation is be-tween 89 and 180 days).The final bill contains the Senate provi-

sion.Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

Dependency and indemnity compensationUnder chapter 13 of titie 38, dependency

and indemnity compensation (DIG) is paid tothe surviving spouse and children of a vet-eran who dies of service-connected causes.The rate of DIG, set forth in section 411 oftitle 38, is based on the decreased veteran’srank when the veteran was in the military.The House bill contained a provision (sec.

302) that would (1) revise the basis on whichDIG is paid so as to base the rates on the ageof the veteran at the time of the veteran’sdeath, with the amount paid decreasing withthe veteran’s age, and (2) in three incre-ments, on October I of 1992, 1993, and 1994, in-crease from $68 to $200 the amount paid to asurviving spouse or each dependent child.The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill does not contain the House

provision.Authority to contract for inpatient care un-available at VA facilities because of emer-gency care requirementDuring a period in which the Secretary of

Veterans Affairs is furnishing medical careand services to members of the armed forcesto meet emergency requirements, section5011A(b)(2)(B) of title 38 authorizes the See-retary to contract with private facilities forthe provision of hospital care for a veteranwho is receiving VA hospital care, or is eligi-ble for VA hospital care and requires care ina medical emergency posing a serious threatto the veteran’s life and health, if VA facili-ties are not capable of furnishing the carethe veteran requires because they are fur-nishing care to members of the armed forces.The House bill contained a provision (sec.

803(a)) that would authorize the Secretary tocontract with private facilities for hospitalcare for all veterans entitled to hospital careunder section 610(a)(1) of title 38 (known as"Category A" veterans).The Senate amendment contained no simi-

lar provision.The final bill does not contain the House

provision.Improved educational assistance for members ofthe Selected Reserve who serve on active dutyduring the Persian Gulf War

Section 2131 of title 10 establishes theamounts of monthly educational assistanceunder the chapter 106 MGB program as fol-lows: (1) 3140 for full-time study, (2) 3105 forthree-quarter-time study, and (3) $70 for half-time study.The House bill contained a provision (see.

304(b)) that would increase the amount ofmonthly chapter 106 payments to (1) $200 for

E March 21, 1991full-time study, (2) $150 for three-quarter-time study, and (3) $100 for half-time study.This provision would apply to all reserviststraining under the chapter 106 program.The Senate amendment contained a provi-

sion (sec. 367) that would provide for pay-ment to each member of the Selected Re-serve who serves on active duty during thePersian Gulf War and who is entitled tochapter 106 benefits a monthly educationalassistance allowance in the amount of (1)$270 for each month of active-duty service forfull-time study, (2) $202.50 for each month ofservice for three-quarter-time study, (3) and$135 for each month of service for half-timestudy.The final bill does not contain the House

or Senate provision.

Eligibility of requirements for MGlB benefits formembers of the selected reserve

Section 2132(a) of title 10 provides elIgi-bility for chapter 106 educational assistancebenefits to those (1) who enlist, reenlist, orextend an enlistment in the Selected Reservefor at least six years; and (2) who, beforecompleting initial active duty for training,have completed the requirements of a sec-ondary school diploma.The House bill contained a provision (sec.

305(a)) that would extend chapter 106 eligi-bility to members of the Selected Reserve,without regard to the length of their enlist-ments, if they were called or ordered to ac-tive duty in connection with the PersianGulf War and released from active duty uponcompletion of the period of service requiredby their call or order to active duty.The Senate amendment contained no sImi-

lar provision.The final bill does not contain the House

provision.

Chapter 30 program for active-duty servicemembers

Under section 1413 of title 38, active-dutyMGIW participants who complete the basicservice requirements are entitled to 36months of full-time educational assistance(or the equivalent in part-time assistance).Section 1795 limits to 48 months the aggre-gate period for which any person may receiveassistance under two or more VA-adminis-tered programs.The House bill contained a provision (see.

306(a)) that would provide that, in the case ofa reservist or service member who, as a re-sult of having to discontinue the pursuit of acourse because of orders issued for duty inconnection with the Persian Gulf War, failedto receive credit or training time towardcompletion of an approved educational, pro-fessional, or vocational objective, the pay-ment of chapter 30 benefits for the inter-rupted semester or other term would not becharged against the entitlement of the indi-vidual or counted toward the aggregate pe-riod for which the individual may receive as-sistance.The Senate amendment contained a simi-

lar provision (sec. 369(a)).The final bill does not contain the House

or Senate provision.

Chapter 32 educational assistance programSection 1631 of title 38 provides that indi-

viduals who are eligible for the Post-Viet-nam Era Veterans’ Educational AssistanceProgram (VEAP) under chapter 32 are enti-tled to 36 months of full-time educational as-sistance (or the equivalent in part-time as-sistance). Section 1795 limits to 48 monthsthe aggregate period for which any personmay receive assistance under two or moreVA-administered programs.