March 8, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3437

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, March 8, 1982 The House met at 12 o'clock noon,

and was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore <Mr. BEVILL).

DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPO RE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following com- · munication from the Speaker.

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 3, 1982.

I hereby designate the Honorable To11 BEVILL to act as Speaker pro tempore on . Monday, March 8, 1982.

THOMAS P. O'NEILL, Jr., Speaker of the House of Representatives.

PRAYER The Chaplain, Rev. James David

Ford, D.D., offered the following prayer:

We thank You, 0 God, for all men and women who have encouraged us along life's way, who have inspired us and given of their concern in our behalf. We are grateful that You have raised up those people who become . our counselors in perplexity, our com­panions in joy, and our friends in every season. For those personal col­leagues who so freely give of their tal­ents that we may know a more blessed life, we off er this our word of praise. Amen.

THE JOURNAL The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's proceedings and an­nounces to the House his approval thereof.

Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed joint resolu­tions of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House is re­quested:

S.J. Res. 29. Joint resolution to authorize and request the President to issue a procla­mation designating the calendar week of June 6 through June 12, 1982, as "National Garden Week"; and

S.J. Res. 145. Joint resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim "National Orchestra Week."

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PRO­VIDING AMOUNTS FROM CON­TINGENT FUND OF HOUSE FOR EXPENSES OF INVESTIGA­TIONS AND STUDIES BY STANDING AND SELECT COM­MITTEES

tions for the then escalating war in Vietnam.

We recognize the differences be­tween El Salvador and Vietnam. What distresses us are the chillingly familiar similarities. What is civil war in a small country, we are told by the ad­ministration, is directed by Moscow through their Cuban intermediaries. American global strength, we are told, is being tested in the villages and mountains of this tiny country. Human rights violations, we are being told, are an inevitable consequence of this test. Political negotiations are a sign of weakness. Peace will be won by more war.

We have heard it all before; it was wrong then and it is wrong now. . _

The resolution is being introduced with the full understanding of its effect. It is the view of its sponsors that while it will have a serious and significant impact on events in El Sal­vador, there is no other reasonable or viable alternative. All other avenues and options have either failed or are doomed to failure.

Mr. ANNUNZIO, from the Commit­tee on House Administration, submit­ted a privileged report <Rept. No. 97-448) on the resolution CH. Res. 378) providing amounts from the contin­gent fund of the House for expenses of investigations and studies by standing and select committees of the House in the 2d session of the 97th congress, Unless America ceases its interven­which was referred to the House Cal- tion in El Salvador, the conflict in the endar and ordered to be printed. Caribbean Basin will escalate and spill

over to other countries in the region. , The Car1b0ean iS in danger of becom-

LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT ing for the eighties what Southeast FURTHER MILITARY ASSIST- Asia was for the sixties. ANCE TO EL SALVADOR It is time to get out before we are in <Mr. ROSENTHAL asked and was over our heads. We had no business

given permission to address the House there is the first place. What is called for 1 minute and to revise and extend for is a political settlement among the his remarks and include extraneous Salvadoran people themselves. matter.) We recognize that both parties in El

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, Salvador have committed their share today I am introducing a joint resolu- of killings and atrocities. But the tion on behalf of myself and Repre- present administration is asking Con­sentatives GEORGE BROWN, PHILLIP gress to increase military assistance to BURTON, JOHN CONYERS, DON EDWARDS, a regime that is credited with the kill-

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE and ROBERT KASTENMEIER to prohibit ing and torture of over 12,000 of its A message from the Senate by Mr. all further military assistance to El own citizens. Our military support has

Salvador. been increased during the period of Sparrow, one of its clerks, announced The resolution prohibits all U.S. time when the Salvadoran Army and that the Senate had passed, without military assistance to El Salvador, its adjuncts have engaged in a cam­amendment, joint resolutions of the . with the exception of permitting arti- paign of increased represssion and vio-House of the following titles: cles presently in the pipeline to reach lence.

H.J. Res. 348. Joint resolution to provide their destination. It also orders the im- The sponsors of this resolution, for the awarding of a special gold medal to Her Majesty Queen Beatrix in recognition mediate withdrawal of any military while committed to the fullest use of of the 1982 bicentennial anniversary of dip- advisers in that country and prohibits the legitimate electoral process, do not lomatic and trade relations between the any further training programs for El believe that the conduct of the ruling Netherlands and the United States; and Salvadoran soldiers in this country. In Salvadoran junta will permit such an

H.J. Res. 373. Joint resolution expressing short, no more arms, no more military event to occur. In addition, we believe the sense of Congress that the Government advisers, and no more military training that the assertion of outside regional of the Soviet Union should respect the unless Congress expressly authorizes control and direction of the antigov­rights of its citizens to practice their reli- it. ernment forces in El Salvador-wheth­gion and to emigrate, and that these mat-ters should be among the issues raised at It is ironic that the sponsors of this er true or not-totally distorts the the 38th meeting of the United Nations resolution were among the 11 Repre- nature and character of the conflict Commission on Human Rights at Geneva in sentatives in the 90th Congress that and does not justify further U.S. in-February 1982. voted against any further appropria- volvement.

D This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., D 1407 is 2:07 p.m.

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

3438 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 8, 1982 We support the many other congres­

sional initiatives presented so far. We invite still more. The overwhelming opposition to this administration's El Salvador policy by the vast majority of Americans should be taken as a demand that Congress put an end to this reckless course.

The time of reckoning has arrived. We see the handwriting on the wall. We must prevent the growth of war now or we will pay dearly for it later. We believe it is possible to stop this in­evitable escalation of conflict, if the American people voice their opposition and Congress moves swiftly in re­sponse.

The resolution provides: That the President may not-< 1) provide any assistance for El Salvador

under chapter 2 <military assistance>. in­cluding section 506 <special drawdown au­thority>, or chapter 5 <International mili­tary education and training) of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;

<2> issue any letters of offer, extend any credits, or issue any guarantees with respect to El Salvador under the Arms Export Con­trol Act;

<3> enter into any leases of defense articles for EI Salvador under chapter 6 of the Arms Export Control Act; and

(4) issue any licenses under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially.

SEC. 2. The President shall immediately order the prompt withdrawal from El Salva­dor of all members of the United States Armed Forces who are performing defense services under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control Act, con­ducting international military education and training activities under chapter 5 or part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or performing international military assistance and sales program management functions under section 515 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

SEC. 3. The requirements of this resolution · may not be waived under section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or any other provision of law.

I also want to submit for the RECORD the following two articles that ap­peared in the Sunday, March 7, 1982, editions of the New York Times and the Washington Post which cogently set forth the necessity of the resolu­tion we are introducing today:

CFrom the New York Times, Mar. 7, 19821 AN ERROR ON SALVADOR

<By Robert A. Manning and William M. LeoGrande>

WASHINGTON.-The Administration's pol­icy of increasing the United States' military involvement in El Salvador is producing an outcome that is exactly the opposite of the one intended.

Washington's efforts to shore up the Junta with increasing amounts of military aid ha.Sonly deepened the war, and the Sal­vadoran military's brutality has become the guerrillas' best recruiter. According to United States intelligence estimates, for

every civilian that the Salvadoran Army kills, at least 25 guerrilla sympathizers spring up.

As the military situation deteriorates, the Reagan Administration's options narrow. The guerrillas have refused to participate in the March 28 election, designed and admin­istered by their opponents, for a constituent assembly to write a constitution and select an interim president. This election, which United States officials concede will not stop the war, might not produce a center-right Christian Democratic government, but rather one of right-wing extremists. If current efforts fail to break the existing

stalemate, Washington will be faced with only two options: allowing a victory for the leftist guerrillas or sending in ground combat troops on a large scale. Either out­come would profoundly destabilize Central America. .

A guerrilla victory, which might radicalize El Salvador, would further polarize Guate­mala, strengthen the hand of antidemocrat­ic factions in the Honduran armed forces, and probably demolish relations between the United States and Nicaragua. United States intervention, on the other hand, could spread the war throughout the region with no guarantee of victory. Landing 50,000 Marines in Central America would be far easier than getting them home and would have cataclysmic domestic political conse­quences. Moreover, a wider war would only serve to create opportunities for greater in­volvement by the Soviet Union and Cuba­the very thing the Administration is deter­mined to prevent.

By portraying the Salvadoran conflict as a superpower confrontation, President

able to both sides. An international peace­keeping force would be necessary to monitor the ceasefire and oversee the transition process.

The most difficult task would be integrat­ing the opposing armies. But reformist army officers, who, led by the now-exiled Col. Adolfo Majano, ousted the dictator Gen. Carlos Humberto Romero in 1979, and prag­matic guerrilla leaders could form the core of a unified force, perhaps under Colonel Majano's leadership.

Under very similar conditions, a compara­ble formula-including the merger of oppos­ing armies-succeeded in ending the war in Zimbabwe. And the process was overseen by a British Government no less conservative than Mr. Reagan's and equally opposed to nationalist guerrillas similarly dubbed "Marxist terrorists."

Successful negotiations would not only end the war in El Salvador but would reduce tensions throughout the region, remove the main obstacle to better relations between the United States and Nicaragua, allow Honduras to continue its transition to de­mocracy, and increase Guatemala's chances of avoiding a full-scale civil war. If the guer­rillas are as unpopular as the Reagan Ad­ministration claims, Washington has noth­~g to fear from such a negotiated settle­ment. Without negotiations, the war will go on, and a stable, democratic El Salvador will be the least likely outcome.

<Robert A. Manning writes on foreign af­fairs for magazines in the United States and abroad. William M. LeoGrande is professor of political science at American University.>

ReP..gan is painting himself into an ideologi- CFrom the Washington Post, Mar. 7, 19821 cal corner where nothing short of victory will vindicate Washington's investment of Is SALVADOR VIETNAM? THE VERY QUESTION power and prestige. But the investment is Is ALTERING THE SCRIPT still relatively small. Before raising the <By Robert G. Kaiser> stakes any further, the Administration George Ball was the undersecretary of ought to reconsider a third option backed state when the United States was sucked by a growing chorus in Congress and by key into Vietnam like a long piece of thread allies such as President Jose LOpez Portillo drawn into a vacuum cleaner. Ball was the of Mexico: negotiations. highest American official in those days who

The essential conditions for beginning ne- fought against military involvement in Viet­gotiations already exist: a bloody stalemate, nam. Now an investment banker, Ball is a broad international consensus in favor of watching the United States fight against talks, and the dependency of both the Sal- the suction in EI Salvador. vadoran Government and the opposition on He likens the spectacle to a song, or the external powers that can use their leverage soundtrack of a movie: "The music and to bring both sides to the bargaining table. words seem to be almost a plagiarization. I Prompted by Mexico and Europe's Social Democratic parties, the opposition already . have the feeling we've heard it all before, has agreed to begin negotiations without but in another setting ... conditions. Christian Democrats in the Gov- No, no, reply officials of the Reagan ad-

ministration-El Salvador is not Vietnam. ernment are also prepared to negotiate but Secretary of state Alexander M. Haig insists have been blocked from doing so by the that any attempt to draw a parallel between armed forces. Only Washington can force the two "is a terrible distortion of reality the military to the table. and one which overlooks a number of funda-

For negotiations to succeed, both sides mental differences." must be certain that they will not suffer Curiously, Ball and Haig are both right. El militarily. Thus, the first step must be an Salvador is profoundly different from Viet­in-place ceasefire and an end to all foreign nam, but it is also eerily familiar. The set­military aid. The next step is to draw up a ting has changed, but it looks like the same constitution and procedures for conducting old movie. free and fair elections. The constitution The Reagan administration involuntarily could guarantee a democratic outcome by evokes Vietnam in almost every public state­committing all sides to a set of constitution- ment it makes about El Salvador. This is an al principles. To guarantee its honesty, the East-West test. The rebels are controlled electoral process would have to be super- from Nicaragua or Cuba or Moscow. If we vised by a nonpartisan international body don't stop them now the other dominoes such as the Organization of American will begin to tumble. Oh yes, and please States or_ a combination of countries accept- trust us. We have the real dope. We know.

March 8, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 3439 But for Americans El Salvador is different

from Vietnam in one overriding respect: It comes to us after Vietnam. We were willing to go to war in Vietnam because the presi­dent, his State Department and his Penta­gon told us we had to fight to protect the national interest. Not this time.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, the American public opposes sending U.S. troops to El Salvador by 89 percent to 8 per­cent. Even sending military supplies or ad­visers is opposed by substantial majorities.

In Vietnam we were more malleable. At the end of 1965, for instance, after the first U.S. combat forces had gone to fight in Vietnam, Gallup found that the public still supported the war effort by 3 to 1.

Secretary Haig, of course, notes other dis­tinctions between El Salvador and Vietnam. Pressed on the question last week, this was his answer:

"First and foremost is the difference with respect to the strategic importance of Cen­tral America . . . to the United States today . . . This is a vitally important region . . . The outcome of the situation there is in the vital interest of the American people and must be so dealt with."

In other words, in Haig's opinion the country where America lost 57 ,639 lives and squandered $130 billion was not of vital im­portance to the United States; but El Salva­dor is.

And what is the "reality" Haig thinks is being distorted? In his view it is a case of ex­ternal aggression against El Salvador. In Haig's words <speaking of the leftist Salva­doran rebels>: "They're being commanded, controlled, and run externally-completely. They are being armed and trained external­ly, and they are not espousing the wishes of the people of Salvador." There goes the old movie again.

What about the history of El Salvador? What about the story of the 14 families that ran the place like a family farm for decades? What about the supposedly anti-communist Christian Democratic politicians in El Sal­vador who have joined the rebels? What about the accusations that the army and police are responsible for most of the deaths and arbitrary violence? The list of "what abouts" could be a long one indeed, but the movie skips over those questions, leaves them unasked-as the old one did for so long.

Perhaps modem life is a series of movies, some new, some reruns. While the Vietnam movie certainly seems to be running again at times, whoever is up there in the projec­tion booth is playing with the machinery. This time the movie is running much faster than it did in the 1960s.

At the beginning in Vietnam, only a few people paid much attention. The networks didn't start their half-hour evening news programs untll 1962, well after the first U.S. military advisers took up the cudgels against the Vietcong, and they didn't devote much air time to this far-off counterinsur­gency effort. Of course no one knew then what was coming. The thread was already caught in the pull of the Vietnam vacuum, but almost no one realized it. The first time around this was a new movie, and the plot had to unfold one scene at a time.

Now everyone thinks they know how the movie ends, and no one wants it to get that far.

So the networks have camera crews scur­rying around Salvador like ants on a picnic blanket. Every night the network corre­spondents share a one-hour satellite "feed" to the states-instant communications, not shipping film to Hong Kong or Bangkok the way they did in Vietnam, even at the height of the war. Congressional committees are al­ready giving administration officials skepti­cal, even hostile, grillings of a kind they didn't get until late in the Vietnam war.

Government officials want to rewrite the ending to this movie, too. Privately, it is reli­ably said, Alexander Haig rules out the use of American ground forces in Central Amer­ica as definitively as any of the members of Congress who are shouting out against the possibility in public. Professional soldiers at the Pentagon show no appetite for a mili­tary adventure in the Central American mountains. Civilian officials at the Defense Department are impressed by the profes­sional military's unwillingness to contem­plate any new use of American armed force that is not enthusiastically supported by the public.

Stop the movie; we want to get off. There are many other differences and

similarities between El Salvador and Viet­nam. Consider some differences:

Vietnam is nearly the size of California, with 47 million inhabitants <including both north and south>. El Salvador, the size of Massachusetts, has Just 3 million citizens.

Vietnam is on the other side of the world, and it shares a South Asian peninsula with Cambodia, Laos and Thailand-hardly a strategic location. El Salvador is Just 1,400 miles from Florida and 800 miles from the Panama Canal, still a vital link for Ameri­can commerce and military logistics. It is surrounded by similarly impoverished coun­tries long ruled by feudal oligarchies and ripe for insurgencies of their own. Guatema­la, the biggest and richest nation in Central America, already has one; Nicaragua al­ready has a radical leftist regime because its insurgency prevailed. Cuba, nearby, is eager to help leftist rebels in all of these coun­tries, and appears to have weapons and ma­teriel that they can use.

Vietnam before 1975 was an artificially di­vided country whose northern half was ruled by a ruthlessly efficient-and nation­alistic-totalitarian regime. Reunification of the country was the overriding preoccupa­tion of that regime, which could get all the arms and equipment it needed from China and the Soviet Union. Vietnam's southern half was ruled by a Catholic family whose copnections to the United States were stronger than its nationalist credentials. Thanks to the superpower patrons of both sides and the large populations in both halves of the country, the Vietnam war in­volved hundreds of thousands of troops on both sides-not to mention the Americans involved.

In El Salvador there are -oiily about 32,000 armed troops in the continuing civil war. The leftist insurgents have friendly almost­neighbors in Nicaragua <they are separated by about 30 miles of the Pacific Ocean or 70 miles of Honduran territory> and more pow­erful friends in Cuba. But there is no pros­pect that a Salvadoran civil war could ever assume the proportions of the Vietnam war. The soundstage for this movie is Just too small.

There is no American Armed Forces Net­work radio station in El Salvador, probably because there are only about 50 U.S. mili­tary men in the country. When John F. Kennedy entered the White House in 1961, there were already 3,200 American advisors in South Vietnam.

Then ponder other similarities: The American government has committed

itself rhetorically to an outcome in El Salva­dor, Just as it committed itself to an out­come in Vietnam, long before it was clear that this outcome could be achieved. "We will do whatever is prudent and necessary to ensure the peace and security of the Carib­bean area," President Reagan said last month. Haig has been more specific, com­mitting the United States to do "whatever is necessary" to head off a rebel victory in El Salvador.

It was the same in Vietnam. As early as the Truman administration, American pol­icymakers were insisting on the strategic im­portance of Indochina to the United States. The Tonkin Gulf resolution during the Johnson administration formally declared America's commitment to stop "aggression."

Reading through old speeches one is re­minded of a form of rhetoric that has been resurrected for El Salvador.

"I believe, and I am supported by some au­thority, that if the communists are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later." So said Lyndon B. Johnson in January 1967, speak­ing of Vietnam.

"There is no question that the decisive battle for Central America is under way in El Salvador . . . If after Nicaragua El Sal­vador is captured by a violent minority, who in Central America would not live in fear? How long would it be before major strategic United States interests-the Panama Canal, sea lanes, oil supplies-were at risk?" So said Thomas 0. Enders, assistant secretary of state for Inter-American affairs, Just last month.

Because Americans like to act, rhetoric has not stood alone, Just as it didn't in Viet­nam. We already have military advisers on the scene in El Salvador-though we have renamed them "trainers." Trainers, advis­ers, whatever-they are our tribute, our tan­gible contribution meant to make our com­mitment look good.

Of course advisers in Vietnam proved in­adequate to the task at hand, a task that wasn't carefully measured before the com­mitment was made. In El Salvador, again, the advisers don't seem sufficient to stem the rebel tide. Haig now bridles at sugges­tions that with all the help we've already given, our side in El Salvador should have done better in the civil war.

"Nobody had hoped they would go any better," Haig said of the government's forces in a recent interview with The Post. "That's the one thing I want do disabuse you of. All we did in the first stages of our assistance program where we sent 50 guys and a few helicopters and $30 million more to El Salvador was to help to slow down a tide that we inherited. And nobody deluded himself that this was going to solve El Sal­vador ... "

Our side also looks weak again. In Viet­nam our side looked so weak in 1963 that the United States encouraged a coup against Ngo Dinh Diem, the Vietnamese pa-

3440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 8, 1982 triot on whose behalf we made our original commitment to South Vietnam. That left us with no leader on our side, just army offi­cers, against Vietnamese nationalists led by Ho Chi Minh. For 12 years we tried to trans­form those generals into popular political leaders, with no real success.

In El Salvador our side is an army junta nominally led by a civilian politician, Jose Napolean Duarte. Duarte was once undeni­ably popular, but his standing now seems problematical. Reports from El Salvador suggest that he may be ousted after the March 28 elections <which the rebels are boycotting and trying to subvert> and re­placed by a rabid right-winger who-is this in the script?-got his start as an army offi­cer.

A final similarity: The actual situation "on the ground" is baffling. El Salvador's history-like Vietnam's-did not begin the moment the United States took an intense interest in the place. Salvadoran actors are playing out a Salvadoran drama that isn't part of our movie. There are ancient enmi­ties, a well-established social and economic order, old traditions of leadership and much else in El Salvador that can't be explained away by "external aggression." Who and what is our side fighting for?

Our movie skipped over these tough, fun­damental questions in Vietnam. The rerun is skipping over them, too.

Walt W. Rostow was Lyndon Johnson's national security adviser during the Viet­nam war. He is now a professor at the Uni­versity of Texas. Rostow also sees similari­ties between Vietnam and El Salvador.

"I'm not an expert on El Salvador," Rostow said in a recent conversation in Austin. Nevertheless, he went on, this moment has a familiar quality. "It's the same bunch" of "left-intellectuals" and journalists who undermined the Vietnam . war effort who are at work now undermin­ing our efforts to help Salvador, he said. "I fear for my country," he added, complaining of the "knee-jerk" Teaction he perceived in the media that "romanticizes terrorists" and denigrates American policy.

George Ball sees a similarity of a different kind. "We are making essentially the same mistake in thinking that all local situations must be resolved in terms of the East-West conflict," Ball said. "What's going on in Sal­vador is only tangentially related to the So­viets," he added. "This is not a problem that can be solved by military means. It's total nonsense to say that it is."

Another perspective-the perspective from television that helped create the old film-is offered by Gary Shepard of CBS, who covered Vietnam and just returned from three weeks in El Salvador. "The most vivid recollection I've got that ties these two stories together is the Huey Helicopter," Shepard said. In Vietnam that warhorse chopper landed beside rice paddies; in Salva­dor it's sugar cane fields-same helicopter.

Does the local life and culture seem as opaque and foreign as it did in Vietnam? "I think we have a better handle on it in Salva­dor," he replied. He said it wasn't too hard to see how years of oligarchic rule by a few families had helped radicalize the peasantry and lay the groundwork for civil war.

"It really is a civil uprising to a great degree ... a pure version of a civil war," Shepard said. Cuba and the Soviet Union can't be helping very much, he added.

According to Shepard, the insurgents are better at public relations than the govern-

ment. Whereas it is easy to visit rebel forces, interview their commanders and watch them in action, the Salvadoran army doesn't accomodate the TV crews, he said.

Is CBS in New York receptive to material from El Salvador? Oh, yes, Shepard replied, they took everything he could send during a recent three-week assignment. The network still likes "bang-bang" <this is, battlefield> coverage, as it did in Vietnam, he said, "but they want bang-bang with a message"-ex­planations of what's really going on on the ground.

Gen. Samuel V. Wilson was in the thick of the Vietnam war in its early stages. Later he was the U.S. military attache in Moscow. Later still he was director of the Defense In­telligence Agency. He's now retired in Rice, Va.

"We sort of came wretching and vomiting out of our Vietnam experience saying 'Never Again!'" Wilson said the other day. "We've sort of spooked ourselves."

Like Secretary Haig, Wilson believes that America's vital interests are more clearly at risk in Central America than they ever were in Vietnam. He thinks that despite Vietnam. Americans could be persuaded to support "reasonable steps in this area" to secure those interests, provided they understood what was involved.

"But I don't see evidence that we learned a helluva lot from our experience in South­east Asia," Wilson said. The main lesson he learned. Wilson went on, is that a man in one of these third-world countries racked by internal strife "has got to be able to see fairly clearly what his options are . . . If he sacrifices himself, what are his possible gains?"

The man in the rice paddy, like the man in the sugar cane field, wants security, social justice, educational opportunity for his children, rudimentary health care and some basic economic opportunity, Wilson ·suggested, "You have to look at your pro­grams and see how well you satisfy these five," he said. "You start dealing with these first."

Americans are too quick to make others' · problems their own, Wilson remarked. "Hell, this is a much bigger problem for Mexico than it is for us." He suggested the United States encourage Mexico to take ini­tiatives in El Salvador that we could endorse and support. "We'd be so much better off getting somebody else into this instead of playing the dominant Yankee role from the North."

Secretary Haig has already looked ahead to the end of the movie. He does not see a light at the end of the tunnel; he sees refu­gees.

"Just think what the level Cof illegal Cen­tral American immigration into the United States] might be." Haig said recently, "if the radicalization of this hemisphere con­tinues with the only alternative a totalitar­ian model in one state after the other. Why, it will make the Cuban influx look like child's play."

Will there also be boat people? Please, somebody change the script.

LAW OF THE SEA TREATY IS FLAWED

<Mr. FIELDS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, as a con­gressional adviser to the Law of the Sea Conference, I want to bring to my

· colleagues' attention the fact that this is the first day of what has been pre­sented as the last negotiating session of the Law of the Sea Treaty before signatures are to be attached to this treaty in Caracas, Venezuela, in the fall.

Mr. Speaker, this treaty is funda­mentally flawed. It does not represent the best interests or the national in­terests of the United States of Amer­ica. This treaty as drafted would create an entity much stronger than the United Nations.

It would create an international seabed authority which would not only make laws but would control two­thirds of the Earth's surface. Quite simply, we would be giving up the right to explore two-thirds of the Earth's surf ace without firing a shot.

In this international seabed author­ity, in the Assembly, each country has one vote. Our country has no veto. We have received no guarantee of a seat on any important committee in this particular international seabed au­thority. The orientation is toward the Third World and the Communist bloc.

Under this treaty we would not have unfettered access to deep ocean bed minerals. There would be a mandatory technology transfer provision in this particular treaty. There would be pro­duction ceilings. There would be anti­monopoly provisions. To top it all off, the United States would end up fund­ing 25 percent of the cost of the inter­national seabed authority.

The Law of the Sea Treaty should be lost at sea. This is not in the best interest of this country and our efforts as a country should be placed toward the Reciprocating States Agreement which is currently a law and some­thing that will be ratified by our coun­try, as I understand it, this week.

COMMUNICATION FROM MARY LEE DUNCAN

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following com­munication from Mary Lee Duncan:

FEBRUARY 25, 1982. Hon. THOMAS P. O'NEILL, JR., Speaker of the House, Room H-205, Capitol, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: This is to notify you, pursuant to the provisions of Rule L<50), paragraph 2, of the Rules of the House, that this afternoon I was served with a sub­poena to testify in a case pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

I am to appear on Friday, March 5th at 9:30 a.m., at the United States District Court House, Washington, D.C.

Sincerely yours, MARY LEE DUNCAN.

March 8, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3441 DUBIOUS ARMS PACKAGE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gen­tleman from Illinois (Mr. DERWINSKI) is recognized for 5 minutes. e Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I am especially concerned over the possible sale to Jordan of F-16 fighter bombers and I-Hawk mis­siles because of the foreign policy questions it raises as well as the ques­tion of the overall arms balance in the Middle East. Therefore, I have written to Secretary of Defense Weinberger to express my opinion that it is essential that interested Members of Congress be consulted before an attempt is made to ramrod this dubious arms package to Jordan through Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to insert the text of my letter to Secretary Wein­berger into the RECORD at this point.

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 8, 1982. Hon. CASPAR WEINBERGER, Secretarv of Defense, Department of Defense, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: This is to express my great concern over the possible sale of F-16 fighter bombers and I-HAWK missiles to Jordan because of its geopolitical, mili­tary and economic consequences and the questions it raises about the credibility of U.S. policies in the Middle East.

Jordan has been demonstrating an in­creasingly erratic foreign policy since it clearly is susceptible to pressure from the PLO and radical Arab governments such as Syria. The government of Jordan should re­alize it has far more to fear from Arab ex­tremists acting on behalf of the Soviet Union or despots such as Assad and Qadhafi than it does from Israel. However, Jordan has not shown any progressive attitude or willingness to reach any understanding or accommodation with Israel. Jordan has con­sistently refused to participate in the Camp David Accords or recognize the fact that Israel has lived up to the Accords to the fullest possible extent. One only has to look at the tragic situation in Lebanon to see the Syrian-PLO destructive presence. This ongo­ing tragedy in Lebanon should have a sober­ing effect on Jordan's foreign policy. In con­trast, the government of Israel has demon­strated by its actions concern over the future of the Christian communities in Leb­anon.

Therefore, given the many scars left in Congress by the manner in which the Ad­ministration handled the sale of A WACS to Saudi Arabia, and the ongoing concern many Members of Congress have with regard to the validity of that sale, it is es­sential that interested and knowledgeable Members of Congress be consulted before an attempt is made to ramrod a dubious arms package to Jordan through Congress.

Sincerely yours, EDWARD J. DERWINSKI,

Member of Congress.•

CAN YOU AFFORD A PLACE TO LIVE IN?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gen­tleman from Texas <Mr. GONZALEZ) is recognized for 15 minutes.

e Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, hardly anybody can afford a place to live in today. The cost of mortgage in­terest is excruciatingly high, which shuts all but a few out of the market for new homes. Only a third as many new homes are being built today as were built in 1977. What few homes are being built are not being sold. Nearly one-third of the homes built last year have not sold, and that was a year in which new home starts were at depression levels.

It is not easy to find-or afford-a place to rent, either. Apartment con­struction is off by 50 percent from the 1977 level. Even though vacancies are practically nonexistent, apartment construction remains low.

The savings and loan industry, which powers the housing business, is in desperate trouble. The savings people want $10 billion to keep sick in­stitutions afloat; economists think that 1,000 or more savings and loans will go out of business without some kind of Federal intervention. With the savings and loan industry sick, mort­gage money is scarce.

As chairman of the Housing Sub­committee, my responsibility is to find some way to ease the sickness of the housing industry. Everybody from lumberjacks to real estate salespeople are hurting. Anybody who wants to build, buy, or sell a home is frustrated.

Last week I offered a new housing bill intended to lift some of the gloom and make housing more affordable.

An important part of my bill is a program for affordable rental housing. I would make available a flexible grant to local sponsors of affordable rental housing. To get the most efficient type of program possible, project sponsors could get Federal aid in almost any form, from an outright capital grant to a loan. My bill, H.R. 5731, encour­ages local governments to make contri­butions like land donations to keep the cost of the units low. To qualify for aid, the sponsor would have to agree to rent one-fifth of the apart­ments to low-income persons. The rest would be available for people of mod­erate incomes, whose only real need is for a place to rent at a reasonable price.

H.R. 5731 also provides for funds to finance homes for sale. It would make subsidies available to home buyers whose income is slightly above aver­age-people who could finance a home if interest rates were at a reasonable level.

Altogether, the bill would make available up to 175,000 units of afford­able housing for rent or sale. This would boost home construction sub­stantially in the coming year.

This bill reaffirms the historic na­tional commitment to providing a safe, decent, affordable home for every citi­zen. It is not extravagant: The eco­nomic benefits will far outweigh the

costs. The cost of the program would be no greater than current Federal outlays for housing, which have been greatly reduced from previous levels.

The Reagan administration does not want to provide any new Federal as­sistance for housing production. In fact, the President aims to cut 46,000 homes out of existing Federal commit­ments. Yet history shows that no nation, not even ours, has been able to meet all its housing needs without a national commitment and an effective national housing program. Ironically, the Reagan administration's drive to dismantle America's housing programs comes at a time when the demand for homes is reaching an historic high. We are faced with a real threat that the Nation's ability to house itself will de­cline sharply at the very time when the housing industry ought to be reaching its greatest strength.

An example of the dismantling proc­ess is that the administration wants to kill 5,000 new units of subsidized hous­ing for the elderly-which supposedly is the one assisted housing program that the President supports. The De­partment of Housing and Urban De­velopment is also trying to pull back thousands of commitments on subsi­dized single-family homes, in the sec­tion 235 program, on the pretext that the units were not completed on time. Construction delays are understand­able in a year when the Nation has just endured its worst winter in histo­ry. The Nation also needs affordable homes, and it is unconscionable that the administration is trying to elimi­nate tens of thousands of section 235 low-cost housing at a time when build­ers are desperate, very few buyers are able to afford today's incredible inter­est costs, and unemployment in the construction industry is running ramp­ant.

In the past 50 years, thanks to such Federal help as FHA insurance, low­rent public housing, and incentives to build, this has become a Nation of well-housed people, the best housed people in the world. The Federal help has been essential, and it has paid far more economic benefits than it ever cost. For example, FHA mortgage in­surance has not cost the Government a dime: It has, in fact, turned a $1112 billion profit.

I do not think we can afford to aban­don our commitment to housing. The need for a positive Federal policy has never been greater. The program I in­troduced in the House last week is con­structive and workable, one that will go a long way toward unraveling the dilemma that today has trapped every­one who needs a home, or is trying to make a living building or selling homes, along with all those who supply the brick, glass, lumber, and myriad other ingredients of housing, from appliances to shingles. If we do

3442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 8, 1982 not solve the housing dilemma, nobody will be able to afford a home, except the very rich.e

EQUALITY AND FAIRNESS: BACK TO METHUSELAH?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gen­tleman from Wisconsin <Mr. REUss> is recognized for 10 minutes. e Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, there follow my remarks on the distribution of income and wealth in America given before the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial celebration, sponsored by Americans for Democratic Action, in Washington on March 6:

EQUALITY AND FAIRNESS: BACK TO METHUSELAH?

<Remarks of Representative HENRY S. REUSS of Wisconsin at ADA FDR Memori­al, Washington, D.C., Mar. 6, 1982> Fifty years ago, when FDR was elected

President, the first thing he had to do was to combat the three pillars of Hooverism­trickle-down economics, the idea of an impo­tent federal government, and an almost mystical belief in gold.

Herbert Hoover believed deeply in trickle­down economics. As he said, "The sole func­tion of government is to bring about a con­dition of affairs favorable to the beneficial development of private enterprise." Aided by his Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, huge tax cuts were given the wealthy. As banker Frank D. Vanderlip said at the time, "Capital kept too much and labor did not have enough to buy its share of things."

In his acceptance speech at the Chicago Convention in 1932, FDR met the trickle­down theory head on:

"The theory of government that helps a favored few and hopes that some of their prosperity will leak through to labor, to the farmer, to the small businessman has been discredited."

Hoover also held that the problems of the unemployed should be left to private char­ity and local government:

"This is not an issue as to whether people shall go hungry or cold in the United States. It is solely a question of the best method by which hunger and cold shall be prevented. It is a question as to whether the American people, on one hand, will maintain the spirit of charity and mutual self-help through vol­untary giving and the responsibility of local government as distinguished, on the other hand, from appropriations out of the Feder­al Treasury for such purposes."

A third Herbert Hoover article of faith was gold as the rescuer of his collapsed economy. Declaring that gold is a metal "en­shrined in human instincts for over ten thousand years," he boasted of having saved the gold standard in early 1932: "Never was our Nation in greater peril."

Today, fifty years later, we find Ronald Reagan doing a replay on Herbert Hoover.

Trickle-down is now called supply-side eco­nomics. In the words of its chief theologian, George Gilder: "Forget the idea of overcom­ing inequality by redistribution . . . A suc­cessful economy depends on the prolifera­tion of the rich."

The second pillar of Hooverism is also born again. Reagan's New Federalism holds that if only the churches would take care of the poor, "our welfare problem would be

solved," and that children's aid and food stamps should be turned over to the states.

The final link between the economics of Hoover and the economics of Reagan­gold-was put into place only last month. Before the Gold Commission, Treasury Sec­retary Regan and Economic Advisers Wei­denbaum and Jordan chose this time of crisis to bring gold to the rescue. These gen­tlemen propose the creation of a gold coin to be sold by the United States Treasury and to be exempt from all capital gains taxes, thus giving gold speculators a free ride.

I present this comparison of Hoover and Reagan not to compare the twin disasters they have achieved-ten million unem­ployed, widespread bankruptcies, and mounting human misery.

I am mainly interested in looking at the distribution of income and wealth in this country, what has happened to the ideal of equality and fairness in the last fifty years, and where we are heading today.

So let us look at history. Back in 1929 the top 20 percent of Ameri­

can families enjoyed 54.4 percent of the income, with the remaining 45.6 percent spread among the remaining four-fifths of a nation.

Through FDR, and Harry Truman, and Ike, and JFK, and right up until 1967, the overall size of the American pie, and the shares of the bottom 80 percent, both im­proved markedly. Federal responsibility for jobs and economic growth, the progressive income tax, and low interest rates surely had a great deal to do with it. Thus, from 1929 to 1967, the share of the top 20 percent declined from 54.4 percent to 43.4 percent, with the lower four-fifths picking up these extra billions. Incidentally, this enlarged middle class provided the savings and invest­ment that was needed for growth.

With steady growth and improved distri­bution, the United States managed to hold together during depression and war. Progress toward economic equality-not ab­solute equality, surely, but at least the avoidance of extremes-went hand in hand with progress toward political equality and social equality.

Then, in 1967, something happened. That something was the Vietnam War, and thus guns-plus-butter economic mistakes which led to the years of stagnation, with alternat­ing unemployment and inflation, that have bedeviled us ever since. All during the 1970s wages of the average worker lagged behind inflation. Middle-class people were not able to take advantage of the tax loopholes of the rich.

Thus moderate-income people found their income shares declining by several points, whereas the top one-fifth recouped some of their early losses, rising from 43.4 percent in 1967 to 45.2 percent in 1978, the latest year for which we have figures.

Since 1978, the disparity of incomes has grown worse. Consumer prices have even farther outstripped average weekly earn­ings. And for the affluent, dividend income, interest income, executive compensation, perks in the form of entertainment allow­ances, club dues, company cars, stock op­tions, have all skyrocketed.

As a result of this backsliding, the United States is today at close to the bottom, in terms of inequality, of the leading industri­alized democracies. West Germany, Canada, Sweden, Great Britain, and Japan all have more equal income distribution than the United States. Only France for a while was worse than we, and the new French govern-

ment is presently leaving us in bottom place, in the cellar.

And now, enter the economic program of Ronald Reagan. While we sit here, the most abrupt and radical redistribution toward in­equality of wealth and income in history is taking place.

The Reagan program achieves this by its spending program, its tax program, its mon­etary program, its regulatory program, and its nondiscrimination program.

We can see the radical redistributive effec­tives of Reaganism on every side:

1. In expenditures, all the time-tested pro­grams for the poor are drastically cut-med­icaid, food stamps, school lunches, housing, energy assistance, legal services, pneumonia immunization, neighborhood programs, compensatory education, daycare, public service jobs. Other sharp casualties are pro­grams of particular interest to middle-class groups-passenger rail, mass transit, clean air and water, student loans, public televi­sion, the arts and humanities, unemploy­ment compensation.

While it is true that military spending will be sharply increased, this will be of little economic help to the average American. Military industries tend to be concentrated in the Sunbelt, and to be capital-intensive rather than labor-intensive. And military spending is particularly inflationary be­cause, unlike the production of civilian goods, it creates no purchaseable commodi­ty to satisfy the money demand of the work­ers and managers who make the military hardware.

2. In tax policy, the few pennies of reduc­tion the average taxpayer-those with present taxable incomes of $15,000-$35,000-will get from Kemp-Roth will be more than swallowed by inflationary brack­et creep, and by the continued increases in the social security payroll tax.

Meanwhile, the affluent will do splendidly as the "heroes of economic life", in George Gilder's phrase. A family with an income of $150,000 will find its marginal rate drops from 64 to 49 percent by 1984. Already in effect are reductions in the top bracket on unearned income from 70 to 50 percent, and of the maximum tax rate on capital gains from 28 to 20 percent. Half of all capital gains are received by the top 1.3 percent of taxpayers, half of all dividends by the top 1.4 percent.

As President Reagan shifts former federal social programs to state and local govern­ments, the tax burden will shift from the progressive federal income tax to the regres­sive state and local property taxes on the homeowner and sales taxes on the con­sumer, both tough on average income fami­lies.

As Scott Fitzgerald once remarked, it is better to be rich than poor. This is particu­larly true under the Reagan tax program. Added to the vast array of existing loop­holes for the rich, are new goodies for the receivers of dividends, for those who buy All-Savers certificates, for the expanded IRA.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, 86 percent of the Reagan tax cuts go to over-$20,000 a year families, while two­thirds of all the spending cuts will be taken from under-$20,000 families.

The corporate income tax, and the estate and gift tax, have been largely done away with.

The distribution of wealth in this country has been even more unequal than the distri­bution of income. With the radical reduc­tions in individual and corporate income

March 8, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3443 truces, and of estate and gift taxes, the dis­parities of wealth will become greater.

3. In monetary policy, the super-high in­terest rates of Reaganomics foster greater inequality of income and wealth as surely as his spending and tax programs.

The Reagan administration blames the present ruinous level of interest rates on the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve blames the administration.

Both are right. But that is small comfort to the unemployed men and women, and the bankrupted businesses, that are falling victim to the Reagan tight-money policy.

Like dividends, interest income is also highly skewed toward upper-income people. The top 24 percent of trucpayers get 50 per­cent of interest payments, the top 3 percent, 21 percent.

These disparities are obvious when you look at who borrows and who lends. Moder­ate-income people borrow heavily for home mortgages, consumer goods, doctor bills and education. And upper-income groups, having the money to lend, naturally do most of the lending.

4. In regulatory policy, the Reagan admin­istration's shoddy effort to get rid of regula­tory protection is also going to worsen in­equality. Breadwinners who grow ill of black lung disease or who die in an accident on an unsafe shop floor are headed for involun­tary poverty for themselves and their fami­lies. When we tear up programs of occupa­tional safety and of clean air and water, we condemn millions not only to physical harm but to growing poverty.

5. A fifth contributor to the maldistribu­tion of income and wealth is the Reagan ad­ministration's attack on efforts to end dis­crimination against blacks and women. Whether by the sleazy decision to exempt racist institutions from taxation, or by abandonment of the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, what hurts blacks and women hurts the drive for equality overall.

There you have it-a concerted radical drive backward toward greater inequality, toward Hoover, toward Methuselah.

Unless we check it, the poor, the handi­capped, the minorities will be ground to the breaking point. Unless we check it, modest­income people will run out of the purchas­ing power needed to turn the economy's wheels. Unless we check it, we are courting the violence that comes when whole classes feel themselves endangered

FDR said: "The test is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have enough. It is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

We need another FDR.e

FARM ECONOMY IS IN A DEPRESSION

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gen­tleman from Texas <Mr. HIGHTOWER) is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Mr. Speaker, last September, 32 percent of the farm loans in Texas were delinquent, 35 per­cent of my area, the 13th Congression­al District. The January 1, 1982, figure shows around 80 percent of the Farm­ers Home Administration farm pro­gram loans in my district are delin­quent, 69 percent statewide. If 80 per­cent being delinquent is not serious, I do not know what is serious. I have been told so many times that I cannot

stand to hear it that the inefficient farmers are the ones in trouble. That we need to get rid of inefficient farm­ers. I am telling this House today that 80 percent of the farmers with Farm­ers Home loans in my area are not in­efficient. Most of the inefficient farm­ers went under in 1978, 1979, 1980. They are gone.

This does not mean that we are going to lose 80 percent. It does mean that the entire farm economy is in a depression. Farm income, according to the Secretary of Agriculture, will not top the $19 billion figure that we have for the past 2 years. Several respected agricultural economists are predicting a net farm income of $14 billion this year.

I have asked the Secretary of Agri­culture what we can do to improve the situation, and the response is that things always improve. I hope so. I pray every day that we are going to see a turnaround that this entire coun­try needs. I cannot just sit and hope. My people did not elect me to sit and hope that some other country will have bad crops and our prices will im­prove.

I am going to do everything possible on the Appropriations Committee to fund the revolving credit fund to help us win back markets lost to other countries because they do make credit available. We have lost significant for­eign markets that used to be ours. The dollar value of our exports may very well go down this year for the first time in 5 years. We need to be selling our products, not just sitting and wait­ing for someone to call on us.

I am working with Congressman CHARLES STENHoLM, of Texas, on a pro­gram to encourage farmers to use all of the marketing tools available to use the loan, the reserve, to use acreage set aside to try and improve the prices.

I will continue to urge the adminis­tration to increase the loan levels for the different commodities for two rea­sons: First, to raise the price floor, and second, to reduce the budget exposure of the tax dollar between the loan and the target price.

The final result must be that the ad­ministration has to accept that there is a very real problem that is not going to go away by pretending that it does not exist. Interest rates are killing the farmer, the businessman, the home­builder, the Federal budget. The prob­lem is a little bigger than that, like one of the farmers from my district told the Secretary of Agriculture the other night in Lubbock, if I did not have the principal to pay back, the in­terest would not be near the problem that it is today.

If we are going to have any farmers left, we must look at what is happen­ing on the farm. In 1981, Farmers Home loaned farmers in Texas $75 million under the economic emergency program. A program with $600 million

in it that the administration is not using as of today. In 1981 Farmers Home loaned farmers in Texas $492.9 million under the disaster emergency loan program. We had good crops in Texas this past year so there will not be any money to speak of loaned under this program for the 1982 crop year. Finally, we had $79 million loaned under the operating loan pro­gram in 1981, there is $102 million available this year. The banks are not able to take back most of these farm­ers. There is not anywhere to go. If things do get better ultimately many farmers will not be around to enjoy it.

0 1215

IMPORTANT BUSINESS THE HOUSE COULD DO

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the previous order of the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania <Mr. WALKER) is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, the House again today has met in a pro forma session, which in effect says to the American people that we have no serious business to conduct at this time and that we have had no serious business to conduct since the begin­ning of the year.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Amer­ican people should begin to focus on this procedure and should begin to focus on the fact that here in this House, we have met day after day in pro f orma sessions or in very short ses­sions, doing next to nothing.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there are some things this House could be doing. There are issues that we could be taking up, issues that we have been told for years around here that we just do not have the time to consider.

Very often when some of us have suggested, for example, the school prayer issue ought to be addressed on this floor, we are told that, well, we have pressing legislative business and we just CaIL."lot get to that, or that when we say that busing should be ad­dressed on this floor, we are told, no, there are just too many other things cramming the calendar. We cannot get to that, or when we suggest that dis­criminatory quotas might be some­thing that this House should take a position on and that we ought to debate-no, we cannot get to that, either, because we just do not have the time, or when we suggest that one way of getting at crime might be to have the death penalty put on certain class­es of Federal crimes, we are told, well, that is something also that we just do not have the time to address.

Well, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that right now we do have the time. We have shown since the beginning of this year that we do have the time.

Now, I am admonished when I bring this up on the floor that, well, we have

3444 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 8, 1982 got to follow the regular procedures of the House. These bills that we are dis­cussing just are not ready to be brought out.

Well, that raises another question. I wonder why they are not ready to be brought out. For instance, a balanced budget bill was put into the hopper of this House and went to committee on January 5, 1981. It has been sitting around for more than a year waiting for some kind of action on it.

The school prayer amendment was introduced on January 16, 1981, and yet it still has not been brought out under the regular procedures of the House.

Busing, that issue which has been addressed in the other body, was first introduced in this body in committee on January 5, 1981. It has been more than a year and we have not addressed it under the regular procedures.

Antiquota legislation, January 5, 1981, more than a year.

The death penalty, January 5, 1981, more than a year that these things have been around, they could be ad-

. dressed and yet we are here on the floor. We are saying that we are going to meet in proforma sessions and we are not going to cover those issues.

What happens then, Mr. Speaker, is that we find out that those issues, be­cause they are so important, have to come up under irregular procedures. Those of us who feel strongly about them bring them up under appropria­tion bills or authorization bills and then again we are admonished that, well, again, this is not the proper way to address that issue. You ought not to bring that issue up under these kinds of procedures. We ought to face these issues face forward, straight up, debate them on the merits of the issue.

Well, that is what I am saying, Mr. Speaker. I think we ought to and I think we ought to be addressing them right now while we have the time.

For example, even if we want to follow the regular procedures of this House, we do not want to resort to going into the committees and asking them to speed up a bill so that we can have it here on the floor.

The busing proposal was passed by the other body and is just sitting and waiting for this House to take it up, and yet we understand that the Chair may decide to hold that bill and not bring it up on the floor.

What I am saying is, all right, here we are meeting in pro f orma session. The Chair is holding very important legislation. We could be addressing that right here today on this floor.

Well, what is going to happen is that we are going to have all these impor­tant issues. We are going to have a lot of other important issues facing this House and they are going to get jammed up just before a recess or just before adjournment, just like we have

always done here over the last several years. That means that we are going to get some awful bad legislation jammed through this House on the idea that we have got to act because it is an emergency. We are going to be told that, well, you just have got to take this up today and you have got to pass it. You cannot amend it. You cannot do anything with it because we are right down at the time in which people are going to be cut off their social security checks or all of you want to go home for a recess to your districts and talk about these issues back in your districts. We have got to pass these right now.

That is exactly what is going to happen again, because we are meeting here in pro forma session, doing noth­ing. We are going to have these things jammed up at the end of the year and we are going to pass some bad legisla­tion.

I think the American people would know what kind of legislation we passed in those late hours of the last session. That they may remember is when Congress gave themselves a hefty increase in outside earnings kind of under the table, very sneakily.

Well, that is the kind of thing that happens when you get legislation jammed up at the end.

I submit that is a bad way to legis­late. We ought to be using the time we have right now. It is high time that this Congress begins to act on the im­portant issues before the American people.

I think there needs to be a focus on pro f orma sessions and that the Amer­ican people ought to know that every time they see that the House has met pro forma, that we have really done nothing about the issues which most directly affect them.

IMPORTANT BUSINESS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE HOUSE <Mr. STRATTON asked and was

given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.>

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentleman from Pennsylvania that this session today has not been an unfruitful one, because I have introduced in the hopper at the beginning of the session with 236 cosigners a bill to award to Adm. Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy, re­tired, a gold medal in honor and ap­preciation for his manifold services to the country.

I am advised by the chairman of the appropriate subcommittee in the Banking and Currency Committee that that bill is going to be acted on as a result of the action today during what the gentleman has referred to as a pro forma session, and is going to be acted on in the subcommittee tomor­row.

I trust that the House overwhelm­ingly will approve it on the following day; so I want to assure the gentleman that even though these are pro forma sessions, that, nevertheless, it is possi­ble for important business to be, if not transacted, at least meaningfully con­tributed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED By unanimous consent, permission

to address the House, following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was granted to:

Mr. WALKER, for 15 minutes, today. <The following Members Cat the re­

quest of Mr. ROBERTS of South Dakota> to revise and extend their re­marks and include extraneous materi­al:>

Mr. MARKs, for 60 minutes, March 9. Mr. SILJANDER, for 10 minutes,

March 9. Mr. DERWINSKI, for 5 minutes,

today. <The following Members Cat the re­

quest of Mr. HIGHTOWER) to revise and extend their remarks and include ex­traneous material:>

Mr. GONZALEZ, for 15 minutes, today. Mr. ANNUNZIO, for 5 minutes, today. Mr. COELHO, for 5 minutes, today. Mr. ENGLISH, for 5 minutes, today. Mr. REUss, for 10 minutes, today. Mr. HIGHTOWER, for 10 minutes,

today.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS By unanimous consent, permission

to revise and extend remarks was granted to:

<The following Members Cat the re­quest of Mr. ROBERTS of South Dakota> and to include extraneous matter:>

Mr. WILLIAMS of Ohio. Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. DORNAN of California. Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. HUNTER. Mr. PORTER. Mr. SHUMWAY. Mr. DANNEMEYER. <The following Members Cat the re­

quest of Mr. HIGHTOWER) and to in­clude extraneous matter:>

Mr. ANDERSON in 10 instances. Mr. GONZALEZ in 10 instances. Mr. BROWN of California in 10 in­

stances. Mr. ANNUNZIO in six instances. Mr. JONES of Tennessee in 10 in­

stances. Mr. BONER of Tennessee in five in-

stances. Mr. FRosT in five instances. Mr. MINETA in three instances. Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. CROCKETT.

March 8, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3445

Mr.BOWEN. Mr. RODINO. Mr. FRANK. Mr. LELAND in 10 instances. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. BONIOR of Michigan in two in-

stances. Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. DIXON. Mr. ScHUMER in eight instances. Mr. SWIFT. Mr. NATCHER.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTIONS REFERRED

Joint resolutions of the Senate of the following titles were taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, ref erred as follows:

S.J. Res. 29. Joint resolution to authorize and request the President to issue a procla­mation designating the calendar week of June 6 through June 12, 1982, as "National Garden Week"; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

S.J. Res. 145. Joint resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim "National Orchestra Week"; to the Commit­tee on Post Office and Civil Service.

BILL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

Mr. HAWKINS, from the Commit­tee on House Administration, reported that that committee did on March 5, 1982, present to the President, for his approval, a bill of the House of the fol­lowing title:

H.R. 4625. An act to authorize the Secre­tary of the Army to return to the Federal Republic of Germany certain works of art seized by the U.S. Army at the end of World War II.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, I

move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accord­

ingly Cat 12 o'clock and 22 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until to­morrow, Tuesday, March 9, 1982, at 12 o'clock noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, execu­tive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as fol­lows:

3303. A letter from the Acting Deputy As­sistant Secretary of Defense <Facilities, En­vironment, and Economic Adjustment>. transmitting notice of location, nature, and estimated cost of various construction projects proposed to be undertaken by the Naval Reserve, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2233a<l>; to the Committee on Armed Serv­ices.

3304. A letter from the Acting Deputy As­sistant Secretary of Defense <Facilities, En­vironment, and Economic Adjustment>. transmitting notice of location, nature, and estimated cost of various construction

projects proposed to be undertaken by the Air Force Reserve, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2233a<l>; to the Committee on Armed Serv­ices.

3305. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 4-161, "D.C. workers' compensation act of 1979 amendments act of 1982," pursu­ant to section 602<c> of Public Law 93-198; to the Committee on the District of Colum­bia.

3306. A letter from the Secretary of Edu­cation, transmitting a draft of proposed leg­islation to amend title IV, part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965; to the Com­mittee on Education and Labor.

3307. A letter from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting the annual report for fiscal year 1980 on Federal activities on alcohol abuse and alco­holism, pursuant to sections 102<1> and lOl<d>Cl> of Public Law 91-616; to the Com­mittee on Energy and Commerce.

3308. A letter from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting the annual report on the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, pursuant to section 806 of Public Law 95-620, as amended; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

3309. A letter from the Comptroller Gen­eral of the United States, transmitting the annual report on the activities of the U.S. General Accounting Office for fiscal year ending September 30, 1981, pursuant to sec­tion 312<a> of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921; to the Committee on Govern­ment Operations.

3310. A letter from the Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, transmit­ting the annual report on the financial status of civil service retirement fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, pursuant to sec­tion 121<a> of Public Law 95-595; to the Committee on Government Operations.

3311. A letter from the Acting Assistant Public Affairs Director for News, Depart­ment of Agriculture, a report on the Depart­ment's activities under the Freedom of In­formation Act, during calendar year 1981, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552<d>; to the Commit­tee on Government Operations.

3312. A letter from the Assistant Secre­tary of State for Congressional Relations, transmitting reports on political contribu­tions made by Ambassador-designate Herman W. Nickel, and by members of his family, pursuant to section 304<b><2> of Public Law 96-465; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

3313. A letter from the Assistant Secre­tary of the Interior <Territorial and Inter­national Affairs), transmitting the annual report of the fiscal condition of the Ameri­can Samoa Government for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1980, pursuant to sec­tion 3(d), Secretary's order 3009, September 13, 1977; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

3314. A letter from the Assistant Secre­tary of the Interior <Indian Affairs), trans­mitting a proposed plan for the use and dis­tribution of Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation Judgment funds awarded in dockets 350-G and 54-81L, pur­suant to sections 2<a> and 4 of Public Law 93-194; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

3315. A letter from the Attorney General of the United States, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to reform habeas corpus procedures, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

3316. A letter from the Commissioner, Im­migration and Naturalization Service, and

U.S. Department of Justice, transmitting copies of orders suspending deportation under the authority of section 244<a>< 1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to­gether with a list of the persons involved, pursuant to section 244<c> of the act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

3317. A letter from the Secretary of Transportation, transmitting a draft of pro· posed legislation to authorize appropria­tions for the fiscal years of 1983 and 1984 for certain maritime programs of the De­partment of Transportation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

3318. A letter from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting the fifth annual report on the electric and hybrid vehicles program, pursuant to section 14 of Public Law 94-413; to the Committee on Science and Technology.

3319. A letter from the Comptroller Gen­eral of the United States, transmitting an audit of the office of the attending physi­cian revolving fund for fiscal year 1981, CAFMD-82-36, March 5, 1982>; Jointly, to the Committees on Government Operations and House Administration.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLU­TIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports

of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: [Pursuant to the order of the House on Mar.

4, 1982, the following reports were filed on Mar. 5, 1982}

Mr. DANIELSON: Committee on the Judi­ciary. H.R. 4491. A bill to exempt the U.S. Capitol Historical Society from certain taxes; with an amendment <Rept. No. 97-445 >. Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. DE LA GARZA: Committee on Agricul­ture. H.R. 2160. A bill to amend the Potato Research and Promotion Act; with an amendment <Rept. No. 97-446). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. DE LA GARZA: Committee on Agricul­ture. H.R. 3881. A bill to direct the Secre­tary of Agriculture to release on behalf of the United States a reversionary interest in certain lands conveyed to the Arkansas For­estry Commission, and to direct the Secre­tary of the Interior to convey certain miner­al interests of the United States in such lands to such commission; with Bil amend­ment <Rept. No. 97-447, Ft. I>. Ordered to be printed.

[Submitted Mar. 8, 19821 Mr. ANNUNZIO: Committee on House Ad­

ministration. House Resolution 378. Resolu­tion providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of investiga­tions and studies by standing and select committees of the House in the 2d session of the 97th Congress <Rept. No. 97-448>. Re­ferred to the House Calendar.

Mr. BROOKS: Committee on Govern­ment Operations. Report: "Norad Computer Systems are Dangerously Obsolete" <Rept. No. 97-449). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. BROOKS: Committee on Govern­ment Operations. H.R. 3943. A bill to amend the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agree­ment Act CRept. No. 97-450). Referred to

3446 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 8, 1982 the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. KINDNESS: Committee on the Judi­ciary. H.R. 4468. A bill to amend chapter 84, section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to establish zones of protection for certain persons protected by the U.S. Secret Serv­ice; with an amendment <Rept. No. 97-451>. Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. SYNAR. Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 4688. A bill to amend the Military Per­sonnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of 1964 to increase from $15,000 to $20,000 the maximum amount that the United States may pay in settlement of a claim under section 3 of that act; with amendment <Rept. No. 97-452>. Referred to the Commit­tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. SYNAR: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 2329. A bill conferring jurisdiction on certain courts of the United States to hear and render judgment in connection with certain claims of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma with amendment <Rept. No. 97-453, Ft. I>. Order to be printed.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 5 of rule X and clause 4 of rule XXII, public bills and resolu­tions were introduced and severally re­f erred as follows:

By Mr. ASPIN: H.R. 5744. A bill to amend the Military Se­

lective Service Act to reduce to $200 the maximum penalty applicable to persons who fail to register under that act during any period when there is no authority to induct persons into the Armed Forces; to the Committee on Armed Services.

H.R. 5745. A bill to provide that checks drawn on the Treasury must be presented for payment within 6 months after the date of issuance; to the Committee on Govern­ment Operations.

By Mr. BROYHILL: H.R. 5746. A bill to apply duty-free treat­

ment to hosiery knitting machines; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. FLORIO: H.R. 5747. A bill to amend the war powers

resolution to require specific authorization for the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces into El Salvador for combat; to the Commit­tee on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr. FUQUA Cby request>: H.R. 5748. A bill entitled the "National

Science Foundation Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1983 and 1984"; to the Commit­tee on Science and Technology.

By Mr. HUBBARD: H.R. 5749. A bill to provide that the

amendment made by the Economic Recov­ery Tax Act of 1981 with respect to the eli­gibility of replacement property acquired in a section 1031or1033 transaction for special farm valuation for estate tax purposes shall apply to estates of decedents dying after De­cember 31, 1976; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. SCHUMER: H.R. 5750. A bill to stimulate the produc­

tion and rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing; to the Committee on Banking, Fi­nance and Urban Affairs.

By Mr. SHUMWAY: H.R. 5751. A bill to impose quotas on the

importation of East German montan wax during 1982, 1983, and 1984; to the Commit­tee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. SWIFT (for himself, Mr. COL­LINS of Texas, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. LUKEN, Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. MOTTL, Mr. TAUKE, and Mr. TAUZIN):

H.R. 5752. A bill to amend the Communi­cations Act of 1934 to make certain revisions in procedures applicable to the renewal of broadcasting station licenses; to the Com­mittee on Energy and Commerce.

By Mr. ROE <for himself and Mr. ROSENTHAL):

H.J. Res. 425. Joint resolution to designate April 24, 1982, as "National Day of Remem­brance of Man's Inhumanity to Man"; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. ROSENTHAL Cfor himself, Mr. BROWN of California, Mr. PHIL­LIP BURTON, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. ED­WARDS of California, and Mr. KAs­TENMEIER):

H.J. Res. 426. Joint resolution to prohibit military assistance for El Salvador; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr. DANIEL B. CRANE: H. Res. 379. Resolution expressing the

sense of the House of Representatives re­garding the torture and mutilation of dogs for profit in the Republic of the Philip­pines; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

MEMORIALS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, 281. The SPEAKER presented a memorial

of the Legislature of the State of Michigan, relative to free movement of aircraft; to the Committee on Public Works and Transpor­tation.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESO~UTIONS

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally ref erred as follows:

By Mr. VOLKMER: H.R. 5753. A bill for the relief of certain

persons who suffered damages arising from the flood caused by the breach, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on July 27, 1981, of a cofferdam on the Salt River in the State of Missouri; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 5754. A bill to provide compensation to lessees of certain Federal land located in Missouri for losses sustained in 1981 as a result of the flooding of such land; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, spon­

sors were added to public bills and res­olutions as follows:

H.R. 1140: Mr. LAGOMARSINO. H.R. 1400: Mr. RAILSBACK. H.R. 2102: Mr. WINN. H.R. 3416: Mr. SHAW. H.R. 4399: Mr. FAZIO, Mr. TAUKE, and Mr.

YOUNG of Alaska. H.R. 4786: Mr. AKAKA, Mr. MAVROULES,

Mr. SKELTON, Mr. FORD of Tennessee, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. CLINGER, Mr. DOUGHERTY, and Mr. MOTTL.

H.R. 4936: Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland, Mr. JAMES K. COYNE, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. HORTON, Mr. OTTINGER, and Mr. FAZIO.

H.R. 5127: Mr. WHITTEN, Mr. BOWEN, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. HANSEN of Idaho, Mr. DAUB, Mr. WoN PAT, Mr. SMITH of Pennsylvania, Mr. BEVILL, Mr.

CouRTER, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. LAGOMARSINO, Mr. WILSON, Mr. HARTNETT, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. ASHBROOK, Mr. NAPIER, Mr. LoTT, Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT, Mr. ROBERTS of Kansas, Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. ROE, Mr. DENARDIS, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. CHENEY, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. BAILEY of Missouri, Mr. MATTOX, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Mr. ANTHONY, Mr. PRITCHARD, Mr. SHARP, Mr. ALExANDER, Mr. CLINGER, and Mr. DOWDY.

H.R. 5192: Mr. BLILEY, Mr. BROWN of Col­orado, Mr. COATS, Mr. COUGHLIN, Mr. JAMES K. COYNE, Mr. CLINGER, Mr. FIELDS, Mr. HENDON, Mr. HOPKINS, Mr. KEMP, Mr. LEACH of Iowa, Mr. LEE, Mr. LEw1s, Mr. ROGERS, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. PICKLE, and Mr. O'BRIEN.

H.R. 5312: Mr. McKINNEY. H.R. 5341: Mr. BETHUNE, Mr. STUMP, and

Mr. GRISHAM. H.R. 5432: Mr. ANNuNz10, Mr. DAN DANIEL,

Mr. HARKIN, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. LUN­GREN, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. HUTTO, Mr. BEVILL, Mr. BRINKLEY, Mr. AsPIN, Mr. MCCURDY, Mrs. HOLT, Mr. DICKINSON, Mr. SHUMWAY, Mr. MICHEL, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. BOLLING, Mr. MINETA, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. DE LuGo, Mr. ZA­BLOCKI, Mr. KAzEN, Mr. BROOMFIELD, Mr. McEWEN, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. ROYBAL, Mrs. BYRON, Mr. WHITE, Mr. MOLLOHAN, Mr. DYSON, Mr. LEATH of Texas, Mr. DAVIS, Mr. McGRATH, Mr. RUDD, Mr. CONTE, Mr. HAMIL­TON, Mr. LEwIS, Mr. PEYSER, Mr. STOKES, Mr. AUCOIN, Mr. HIGHTOWER, Mr. ALExAN­DER, Mr. HEFNER, Mr. BENJAMIN, Mr. SABO, Mr. DICKS, Mr. O'BRIEN, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. MCDADE, Mr. GREEN, Mr. EDWARDS of Okla­homa, Mr. Scm:uER, Mr. WILLIAM J. COYNE, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. RICHMOND, Mr. TRIBLE, Mr. BEILENSON, Mr. NATCHER, Mr. BOLAND, Mrs. BOGGS, Mr. WATKINS, Mr. GRAY, Mr. OBEY, Mr. FAZIO, Mr. PORTER, Mr. PURSELL, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. COUGHLIN, Mr. LoEFFLER, Mrs. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. MYERS, Mr. BAILEY of Pennsylvania, Mr. GAYDOS, Mr. WALGREN, Mr. MCCLORY, Mr. FOWLER, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. FOUNTAIN, Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. FAUNTROY, Mr. ADDABBO, Mr. ZEFERETrI, Mr. YATES, Mr. ROUSSELOT, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. ASHBROOK, Mr. ATKINSON, Mr. BIAGGI, Mr. BONER of Ten­nessee, Mrs. BouQUARD, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BROYHILL, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CLAUSEN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. DANNEMEYER, Mr. JAMES K. COYNE, Mr. DONNELLY, Mr. CLINGER, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. HAMMERsCHMIDT, Mr. HANSEN of Idaho, Mr. RITTER, Mr. HUGHES, Mr. HYDE, Mr. LENT, Mr. LoWERY of California.Mr. LUJAN, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. MATTOX, Mr. McDONALD, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. NEAL, Mr. WILSON, Mr. PEPPER, Mr. PATTERSON, Mr. PRITCHARD, Mr. HOWARD, Mr. RODINO, Mr. ROE, Mr. WORTLEY, Mr. PATMAN, Mr. MCCOL­LUM, Mr. CORCORAN, Mr. CORRADA, Mr. VENTO, Mr. WON PAT, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. FORD of Tennessee, Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. FARY, Mr. DOWNEY, Mr. REUSS, Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. DWYER, Mr. SMITH of Iowa, Mr. SYNAR, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. JONES of Oklahoma, Mr. FORSYTHE, Mr. VANDER JAGT, Mr. Russo, Mr. SHANNON, Mr. BOWEN, Mr. YATRON, Mr. FASCELL, Mr. GON­ZALEZ, Mr. FLORIO, Mr. DOUGHERTY, Mr. BONIOR of Michigan, Mr. BONKER, Mr. FROST, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. GRISHAM, Mr. SOLO­MON, Mr. ERDAHL, Mr. MARTIN of New York, Mr. DUNN, Mr. CARMAN, Mr. COATS, Mr. BADHAM, Mr. JONES of Tennessee, Mr. PICKLE, Mr. RATCHFORD, Mr. RAILSBACK, Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. QUILLEN, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Mr. SEIBERLING, Mr. UDALL, Mrs. HECKLER, Ms. FERRARO, Mr. SOLARZ, Mr. HARTNETT, Mr. HOYER, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. JONES of North

March 8, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3447

Carolina, Mr. MITCHELL of New York, Mr. LEACH of Iowa, Mr. LAGOMARSINO, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. GINN, Ms. OAKAR, Mr. ANTHO­NY, Mr. STUMP, Mr. SHAMANSKY, Mr. NICH­OLS, Ms. FIEDLER, Mr. GORE, Mr. BINGHAM, Mr. KAsTENMEIER, Mr. MILLER of California, Mr. GLICKMAN, Mr. HAWKINS, Mr. GARCIA, Mr. DORNAN of California, Mr. WF.;BER of Ohio, Mr. MOLINARI, Mr. LEE, Mr. BUTLER, Mr. MOORE, Mr. LANTos, Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. BEARD, Mr. CHAPPELL, Mr. PHILIP M. CRANE, Mr. COURTER, Mrs. F'ENWICK, Mr. HUBBARD, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. LEBouTIL­LIER, Mr. ROEMER, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. SWIFT, Mr. WOLF, Mr. WHITTEN, Mr. WHITEHURST, Mr. EvANS of Georgia, Mr. DERWINSKI, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. ScHULZE, Mr. NELSON, Mr. ROSENTHAL, Mr. CARNEY, Mr. MCCLOSKEY, Mr. LEvITAS, Mr. MAVROULES, Mr. FuQUA, Mr. NAPIER, Mr. ScHUMER, Mr. SUNIA, and Mr. ENGLISH.

H.R. 5485: Mr. DIXON, Mr. JAMES K. COYNE, Mr. PEYSER, Mr. SIMON, Mr. SWIFT, and Mr. COELHO.

H.R. 5558: Mr. SMITH of Pennsylvania, Mr. BLANCHARD, and Mr. KILDEE.

H.R. 5583: Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. PRITCHARD, and Mr. MCCLORY.

H.J. Res. 272: Mrs. HECKLER, Mr. ARCHER, Mr. FORD of Michigan, and Mr. ANTHONY.

H.J. Res. 385: Mrs. HECKLER, Mr. GRAY, Mr. MICHEL, Mr. DERWINSKI, Mr. CLAUSEN, Mrs. BOUQUARD, Mr. CORCORAN, Mr. EMERY, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. LATTA, Mr. MARTIN of North Carolina, Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois, Mr. WEBER of Ohio, Mr. MORRISON, Mr. HORTON, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. DICKINSON, Mr. MYERS, Mr. FUQUA, Mr. DANIEL B. CRANE, Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT, Mr. SHUMWAY, Mr. MINETA, and Mr. MOLINARI.

H.J. Res. 420: Mr. BAFALIS, Mrs. BouQUARD, Mr. BRINKLEY, Mr. CoRRADA, Mr. CROCKETT, Mr. DENARDIS, Mr. DICKINSON, Mr. DOUGHERTY, Mr. EMERSON, Mr. ERDAHL, Mr. FAUNTROY, Mr. FAZIO, Mrs. FENw1cK, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. FORD of Tennessee, Mr. FuQUA, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. GREEN, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Mr. HEFNER, Mrs. HOLT, Mr. HUGHES, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. LAFALCE, Mr. LEE, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. MADIGAN, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, Mr. MoAKLEY, Mr. MORRISON, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. ROEMER, Mr. ROSENTHAL, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. SUNIA, Mr. WEBER of Ohio, Mr. WHITEHURST, Mr. WINN, Mr. WoN PAT, and Mr. WORTLEY.

H. Con. Res. 275: Mrs. HECKLER, Mr. ARCHER, Mr. DERWINSKI, Mrs. BOUQUARD, Mr. LUNGREN, Mr. WHITEHURST, Mr. CORCO­RAN, Mr. EMERY, Mr. GOODLING, Mr. HUNTER,

Mr. BENNETT, Mr. LATTA, Mr. ADDABBO, Mr. MARTIN of North Carolina, Mr. SANTINI, Mr. WEBER of Ohio, Mr. HORTON, Mr. BOWEN, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. DICKINSON, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. McDONALD, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. DANIEL B. CRANE, Mr. PEPPER, Mr. SHUMWAY, Mr. CLINGER, Mr. MINETA, Mr. LEE, Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT, Mr. BROWN of Colorado, and Mr. RoE.

H. Res. 265: Mr. WEBER of Ohio. H. Res. 321: Mr. BETHUNE and Mr. GRIS­

HAM. H. Res. 362: Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr.

ROBERTS of Kansas, Mr. LUNGREN, Mr. OXLEY, Mrs. ScHNEIDER, Mr. ROBERTS of South Dakota, Mr. LUJAN, and Mr. JOHN­STON.

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 1 of rule :XXII, 362. The SPEAKER presented a petition

of Alabama Labor Council, A.FlrCIO, Bir­mingham, Ala., relative to decontrol of nat­ural gas; which was referred to the Commit­tee on Energy and Commerce.