July 24, 1978 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 22469 EXTENSIONS ... - GPO · PDF fileJuly 24, 1978...

July 24, 1978 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 22469

AMENDMENT TO COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT EXTENSION

HON. LES AuCOIN OF OREGON

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, July 24, 1978

• Mr. AuCOIN. Mr. Speaker, I shall be offering an amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act Extension <H.R. 10285) that would tighten un the procedures under which the Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversees rule changes proposed by the numerous contract markets in this country.

Among the many responsibilities assigned to the Commission under the Commodity Exchange Act, section 5(a) places an oversight responsibility on the Commission to review and sanction all changes that are proposed in the rules that govern the operation of contract markets. The Commission currently receives approximately 300 notifications of rule changes per year, about 200 of which are actually presented to the commissioners for approval.

The Commodity Exchange Act and the regulations which accompany it are vague, to say the least, on the administrative procedures which the contract markets and the Commission are required to abide by. There is currently no requirement for the po.3ting of public notice of a proposed rule change. There is no right provided for in the act or the regulations for an aggrievfd party to petition for a public hearing before the commissioners.

Although a contract market is currently required to state the purpose of a proposed rule change in its submission for approval to the Commission, there is no requirement that the underlying reasoning or possible impacts of the change be included in the submission.

The purpose of my amendment is to extend to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission similar administrative procedures that apply to other Government agencies under the Administrative Procedures Act. Simply put, I believe that a public agency such as the CFTC charged with oversight functions in the public interest should operate openly and guarantee the right of the public to observe and take part if they so desire in the decisionmaking process.

My amendment calls for the submission by the contract markets of an economic and statistical analysis that would accompany any application to the Commission for approval of a rule change. Ironically, this provision would actually reduce the administrative workload of the Commission. By shifting the burden of proofing the proposed rule change on to the promulgator of the rule-that is, the contract markets-this would serve to reduce the amount of in-

vestigative research that the Commission is currently required to undertake.

Other parts of my amendment incorporate similar language to that included in the Administrative Procedures Act. On receipt of a proposed rule change, the Commission would be required to publish notice of the change in the Federal Register and allow a period of 60 days for public comment and participation in the approval process. In addition, my amendment would guarantee the right of a public hearing before the commissioners to an aggrieved party. All decisions of the Commission would be required to be reached at a public hearing within 90 days of receipt of the proposed rule change.

In urging you to support my amendment, I want you to know that I would be the last person to propose unnecessary burdensome regulations on yet another agency. In this case, however, I think the administrative procedures that I am suggesting are fully justified both to protect the rights of the public in decisionmaking and protecting the Commission its elf from possible charges of unfair or secretive practices. If the contract markets or the Commission have nothing to hide, there can be no strong objection to this amendment which seeks only to insure that decisions are reached openly and above board.

I urge your support for this amendment.•

HOUSE SOLAR PROJECT

HON. J. J. PICKLE OF TEXAS



• Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, I commend my able colleagues Chairman "B1zz" JOHNSON, Subcommittee Chairman NoRM<\N MINETA, and the Honorable BILL WALSH for moving ahead in the introduction today of legislation to authorize the installation of solar collectors on certain House Office Buildings.

At the beginning of this Congress I introducec. legislation for a feasibility study to determine if solar collectors could be used in a beneficial and cost effective manner on any of the House Office Buildings. This measure passed the House by a vote of 368 to 29 on May 17, 1977. On April 28 of this year the Architect of the Capitol transmitted to the Speaker of the House the completed study.

This study indicated that over 50 percent of the domestic water heating, 13 percent of the building heating, and 34 percent of the air-conditioning needs of House Office Building Annex No. 2 could be supplied with solar energy; and that over 48 percent of the domestic water heating, 33 percent of the winter preheating and 79 percent of the summer re-

heating needs of the Rayburn House Office Building could be supplied through the use of solar collectors. Translated into a long-range overview, the study indicates the solar collectors would repay their installation costs and begin to reap concrete savings within a reasonable time. The collectors would save over $4.5 million in utility costs for these two structures within the first 20 years even assuming only moderate increases in current fuels costs. Since the buildings have a life expectancy of far more than 20 years, this is a useful and cost-eff ective step.

The collectors on the Rayburn Building will not be visible from the ground so that the architectural integrity of the Capitol complex will not be disturbed.

A study was made of the Longworth and Cannon House Office Buildings as well, but these buildings do not have enough proper roof space with sufficient structural strength to make the use of solar collectors economically viable given the current State of solar technology.

Accordingly, the legislation being introduced today contains no authorizations concerning these two structures.

This legi8lation, therefore, does not expect too much, and it does not expect too little. It is carefully thought out, and it is prudent and cost effective.

I think it is a healthy step for the Congress to take. While the experts argue over when, where, how, and at what cost we will face a fossil fuel energy shortage, all are agreed that between now and the early years of the next century we need to be developing alternative energy sources.

The Congress has taken the lead more than once in providing funding for a national effort to improve our alternative energy possibilities. But, as the Good Book says in James 1 :22, "Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only;" and that is what we can do here. If every Congressman can go home and say, "We use solar energy in our office buildings in Washington," it will speak louder than a thousand grant and loan programsand at · a very small cost which will be repaid to the taxpayer in a short time.

So I am very pleased that the distinguished chairman of the Public Works Committee and other members of that committee are moving forward on this matter. I thank them for their assistance, their encouragement, and their support.•

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

HON. TOM CORCORAN OF ILLINOIS



e Mr. CORCORAN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, due to a previous commitment in my district, I was forced to be absent

Statements or insertions which are not spoken by the Member on the floor will be identified by the use of a "bullet" symbol, i.e., •

22470 during the consideration of several important issues during ' part of Wednesday, July 19. In order that my positions on these issues will be a part of the public record, I insert the following voting record for the four recorded votes that I missed in today's RECORD:

Rollcall No. 566: On final passage of H.R. 1609, Coal Pipeline Act of 1978, "nay."

Rollcall No. 557: On ordering the previous question to House Resolution 1172, providing for consideration of H.R. 11983, Federal Election Commission authorization, fiscal year 1979, paired for .

Rollcall No. 568: On final passage of H.R. 11983, "yea."

Rollcall No. 569: On agreeing to House Resolution 1277, providing for consideration of H.R. 13385, temporary increase in the public debt limit, "nay." •

CHASING SUBATOMIC PARTICLES AND FERMILAB

HON. TOM CORCORAN OF ILLINOIS



e Mr. CORCORAN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, during my nearly 18 months in Congress, I have become acquainted with several national scientific achievements. One such area of expertise is the high energy physics field. In my district in Batavia, Ill., there exists one of the most prestigious facilities in the country where these types of experiments and research are carried out each day-Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab).

It is with a deep sense of reluctance that I announce the resignation last week of Dr. Robert Wilson, the founder of the lab and its "father" since its inception in 1967. Dr. Wilson resigned because of the problems the facility was having with Federal funds, at least primarily. But he was also concerned with the keen competition from Europe in the high energy physics field .

Fortunately, the House of Representatives has increased the appropriations for Fermilab by $13 million over that of the Department of Energy budget for next year; and I thank my colleagues for their assistance in this respect. The Senate hopefully will also increase appropriations for this laboratory. This certainly will help the facility, but the increased competition from Europe will necessitate an awareness on our part that this country must continue to forge ahead in this field or be left behind. At this time, I am including an article from the Tuesday, April 11, 1978 Christian Science Monitor which details some of the problems which are of concern to American scientists. I would ask that this article by Robert C. Cowen be included in the RECORD:

[From the Christian Science Monitor, Apr. 11, 1978)

CHASING SUBATOMIC PARTICLES

(By Robert C. Cowen) As physicist Robert R. Wilson puts it, in

the pursuit of subatomic particles, "something interesting is up."

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS A confluence of discovery and theoretical

insight suggests that the particle hunters are on the verge of a deeper understanding of the basic structure of matter.

New machines, planned or under construction, promise to carry the search into an energy range where some long-standing mysteries should be resolved, and perhaps new puzzles revealed.

Yet, just when his field is poised for this breakthrough, Dr. Wilson has resigned the directorship of the Fermi National Accellerator Laboratory (Fermilab) at Batr-via, Illinois-a facility physicists have considered the jewel among American high-energy physics research centers.

This resignation is a dramatic protest against what Dr. Wilson calls " funding . .. below that necessary to operate .. . responsibly." But his gesture has an even deeper meaning. For the American physicist's underlying concern seems to be what he considers an inability to keep up with European scientists. The rise of that competition in this decade marks a historic change for a field of fundamental science that was created in the U.S. and dominated by Americans for 40 years.

" Now we're going to have to be satisfied to compete in this field , rather than dominate it . Now we are learning to live with others, especially the Europeans, as vigorous partners ," says Sidney Drell of Stanford University and chairman of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) .

caITICISM REJECTED

Dr. Drell disagrees with the contention that American hig-h-energy physics is underfunded. Some critics, such as those at Fermilab, feel the present roughly $300 million-ayear level is some $50 mill ion short of what is needed. But Dr. Drell says the administration's fi scal 1979 budget request ($288.1 million for DOE with a few percent more available from the National Science Foundation) is the minimum needed to maintain a "viable level." "In my opinion," he adds, "it provides for a very healthy program."

That, however, is very much a matter of opinion. Milton G . White of Princeton Univers ity, who is chairman c f the Board of Trustees of University Research Association (URA) , says he believes American highenergy physics is not able to fulfill its potential. It is falling behind that of Europe, and this is d iscouraging many of the bright, able, dedicated people who carry it out. URA is a consortium of 53 universities (52 in the United States, one in Canada) that manages Fermilab for the DOE. While Dr. Drell speaks for a panel whose judgments represents a quasi-official assessment of priorities among senior physicists, Dr. White has a vantage point from which he can discern a wider spectrum of feeling .

Thus it is that American physicists, whose first particle-probing accelerator was invented in 1930, are adjusting uneasily to the fact that others may preempt the laurels of discovery- and this at a time when the promise of major new findings gleams tantalizingly on the horizon.

To app:rP,ciate the agony this causes, one must plunge, at least briefly, into the bewildering world of the particles. It is a cosmos where even experts are hard put to find a handy image to help visualize what is going on.

Hit a plutonium atom with the right kind of particle (a neutron) and it "splits," releasing energy in the process. The image is rough, but workable enough to visualize what happens in nuclear fission.

But what do you make of two protons (particles that help make up the nuclei of atoms) banging together? The protons don't "split." There is just a profusion of new particles, including more protons, which appear out of "nowhere" as energy transmutes itself into material mass- according to the famous

July 2.~, 1978 equivalence of mass and energy deduced by Einstein.

GARBAGE CANS IN COLLISION

It's a situation that Dr . Wilson calls "as complex as two garbage cans in collision." That is perhaps as good an image as you can get to help visualize the interaction. The "true" picture-to the extent that physicists can get at the "truth" about particles-is represented by abstractions that are best handled mathematically.

Nevertheless, physicists have brought a high degree of order to their description of the particles over the past 20 years, and this can be outlined simply.

To begin with, physicists distinguish between what they call matter and antimatter. The latter is a kind of mirror image of ordinary matter. A particle and its antiparticle a.re alike in all respects except that certain properties, such as electric charge, may be reversed between them. Thus, while a proton has a positive electric charge the antiproton has a negative charge.

Particles and their antip·articles often are created in pairs in subnuclear intel'actions. A photon (a particle of light) may materialize as an electron and its antiparticle the positron (a positively charged electron). When particle and antiparticle · meet, they may annihilate each other, dematerializing their mass into a burst of pure energy. Electrons and posi trans can vanish in a flash of light.

Physicists classify particles and their antiparticles into two major families called leptons and hadrons-names that could have come straight out of Tolkien.

Leptons are particles that don't "feel'' the so-called strong force that binds together protons and similar but electrically uncharged particles called neutrons to make the nuclei of atoms.

Leptons are the closest thing to an elementary particle that physicists have seen. There is no hint they consist of anything more fundamental. And there is only a handful of them. So far, the existence of four leptons (plus their antiparticles) has been established. They include the electron, a similar but more heavily charged particle called the muon, and two kinds of neutrino, which are electrically neutral particl~s that have no intrinsic mass but which carry energy.

Hadrons, on the other hand, do respond to the strong nuclear force and a.re anything but elementary. They include the proton and neutron and hundreds of other particles that may just be different manifestations of something more fundamental. Over the past decade, physicists have convinced themselves that this "something" is a set of elementary particles called quarks-a term originated in James Joyce's novel "Finnegans Wake."

Quarks come in several varieties. They have electric charges that are positive or negative fractions (one-third or two-thirds) of the amount of charge on an electron. At first, there was evidence of three quarks called " up," "down," and "strange." Then indications of a fourth quark appeared, a particle with a property called "charm." Now physicists are in hot pursuit of definitive evidence for what may be two more quarks tentatively called "top" and "bottom" or "truth" and "beauty."

While physicists don't understand in a fundamental sense all the properties that distinguish such particles, they give them whimsical names and can take precise account of them mathematically. Thus hadrons are said to come in different "flavors" while qua rks carry well defined "colors." "Particle physicists just seem to like familiar names for their rather abstract notions," observes R. ·L. Jaffe of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The trouble with quarks is that, no matter how they try, physicists have yet to isolate one. The conviction is growing that quarks cannot appear in isolation. They may be

July 24, 1978 bound together by a new kind of force so that they only exist in combinations that appear, to the outside world, to be some sort of hadron-say a proton or neutron.

The known basic forces-such as electromagnetism or the strong nuclear binding force-are strongest when particles are close together, weakest when particles are far apart . But the force with which quarks interact, if it exists, would be weakest when particles are closest and grow stronger as two quarks tried to separate. Dr. Jaffe calls this notion of quark confinement a young, radical idea for which " we have no fundamental explanation."

NO PRECISE CALCULATIONS "Nothing like the permanent confinement

of quarks has been encountered before in the study of the structure of matter," he explains in reviewing the situation in the journal Nature. Dr. Jaffe elucidates : "Subnuclear physics is in a rather peculiar state at present. There is wide agreement as to a prospective theory of hadrons . .. . Yet there are no precise, unequivocal , and successful calculations of anything to bolster our faith .... "

"Nevertheless," he adds, " the theory which has emerged is very precisely formulated . .. . It offers the hope of explaining hadron properties in precise detail although at present only approximate calculations are possible."

Physicists place even more hope in the next generation of accele:.:ators, which will bang patricles together with energies far higher than any available in the laboratory so far. Then data may emerge that will give theorists the insight they need, or which may prove decisively the value or folly of such things as the quark confinement force .

"It's hard for me to think of anything much more exciting than observing an isolated (quark) . .. . " says Dr. Wilson, adding, "and if all that energy doesn 't produce a quark, then at some stage we must admit that we have experimentally demonstrated a new force, and that's as interesting as a new particle-or more so!"

Physicists also hope that higher energy interactions will shed new light on the leptons. Recent data suggest there may be a fifth lepton, perhaps even a sixth (plus their antiparticles), in addition to the four already known.

There are Nobel prizes to be won elucidating such things, to say nothing of a host of lesser discoveries. It adds to the sense of frustration of many American high-energy physicists to think that such rewards would be well within their grasp if only they had the money to move ahead at a pace of which they are capable.

For example, Drs. Wilson and White are concerned both with funds to run experiments and with the timetable for building new accelerators. Fermilab now has the most powerful machine, an accelerator that can boost protons to energies of 500 billion electron volts-or 500 GEV, in physicists' shorthand. That's the amount of energy an electron would gain if accelerated by the force associated with 500 billion volts. On the subatomic scale, it's a lot of energy. But to put it in perspective, it's only about a billionth of the energy a 100-watt light bulb uses in one second.

CERN IN COMPETITION CERN, the European Center for Nuclear

Research which 12 countries maintain in Geneva, is a close competitor to Fermilab, with a 400 GEV accelerator. It also has a facility in which beams of protons, each with 28 GEV of energy, circulate in opposite directions to meet in head-on collisions.

This is the route to the highest useful energies. A moving proton ( or other particle) hitting a stationary target is !ike a moving car hitting a stationary vehicle from behind. Much of the energy of the incoming

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS missile goes into setting the target in motion. Thus for a 500 GEV proton hitting a fixed hrget, only about 31 GEV of energy is available for creating new particles. But when two 500 GEV protons meet head on, all of their combined energy is available to cause events of interest to experimenters. It would take an accelerator 1,000 times more powerful-500,000 GEV-to equal that performance by shooting at a fixed target.

Several such colliding beam facilities for protons or electrons are bull t or planned in Europe, besides that already operating at CERN.

In the United States, a 4 GEV electron facility at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in California will be joined by a 24 GEV eltlctron-positron unit . .And at Upton, Long Island, Brookhaven National Laboratory is to build a facility called Isabelle, in which protons can collide at beam energies ranging from 30 GEV to 400 GEV.

While this may seem like healthy progress to Dr. Drell and the HEPAP, it hurt s Fermilab officials. Under Dr. Wilson's leadership Fermilab has developed a project to upgrade its accelerator to 1,000 GEV while cutting $5 million or more a year from its electricity bill by using more efficient magnets. This upgrading provides eventually for colliding beam experiments of up to 2,000 GEV total energy. Furthermore, Fermilab is poised to begin construction. Dr. Wilson says he could finish the first phase-upgrading the accelerator-within a year if only there were another $10 million for this purpose in the 1979 fiscal year budget.

But HEPAP advised giving first priority to Isabelle at Brookhaven and stretching Fermilab improvements over a several-year timescale. This will slow research down, Dr. Drell admits. Isabelle won't be ready until about 1986. But, when it is ready, it will ultimately allow a richer spectrum of research to be done than will the Fermilab plan, Dr. Drell explains. Hence the priority given Isabelle.

The Carter budget follows the HEPAP rec·· ommendation, subject to congressional approval. Fermilab supporters are lobbying Congress for more money. But at this writing it was hard to assess their likelihood of success.

EXPERIMENTS CANCELED Dr. White, who does not share HEPAP's

view, says the panel paid insufficient attention to CERN-Fermilab competition. Even part from the accelerator improvement project that a number of important experiments have had to be canceled at the laboratory, which, he says, is only operating at a fraction of its potential. Since Fermilab was built as the main national accelerator facility, Dr. White considers this chronic malnutrition a self-defeating policy.

Putting paroc1lial concerns aside, Dr. White goes on to point out that the present budget level for American high-energy physics as a whole won't support new machines such as Isabelle plus those at Fermilab and SLAC and others when these all are upgraded and operating. Yet he senses a desire in Washington for "level budgets" in this field for a number of years.

Here Drs. Drell and White can agree. Dr. Drell says he too would be concerned if present budget levels were to be adhered to in the long run. In that case, American physics might indeed be unable to compete with that of Europe and be in danger of withering.

In the long run, observes Dr. White, it comes down to a question of why society should support high-energy physics anyway. "Why support telescopes or anything else?" he asks rhetorically. " High-energy physics is the cutting edge of fundamental knowledge. When you have the best people in the business, you should support them," he adds. "I don 't think high-energy pyhysics in this country is supported at that level. "e

22471 THE AIRPORT AND AIRCRAFT NOISE

REDUCTION ACT, H.R. 8729

HON. HAROLD T. JOHNSON OF CALIFORNIA



e Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8729 was reported by the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation on December 13, 1977, and will be considered in the House in the near future. A discussion of the purposes of this important legislation is, therefore, in order.

I am inserting for the RECORD the remarks which I and my distinguished colleagues, Congressman WILLIAM HARSHA, ranking minority member of the Public Works and Transportation Committee, Congressman GLENN ANDERSON, chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, and Congressman NORMAN MINETA, chairman of the Public Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee and a member of the Aviation Subcommittee, made this past week in appearing before the House Rules Committee: TESTIMONY OF CHAmMAN HAROLD T . "BIZZ"

JOHNSON BEFORE THE RULES COMMITTEE, JULY 18, 1978 Chairman Delaney, I want to express my

appreciation for your prompt scheduling of hearings today and tomorrow on two bills of great importance : aircraft noise and regulatory reform of the airline industry. My committee colleagues and I here at the table thank you for allowing us to appear today and tomorrow to testify in favor of these two measures.

I would like to proceed with a brief summary of the noise bill reported by the public works and transport ation committee, H .R. 8729 , and give you my views on the present need of this legislation . I will also discuss the nat ure of the rule we are seeking. I shall leave for my good friend, aviation subcommittee chairman Glenn Anderson, who has worked tirelessly on the noise problem this entire Congress, to give you a more detailed explanation of the bill's major provisions.

Before I begin I might indicate to you the extent to which the aviation subcommittee studied past, present and proposed federal policy on the abatement of aircraft noise . Over the past two years that subcommittee held 27 days of hearings in Washington and in the field on current and proposed aircraft noise policy. Some 2,000-plus pages of printed transcript were amassed during the hearing process. Truly this represents the most exhaustive look ever undertaken into the noise problem. The results of the effort are before you today.

In summary the bill H.R. 8729, as reported, does the following:

"Title I establishes a new voluntary program to assist airports and surrounding jurisdictions to develop and carry out programs to reduce existing land use incompatible with airport operations .

"Title II makes a much needed increased in authorized funding levels for the airport development program and extends for two more years the 90 percent Federal share for grants to our smaller, non-self sustaining airports.

"Title III finances a program, through a series of charges assessed airline passengers and shippers to assist air carriers to comply with federally mandated noise standards which in effect make obsolete nearly threefourths of the currently active jct fleet by January 1. 1985.

22472 "Title IV, requested by the Committee on

Science and Technology, would provide for an annual authorization process for that portion of the Federal Aviation Administration's budget dealing with research development and demonstration."

Aircraft noise has been and continues to be a national problem. While the greatest impact can be found around our busiest airports, careless local decisions on land development and lack of effective Federal policies on aircraft noise threaten currently and relatively less-impacted airport environs. Aircraft noise poses a real threat to the continued growth effectiveness and vitality of our fine air transportation system. In too many instances fraemented local action threatens to disrupt the system and all too often needed airport development for safety and capacity expano;;ion has been bogged down in costly delays because of aircraft noise. The several millions of Americans daily bombarded with excessive aircraft noise demand and deserve relief.

The legislation you have under consideration is comprehensive. It not only tackles noise at the source effectively, but for the first time provides a mechanism whereby airports and surrounding communities can receive substantial Federal assistance in planning and carrying out programs to abate the noise problem.

And, although the environmental advantages of the bill are paramount and obvious, many other benefits will be derived from passage of the bill. The bill provides substantial energy savings because the new technology aircraft to be generated by this b111 will be up to 30 percent more fuel efficient than today's aircraft. This legislation will provide thousands of jobs in the aerospace and related industries as well as thousands of construction jobs connected with airport development. The bill will help reduce current balance of payments deficits by spurring our aerospace industry, which bas not developed a new transport aircraft in a decade, to compete more favorably with formidable foreign competition.

In my letter to you of July 3, I noted our request for an open rule on titles I, II ·and IV of H.R. 8729 and one hour of debate. That is our wish.

It is my understanding that the bill reported by the Ways and Means Committee, H.R. 11986, will be offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to title III of H.R. 8729. If such is the case, I would point out that sections 305 and 306 of H.R. 8729 are not contained in H.R. 11986. I would request, therefore, that provision be made in the rule for it to be in order for sections 305 and 306 to be offered on the floor as a separate title.

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, this is very important legislation and it is essential that a comprehensive noise bill be passed by this Congress. We are submitting this legislation only after a very thorough hearing and deliberation process. Again, I ap'!)reciate your spirit of cooperation in holding these hearings and I look forward to working with you and your colleagues as the bill moves through your committee and onto the floor.

RULES COMMITTEE STATEMENT: HON. WILLIAM H. HARSHA-H.R. 8729, THE AraPORT AND AIRCRAFT NOISE REDUCTION ACT AND H .R. 11986, THE NOISE AIRCRAFT REVENUE AND CREDIT ACT OF 1978 Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to join

Chairman Johnson here today in requesting a rule on H.R. 8729, the Airport and Aircraft Noise Reduction Act. He has ably expressed the views of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation regarding this legislation-and may I say that I concur fully with his remarks.

As Chairman Johnson has stated, we approach the aircraft noise problem along two tracks. First, in title I, we seek to encourage

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS voluntary action by airport operators and local communities to control noncompatible land uses in areas surrounding airports-including authorization of grants from the airport and airway trust fund to assist with the implementation of local noise control programs. Second, in title III, we seek to assist air carriers in meeting the costs of complying with Federally mandated noise standards-a burden which air carriers had no reason to anticipate when they purchased their aircraft.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 8729 was reported by our committee with the bipartisan support of an overwhelming majority of our members. I would state that most of the concerns expressed by our minority members with respect to major provisions or· earlier versions of this legislation were resolved to our satisfaction during the aviation subcommittee and full committee markups. Most notable in this regard was the fact that we sought successfully to eliminate the mandatory land-use provisions which appeared initially in title I. Participation by airport operators and local communities in the title I program to reduce noncompatible land uses in areas surrounding airports now is entirely voluntary-as it should be.

The Committee on Ways and Means has revised certain sections of our title III by placing the financing mechanism in a tax context rather than a surcharge. However, we do wish to retain our section 305 foreign aircraft compliance provision, as well as our section 306 compliance waiver authority provision-both of which were not included in H.R. 11986, the ways and means version of our title III. The issues dealt with in those sections more properly lie within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and it is the desire of the committee that these provisions be retained. Therefore, it is my suggestion that the rule granted make provision that H .R. 11986 be considered as a substitute only for sections 301-304 of H.R. 8729, and sections 305 and 306 be allowed to remain in H.R. 8729 subject to an open rule.

I understand that the Ways and Means Committee has requested a closed rule waiving points of order for their bill precluding amendments that may be offered on the floor. Section 305 ( d) of that legislation provides that no trust fund monies may be soent unless FAA annually consults with the National Transporation Safety Board on unsafe airport or airway operating conditions.

Mr. Chairman, such a limitation is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation and we should not be precluded from taking steps to eliminate this proviso from the Ways and Means bill. The Public Works Committee has not had an opportunity to examine this proposed limitation and we should have that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I can and do express my belief that H.R. 8729 is good legislation which is carefully tailored to remedy a serious national problem. It is worthy of prompt and favorable floor consideration-and I request your committee to issue an open rule for all aspects of H.R. 8729 with one hour of general debate making the Ways and Means b1ll in order as a substitute amendment for sections 301-304 of our bill. Out of monetary deference to my friends on that committee, I would support a closed rule which I understand they have requested. However, since the Ways and Means legislation contains language relating to safety in section 305 which is clearly the jurisdiction of Public Works and Transportation, I urge the committee to grant a rule allowing us to make a point of order against section 305 (d) and if that is not sustained then making an amendment in order to strike section 305(d) from the Ways and Means version.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

July 2.~, 1978 TESTIMONY OF CONGRESSMAN

ANDERSON BEFORE RULES JULY 18, 1978

GLENN M. COMMITTEE,

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague, Chairman "Bizz" Johnson, and ranking minority member, B111 Harsha. A great deal of credit must be given to them for their fine leadership in bringing this legislation along.

I would like to expand upon their remarks, if I may, and to put in perspective the scope of the aircraft noise problem.

Nearly seven m1llion Americans and nearly a m1llion acres of valuable land a.re impacted by aircraft noise levels deemed normally unacceptable for new residential construction loan guarantees by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Last year the President's Council on Wage and Price Shb111ty estimated that aircraft noise was costing property owners near airports some $3.25 b1llion annually in decreased property value. This certainly has an erosive effect on local tax bases around the country.

Our nation's airports a.re spending m1llions of dollars to acquire noise impacted land. According to a November 1977 survey of its membership, the Airport Operators Council International reports that some $229 million has been spent on land acquisition over the last seven years by U.S. airports. In addition, airports currently have pending against them lawsuits with potential liability which can be measured in the hundreds of m1llions of dollars . Citizen opposition to aircraft noise has delayed and in many cases prevented needed airport development and expansion and the installation of fa.c111ties to improve safety, airport capacity, and efficient utmzation of airspace.

During our lengthy hearing pro,cess on this bill, it became abundantly clear that comprehensive legislation is required to deal with the noise problem-and it is needed now.

New housing developments and other land uses incompatible with normal airport operations are springing up near our airports as we meet today. Furthermore, the clock is running on compliance with FAA noise standards under which nearly three-fourths of the entire air carrier fleet will have to be replaced or modified with a. schedule beginning in 1981 and ending January 1, 1985.

The Federal effort to date has focused on reduction of noise at the source, the aircraft. Based on legislation passed in 1968 and 1972 FAA has, in my view, gone a long way toward carrying out the expressed Congressional mandate to quiet noise at the source. However, source control, we are finding, has technological limits, and no amount of quieting existing aircraft will totally solve the problem. Although making aircraft quieter will shrink the areas of greatest impact significantly, whether through retrofitting or replacing noisy aircraft or a combination of both, incentives must be provided to airport opera.tors and surrounding communities to get on with the longneglected need to make land surrounding airports more compatible with airport operations. To continue placing sole emphasis on source noise control, to continue talking just about making aircraft quieter, without making significant progress on the land use side w111 have the effect, in my opinion, of unwisely raising the public's expectations for noise relief. Although we must continue efforts at source noise control unabated, let's face it-normal airport operations involve noise because aircraft do and will continue to make noise-we must start with the assumption that some unacceptable noise will continue in areas immediately adjacent to airports and work from there.

The efforts of the House Public Works and Transportation and Ways and Means Com-

July 24, 1978 mittees have resulted in the preparation of comprehensive legislation which will expedite the introduction of quieter aircraft into the fleet and will provide incentives to airport operators and the comm:mities they serve to get on with the much too long delayed need to make the land surrounding our airports more compatible with airport operations.

Under the voluntary provisions of Title I, planning grants will be available to airports for developing noise impact maps showing present and projected cumulative noise impacts in areas surrounding the airport as well as present and projected land uses within the impacted areas.

Another part of the planning process will be the development of noise compatibility programs which will consist of those actions which the airport pr0prietor and surrounding communities will voluntarily take, for example, zoning, land purchase, sound proofing, and airport operations, to lessen the adverse effects of aircraft noise and to prohibit the introduction of noncompatible land uses in the impacted areas.

Programs developed from this planning process are submt;;ted to the Secretary of Transportation for approval if the proprietor wants to receive funding to implement the program. The Secretary may approve a program if the measure set forth in the program provide for safe flight, do not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce and are consi.Htent with the goal of reducing existing noncompatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible uses.

Title I, in my ooinion, is an essential ingredient of the, House effort. As I stated earlier, source noise control alone is insufficient to solve the noise problem. Title I provides an incentive from the Federal Government for local communities to solve essentially local problems, but these incentives do not in any way take from local government the traditional role of making land use deci,sions.

A unique feature of Title I is that money is made available to carry out the programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Transportation. These 80 percent Federal share grants will be available not only to airport operators but to communities surrounding airports which have been identified as being in the noise impact zone. Money is made available for these grants in Title I, including $165 million for fiscal year 1979 and $250 million for fiscal year 1980.

Title II increases the current authorized funding level for airport develoument grants for fiscal year 1979 by $260 million; for fiscal year 1980 the current authorized level is raised by $310 million. Significant indicators of national airport system need have identified problem areas requiring review of the funding adequacy of the ADAP program in advance of the anticipated Congressional consideration in 1980 of the future of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. For example, the revised National Airport System Plan calls for some $10.6 billion in development over the next decade, with three-fourths of that forecast to be needed in the next five years. Also a number of sponsors of smaller airports have communicated their view that current funding levels do not provide sufficient funds distributed at the discretion of the Secretary. Most, if not all, of the new money contained in Title II wm go into the Secretary's discretionary fund.

Title III, which is a financincz mechani.c:m to assist air carriers to meet Congressionally mandated noise rules adopted by FAA, ts based on several assumptions, including the following:

We can no longer delay providing meaningful relief on the noise issue.

2. We cannot count on the regulatory process to provide sufficient returns so that

CXXIV--1413-Pa.rt 17

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS air carriers can meet these deadlines on their own.

3. A Federal program is required to assure that existing aircraft noise standards are met by 1985.

4. The industry and the users of the air transportation system, and not the general taxpayer, should bear the co,st of meeting the noise standards.

5. Incentives should be sufficient to make it attractive for carriers to replace noisy aircraft with new technology aircraft which are le,ss noisy and more energy-efficient but not to encourage the purchase of excess capacity.

6. Industry should be able to meet the noise standards in an efficient and economical manner with government involvement in management decisions kept to a minimum.

The bill reported by the Ways and Means Committee, H.R. 11983, which will replace most of the Public Works Committee's Title III, is consistent with these principles. I am sure Chairman Ullman will give a more detailed explanation of these provisions.

This concludes my remarks on the noise bills, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for your attentiveness. In summary, this is very important legislation, and it is essential that a comprehensive noise bill is passed by the Congress this session. This legislation is important to the nation from the standpoint of the environment, energy conservation, community tax bases, balance of payments, and jobs. We can accomplish a great deal without raising the cost of transportation, without increasing the burden on the taxpayer, without jeopardizing the Airport and Airway Development Program, and without adversely affecting the safety of our airways.

'TESTIMONY OF CONGRESSMAN NORMAN Y. MINETA BEFORE RULES COMMITTEE, AIRPORT

AND AIRCRAFT NOISE REDUCTION ACT, JULY 18, 1978 Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the

opportunity to speak before your Committee in support of this important legislation dealing with the problem of aviation noise. In associating myself with the remarks of the Chairmen of both the Full Committee on Public Works and the Subcommittee on Aviation, I'd like to point out that it is more than sheer coincidence that we are all reuresentatives of the great State of California.

As you may know, California has been an aggressive pioneer in the field of aviation noise, having itself already established Noise Standards requiring compliance by all airports in the shte at the criterion noise level of 65 CNEL (Communist Noise Equivalent Level) by 1985. To a great extent, the effectiveness and success of the California noise law depends on a vigorous enforcement of Federal noise standards, and similarly, the success of enforcement of Federal noise standards depends on the pass1ge of the Airport and Aircraft Noise Reduction Act.

I would like to take a moment of the Committee's time today to discuss the development of the Federal Aviation nois·e standards; the impact of those standards in San Jcse, California; the need for this legislation; and the interrelationship between this legislation and the aviation regulatory reform bill which will be considered by your committee tomorrow.

Ten years ago, Congress recognized the impact which aviation noise has on millions of Americans living and working near airports, and the fact that this noise had seriously interferred with the development and expansion of our air transportation system.

In response to that Congressional action, FAA published a new Part 36 to the Federal Aviation Regulations which reauired that, P.ff'ective December 1, 1969. no newly designed aircraft could go into production unless it

22473 met the standards established by FAA. The FAA did not at that time require retrofit of existing aircraft which did not comply with these standards, nor did it cover production aircrat"t which hact obtained an FAA type certificate before December, 1969.

In October, 1973, an amendment to Part 36 regulations was finalized which applied the 1969 part 36 standards to newly Produced

.aircraft of older type (or pre-1969) designs.

In December, 1976, the FAA announced the so-called "Fleet Noise Rule" under which the Approximately 1,600 previously exempted older aircraft would be required, under a phased time schedul"e, to comply with the Part 36 noise level limitations by January I, 1985.

Through this action the Federal Government, for the first time, required retroactive compliance with standards on planes which it bad previously certified .as airworthy. In other words, as a result of the fleet noise rule, airlines were required to modify or replace equipment previously certificated by the U.S. Government. I believe that this retroactive compliance requirement, while abrnlutelv essential if we are to reduce aviation nois·e provides a compelling rationale for support of this legislation.

Finally, in 1977, the FAA published another amendment to FAR 36 which increases the stringency of noise standards for new aircraft designs. These 1977 standards will pro•,ioe a reduction of 20 to 45 percent in the perceived loudness of an airplane's noise. It is important to note that these 1977 standards are encourag-ed through the formula for assistance established in our legislation .

The Airport and Aircraft Noise Reduction Act provides assistance to our airlines to achieve compliance with the noise standards established by FAA-through retrofit, reengining, or reolacement. Clearly, retrofitting alone will not solve the growing problem of airport noise, but it is an essential part of any solution because it w111 reduce the costs and constraints of other components in that solution by more than it adds to the total cost. Furthermore, the assistan.ce provided through this legislation to airports, while essential, would clearly be less meaningful without this effort to reduce aviation noise at its source.

.Althouah the issue of the benefits to be achieved through retrofitting has been hotly debated, I believe the situation in my own district. at the San Jose Airport, provides conclusive evidence that retrofitting will result in a substantial reduction in the costs associated with noise reduction programs.

Airports in California are required to meet certain State noise standards by 1985. Clearly, their ability to meet these standards depends to a great extent upon our airlines meeting federally established noise standards.

In fact, a study done for the San Jose Airport by Parry Noise Consultants last year showed that compliance with FAR 36 would reduce the 65 CNEL noise footprint by 1,471 parcels (or 1,350 acres). This represents a cost of $110,325,000 which would have to be borne for removal and relocation if the planes using the San Jose Airport are not in compliance with FAR 36. It is my belief, and that of the airport officials 1n San Jose, that compliance with FAR 36 is dependent upon passage of the legislation before you today.

This bill has been criticized by some as a subsidy to the airline industry. This ls simply not accurate. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund was created in 1970 to collect taxes from users to support the development of our Airoort and Airways System.

Jn order to facilitate the achievement of aircraft noise abatement by 1985, the Ways and Means Committee reported HR 11986, which temporarily reduced or suspends the

22474 existing passenger and freight excise taxes, and substitutes new excise taxes, continuing the concept of user taxes for meeting FAA-mandated noise rules. Credits are allowed against the taxes for certain percentages of costs incurred in complying with the standards. These funds wlll, in fact, pay for only a. small percentage of the total cost of compliance.

Although the industry's earnings during the past decade were unreasonably low, carrier profits have been making a. remarkable recovery in recent months. It is hoped that this recovery wm continue into the next decade, but predictions as to the future of this industry are inevitably risky since this is such a. dynamic industry and it is so subject to the vagaries of economic regulation. Let me also point out that even if the profits were to continue at their present level (about 90 percent) they would stm fall far short of meeting the industry's needs for replacement of equipment and compliance with noise requirements.

When my colleague, Chairman Johnson, spoke in support of this b111, he mentioned his appreciation that your Committee has acted promptly to consider it as well as the equally important aviation regulatory reform b1lls. I believ~ it is important for your deliberations to emphasize the interrelation ship between these two b1lls.

In the first place, one of the major goals of the aviation regulatory reform, legislation is to increase competition, thereby lowering costs and fa.res and increasing traffic. Increased traffic wm, by its very nature, increase the severity of the aviation noise problems and thus the need for enactment of the Airport a.nd Aircraft Noise Reduction Act.

Furthermore, it the Airport and Aircraft Noise Reduction Act were not enacted, there exists considerable potential that achieving our noise abatement goals by 1985 could cause severe financial hardships such as bankruptcies, cutbacks in operations and large-scale lay-offs.

Dr. Alfred Kahn, Chairman of the CAB, recently testified that in the absence of the assistance provided throughout this legislation, compliance with noise standards could actually jeopardized the entire program of regulatory reform. He further stated: "Financial assistance by the federal government could reduce the likelihood of unfavorable development (like bankruptcies a.nd layoffs) a.nd, in this wa.y could conceivable mean the difference between success a.nd failure of not only the noise abatement program, but of restoring this industry to the free enterprise system.

I believe enactment of this le!!isla.tion is essential for the significant benefits which wm be experienced at the local level where the airports a.re located. This legislation has a national imoorta.nce in terms of its contribution to the .development of our aviation industry, aerospace emoloyment, a.nd ha.la.nee of payments situation. Finally. I believe it is essential in order to ease the transition of the aviation industry into a less-regula. ted atmosphere.

I appreciate the opportunity to present these views to the Committee and urge your favorable consideration of the Airport and Aircraft Noise Reduction Act.

Thankyou.e

TAX STATEMENT

HON. JIM LEACH OF IOWA



• Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, in a joint return filed by my wife and myself. we paid $33,160 in Federal and $5,668 in

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

Iowa State income taxes on an adjusted gross income of $108,765 for 1977.e

I LOVE NEW YORK

HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE OF NEW YORK



• Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, the New York State Department of Commerce has gained national attention-and deservedly so-through its imaginative "I Love New York" advertising campaign.

Recently the Washington Star published an article describing this campaign, its origins, and its impact. I would like to share it with our colleagues, and present it for publication in the RECORD at this time:

(From the Washington Star, June 27, 1978) How THE CATCHY NEW YORK JINGLE CAME

ABOUT

(By Marcia Gauger) The phrase is from the newest Steve Kar

men hit. The lyrics read: "I ... Love ... New York." They pulse through the most arresting commercial in years, a commercial that has become almost inescapable for Washington television watchers. They grin from the bumpers of countless Manhattan taxis, usually with a fat, red heart substituting for the word "love." The phrase stubbornly sticks in the mind and occasionally even leaps from the Ups with the insistence of a simple hit tune, "I ... Lo-o-ove New York."

It is part of a two-year-old campaign by the State Department of Commerce to get the message out that New York is more than a.n enormous financial problem, that there is more to the state than street crime, debt and taxes. When W111iam Doyle took office as the Commerce Department's deputy commissioner in 1976, it was with a franchise to pinpoint what New York really is, and exploit it.

Doyle, who had been a. Chase Manhattan Bank vice president in charge of marketing, brought to the challenge what he knew best: marketing. He ordered a survey. The survey showed, says Doyle, "that people wanted to escape from the hassle of cities to beautiful trees, lakes and mountains-like Switzerland. We have more lakes ... more mountains in New York State." The survey also indicated that people who travel to New York City do so for the unique cultural opportunities the city has to offer.

Doyle took his challenge to one of the most creative of New York's advertising agencies, Wells, Rich, Greene. For $4.6 million, Wells, Rich, Green's creative director, Charles Moss, translated it into themes of two 60-second commercials: The scenic beauty with the testimonials to the state's outdoors-"! live in New Hampshire, but love New York," or "I live in West Virginia, but I love New York"and the celebration of New York City's theater district-"There's only one Broadway, and it's in New York."

Of his inspiration, Moss says earnestly, "It's as simple as having people say, 'I live somewhere else,' but 'I love New York.'" Moss, whose advertising successes include the ubiquitous "Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, Oh, what a relief it is,'' and "I can't believe I ate the whole thing," put his ideas to composer Steve Karmen. Some of Karmen's hits are "Doublemint Gum" and "When You Say Bud," and he did it again with "I Love New York."

Filming the commercials, which were di-rected by Stan Dragoti (who also is the husband of model Cheryl Tiegs) , took place on location in the great New York outdoors and on a. West 54th Street sound stage in Man-

July 24, 19?8 hattan. With professional actors (who were actually from West Virginia, or North Carolina or Brooklyn) reciting their lines, the outdoor sequences were shot at Glens Falls, Whiteface Mountain or Lake George.

Putting together the Broadway segments took almost as much effort as mounting a show. The theme "I Love New York" was orchestrated into an overture conducted by Milton Rosenstock; the casts of "Grease," "The Magic Show," "Annie," (Sandy had a hard time sitting st111 and not saying "arf"), "Chapter Two,'' "The King and I" and "Chorus Line" all sing of their love for New York. The cast of the "Gin Game" loves New York silently, and Frank Langella, as Count Dracula, whips his cape in one of the count's characteristic gestures and says, seductively, "I Love You, New York-especially in the evening." The commercial was shot over three wintry January days ·of which the third was a. snowstorm; the cast of "Chorus Line" straggled through the streets to the studio in a blizzard for their segment. The cast of "Same Time, Next Year" was snowbound in Connecticut and couldn't make tt.

Starting the week, to emphasize the state's attributes as a vacation spot and a place to get away from it· all wm be two new commercials-one with a water theme and one with a. wilderness theme. The wilderness spot wm stress the state's beauty and its wlldness, filmed from an ascending helicopter-1 t has few people in it. The commercial with the water theme has more action. "I love to surf in it," says a man riding a surfboard, prone, on a breaking wave. "I love to fl.sh in it," says a man in a boat holding up two fish. "I love to canoe in it,'' says a man shooting the rapids of a Hudson River tributary in a canoe, "I love to sail in it,'' says a fellow in a sailboat, and "I love to splash in it," shouts an exuberant kid in the middle of a 20-foot drop from a rock into the river. Finally, a misty young couple in black slickers aboard the Maid of the Mist IV hard by Niagara Falls, after an embrace, admit, "I love to kiss in it."

The promotion is working. For years, the state's tourist industry employed 200,000 New Yorkers-it brought $4.6 billion into the state in 1975-but was growing at a pace less than half the national rate and was actually lagging behind inflation. Now New York is enjoying the beginnings of a tourist boom. Statistics for the first year of the commercials indicate an increase of 3 .9 percent in constant dollars over 1976. That is nearly 4 percent better than inflation. The commercials increased theater revenues $3 m11lion during the campaign in 1978 over 1977, with a 15 percent rise in hotel and restaurant business during the same period.

For the money, the state is getting a new map, brochures ("I love New York Broadway show tours," New York City and New York State "I love New York travel guides," a new booklet of ski packages, camping packages, fishing packages, white-water canoeing packages, dude ranch packages) all mailed at the drop of a request to an 800-number telephone call and "I Love New York" bumper stickers, T-shirts and buttons. And a disco version of the theme song. And of course that insistently haunting commercial, "I ... Lo-o-ove New York."e

UTAHANS CELEBRATE 131ST ANNIVERSARY OF MORMON ARRIVAL IN UTAH

HON. DAN MARRIOTT OF UTAH



e Mr. MARRIOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House today to the most important State holi-

July 24, 1978 day in Utah, held on July 24. It was 131 years ago today that the first pioneers from the Midwest arrived in the valley of the Great Salt Lake. When they arrived, there was no one to greet them or note the event. They began planting crops immediately in preparation for the harsh winter. They knew they would have to survive on their own ability to produce. The life there was so rugged that during the first winters most people slept in the wagons in which they had driven across the plains. Many lives were lost in the crossing of the plains in the dangerous conditions of no roads, lack of proper food, and harsh weather. But each year for half a century thousands of pioneers travel to Utah from all parts of the world.

It is not without great admiration and thanksgiving that all Utahans remember the origins of their State. The Mormon pioneers, driven from more than one home, were driven from the State of Illinois under an extermination order signed by the Governor. Tired of the persecution without protection of the law. they sought a place apart from the mainstream of commerce and population centers. In the 1840's the intermountain area of the Rocky Mountains was the emptiest and most undeveloped part of America. The valley of the Great Salt Lake was arid, remote, and unwanted. But the weary Mormon pioneers wanted nothing more than to be left alone.

In the last 131 years, the State of Utah has blossomed like a rose, under the skill and ability of people from around the world. There are substantial numbers of people with Greek, Japanese, Italian, English, Scandinavian, and German ancestry. If recent opinion polls are any guide, Utahans have built a f:tate which ranks very high in interest and attractiveness, both as a place to visit and a place to live.

It is fitting that we remember the great sacrifices these pioneers made for all of us and that we remember the pioneer spirit which is still alive in the hearts of Utahans. The exploits of these pioneers have created legends of honor and courage which continue to inspire our appreciation, particularly in light of the adversity which they faced.•

TWO MAJOR COPPER CLOSINGS

HON. JIM SANTINI OF NEVADA



• Mr. SANTINI. Mr. Speaker, this is a Nevada experience but our Nation should know what is happening to our domestic capacity to supply our own copper needs. The voice of concern about our Nation's hardrock minerals needs does not receive a fair . hearing within the upper echelon of executive decisionmaking.

A prominent exception to the foregoing conclusion occurred in June 1977 when President Carter, in response to our collective plea directed that there should be a national minerals policy.


That policy is now in the implementation stage. As the author of the plea, it is my fervent hope that the realities of our Nation's mineral needs and problems will not be buried under a mountain of preexisting prejudices within the reviewing agency. This Nation does have significant-in some instances of crisis proportions-mineral problems.

The following editorial provides?, vivid and well written insight into Nevada's recent copper closing experience :

COPPER ERA ROLLS TO HALT

"Nevada out of the copper business," reads the headline, and it is like hearing Levi's has quit making jeans-it boggles the mind.

The mining industry is older than the state itself. Minerals, principally gold and silver, are the state's very reason for being. The color, the drama and the glamor of the era still survive today.

After the famous mines of the Comstock Lode had disappeared from the public consciousness and Americans of the 1940s and 1950s learned to identify Nevada as the gambling-sin (synonymous) capital of the nation, mining, in reality, continued to dominate the state's economy.

No one seemed to know in those days that is was mining first, agriculture second and gaming a slow third. It was a question good for stumping contestants on radio quiz shows. The huge Kennecott Copper operation in Eastern Nevada was the main reason residents of then sparsely populated Nevada could piously boast to incredulous visitors that their home state's chief industry was mining and not gaming.

Then came the Anaconda Copper endeavor at Yerington. They cautioned that they would only be around for a decade or so. They stayed for 25 years and their extended run merely lulled Nevadans into a false sense of permanence instead of steadily increasing apprehension of the inevitable .

Scientific progress was a big reason for Kennecott's and Anaconda's long endurance. Improvement of mining skills, development of more efficient equipment and ore processing procedures increased operation efficiencies. Kennecott officials bragged a few years back that the performance of copper extraction procedures had improved to the point they could go back and economically process piles of old overburden and tailings.

At Anaconda, the ore supplies simply petered out. Ore supplies abound in Eastern Nevada. but a one-two punch of a sagging ~omest1c copper market coupled with exactmg and costly environmental protection demands succeeded in shutting down Kennecott.

The Nevada Mining Association says that copper ore remains plentiful in Nevada but as long as foreign companies can produce copper abroad, ship it to the United States and then sell it at a lower price than can domestic suppliers, Kennecott will remain closed.

A few years ago, when the U.S. Government demonetized silver (or more precisely desilverized money) and removed the price ceiling on gold, everyone in Nevada mining circles got excited. If gold and silver were allowed to flow at true monetary value, the two precious minerals would become profitable to mine in Nevada.

One of the popular rumors abounding in Nevada at the time was that when silver passed $5 an ounce and gold started drawing at least $100 an ounce, then mines would begin opening back up. It was an exciting possibility to contemplate . But silver went as high as $6 an ounce at one point in time and now wallows between $5 and $5 .25. Gold quickly shot past the $100 mark and sells readily for $185 an ounce. Despite all that, the hundreds of marginal mining operations

22475 around Nevada remained closed and the only activity seen came from the typewriters of mining stock promoters.

What went wrong? Nothing, really. The handsome prices and their fascinating growth patterns were merely reflecting inflation trends. The price of an ounce of gold may have doubled over the past few years-but so has the cost of digging an ounce of gold out of the ground.

The mines that were fallow before the price boom remain fallow today. The ones that were operating and "getting by" back then are today only "getting by." For them, the market rise has meant nothing.

This all goes to show just how untenable Kennecott's situation was. In addition to the problems of inflation and increased costs faced by the gold and silver interests, Kennecott had the problem of a collapsing copper market.

Nevada is apparently shucking the mining image in actuality if not in reputation . The towns of Yerington, Ely and McGill , even though their lord and master , king copper, is dead, have declined to commit suttee on the funeral pyre. That may well be the most important development in the whole sad affair.

Kennecott and Anaconda made important and well-appreciated contributions to their communities which separates them from their rapacious predecessors in such towns as Virginia City and Austin. And their community involvement is the likely reason the towns are showing a propensity for survival.

But if mining ever rebounds as a growth industry, and such an event is quite likely, Nevadans will keep their eggs carefully separated in individual baskets and will avoid the life-and-death situation of total commitment.•

CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION URGES ADOPTION OF H.R. 8729, AIRPORT AND AIRCRAFT NOISE REDUCTION ACT INCLUDING TITLE III, ON PRACTICAL AND HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS AND WARNS OF RESTRICTED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AND CURFEWS WITHOUT THE BILL

HON. GLENN M. ANDERSON OF CALIFORNIA



e Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr. Speaker, today I was furnished a copy of a telegram which Adriana Gianturco, director of transportation of the State of California, has sent to some Members. It concerns H.R. 8729, the Airport and Aircraft Noise Reduction Act, which is now before the Rules Committee. Director Gianturco takes a strong stand on this bill and its importance to the general public.

Because this important bill is not well understood, I thought I should share Ms. Gianturco's wire.

TELEGRAM

SACRAMENTO, CALIF., July 19, 1978.

It is my understanding that H.R. 8729 is under consideration by the House Rules Committee. This bill is extremely important to all Californians. It will provide the funding necessary to meet the requirements imposed by federal regulations regarding the reduction of aircraft noise at its source. This is the key to making our airports compatible with their comm uni ties.

Without the funding program included in

22476 H.R. 8729 (which ls correctly generated from user fees), we wlll continue to see addltlonal restrictions imposed upon our major air carrier airports. Groups of citizens living near our "noise problem" airports want reduction In aircraft operations at a time when public demand for air transportation is rapidly increasing. Group action to restrict aircraft operations, invoke curfews, and disapprove airport construction projects is a direct result of aircraft noise being imposed upon the communities near our airports.

The effect of these actions is already visible in that the general public ls being denied the desired level of alr service for at least four of our air carrier airports, and others wlll likely become affected under status quo. The situation would be greatly improved through the passage of H.R. 8729. It ls also my pe.rsonal belief that a humanitarian viewpoint would agr.ee with whatever action is required to reduce aircraft noise at the source. For these reasons, I strongly urge your favorable action of H.R. 8729.

ADRIANA GIANTURCO, Dtrector of Transportatton.e

VIKTORAS PETKUS-PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE

HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI OF ILLINOIS



• Mr. DERWINST<I. Mr. Sneaker. the trials of dissidents in the Soviet Union have very properly been given a great deal of coverage and attention. One such "prisoner of conscience" is Viktoras Petkus, a leading sookesman against Soviet repression in Lithuania.

In an attempt to exercise his basic human riJ?hts. Viktoras Petkus was recently sentenced to a 10-:vear term in prison and 5 years in exile. Petkus at various times has already served more than 18 years in prison and exile for speaking out against Soviet oppression in Lithuania.

Petkus, a member of the Lithuanian group to promote the implementation of the Helsinki accords. was first arrested in 1947, for his activities in the Catholic Youth Organization. and after serving 6 years, he was released in 1953. He completed high school and then attended the University of Vilnius where he studied literature.

Petkus was arrested again in 1957. this time for possession of anti-Soviet literature-a collection of poems by Jurgis Baltrusaitis. These poems were published 5 years before the revolution in 1912, and were included among the "Anti-Soviet literature." He was not released until 1965. Since that time, while working as a hospital attendant, and then as a church sextant, Petkus became an expert in Lithuanian literature and had collected a massive bibliography on Lithuanian poets. He attracted a wide circle of young Lithuanians, who were constantly shadowed by the KGB and questioned about Petkus. Several of these young people were forced to sign false statements concerning Petkus, which were later used in the trial proceedings against Petkus.

For the last 38 years, freedom, selfdetennination, and independence have been denied to the Lithuanian people and


others held captive by the Soviets. Soviet repression in Lithuania as well as in other nations under Soviet domination has reached alarming proportions. "Show trials" and harsh sentences as demop.strated in recent weeks are used to intimidate and to silence the widespread nationalistic and religious movements.

It is important for us to remember that human rights not only encompasses personal and civil rights but also national rights. Viktoras Petkus and other dissidents who publicly deplore these violations of human rights deserve our support. The future of the over 100 million people held captive within the U.S.S.R. and the millions of others in Eastern Europe and Asia are at stake.•

NEED TO ENACT THE FUELS TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AMENDMENTS ACT

HON. JOE MOAKLEY OF MASSACHUSETTS



e Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am inserting in the RECORD an article entitled, "Gas Fireball in Boston? It Could Ha,ppen," which appeared in the Boston Globe today, July 24.

This article was written bv the Honorable EDWARD J. MARKEY and excellently describes the hazards faced all across our country in the transportation and storage of volatile fuels such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) .

Later this week the House will have an opportunity to pass urgentlv needed legislation designed to protect the public from these hazards: H.R. 11622, the "Fuels Transportation Safety Amendments Act of 1978." This important bill, sponsored by Congressman JOHN DINGELL and Congressman EDWARD MARKEY is also discussed in this article which I want to commend to the attention of my colleagues.

The article follows: GAS FIREBALL IN BOSTON? IT COULD HAPPEN

(By Congressman EDWARD MARKEY) On July 11, ln Los Alfaques, Spain, a tank

truck swerved out of control, exploded and eni;tulfed a vacation campsite by the road in burning propylene gas, a form of liquefied petroleum gas-LPG. At least 160 men, women and children were killed instantly. Another 230 were so severely burned that more than half are not expected to survive. Then, on July 16, a similar accident occurred on a highway outside Mexico Clty, again kllling and badly wounding scores of people.

Can such an accident happen ln Greater Boston? The answer 'ls emphatically yes.

Similar vehicles are travellng through every major city in the United States, dellverlng fuel of thls type . In addition, day and night trucks currently transport llquefl.ed natural gas (LNG)-an equally hazardous energy source-through some of the most congested roads ln the Commonwealth to LNG storage facllitles from Neponset to the banks of the Merrimack River.

LNG itself ls created by super-coollng natural gas to a temperature of minus 259 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature, natural gas ls compressed ln volume over 600 times, thus making possible lts storage as

July 24, 1978 well as its marine and truck transportation. LNG ls an important energy source for our region, for on cold winter days, LNG supplles up to 40 percent of all home heating gas in Massachusetts.

Earlier this month, representatives of a. New England gas company reported to the federal government that they are unable to estimate the number of fatalities which might occur should one of the large LNG trucks serving its Rhode Island faclllty crash. In the past eight years, trucks from thls one fac111ty alone have had 14 serious accidents, three of which included LNO splllage.

It can largely be attributed to luck that we rave not yet had an accident ln our region of similar or greater dimensions than those which recently occurred in Spain and Mexico.

One would assume that the federal government has been vigorously at work developing policies to protect the publlc health and safety ln the transportation and storage of these extraordinarily hazardous materials. But one would be wrong.

The federal government to date has established no coherent safety pollcy for either LNG or LPG. The principal agency with responsib111ty ln this area is the Office of Pipellne Safety Operations in t he US Department of Transportation. Their irresponsible neglect of these vital safety issues must end.

The General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, is expected to publish a major report ln a matter of days on the dangers associated wlth LNG. In a draf.t of that report., which appeared in the press earller thls year, the GAO singled out . LNG shipments through downtown Boston for special criticism. The draft warned that lf an LNG truck crashed over the barrier of an elevated roadway such as the Southeast Expressway, 1.t would almost certainly rupture. A cloud of LNG vapor then would hug the ground, go down into sewers, subways and basements through any available opening. Explosions and fl.res could be Ignited, since the vapor ls so combustible it could be set off even by the spark generated by an automobile horn.

The GAO report forecasts that LNG accident could result in tens of thousands of deaths, for while a typical LNG tank truck carries about 10,000 gallons, the twin LNG storage tanks ln Everett have a capacity of more than a mllllon gallons. While the 1mpllcations of an LNG truck accident are very serious, an accident at a storage facllity could result in a truly major disaster.

In 1944, 128 persons were killed by a Geries of fires which followed the rupture of an LNG storage tank ln Cleveland. Federal studies of that accident led to recommendations that future LNG facllities be located away from populated areas. Thirty-four years later, no such action has been taken and the GAO repeats thls same recommenda-tion. ·

The need for action ls clear. Fortunately, action is about to be taken.

Thls week the House of Representatives 1s scheduled to consider legislation which wlll mandate strict new national safety standards for the siting and operation of LNG faclllties . This b111, which I co-authored with Reo. John Dlni:tell (D-Mlch.) , also brings strong new safety regula tlons to bear on the transportation and storage of LPG and natural gas.

Our blll , the Fuels Transportation Safety Amendments Act, incorporates many of the recommendations contained ln the GAO report on LNG hazards. It ls the result of many weeks of consideration and hearings in the Energy and Power Subcommittee and the full Commerce Committee.

Under this b111, the Department of Transportation would be required to establlsh standards regulating the location and de-

July 24, 1978 sign of any new LNG faclllty or any construction at an existing facllLty. These standards would require remote siting to the maximum extent possible. In addition, all LNG faclllties would be required to comply with new operating standards covering areas such as security against terrorists and fire prevention capacity. All related faclllties, including truck transportation, would be covered by strict new standards.

Many segments of the oll and gas industry have opposed this blll, claiming, like the owners of .the Titanic who insisted that their ship was "unsinkable," that we already live in the safest of all possible worlds.

Too many llves are at stake. The battle for significant new safety measures for LNG and LPG must not stop untll they are enforced by federal law.

THE UNHAPPY HISTORY OF . TRADE PROTECTIONISM

HON. BILL FRENZEL OF MINNESOTA



• Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, our colleague, STEVE NEAL, authored a first-rate piece in the Washington Post last week in which he carefully detailed the disasterous effects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.

The history is accurate and Congressman NEAL'S conclusions are sound. I invite the attention of all Members to the article, which follows:

THE UNHAPPY HISTORY OF TRADE PROTECTIONISM

(By Stephen L. Neal) Before we become saturated with 1930s

nostalgia, with Little Orphan Annie, "The Waltons" and a.rt deco, we ought to review one of the hard lessons of the Great Depression: Protectionism ls not the answer to our economic problems.

At a recent White House meeting, I was surprised to hear one of our leading industriallsts suggest that Congress protect America.n industries from foreign competition by enacting legislation frighteningly similar to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.

I have since heard that kind of protectionist talk increasingly from businessmen and from an alarming number of my House colleagues, who are under pressure to secure for their home-state industries some quick relief from import competition.

The reasons for this sentiment are clear. Unemployment ls still high. Inflation persists. Our industries face strong competition at home and abroad from the aggressive traders of Europe, Japan and the rapidly developing Third World. We are importing more foreign goods than ever, but the demand for American products overseas has been sluggish. As a resul.t, our trade deficit exceeded $3 b1llion last year, and the dolla.r-'s value has been depreciating.

I am keenly aware of how those economic stresses make protectlonlsm seem attractive. I am no purist on this issue. I have supported limlted proi;ection when I thought it was justified, particularly for the textile industry, which ls highly vulnerable to competition from newly industrializing nations. But I sense that some of my colleagues are tempted to go beyond limited administrative measures that assist distressed industries on a selective basts. They would shove aside the administration's trade negotiations and legislate broader measures reminiscent of Smoot-Hawley.

Like most of those who talk protectionism

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS today, Smoot-Hawley supporters saw themselves as prudent men acting to avert an economic crisis. President Herbert Hoover orig1na.lly asked only that Congress protect farmers and a few industries. But once the blll started through Congress, the logrolling began in earnest, wlth members insisting that their home industries be included. No fewer than 1,250 amendments were attached to protect various products. Ta.riffs were raised by an average of 53 percent. · More than 1,000 economists unsuccessfully petitioned Hoover to veto the blll. So did our world trade partners, who pointed out that they would have no dollars to buy American goods if their own products were shut out here. Even before the bill had cleared Congress, the anticipation of its passage contributed to the panic precipitating the stockmarket crash of 1929. Businessmen and investors sensed all too well the potential dangers of high ta11lff walls. Their instincts proved correct.

Foreign retallatlon was sw.lft: Our trading partners erected their own tariff walls. Within three years, our industrial exports had declined by 73 percent and our agricultural exports by 67 percent. The loss of foreign trade, of course, eliminated more jobs, closed more factories and prolonged the Depression. Even worse, the protectionist spirit spread throughout the world and contributed to the economic and political unrest that ultimately led to World War II.

The lesson was clear. President Franklin Roosevelt pushed through the Reciprocal Trade Act of 1934 to get our foreign trade moving again. And ever since, despite an occasional instance of backsliding, the United States has worked toward freer world trade.

If Smoot-Hawleylsm didn't work in the 1930s, it obviously won't work in today's interrelated world economy. The United States now exports one-sixth of everything it manufactures and one-third of its farm products. Overall, we exported some $120 billion worth of goods and services last year, and this trade supported at least 4.5 million jobs in the United States. All this ls at stake, remember when we play the protectionist game--a game always played by more than one.

Indiscriminate protectionism would have other serious consequences. It would deprive consumers of the wide choices and lower

· prices made available by imports. It would accelerate inflation by eliminating import competition. It would Jeopardize our foreign relations and undermine a generation of efforts to build a peaceful and productive world. In particular, it would poison our relationships with the emerging countries of the Third World, who need trade to survive, to pay debts, to modernize and--slgnificantly-to continue to be able to buy our products.

As I said, I am no purist. Free trade, like world peace, human perfection and the lowcalorle banana split, ls something we have to keep working toward, not something we have achieved. So long as other countries protect some of their industries, it ls only common sense that we do the same--ln a selective, painstaking way. We should be tough negotiators, yielding trade concessions only to those who give in return. We should vigorously oppose dubious trade practices such as the dumping of foreign products below the cost on our markets and the predatory financing schemes some countries employ to promote their exports.

If we keep trying, however, many trade barriers eventually can be eliminated by negotiations and by the working of market forces. The important thing ls that we continue to move toward freer trade, inch by inch if necessary, and that we not retreat in panic to wholesale protectionism achieved by political logrolllng in Congress.

History ls a great teacher. We should remember its lesson on protectlonlsm.e

22477 HOMESELLERS TAX RELIEF: A RE

PUBLICAN CONCEPT FOR CAPITAL GAINS REDUCTION

HON. STEWART B. McKINNEY OF CONNECTICUT

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTAT~,S


• Mr. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I supPort the Steiger proposal for an overall reduction of capital gains tax rates to stimulate capital formation and reward economic risk taking at all levels of wealth. However, I have long felt that such relief was most needed by those seeking to sell a value-added home and I have introduced the Homeseller Tax Relief Act every year since 1975. That bill would grant a one-time exemption to any taxpayer, regardless of age, trying to sell a principal residence and keep the proceeds. In 1976 the Ways and Means Committee saw the need for such relief but took only half a step

· toward the goal by increasing the cost ceiling for those over _65 using the exemption.

Now, this Congress is on the verge of :finishing that half-done job and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider the following Washington Star article before deciding to endorse any so-called new proposals for capital gains relief to homeowners age 59 or over. That analysis clearly points out the benefits of general capital gains rate reduction to the homeowner and argues strongly that arbitrary value and age limits as a condition to capital gains savings will not be acceptable to the taxpayer. The article follows:

HOMEOWNER Is GAINER IN ANY CAPITAL GAINS CUT

(By Lew Slchelman) The House Ways and Means Committee

resumed work yesterday on tax legislation that holds substantial benefits for millions of homeowners. The measure had been stalled since May.

The major obstacle to action on the broad tax relief measure has been the capital gains tax. On the one hand, Prest

. dent Carter wants to remove profits on the sale of homes from an increase in the capital gains tax that was adopted in 1969. On the other ls a large, bipartisan effort to cut the tax back to the pre-1969 level on the sale of all long-term assets.

No matter which faction prevails, the clear winner would be the nation's 50 mllllon homeowners, and would-be homeowners as well.

Presently, owners who llve in their homes longer than 12 months and then sell them pay the capital gains tax. Under the so-called roll-over provision, however, the tax can be deferred if the profit realized from the sale ls reinvested in another principal residence within 18 months.

Under the capital gains tax, only half the profit ls taxed as ordinary income. If, for example, a house that was purchased for $50,000 ls resold several years later for $100,000 and the gain ls not put into another home, the seller would pay taxes on half of the $50,000 gain at his ordinary rate.

Under the Tax Reform Act of 1969, the other half of the profit ls taxed at a flat 15 percent if 1 t ls more than half of the taxes paid on the homeowner's regular income. That is, if the excluded $25.000 in the above

22478 example is more than half of the taxes paid on regular income, it is taxed, too.

While the capital gains oortion of the president's proposal ls aimed at givinq: relief solely to homeowners, the bloartisan effort led by Reo. W111iam A. Steleer.-R-Wis .. would exclude all investors from the so-called 15 percent "minimum."

President Carter feels the capital gains tax causes undue hardshio on homeowners, especially on older individuals who want to sell their homes when they retire.

Given the rapid increase in housing prices, a homeowner wishing to sell his home and not buy another, more ex9ensive home must pay a substantial caoltal gains tax. Tn some cases, the "minimum" tax ls substantial. too, particularly if the seller's income is relatively modest. There also is some question as to whether the minimum tax was ever intended to apply to t.he sale of principal residences.

But not only would the president's proposal-and the ooposltion's, too-save homeowners a considerable sum. it also would add considerably to the nation's available housing stock.

Under the present tax structure, many persons. particularly emotynesters, stay in houses that have become too big for them rather than move to smaller houses or apartments and pay the capital gains taxes on their profits.

If their tax burden were reduced, they might elect to out their houses on the market a.nd move. This, of course. would free more housing for several segments of the marketfor growing fa.mllies who are looking for large houses and for first-time buyers who can afford only those houses growing fam111es move out of.

Steiger's broader proposal would, he says, get the economy out of its present period of "staii:fiation." But it would a.ccomnllsh the same thing Carter is trying to do--reduce the rate of taxation on home sellers who have not depreciated their assets to cut taxes. . The only way the nation's homeowners can

lose is 1f the president ends up vetoing the legislation that Congress eventually passes and Congress fails to override him. Then there would be no relief at all.

Footnote: There is talk on Caoitol Hm about eftendine; a tax provision applicable to individuals aged 65 and over to all taxpayers.

This provision exempts gains of the sale of homes where the sales price is $35.000 or less. When the sales price exceeds $35,000, the exemotion is for a. fraction of the gain equal to $35,000 divided by the selUng price.

Such . an extension, it ls said, would give all homeowners a. once-in-a-lifetime ooportunity to earn tax-free money. It would offer even more of an incentive to present owners to move on.

If you believe. as I do. that the homeowner needs and deserves to keep the accrued value of his or her maior investment, I would ask that you review the Homesellers Tax Relief Act and the accompanying Library of Congress analysis and join all those who seek true tax relief. rather than another half step that inflation will soon absorb. The bill and analysis fallow: A b111 to amend the Internal Revenue Code

of 1954 to allow an individual to exclude from gross income the gain from the sale or exchange of the individual's principal residence. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representattves of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) subsection (a) of section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to gain from sale or exchange of residence) 1s amended to read as follows:

"(a) GENERAL RULE.-At the election of

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS taxpayer, gross income does not include gain from the sale or exchange of property if, during the 8-year period ending on the date of the sale or exchange, such property has been owned and used by the tax9ayer as his principal residence for periods aggregating 5 years or more.".

(b) Subsection (b) of section 121 of such Code ls amended to read as follows:

"(b) LIMIT.ATION.-Subsectlon (a.) shall not apply to any sale or exchange by the taxpayer 1f an election by the taxpaver or his spouse under subsection (a) with respect to any other sale or exchange ls in effect.".

( c) ( 1) The heading of such section 121 ls amended by striking out "WHO HAS ATTAINED AGE 65".

(2) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking out (in the item relating to section 121) "who has attained age 65".

(3) Paragraph (1) of section 121 (d) of such Code ls amended by striking out "the age, holding, and use requirements" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "the holding and use requirements".

(4) Paragraph (2) of section 12l(d) of such Code is amended to read as follows:

"(2) PROPERTY OF DECEASED SPOUSE.-For purposes of this section, in the case of an unmarried individual whose spouse ls deceased on the date of the sale or exchange of property, if the deceased spouse (during the a-year period ending on the date of the sale or exchange) satisfied the holding and use requirements with respect to such property, then such individual shall be treated as satisfying the holding and use requirements of subsection (a) with respect to such property. An election by the deceased spouse under subsection (a) in effect with respect to a prior sale or exchange shall not limit such individual from the election under subsection (a.) with respect to such property." .

(5) Sections 1033(h) (3), 1034(k), 1038 (e) (1) (A), and 6012(c) of such Code are each amended by striking out "who has attained age 65".

(6) Section 1250(d) (7) (B) of such Code is a.mended by striking out "who has attained the age of 65".

(d) The amendments made by this section shall apply to dispositions after the date of the enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such date.

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Congressional Research Service,

February 19, 1976. . To The Honorable STEWART B. McKINNEY, Attention David Kiernan, From Economics Division Subject Analysis of H.R. 11663, a bill to ex

empt capital gains on sales of a. principal resident from the income tax.

H.R. 11563, introduced on January 28, 1976 by Congressman McKinney would exempt capital gains on the sale of a principal residence from the income tax. The exemption would only apply if the property was owned and used by the taxpayer as his principal residence for five of the previous eight years. The provision could only be used once by the taxpayer.

I, IMPACT OF THE BU.L

The impact of the bill must be examined in the context of other provisions of the tax law which affect such sales. These provisions are discussed below:

A. One half of any capital gain is excluded from gross income.

B. For individuals a.ge 66 or over the portion of gain attributable to the first $20,000 o! basis ls excluded from income. (For example, if the residence ls sold for $40,000, Y2 of the gain wm be exempt; if the residence sells for $60,000, one-third ($20,000/$60,000) of the gain will be exempt.)

July 24, 1978 C. There ls a. deferral of gain on the sale of

a principal residence if a new residence ls acquired within a. specified period. In order to qualify the taxpayer must purchase a new residence within 18 months before or after the sale of the old. If the residence ls newly constructed, construction must begin within 18 months and the taxoaver must occupy the new residence within two years. The new residence then has the basis of the old so that if the new residence is sold gain on the first sale and the second sale wm be taxed unless the taxpayer uses the deferral provision a.gain.

Full deferral only applies if the new residence costs as much or more than the sales price of the old. If the new residence costs less. the difference (up to the total amount of the gain) between the sales price of the old residence and the new residence is taxed as a. ca.pita.I gain.

This provision will be retained under the proposed blll.

D. When a taxoayer acquires a. residence by inheritance, the gain 1s not sub1ect to income tax at the time of death. In addition, the basis of the new residence becomes the fair market value at the time of death. Thus if the taxpayer sells the residence immediately little or no gain will occur.

Thus, a taxpayer will be sub1ect to tax on all or part of the gain on a sale of a. personal residence under the following circumstances:

( 1) When he moves from a more expensive residence to a. less expensive residence, 1f he is under 65.

(2) When he sells his residence and does not purchase a new residence within the time requirements, and ls under 65.

(3) When he does either of the above and is 65 or over, but the sales price of the old residence exceeds $20,000.

There may, of course, be a. variety of circumstances which lead to a taxpayer desiring to take one of the actions listed above. The $20,000 limit was enacted in 1964 and the value has been eroded by tnfiation. Thus tt ma.v be quite llkely that some of the ga.tn on sales by those 65 or over will be subject to tax because of the increase in housing prices. .

There may be a. variety of reasons that a taxpayer may elect to move to a smaller residence or not to purchase a new residence, including regional variations in housing prices for those who a.re relocating, changes in family circumstances, the supply of housing, mortgage interest rates and particular circumstances of the individual. Current tax treatment acts to encourage taxpayers to rent under such circumstances and to discourage home sales by taxpayers who might otherwise wish to sell. To the extent that these effects exist, there are distortions created tn ' the housing market. However, there is no data a.va.llable to estimate the impact on the supply and demand for housing arising from these circumstances.

II. REVENUE LOSS Because of the lack of up-to-da.te data on

realized capital gains by types of capital assets, it ls extremely difficult to estimate the revenue loss from the changes proposed in the bill. However, based on the latest data. on the share of gains reallzed on sales of residences and extrapolating to the present, the revenue loss may be estimated at roughly $150 mill1on. This estimate should be used with care, because of the limLtations of the data on which the estimate is based.1

1 The latest data on capital gains by types of capital assets are for 1962. The estimate assumes that the proportion reflecting gains on the sales of residences remained relatively constant (with adjustments ma.de for changes in the tax law). The resulting base is multiplied by the marginal tax rate to determine revenue loss.

July 24, 1978 DI. ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE BILL

A. Arguments for ( 1) Capital gains are ln large part a re

flection of inflation and represent an lllusory gain. In addition, the taxation of gain in one lump sum presents problems under a progressive ra.te structure since all of the gain 1s taxed ln one year.

(2) Even lf capital gain on investments ls subject to tax, lt ls not appropriate to subject gains on the sales of personal consumption items such as homes. The purchase of a residence ls less of a profit-motlva.ted investment than are other types of investment. In addition, since the tax law does not recognize capital losses on the sales of personal assets, Lt is not equitable to tax capital gains.

(3) The present treatment in the tax law discriminates against taxpayers who are unable to qualify under other provisions of the tax law. For example, an individual over 65 in an urban area may find the $20,000 base so low as to offer very llttle rellef as compared to a taxpayer in a rural area. A taxpayer moving to a new area may find it difficult to acquire a new residence within the time limits or may not desire to purchase a new residence because of the expectation that he will not remain in the area for a long period of time. Taxpayers may wish to move to a smaller residence or an apar.tment because of reduction in family size or income.

(4) The $20,000 limitation in the current provision has been substantially eroded by inflation. Elderly taxpayers whose residence represents much of their savings may find that saving reduced by the payment of capital gains .tax. ·

B. Arguments against (1) This provision will add to the exten

sive number of tax provisions in the law which favor investment in housing as opposed to alternative types of investments. This favorable treatment has distorted consumer choice and encouraged investment in housing in a substitute for business investment.

(2) Capital gains are already subject to favorable treatment not only because one half of capital gain is exempt but also because the taxpayer does not pay tax on gains as accrued but rather on gains when realized. This deferral of tax constitutes an advantages in itself. In addition, provisions ln the law such as income averaging provide relief from excessive high income in one year due to the realization of capital gains.

(3) The present provisions in the law are designed for those particular circumstances requiring relief. The deferral provision recognizes that the sale of one residence and purchase of another is in the nature of an exchange and is something which the taxpayer may find necessary (e.g. due to job changes). The periods for reinvestment are liberal. The exemption for the elderly is designed to provide relief for such taxpayers. The llmltatlon ln the base orients the provision more towards the lower income elderly.

JANE G. GRAVELLE, Analyst in Taxation and Ftscal Policy.e

WE STRUCK OUT IN AFRICA, AGAIN

HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUS~ OF REPRESENTATIVES


• Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, last week the Organization for African Unity held its summit meeting in Khartoum. Great hopes had been held for a strong stand


against Russian and Cuban colonialization in Africa and against obvious intervention by foreign military forces from these and other countries. These expectations came to naught. After days of squabbling on manv issues of im,;:iortance to the continent, much of which accomplished nothing, the conference placed its stamp of approval on the efforts of the Marxist revolutionaries to control Rhodesia and warned the United States against lifting the embargo on Rhodesian chrome. Apparently, that is about all that was accomplished.

If Russia and Cuba had been seated at the conference as voting members, they could not have been more pleased with the result. Whether or not they engineered the result is, at the moment, inconsequential.

I wonder how we will explain to the rest of the world why the U.S. struck out although the wizardry of Mr. Andrew Young is guiding our policies in Africa on items of interest to the United States.•

SALUTE TO STEVE MIKOSKY. STATE COMMANDER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN LEGION

HON. JOHN ff. DENT OF PENNSYLVANIA



• Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize an outstanding individual from my congressional district: Steve Mikosky, the newly elected State commander of the Pennsylvania American Legion.

Steve Mikosky, of Jeannette, is a man worthy of the new office he holds. As a World War II Navy veteran, Steve has devoted his time, efforts, and considerable talents to assisting his brothers in the American Legion. Before his recent election to the State commander's post, Steve served as the senior vice president of the Jeannette American Legion Post 344 and had twice served as its commander. In recognition of his service, and his commitment to the goals, ideals, and activities of the American Legion. Steve was elected to the top State position by an overwhelming majority of the delegates at the Legion's 60th annual convention in Philadelphia, July 13-15, 1978.

As ar.. expression of its pride in Steve Mikosky, the city of Jeannette has honored him by proclaiming August 4, 1978, "Steve Mikosky Day." I, too, am proud of Steve Mikosky for devoted service to his country and to the American Legion. I am confident that he will lead the Pennsylvania American Legion with wisdom and effectiveness. Steve Mikosky deserves to be honored by a grateful community and it is fitting and proper that he be recognized by this House of Representatives.

On behalf of the good citizens of Pennsylvania's 21st Congressional District and the U.S. House of Representatives, it therefore gives me a great deal of pleasure to salute Steve MikoskY. the new State commander of the Pennsylvania American Legion.•

22479 ·

WILSON GERMANY

HON. JAMES M. COLLINS OF TEXAS



• Mr. COLLINS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last week we held funeral services down in Dallas for a great man, Wilson Germany. As I sat in the crowded Highland Park Methodist Church, it was heartwarming to see the love and appreciation that his friends had for his dedicated life.

Wilson was a friend to everyone and worked hard on every project that was good for the community. When you told Wilson there was a job to be done, he rolled up his sleeves and got with it. Whenever he joined an organization, he gave his heart and soul to it. In life we remember our old friends so well and Wilson and I lived together in the Phi Delta Theta House back in my college days at S.M.U. His love for the university actively continued as he served as president of the S.M.U. Alumni Association. He was serving at the time of his death on the S.M.U. board of trustees. Last year he headed up the S.M.U. Sustentation Drive which was the greatest financial success in the university's history.

Wilson lived in University Park and for all of these years he served as the mayor of University Park. There is no salary. It is just complaints and suggestions from every neighbor in town about the garbage, the police, the schools, and the highways. Always Wilson was available to hear their story and to find a way to build a better community.

At the funeral I had a long visit with Mrs. E. G. Germany, who is Wilson's wonderful mother. I remember her friendly hospitality from way back when we were in college. We would always go in the Germany's house at any time and you never rang the doorbell. You just went in the side door. If we were hungry, and we usually were, you could always get a sandwich, a glass of milk, and ice cream. How we all loved and cherished the warm hospitality out at the Germany home.

Wilson Germany was recognized as one of America's greatest independent oilmen. He had developed fields in every part of the country. He fought hard to build all of the oil trade association.

Banking has played a large part in the development of Texas. Wilson Germany was one of the recognized banking pace setters serving as chairman of the Preston Bank in Dallas.

Wilson was a dedicated individual of independent strength . His father, Col. E. B. Germany, had served as chairman of the Democratic Party in Texas. But Wilson had the courage to become a Republican leader of Texas.

When Dr. Layton Farrell delivered his beautiful eulogy, he said there was not a single project of development in the Dallas community that at one time or another in Wilson's life he had not served in its leadership. He worked on every good project, whether it was a high school football team, the United Fund,

22480 YMCA, PT A, or the Scouts. I could name hundreds of organizations because he was part of every one of them.

For a life so rich in service to others, Wilson will always be remembered. His wife, Sis Germany, will carry on the traditions. She has the commonsense, the sense of humor, and the dedication that has made her such a pillar of strength in our community.•

SPENDING LIMITATION AND TAX REDUCTION

HON. MARJORIE S. HOLT OF MARYLAND



• Mrs. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, last spring, when we were deliberating 6n the first budget resolution for the 1979 fiscal year, I sponsored a substitute budget resolution that would have reduced the growth rate of spending from 11 to 8 percent. My substitute also accommodated the 1st-year tax reductions of the 3-year Kemp-Roth plan.

You will recall that my substitute budget failed by only six votes on the House floor, and then only after the Speaker and majority leader persuaded eight of their Members to change their votes to oppose my amendment. You will also recall that every House Republican except one supported my substitute.

It is also important to note that my budget amendment represented the official policy of the House Republican leadership. The Republican plan announced by JOHN J. RHODES, the minority leader, is to balance the Federal budget in 5 years at lower tax rates. This plan requires limiting the growth rate of Gov- . ernment spending.

To my mind, there is one dominant reason for a large general tax reduction: Income belongs to the people who earn it, and Government is taking an excessive amount of individual earnings for public purposes.

A major tax reduction, phased in over 3 years as provided by the Kemp-Roth plan, would have gratifying results in terms of increasing investment, economic expansion, jobs creation, and rapid recovery of revenues lost initially because of the tax cuts.

I am convinced that tax reduction on the scale provided by Kemp-Roth is critically needed for the future economic health of our Nation. We must restore the American incentives to work, save, and invest that have blessed our country with prosperity never before seen in history.

Nobody knows how much of the initial revenue loss would be recovered, or how quickly. When you hear economists debating these points, you come to realize that we can only speculate as to the revenue effects of Kemp-Roth.

However, we can address the spending side of the fiscal equation. This we can do with considerable certainty as to results. Therefore, I have introduced legislation which would gradually slow the growth rate of Government spending


while the Kemp-Roth tax reductions are stimulating growth in the private sector.

My legislation is entitled the "Spending Limitation and Tax Reduction Act of 1978." It totally embraces the KempRoth tax cuts, but it also provides some compensatory limits on Government spending.

The growth rate of new budget authority would be limited to 8 percent in fiscal 1980, 7 percent in fiscal 1981, and 6 percent in fiscal 1982.

My legislation reaffirms the commitment by Kemp-Roth supporters to slow the growth rate of Government spending, It also reaffirms the voting records of many Members of this House.

In July 13 testimony before the House Budget Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman G. William Miller expressed concern that the Kemp-Roth legislation would provide major tax reductions over 3 years without limits on spending.

"The more sensible plan is the one I have been trying to promote," said Mr. Miller. He described it as "deciding where we want to be in 5 to 7 years, beginning to reduce Federal expenditures, and, as we reduce them, cut taxes to give back the reductions to people and to businesses."

I agree with the point made by Mr. Miller. I believe that tax reductions should be accompanied by limitations on spending. That is why I have introduced legislation attaching spending limitations to the Kemp-Roth tax reductions.

Following is a chart comparing the budget authority estimated by the Carter administration with the budget authority allowed by mv legislation for the 1980, 1981, and 1982 fiscal years. You will note that the moderate growth rate allowed by my legislation would save approximately $29 billion initially,

1979. ·····-1980. -- -- --1981_ _____ _ 1982. ------

BUDGET AUTHORITY [In billions of dollars]

OMB esti

mate, July 1978

Holt llmita

tion

Annual changes

OMB Holt in- in-

crease crease

Difference, OMB

Holt

571. 4 -------- --- ------------------- ----- -625. 2 617. 1 53. 8 45. 7 -8. 1 680. 6 660. 3 55. 4 43. 2 -12. 2 728. 8 699. 9 48. 2 39. 6 -8. 6

Total.._________ __________ __ 157. 4 128. 5 -28. 9

• TRIBUTE TO ED GALLAGHER, PUB

LISHER OF LACONIA, N.H., EVENING GAZETTE

HON. NORMAN E. D'AMOURS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


Monday, July 24, 1978 e Mr. D'AMOURS. Mr. Speaker, the State of New Hampshire and the city of Laconia, N.H., have lost a leader and a friend with the death last Wednesday of Edward J. Gallagher, publisher of the Laconia Evening Citizen.

July 24, 1978

Ed Gallagher's dedication to journalism and community service was best summed up by Ed himself in an interview several years ago. Asked why he had chosen the name "Citizen" for his newspaper, Ed replied that the name appealed to him because it stands for "public rather than political interests."

During his lifetime Ed Gallagher certainly succeeded in living up to the name of his newspaper. He practiced his citizenship not only by publishing a fine paper serving the needs of Laconia and the entire Lakes Region of New Hampshire, but also by lending his talents and energy to city government in two terms as mayor of Laconia and in service to countless other causes, including the Salvation Army and the Laconia Public Library.

The deep respect and friendship Ed Gallagher earned among his peers has been demonstrated by an outpouring of tributes in virtually every newspaper in New Hampshire since Ed's death last week. Mr. Speaker, I would like to presPnt two of these tributes at this time. The first, which appeared in the Laconia :F.vening r.itizen, was written by Larry Smith, Ed's son-in-law and managing editor of the Citizen. The second appeared in the Concord, N.H., Monitor and was written by Leon W. Anderson, New Hampshire's legislative historian. [From the Laconia Evening Citizen, July 20,

1978) MR. GALLAGHER

We wm sorely miss Mr. Gallagher. His many friends throughout the city and

State are remembering the wise counsel and inspiration he provided.

In the publishing field he holds a special niche in the minds of a legion of newspaper people throughout the United States who graduated from the Evening Citizen clan. They, like the present staff, remember him not only as "The Publisher", but a.s a friend and teacher.

They are proud to be known as Gallagher men and women.

We first heard the term as a cub reporter when we were introduced to a publlc official on a city beat. He referred to us a.s a Janson man, a trainee of city editor Ebba. Janson who had a great part in moulding the policy of the Evening Citizen with Mr. and Mrs. Gallagher. Joining the regular staff you graduated to a Gallagher man.

He contributed greatly to his craft. At an early age he was given a $1 toy typewriter and in his hands it became an extension of his physical being. Though his tool changed over the years to an L. C. Smith and lately to a. futuristic electric model he always used it wisely and honestly in his trade.

He chose not to be an opinion maker but a. guide in the community and he followed his creed not only in his dally articles and the columns of his newspapers but in hts personal life and associations as well.

His favorite theme, explaining the art of journalism to young reporters and older ones as well, was his Bronx angle. He coined the phrase from an early New York paper he came in contact with. It was the ablllty to tie a national or international story to a local person or event.

The Bronx paper's staff were pa.st masters at it and he brought the concept to his Evening Citizen. An editor one told us "Whenever a. big story breaks I watch !or the Citizen to see how Ed Gallagher got a local handle on it."

He could always find one. There were many Evening Citizen trained

reporters and editors scanning the wire copy

July 24, 1978 in newsrooms across the country yesterday when the report of his death was carried.

They had a Bronx angle. They were fortunate enough to have

known him.

(From the Concord Monitor, July 20, 1978] EJG-DEVOTED TO NEW HAMPSHmE's WELFARE

(By Leon W. Anderson) Publisher Edward John Gallagher of the

Laconia Evening Citizen will long live in Granite State newspaper annals, out of a most unusual origin.

A Concord native of 1890, he was the only child of Irish immigrants and was raised in the Catholic faith by a gracious Protestant family. He was stricken with intestinal tuberculosis, which terminated his education beyond grade school.

We pried details of Ed Gallagher's childhood out of a long personal friendship with this man, whom we came to respect and admire for his graciousness, common qualities of character and frlendllness for little people.

Gallagher's father died while he was an infant, and his mother had to work as a domestic to support herself. It was because of such circumstances that EJG, as he Uked best to sign himself, learned how to be grateful and thankful for his early lot in life and the loving care of foster-parents.

Editor Ed Gallagher-the manner in which we best liked to address him-will long live in our upcoming history of the 300-year-old New Hampshire Legislature. He ls the starryeyed hero of a chapter on the 1907 Legislature, when the late governor Robert Perkins Bass of Peterboro kllled a quarter-century legislative custom of paying newspapermen handsome fees for writing up the lawmakers' doings.

Bass was then chairman of the House Committee on Retrenchment and Reform. He induced his group to recommend abolltlon of $100 payments to each newsoaperman, per session of some 10 weeks, as an undesirable conflict of interest practice. While recovering from his stomach sickness, young Gallagher eyed the $100 gift, set himself up as the "F. P. Gilpin Syndicate," induced a couple of weeklles to pay him 50 cents a ,veek to report legislative life and qualified as a legislative newsman.

Gallagher was then 16 years of age, and he grinningly recalled he was so frail that the reporters would not even perm! t him a seat at the two long newsmen's tables which then adorned the front of the House Speaker's rostrum. But Gallagher persevered, and a month later he won equal status when he was employed by the Manchester Union to fill in for a reporter who had become suddenly 111.

As the 1907 session drew to adjournment, Bass went into a.ction, and the attra.ctlve $100 emoluments went into oblivion for all time. So, Gallagher liked to recall, he had to labor much longer and much harder before enjoying the thrlll of his first $100 paycheck.

Friend Gallagher also liked to tell us of an unusual relationship he once had with the Christian Science Church. Before 1910, the Concord Evening Patriot (now part of the Concord Monitor) was for a short time owned by a St. Louis Christian Science leader, and its equipment was used to publlsh pamphlets for that denomination. This was before the founding of the Christian Science Monitor, which was named after the Concord Monitor.

In 1910, the concord Patriot's Christian Science ownership was turned over to Ed Gallagher. He paid for it over a period of yea.rs, in which the Patriot's circulation grew from 300 to more than 3,000, to exceed that of the Monitor before 1923. In that year, Gallagher sold his Patriot to the late James M. Langley, who also bought the a111ng Monitor and merged the two.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS After disposing of the Patriot, Gallagher

went to the Midwest for a brief period. He then returned to New Hampshire and launched the Laconia Evening Citizen in 1925. The continued success of this dally newspaper, and its unstinting promotion of the welfare of the Lakes Region and its citizenry, reflects Edward John Gallagher's unselfish devotion to his beloved state and his fellow citizens in fitting fashion.

We like to think that many of us are the better from having shared EJG's friendship.e

FOR A REDUCED CAPITAL GAINS TAX

HON. BILL FRENZEL OF MINNESOTA



• Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, Sunday's lead editorial in the Minneapolis Tribune was a statement in favor of a reduced capital gains tax.

The rationale was the need for increased capital investment and increased economic activity. The President's argument that a reduction is a windfall for the rich was dismissed as not persuasive.

The thoughtful editorial follows: [From the Minneapolis Tribune,

July 23, 1978] FOR A REDUCED CAPITAL GAINS TAX

President Carter may be looking for a graceful retreat from his opposition to capital-gains tax reduction. There was a hint of that in his press conference Thursday night: He said th!lt he would make his final decision after Congress completes action on the total tax package.

That is a welcome change from Carter's needlessly strident statements last month, when he dismissed a leading proposal on capital-gains tax reduction as one that "underestimates the inte111gence of the American people." A lot of inte111gent Americans do oppose cutting capital-gains taxes. But other inte111gent Americans support cuts, and we think their case ts stronger.

Last week, key congressional leaders said the same thing. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee sue:gested that a part of capital gains be adjusted for lnflationthat ls, reduced. And the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, joined by the committee's ranking Republican member, announced support for a bUl to reduce capital-gains taxes by other means. The administration ls studying such proposals, perhaps searching for a compromise with a Congress increasingly committed to reductions.

Administration opposition has been on two grounds: that reductions would create windfalls for the rich and would reduce fedenl revenues. Neither argument ls persuasive.

The United States needs capital investment. A number of studies indicates that the higher capital-gains tax enacted in 1969 has discouraged new investment: People have tended to hold onto assets rather thin sellin~ them to reinvest in new industries. Or they have bought tax-exempt securities, or simply have spent their extra money.

If a. lower capital-gains tax would benefit the wealthy, it would also benefit the not-so-wealthy-small investors, including homeowners who decide to move to a smaller house or an ap:=i.rtment. And it would probably benefit the economy by increasing stockmarket activity, stock prices, industry growth and Jobs.

22481 Assertion that federal revenues would·

drop after a capital-gains tax cut are contested by economists who argue that more people and companies would be wll11ng to sell assets like stocks and houses, which would produce more capital gains to be taxed. A general rise in economic activity would create additional capital gains.

Congress ls right to be moving toward lower capital-gains taxes. If the president cannot add his enthusiastic support, he should at least withdraw his opposition.e

HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE BEGINS MARKUP ON NEW SUGAR LEGISLATION

HON. RICHARD NOLAN OF MINNESOTA



• Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 25, 1978, the House Agriculture Committee will begin markup on new sugar legislation.

The following letter to President Carter from Irvin L. Zitterkopf, general manager of the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, clearly explains why U.S. sugar beet growers need at least 17 cents per pound for their production. Mr. Zitterkopf's letter also explains why the 17 cents price objective should be achieved through import fees and quotas. Otherwise, according to Zitterkopf-

Unfair competition from imported sugar wm ruin and ultimately destroy domestic sugar production ....

Department of Agriculture officials have described the Upper Midwest as one of the most efficient regions of sugar beet production. Yet, the Carter administration has proposed a sugar program which will drive even the efficient sugar beet producers out of business. The administration's sugar bill establishes a sugar price level which is below the cost of production. The administration's low sugar ;>rice level, reached through a combination of import fees, import quotas and payments, jeopardizes the livelihood of sugar beet growers in the Upper Midwest and, because of the payment program, will drain the Treasury at the same time.

I urge the President and my colleagues to pay careful attention to Mr. Zitterkoph's letter.

The letter follows: SoUTHERN MINNESOTA

BEET SUGAR COOPERATIVE, RENVILLE, MINN., July 21, 1978.

Re: Pending Sugar Legislation. President JAMES CARTER, The White House, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: As the new General Maniger of Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative located in southwestern Minnesota, I believe it is necessary for me to make this relatively new farmer-owned cooperative's position known regarding some of the problems facing the domestic sugar industry. This cooperative was organized in 1972 by aporoximately 300 farmers who invested $10 million and borrowed another $40 million to build a sugar factory to process sugarbeets from 55,000 acres of the finest farming land in the country.

22482 As a result of low sugar prices over the

past three years (after termination of the Sugar Act on December 31, 1974), the $10 million invested by these farmers was lost. While the 300 farm ers who produced sugarbeets for their factory have absorbed losses in excei-.s of $10 million over the past three years, they still d<;isire to produce sugarbeets if the impact of foreign sugar production is controi led to the extent that it ii; fair a.nd equitable competition. The shareholders/ producers of this cooperative believes that they are as efficient farmers as there are in the world today, but that unfair competition from imported sugar will ruin and ultimately destroy domestic sugar production unless something is done at the federal level to give necessary protection to the domestic sugar industry.

This cooperative's farmers have a cost of production in the range of $350 to $375 per acre for growing sugarbeet.c;. To f!nable the farmer to cover his costs and make a small profit, this cooperative neecJi:; t.o be able to sell its sugar tor at least 21¢ per lb. in the Chicago-Midwest marketing area. The proposed 17c per lb. base for New York raw is endorsed by this cooperative.

The shareholders/ growers of this cooperative a.re not asking for an unfair advantage over other farmers , laborers, businesses, etc. They are only asking for an opportunity to compete competitively with their fellow American farmers .

To accomplish this objective and to prevent the American farmer from abandoning the domestic su~ar industry. it is our recommendation that import restrictions or limitations be established to prevent the "dumping" of foreign sugar in the United States. These import restrictions should be imposed either through import fees that are high enough to keep the price of sugar at a level that will allow the American farmer and the domestic industry to compete for a fair return, or there should be importing quotas tr.at will accomplish the same objective . We also believe that the result of restrictions could bring an increased activity in some segments of the sweetener industry. This increase should be regulated on a pro-rata basis, with equal consideration to the beet, cane and corn growers.

It is our belief that a long term sweetener program that allows for fair competition between the American farmer and the domestic industry is in the best interest of the United States and will 'enable the American farmer to make his farming decisions based on domestic, competitive forces rather than competing with foreign farmers who are being subsidized by their governments.

We believe this issue to be of extreme importance to the survival of the domestic sugar industry and would appreciate the opportunity to make our views, both those of the cooperative and of the sugarbeet farmer, known to any legislative committ ee considering these issues. We are available on o. moment's notice to make our views known.

Sincerely, IRVIN T,. ZrrTE RKOPF,

General manager.e

SOLVING CENTER'S DIFFICULTEES

HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA OF CALIFORNIA



• Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, on December 20, 1977, the General Accounting Office reported to the Congress on the long-term financial situation at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. In detailing problems in the financial outlook of the Kennedy Center, the GAO


report concluded, "GAO believes the Congress should consider these problems. It alone can make both the value judgments and tradeoffs involved in solving the Center's difficulties."

I fully agree with that conclusion. The Center has been operating for approximately 6 years and it is time for the Congress to review the entire financial picture at the Center and to make such changes as it deems advisable. Our de-liberations should include all aspects of the Center's financial situation, because the various problems are unavoidably interrelated.

The two principal problems define the time-frame for our deliberations. First, the existing bonds agreements allow the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees to defer interest payments through calendar 1978, meaning that the first interest payment must be paid by December 31, 1979. Second, the Congress has authorized nonperforming arts funding through fiscal year 1979 under the present maintenance agreement between the Center and the National Parks Service. That agreement is an important part of the Center's financial picture and has been recently renegotiated in principle by the Center and the Park Service. The Congress should consider that agreement in time for fiscal year 1980 authorization as part of its overall review of Kennedy Center finances.

As part of this overall review process, the Kennedy Center has submitted its own proposals. I am today introducing a bill to amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act in the form which is proposed by the Board of Trustees of the Kennedy Center. This bill should be included in the deliberations of the Congress in general and of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation in par- · ticular. This bill is not now specifically endorsed by any member of the committee, but is a welcome addition to our comprehensive review of the Kennedy Center financial situation as called for by the GAO report.•

CAPTIVE NATIONS WEEK

HON. MATTHEW F. McHUGH OF NEW YORK


Tuesday, July 18, 1978

• Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, at a time when many groups throughout our country are commemorating Captive Nations Week, the news ha.s provided us with the sad details about Anatoly Scharansky and Alekandr Ginzburg.

The trials and conviction of these two Soviet dissidents, together with the lesspublicized conviction of Lithuanian dissident Viktoras Petkus, have been grim reminders of the continued repressiveness of the Soviet regime.

During the course of these events, our Ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young, was widely criticized for a statement made during a foreign newspaper interview, a statement which implied that there is also much political repression in the United States.

July 24, 1978

Ambassador Young's statement was certainly ill considered. Indeed, his own personal history demonstrates the real differences in the political systems of Russia and the United States. As he himself pointed out, 3 years after being jailed for participating in a demonstration, he was elected to high office in his home State of Georgia. In his celebrated newspaper interview, he was apparently trying to make the point that anything can happen. But in contemplating his own meteoric career he apparently forgot tha.t such dramatic political "rehabilitation" can only occur in a country which respects the individual and by its lR.ws insures freedom of expression in the political process.

Andrew Young and the Soviet dissidents stand in contrast under two very different political systems. Ambassador Young's exercise of free speech may sometimes prove embarrassing to him and his superiors, but it never puts him in danger of imprisonment. The same cannot be said for the Soviet dissidents. Their plight reminds us that for many millions of people across the globe, there is no such thing as free speech or basic human rights. Not only have individual rights been stifled, but whole nations have been robbed of freedom and independence.

Twenty years ago, the U.S. Congress first proclaimed a commemoration of Captive Nations Week. It was designated the third week of July, and is to be commemorated yearly until all the world's captive nations achieve independence and self-determination. Its purpose is to maintain our vigilance against erosions of freedom anywhere, as well as to protest the imperialisti.c practices which have subjugated over 3·0 nations throughout the world. It is also an opportunity to express our support for those brave peoples who tenaciously maintain their national identity in the hope of a new day of freedom to come.

Captive Nations Week was initially prompted by our wish to protest the armed takeover by the Soviets in 1940 of the three Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Sadly, these countries remain under illegal Soviet domination to this day and are subjected to systematic efforts to erode the native language and national consciousness. Yet, the native population continues to maintain a fierce sense of identity and resists the Soviet colonizing influences. Within the past 6 years, for instance, there have been two major Lithuanian uprisings in that country's two largest cities, uprisings which were quelled by Soviet troops.

The determination of the native Lithuanian people to be free and independent remains vigorous even after years of alien occupation. It is supported by underground publications and the political and cultural activities of exile populations in free countries. Most importantly, it is supported by the commitment of the American people not to acquiesce to illegal Soviet domination of other countries. To demonstrate that commitment, and to commemorate once more Captive Nations Week, any of us in Congress

July 24, 1978 have cosponsored House Concurrent Resolution 177, which calls for U.S. efforts to work for freedom in the Baltic States under United Nations auspices. It further reiterates the sense of Congress that it should remain U.S. policy not to recognize in any way the illegal annexation of these countries by the Soviet Union.

Mr. Speaker, Captive Nations Week reminds us of how precious our own freedom is, and of our responsibility to preserve the rights of other peoples to be free. Benjamin Franklin proudly said, "Where freedom is, there is my country." But Thomas Paine's reply r~minds us that it is vigilance that preserves freedom: "Where freedom is not, there is my country."•

BALANCE (S) OF POWER,' BOOK IIB m-THE UNITED STATES AND THE MARITIME ALLIANCE

HON. JOHN BRECKINRIDGE OF KENTUCKY



• Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Mr. Speaker, in the previous selection in the strategic balance series, Colin Grey warned that because of the heartland position of the Soviet Union, their strategic pality with the United States becomes tantamount to strategic advantage. We must then tum to examine the U.S. geopolitical strengths and weaknesses to fully understand the options which must be selected and the necessary defenses which must be accepted to maintain our own security.

The "United States and the Maritime Alliance: Defending the Rimlands,'' is another chapter from "Geopolitics in the Nuclear Age" by Colin Grey. As the title suggests, potential strategic gain to the United States may derive from.naval exploitation of our geopolitical position. It is in this context that challenging Soviet naval developments must be viewed with particular alarm, Mr. Grey's article follows:

THE UNITED STATES AND THE MARITIME ALLIANCE; DEFENDING THE RIMLANDS

Her [the United States') main political objective, both in peace and in war, must therefore be to prevent the unlfica tton of the Old World centers of power in a coalition hostile to her own lnterests.06

INSULARITY; GEOPOLITICAL PERSPECTIVES

Depending upon the cartographic projection selected, the Americans can be shown to be surrounded by Eurasia-Africa, to surround Eurasia-Africa, or to be an offshore island. Different map projections imply different geostrateglc opportunities and vulnerabilities. For example, a global map centered on St. Louis shows the United States either in a favorable central position, able to project power .on what appear to be interior air/ocean lines onto the littorals of Eurasia; or, scarcely less plausibly, the central location of the North American land mass on the map suggests that the United States is surrounded by hostile, or potentially hostile, land areai; In the east and the west of the Eurasian World-Island. With the completion of the Panama Canal in 1914, the United States became truly an island of continental

Footnotes at end of article.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS proportion, capable of projecting power toward the Eurasian Rimlands to the east and west with an ease that could not be matched by Heartland capacity (for several decades).

The compelling logic of geopolitics has indicated to any American capable of reading a map and drawing fairly elementary policy lessons from recent history that Heartland and Rimlands on the World-Island must never be organized by a single political will. Nonetheless, the shape of post-1945 American policy was dictated far more by events than by geopolitically-educated policy design. The United States anticipated a fullsca.le mmtary withdrawal from Europe within two yea.rs following the surrender of the Third Reich. American forces remained in Europe, first by virtue of occupation rights and duties, and later as a consequence of explicit alliance undertakings, bece,use World War II effected the destruction of the balance of power in Eurasia.. For nearly a century (1870-1945), the problem in world (that ls, Europe-centered) politics had been the difficulty in accommodating a unified and overly powerful and ambitious German state within a European balance of power system. That problem was not resolved until 1945.66

Following World War II, it became clear, by 1947-48, that the problem of Germany had been resolved (perhaps temporarily) only at the cost of the elevation of a state which. in its turn, threatened to destroy any aspirations for a functioning balance-ofpower system that would be restricted to Eurasia. Despite the enormous damage that it suffered in the "Great Patriotic War," the Soviet Union (apparently, at least) disposed of a "projectible power" potenita.l that could not be countered by strictly Euraslan-Rlmland resources. In the late 1940s, China was a great power bv courtesy rather than powerproduced entitlement; (West) Germany could barely feed itself, let alone function in its time-honored role as a bulwark against the Slavs; while Britain and France, nominal victors in World War II, were reduced to penury. In short, in the period (1946-47) when George Kennan was writing his Mackinderesque recommendation of a firm containment policy, the only auestion of substance that remained to be debated was over just what kind of containing power really was reouired ....

The pro-Soviet coup in Prague in the Spring of 1948 made clear that the presence of Soviet mmta.ry power in Central Europe was to be a permanent feature of the political landscape. Without fully appreciating what events had ·thrust upon it, the United States found itself saddled with the defensive Rimla.nd-protective tasks that previously had been borne by the Germans and the Japanese. Leaving a.side their more expansive foreign policy ambitions, the Germans and the Japanese had served to check the hegemonia.l ambitions of the Heartland power. In the 20th century, those peoples had threatened the balance of power in Eurasia by their attempts to conquer the Heartland; but the necessary character of their defensive, checking, roles was inadequately appreciated by many Americans. After 1945, piece by piece, and rarely-if ever-publicly acknowledged ln power-political terms, the United St.ates assumed the power-balancing responslb111ties of the British Empire,e1 Germany, and Japan.

The events of 19"0-51 were most instructive ln geopolitical terms. In 1950, the United States assumed the lead in defendln~ South Korea ("a dagger pointing at the heart of Japan"-a.nd also, let lt be noted, a natural bridgehead for an eventual contest for control of Northeast Asia\: Amel'ica.'s China policy, in its strong commitment to the idea of the lee-itima.cy of Chiang Kai-shek's government-in-exile on Taiwan, amounted to a declaration to the effect that the United States considered developments on the Chinese mainland to constitute "unfinished

22483 business"; and the United States reversed its policy toward Indochina ln favor of the French. These actions in, and policy decisions concerning, the Asian Rimla.nd were linked by a. strong thread of internal logic. Specifically, the United States opposed the domlna. tion of the Asian Rimla.nd by the Heartland power. It is now customary to deride that logic; with much good reason, it is argued that North Korea., the Chinese People's Republic, and North Vietnam a.re not compliant clients of the Soviet Union. In other words, the United States foolishly discerned unitary political will where actually there was a diversity of national ambitions.

Over the long run, however, the supposedly naive presumption of the monolithic nature of communism may fare a great deal better than its apparently more sophisticated challengers. If America. 's ca.pa.cl ty for collective action continues to decline, the a.billty of the CPR to pursue a foreign policy course independent of, let a.lone in direct and virulent opposition to, Moscow could shrink markedly. As noted earlier in this study, many contemporary stra.teglc-a.na.lytlca.l luminaries in the West have virtually no background in history, even very recent history. The geographical location of Indochina. renders its harbors and airfields an asset of great importance-particularly for a power totally (otherwise) deficient in forward bases that bear upon the South China Sea and the Southwest Pacific. Vietnam ls very much in the Soviet debt. It is not at all implausible to foresee a time when Soviet ships and aircraft will find Vletnames fa.cm ties as useful as did the Japanese. (Skeptics are invited to research the use ma.de of Vietnamese territory and harbors by the Japanese Empire, and to reflect upon the Soviet problems of power projection in the Pacific.)

In 1951, responding to the falsely-identified "diversion" in Korea, the NATO a.mes effectively began to give their political alliance a quasi-unified mUltary backbone. American leadership of NATO was symbolized by the appointment of an American general, Dwight D. Eisenhower, to be the first Supreme Allled Commander, Europe (SACEUR). Although "the Soviet threat" (at lea.st.. as regards any propensity for ta.king military action) was vastly exaggerated in the early 1950s, and although the United States-under both Democratic and Republican Administrations-did indulge in unduly lndiscrimina. te alliance-creation, the basic idea driving American foreign policy was entirely sound. Without denying that the United States has aided regimes whose only virtue was that they were overtly and noisily anti-Communist, and that the concept of the integrity of the "Rimla.nd Dike" was, for a long period accepted in an unduly simplistic and total definition, this author would signal a shortlist of virtues that permeated what today frequently is called, pejoratively, the "Cold War consensus." The author is not much given to ideological expression, as he has explained elsewhere.118 He believes that international politics, at root, can be a very rough and nasty business. (Both God-fearing democrats and a.theistic totalitarians have been known to drop napalm on innocent or indifferent v11lagers.) It ls appropriate to restate, vary succinctly, the core beliefs of that American Cold War consensus that today is held in such widec;pread disdain. It was (and ls stm by some) believed that:

1. The United States is the only power which can balance pressure from the Heartland.

2. Some Rimland allies might be politically odious, but it is a certainty that any Socia.list-Communist successor regimes would be no better, and would probably be worse. (In the early 1970s, South Vietnam and Cambodia failed to live up to the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy; their American critics have been

22484 less than vociferous on the subject of the fundamentally illiberal regimes that now rule those unfortunate countries. This is yet another case of prejudice triumphant.)

3. In the medium term, Western defeat in one locale will weaken resistance elsewhere. The socalled "domino theory," provided it is not interpreted in too mechanistic a fashion, amounts to little more than common sense. The essential accuracy of domino-theory hypotheses was illustrated, sadly, by the easy way in which many of its more strident critics shifted from talking about the war in Vietnam to discussing the war in Indochina in the period 1970-74.

The United States, as a continental-size island bounded on three sides by oceans (the Arctic, Pacific, and · Atlantic), could not exist as a functioning, unruly democracy were the Rimlands of Eurasia-Africa to be organized into a Soviet security system. Physical survival might be ensured, but the geopolitical isolation of fortress status would promote a fortress discipline and illiberal fortress practices. The pri_ncipal American political objective in world affairs-today as in 1944, when the words introducing this chapter were written-must be the containment of Soviet (Heartland) power well short of its achievement of hegemony over the Eurasian-African WorldIsland and the adjacent seas ....

THE AMERICAN STYLE

It was suggested earlier that American political culture was ill-suited to cope with the long-term task of containing the Heartland power. Geopolitical factors require that the American people defend the Rimlands, and relatively free access to the Rimlands, in their own vital interest; yet those same factors inhibit the quality and scale of American performance of that task. Considered in relation to its ease of penetration by Soviet and American power, most of the EurasianAfrican Rimlands are, in theory, protected by the fact that oceanic distance and ocean highways connect rather than divide. In terms of transportation economics, greater distance has little meaning. Save with respect to peninsular Europe (no small exception!), the world's oceans should still be thought of as the interior lines of communication of a maritime alliance that has its heart in a North America that can project power east, west, and north-in many directions-with comparative advantage over the Heartland power of the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately, this neo-Mahanian perspective, analytically respectable though it is,00 suffers from several critical weaknesses. First, distance is not solely a matter of transportation economics; it has a very strong psychological dimension. In 1938, Neville Chamberlain could dismiss Czechoslovakia as "a faraway country." The British Prime Minister spoke truly for most of his countrymen; in terms of psychological distance, Czechoslovakia was infinitely, myster!ously "Central European"-vaguely romantic, and totally foreign and unknown. Few British politicians in 1938 recalled, or more likely had ever known. that Britain's greatest geopolitical theorist, Sir Halford Mackinder, had insisted in his 1919 book that a strong tier of East European states was required if the 700-mile land gateway to the Heartland was to be protected from German ambition.~" ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland.") I! the defense of Rimland states is, in essence, a matter of comparative advantage in transportation economics, the United States should have secured victory in Vietnam in very short order. The "loss of strength gradient" hypothesis, that power varies inversely with distance, is sheer nonsense in the con-

Footnotes at end of article.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS text of the communications/transport technology of the second half of the 20th century. But human perceptions lend relevance to that (technically) flawed hypothesis. Barring special ties of an ethnic-religious, or even semi-sentimental historical connection variety, it is not misleading to claim that concern, interest, and knowledge do vary roughly inversely with distance. Our minds carry psychological maps, not ton-mile cost-analysis maps. The ability to project power and the will to project power are not at all synonymous-at least with respect to American insular society in the 1970s.

The proposition that the maritime alliance has an inherent advantage over the Soviet Union in power projection into the EurasianAfrican Rimlands ignores the fact that the Heartland has "gone to sea" in a very serious way over the past two decades. Soviet sea and naval air power could not, at present, deny the United States access to the World-Island, but such a burdensome task need not be contemplated. The Soviet Union has no need to secure "command of the sea" in order to bring the World-Island effectively under its control. All that it must accomplish ls seriously to hinder trans-Atlantic resupply and reinforcement (or to threaten credibly to do so), or to effect substantial attrition of the supertankers that must navigate half way around the world promontory to meet the absolute energy needs of Western Europe or Japan. The Soviet Navy may, and should, be blown out of the water, its forward facilities on African and South Asian littorals also demolished; but time would not be on the side of the maritime alliance. By compelling the maritime alliance to fight hard for unhindered access to Eurasia, the Soviet Navy would be buying time for Soviet conquest of critical portions of the Rimlands (should Blitzkrieg campaigning overrun its timetable). In the world of the 1980s and 1990s, eventual total naval victory for the United States would be of little value if in the meantime, the peninsular European bridgehead were lost.

It is often claimed that physical geography is a neutral factor (or set of factors) in its relation to the inclinations of a society. Oceans will beckon some countries to ut1lize them as highways for profit and power, and will be seen by other countries as wide moats providing security from contaminating foreign influences. The physical circumstances of the island-continent of North America has helped produce, in its people, a seemingly perpetual dialectic between the urge to withdraw into the musory safety of a Fortress America, and the impulse to exercise that capacity for transoceanic power projection which a central position between the eastern and western littorals of Eurasia ( on some cartographic projections) affords, and which the relative power differential between the United States and the Eurasian Rimlands both permits and requires (if it is not to be engulfed in the security system of the Heartland power).

The insular circumstances of America geography, and the oceanic distances which separate North America from Asia and Europe, continue to have major foreign and defense policy consequences-at the level of perception of enduring interests rather than capability for effective local action. North Vietnamese leaders assessed, correctly, that their stake in the future of South Vietnam was far more substantial than was that of tho United States. Americans came, and they would go-the North Vietnamese and their Southern sympathizers would always be tr ere, by virtue of physical and cultural geography. Sim1larly, Europeans of all nationalities are aware of the geopolitical fact that the Soviet Union is a European power, while the United States is a power in Europe; this is a critical distinction. No NATOEurope::1n, however friendly his feeling toward the United States, or trusting his re-

July 2.~, 1978 sponse to contemporary American expressions of enduring alliance fidelity, can afford to ignore the historically well-justified presentiment that the American forward military presence in and about Europe ts only a phase in American poUcy (a long phase, admittedly, but still a phase). NATOEuropeans have to take account of the very probable fact that one day a Mansfield-type amendment will succeed, and that it wm precipitate a slide of withdrawal that no President will be capable of arresting (even should he so desire) . Transoceanic distance may have lost much of its meaning in terms of the economics of transportation and the speed of electronic communication, but the record of American nuclear strategy belies such economic-geographic common sense.

The geopolitical theories of Mackinder and Spykman, translated for the late 1970s, insist that America's security frontiers are on the Elbe and the 38th parallel in Korea (for prominent examples). Since this is the case, why has the credibility of the American nuclear commitment been seen by the United States and allied defense communities as a critical problem? Credibility problems do not pertain to defense of the American homeland, or-in suggestive illustration-seriously to defense of Canada and Mexico. American commitments to the defense of, say, West Germany, are viewed by very many people as being sufficiently "unnatural" in terms of psychological geography that extraordinary effort and ingenuity need to be expended to ensure credible strategic "linkage" between the forward area and the American homeland.

Insular geopolitics do not, in and of themse1,-es, direct societies down one as opposed to other possible path in internal development or external relations. As noted above, a geopolitical perspective upon international relations requires the commentator to be very attentive indeed to cultural geography. Great Britain, Japan, and the United States have been/ are all "island empires" offshore the dual-continent World-Tsland of EurasiaAfrica, but the differences betw<?en them are at least as significant and interesting as the similarities that are traceable to offshore location.

It is possible, though somewhat perilous, to identify the principal characteristics of a distinctive American "style'' in foreign affairs. Moreover, as noted with respect to Russia/ the Soviet Union, such a style is really the product of domestic experience (though that domestic experience is molded by impinging "foreign" events, just as domestic forces also project outward). This author has long believed that international politics (or relations, for the more inclusive concept). as an aspiring academic discipline, lacked scholarly integrity. Jnternational politics are conducted by the human products o! distinctive political cultures, and very often in a manner which reflects the rules, practices, and habits learned in dome5tic political settings. A distinctive American style in the conduct of foreign and defense policy has been manifest, with particular poignancy, in 1he context of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT).

Many Americans today a.re unwilling to accept that the Soviet Union is committed t.o a permanency of political struggle with the maritime alliance led by the United States; and i::, determined to achieve as substantial a measure of strategic superiority as it is permitted. The SALT exercise, as a central strand in the 1970s-styled peaceful coexistence policy, contributes usefully to the psychological disarmament of the West, and encourages manifestations of that apolitical, engineering approach to strategic problems which detracts from American arms competitive performance.~ 1 The dominant element in the American government seems unwilling, or possibly culturally unable, to take Soviet strategic and arms control (mis) behavior at its face value. Probably because it

July 24, 1978 is a. "satisfied" country, deeply wedded to the notion of stability and international order (as a projection of domestic order), and because power accumulation (in readiness for the next crisis and clash of arms) is an 1.iea alien to a society that sees "peace" a.s the norm. American comprehension of Soviet motives and practices is tenuous at best.

Many American officials and politicians have persuaded themselves that their country and the Soviet Union are committed to a nonviolent search for a modus vivendi in the world. The SALT enterprise, in this very popular view, is a mechanism intended by both sides to constrain the growth (and perhaps the possible character) of rival strategicnuclear arsenals. Unfortunately, such a world view, with its focus upon stab111ty and order, is very different from everything that we understand concerning the Soviet world view. To Soviet officials, strategic parity is but a passing phase on the road to strategic superiority. In ge-0political perspective, the American defense community has yet to come to term with the likely consequences of parity, let alone inferiority. Strategic parity means that the United States has no margin of strategic nuclear strength which could be invoked on behalf of endangered friends and allies in Eurasia. One has to presume, on grounds of prudence, that the Soviet Union is devoting (at least) 13 to 15 percent of its GNP to defense for serious political reasons. With an increasingly impressive navy, and with the maintenance of a ground force and tactical air and missile capability that threaten the rapid overrunning of peninsular Europe, the geopolitical implications of the massive Soviet strategic forces build-up become all too clear. That build-up (which even functional apologists for Soviet military power have come to acknowledge as a reality) should secure for the Soviet Union a wide margin of freedom of action against the Eurasian-African Rimlands. Should the United States respond with limited strategic options (LSOs) to calls for help by desperate allies, the Soviet Union could, in the 1980s, reply with a devestating countermilitary central riposte that would leave the United States with no sensible strategic options.

A geopolitical perspective upon East-West relations serves to remind Americans that their armed forces have different tasks from those assigned to the armed forces of the Soviet Union. A SALT agreement that plausibly might be defended as a triumph for "the parity principle" should-on very basic geopolitical grounds-be vulnerable to the charge that it licensed roughly equal forces for the support of grossly unequal foreign policy missions. Studies of the Soviet-American or Soviet-NATO naval balance are no less prone to misassessment of the real strength of each side, because the geopolitical asymmetries between the maritime alliance and the Heartland power have not been adequately appreciated. As a consequence of interpretation of its bloody historical experience, the Soviet Union approaches the many questions that bear upon war in what has to be described as a more serious way than does the United States. Both NATO strategy and American strategic nuclear doctrine promise to mesh to the Western disadvantage with what may be inferred, and what is stated by Soviet officials, concerning Soviet approaches to theater conflict and to central war. 'l'he United States and its European-Rimland allies are (possibly sensibly) obsessed with the mechanism fo1· providing prewar and intra.war deterrence; a sharp distinction is drawn between deterrence and "war-fighting." In contrast to American practice in Vietnam. the Soviet Union believes that wars should be fought to be won; Soviet "style" was manifest in the interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and. 1968. Military power on

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS an overwhelming scale was deployed for very rapid results, though for limited purposes.

While the United States, in the best insular strategic style, would be seeking to preserve thresholds and dampen escalation possibilities, the Soviet Union, in the best continental strategic style, would probably be applying massive military force for the end of theater victory. American and Soviet "styles" promise the following character of interaction in conflict. Whereas the United States would be more concerned with limiting military action than securing any outcome definable as victory, the Soviet Union would be more concerned with securing victory than it would with the limitation of military action. The inherent merits in the two distinctive orientations are not at issue here. What is cause for serious concern, if not alarm, is the thought that comparatively few Western officials seem adequately to understand these basic stylistic differences.

In and of themselves, the facts of physical geography in their relation to the political organization of the world are objectively of great importance. But as this chapter in particular has sought to argue, probably of even greater importance are the perceptions of individuals of the political meaning of physical geography, the habits of thought and action that flow from such culturally-bequeathed perceptions, and the policy "lessons" learned (or mislearned) by each society from the assessment and reassessment of its history. The concept of "national style" is clear in outline, yet lends itself to challenge when detail is offered respecting particular nations. Indeed, the difficulty of analyzing style in a rigorous fashion is matched by the importance of attempting such a task.

FOOTNOTES

e;; Spykman, The Geography of the Peace, p. 45 .

oo It is possible that this problem is not fully resolved even today. The Warsaw PactNATO standoff in Europe has permitted a deferral of the problem of the political future of Germany.

67 For an historical perspective of the post-1945 power-balancing role of the United States, see Paul M. Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery (New York: Scribner, 1976).

os Colin S. Gray, "Foreign Policy-There Is No Choice," Foreign Policy, no. 24 (Fall 1976), pp. 114-126.

oo See Wohlstetter, loc. cit. ,o Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Real

ity, pp. 158ff. n See Colin S. Gray, The Soviet-American

Arms Race (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1976) ·•

TERENCE A. TODMAN, AMBASSADOR TO SPAIN

HON. RON DE LUGO OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS



e Mr. DE LUGO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share with my colleagues the remarks made by Ambassador Terence A. Todman on the occasion of his swearing-in as our new Ambassador to Spain.

The Ambassador, a native son of the Virgin Islands, has been serving as the Assistant Secretary of State for InterAmerican Affairs ·for the past 18 months. During this time he has been in the forefront of the administration's efforts to better our relations with our South American neighbors.

22485 As always, the remarks of Ambassador

Todman reflect his thorough professionalism, his dedication to his country and his sensitivity to the peoples of the world. We. the Virgin Islanders, are justly proud of his significant contribution to diplomacy and wish him again the success that has come to characterize his brilliant career.

I am pleased to insert into the RECORD his remarks as printed in the Virgin Islands Daily News, July 6, 1978:

TODMAN'S SWEARING-IN REMARKS

(By Assistant Secretary Terence A. Todman) Mr. Secretary, I am deeply grateful to you

for being here today and especially for your most generous and gracious remarks.

I know ancl fully share the admiration, the respect and the goodwill which the president and you have for the Spanish people, and for their efforts to consolidate their democratic system and set their course in international affairs in cooperation with the West. I am also aware of the great importance which the President and you attach to our relations with Spain during this critical period. Thus I am truly honored to enjoy the trust and confidence you have shown in selecting me as Ambassador to Spain. I welcome the assignment and will do everything within my power to strengthen the bonds of friendship and cooperation between our two countries.

The importance and challenges of the Madrid assignment are among the principal reasons I requested it and why, as a professional I am so pleased and honored to have been selected.

This assignment to a major European country also offers an opportunity I simply could not forego, that is, to help the president and you take one more small step toward breaking down the barriers of discrimination and opening up a new area to move our country a little closer to our goal of equal opportunity. I believe we all have a duty to contribute whenever and wherever we can to progress of greater equality in our country.

One more reason for the attraction of this assignment, in all honesty, is the personal pleasure of being able to spend some time in Spain, a country so well known for its beauty, its devotion and contribution to the arts and literature, the history which is everywhere evident and, above all, the warmth and graciousness of its people. Frankly, I don't know anyone who would turn down an opportunity to live and work in Madrid.

Thus, it is with great anticipation that I look forward to my assignment to Spain and to contributing in every way possible to the advancement of the mutual interest of our two countries in what I expect will be very pleasant circumstances as well.

Mr. Secretary, as happy as I am about the Madrid assignment, I must admit that it was not easy for me to decide to leave Latin American Affairs. The broad and direct impact of this ·area on our lives made the assignment as assistant secretary most challenging and satisfying. The size and resources of the Latin American and Caribbean countries, the dynamism intelligence and resourcefulness of their large and growing populations, and the determination of their leaders to play a greater role in affairs that affect them. ensure that their importance to us will continue to increase. It has been particularly gratifying to serve a president and secretary of state who are so deeply sensitive to these trends, so personally interested in the area and so courageous in mapping out a realistic course for our evolving relations.

The job was all the more enjoyable because of the opportunity it afforded me t-0 deal with people who have so much in common with us, who show the warmest feelings of

22486 friendship and consideration for us and who ask only that those feelings be reciprocated and that their dignity and sovereignty be respected to permit close cooperation _ in our mutual interests. The people of Latin America share the goals to which President Carter has pledged his administration. I have no doubt that, within the limits imposed by their own histories and particular situations, they want to cooperate with us to find solutions to all the critical problems of our times, including human rights as well as economic, social and political development.

Despite these advantages the task was not always easy as we addressed the challenges to improve communication and to help promote human rights and democracy throughout the hemisphere, without interfering in other societies or trying to remark them according to our special preferences. Matters were not helped by the misinformation and confusion shown by those who, in pursuit of special objectives, misused their positions and leaked distorted information to a few selected journalists eager to report sensationalized stories of conflict while ignoring anything on the other side. In the circumstances, I am proud that we have succeeded in setting a firm and positive course to improve the human condition, strengthen democracy, and increase understanding among our countries.

One regret I have in leaving now comes from knowing that at many of the official and social gatherings in which I have participated, mostly due to my official position, there will often be no visual reminder that ours is a multi-racial society committed to the goal of equal opportunity for all its citizens. This is particularly sad when one considers the many talented individuals from the minority communities and women who are wllling and able to make badly needed contributions now as we deal with third world problems and with diffuse sources of power in our interdependent world. I can only hope that my colleagues in the Foreign Service and all others concerned will do whatever they can to help, rather tha1;1 hinder, the realization of the equal opportunity objectives to which the president and you, Mr. Secretary, are so deeply committed. I am convinced that unless we improve our own record in the State Department and domestically, we will continue to find serious impediments to the achievement of our foreign policy objectives.

I could not end these remarks without saying a word of appreciation to all those who contributed so much to the success, the enjoyment and the stimulation of the ARA assignment.

The Latin American leaders, both in and out of government, have extended extraordinary courtesies as well as understanding and cooperation to me and my staff as we worked with them to advance the cause of humo.n dignity and democracy. I am most grateful to them.

Most of all , I thank the president and you, Mr. Secretary, for your great interest and your strong and consistent support. I am certain that with your continued help, my distinguished successor, Amb-issador Vaky, will be able to keep us on course and to sustain the new spirit of cooperation we have created.

I wish to take this occasion to publicly thank my wife, Doris, who with relatively little complaint gave me up almost entirely to the demands of the assistant secretaryship for the last 18 months and who is now being uprooted from her professional role with the important activities of Africare and transplanted to an unpaid though critical semigovernment status. Fortunately, this time it will be in Madrid.

I give special thanks to my colleagues in the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, whose dedication, professionalism and balanced approach insures that the broad interests and goals of the United States as defined by the

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS president and you, Mr. Secretary will continue to be served as well.

In the same vein, I wish to thank all those throughout the department and in other agencies who have so generously shared their time and their knowledge to help me prepare for the challenge and opportunities of the assignment to Madrid.

Finally, my thanks go to all of you present who in one way or another have supported and assisted me so fully not only in my past job but in all of my other assignments. Your understanding and support has enabled me to stay on a sound and positive course in the past and will surely sustain me in the future .

I shall miss being with you here in Washington but I look forward to the pleasure of seeing you in Madrid.

Thank you very much.e

LOUISVILLE COURIER-JOURNAL OPPOSES FOREIGN AID CUTS

HON. MATTHEW F. McHUGH OF NEW YORK


Monday, July 24, 1978 • Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, the foreign assistance appropriations bill will soon come before the House for consideration. As every Member is aware by now, numerous amendments will be offered to reduce funding and to restrict how our assistance may be used in a variety of ways.

I am opposed to these amendments, Mr. Speaker, and I have been encouraged by the fact that so many thoughtful and responsible newspapers across the Nation have indicated their opposition to them as well. For example, the Louisville Courier-Journal in a recent editorial sugl!ested that efforts to cut the bill still further are reckless in view of the manner in which these funds promote our national interest. The CourierJournal also pointed out that the total funds recommended in t-his bill are only approximately half of the budget of the State of California.

For the benefit of those Members who may not have seen this editorial, I am including it in the RECORD at this point:

AID CUTS IMPERIL U.S. INTERESTS

It is inevitable, in the politically unsettling wake of Proposition 13, that Congress will make some cuts in President Carter's reauest for foreign aid this coming year. But nothing could be more short-sighted than the meat-ax reception that many House members have plimned when the bill arrives for a vote this week.

Part of the nroblem, even if this were not the year of California's tax rebellion and of mid-term elections, is that Rwanda and Malaysia are in nobody's congressional district. But the President's $8.4 billion request already has been out to $7.3 billion by the House Appropri9.t.lonc; Committee, and that could be only the beginning.

Even the chairman of the sponsoring subcommittee, Maryland's Representative Clarence LonP,". backs a further 8. percent slice of $584 million-all of it from the funds for inter.,..,ational financial inc;titution"l. He argues that his selective pruning is the only way to head off an across-the-board slash of the same amount that would gut some indispensible programs.

NOT A QUESTION OF CHARITY

Mr. Long may be correct in reading the general mood of Congress. Partly because there are so many new members these days,

July 24, 1978 that body seems increasingly unmindful of the fact that foreign aid-for all the loose talk about global charity-is first and foremost in our own national interest. But his own prescription, which is to make further cuts in the U.S. contribution to the World Bank and its affiliated agencies ls reckless.

Like much of Congress, the public seems to have lost sight of why our economic aid to poor nations is a. crucial investment-both for our own economic well-being and for global peace. The world becomes less dangerous when needy countries become more se'f-sufficient.

The cost, meantime, is not all that steep. The $7.3 billion to which this year's appropriation has been cut, and which ls acceptable to President Carter as an "absolute minimum," is less than 1.5 percent of the federal budget. It's half the size of California's new, slimmed-down budget for the coming year. About one-third of it supplies military assistance and budget support for countries considered essential to U.S. security.

The economic aid also is less than onefourth of one percent of the nation's Gross National Product (compared to 2.8 percent of our GNP after World War II). Eleven of the world's 17 industrial democracies do proportionately more.

But the argument doesn't have to come down to questions of conscience or what we've done in the past. Our economy and our security are inextricably linked with the economic growth and political stabllllty of the world's 100 less-developed nations. From them we import most of the raw materials on which key domestic industries depend-85 percent of the tin, 85 percent of the bauxite, more than 40 percent of the oil. And we are looking to the developing nations as additional markets for our products.

Already, it is estimated, one of every four American farm jobs and one of eight manufacturing jobs depend on the sale of U.S. goods abroad. In 1976, the non-oil producing developing countries purchased 24 percent of our exports and resulted in over one million jobs in the U.S. Our farm exports to the developing countries now total $7.4 blllion yearly.

It's those underdeveloped nations that also face the gravest problems of political stability, as they try to cope with such problems as soaring populations that in many cases continue to outrun gains in national income. Hungry people are an attractive audience for Soviet troublemakers, domestic tyrants and others who seek to foment global instability

In recent years, the industrialized countries have been channeling more of the aid through multilateral development banks. This has the dual effect of sharply increasing the money available and insulating the aid from the political motives of any one country.

The banks use the contributions from member states as backing for bond sales. Thus $10 of aid funds are generated for each $1 contributed. The aid then goes into development loans designed to assure that the needy will directly benefit or that the products they stimulate will find ready buyers, usually within the developing coun'.try itself.

CURBS ON DISTRIBUTION SOUGHT

It ls these lending institutions, as noted which are coming under the heaviest congressional fire this year. The· critics zero in on such points as high salaries and large staffs of these institutions as proof of their irresponsibility. What also galls them is the fact that Congress cannot control the international institutions' distribution of loans. Thus, the House Appropriations Committee cut to $2.6 billion the $3.5 blllion asked by President Carter for the World Bank and the smaller regional development

July 24, 1978 banks. Congressman Long wants to trim th18 another $584 million.

Both our lea.ding partners and the poor nations a.re rightfully dismayed a.t the prospect. The U.S. failure to make payments promised earlier is already crippling ·development plans. This yea.r's proposals to cut more funds and include restrictions contrary to the banks' charter would compound the disgrace. If the banks cannot assist countries such as Angola and Mozambique Just because those governments claim to be Marxist, we give them no option but to turn to Communist sources. And the recurrent tendency to oppose loans which might result in future competition with U.S. products not only ignores the banks sound fiscal policies but is embarrassingly greedy.

In short, foreign a.id is far more than a. humanitarian gesture. It is a. cost-effective way to benefit our own economy and increase national security. If President Carter would take the facts forcefully to the American people there should be no question about the fate of this far-sighted program. If we falter, the cost will be paid first l)y the world's poor. The ultimate price could well be the world's security.e

U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS ENDORSES AIRPORT AND AIRCRAFT NOISE REDUCTION ACT

HON. GLENN M. ANDERSON OP CALIFORNIA



• Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr. Speaker, there probably is no group of elected officials in the United States more conscious of the serious environmental problems associated with airport and aircraft noise than the Nation's mayors. This is understandable for the impacts upon people and property values and the .costs and potential costs upon local governments and therefore local taxpayers from lawsuits are horrendous.

These problems are not new. Proposals for a rational approach toward solving them have been before us at least since the report of the Doolittle Commission appointed by President Truman. Each year that we procrastinate increases the ultimate cost to the taxpayer.

After 2 years of the most exhaustive study ever undertaken on the problems of airport and aircraft noise our Public Works and Transportation Committee has produced a bill which provides rational solutions. We provide that the costs be charged to the user; even though we propose to do so without any increase in current taxes.

Our largest cities have much at stake in this bill; however they are not alone. Our · nonmetropolitan cities increasingly are coming to believe that instead of "communities building airports" that "airports build communities." Perhaps we are witnessing the arrival of that stage in our economic and technological development when aviation will have the same profound effect on development patterns that other modes of transportation have had in the past. The emergence of the corporate jet, the growth of general aviation, and the astronomical development of commuter airline traffic


seem to be in concert with the new demographic trends reported by the Bureau of the Census.

Title n of this bill, which provides additional discretionary funds for airport development from the aviation trust fund and extends the more favorable funding ratio for the smaller airports, the ref ore is of obvious interest to the nonmetropolitan cities. Some of these same cities also need the voluntary airport planning process encouraged by title I and the long-range protection this will provide from the type of development we have allowed around older airports with such disastrous environmental and human cost.

I am pleased that the Conference of Mayors has taken such a realistic and strong stand on this issue and therefore wish to enter the letter I have received from Mr. John Gunther, executive director of that organization.

U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, Washington, D.O., July 20, 1978.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: The U.S. Conference of Mayors urges your

support for favorable Rules Committee action concerning H.R. 8729, the Airport and Aircraft Noise Financing Act and its Ways and Means companion H.R. 11986, the Noisy Aircraft Revenue Act. We believe these measures promise a good start towards alleviating the serious noise pollution problems surrounding our airports, which impair urban health and development.

The 46th Annual Conference of Mayors, held in Atlanta during June, adopted a comprehensive resolution stating the policy of the Conference with respect to airport and aircraft noise, which we have enclosed for your review. This resolution, a. matter of strong personal concern to scores of Mayors, noted that noise pollution adversely affects airports, the airline industry, area. residents, and land use planning in cities. The resolution endorsed the pending legislation, with s,:,ecific reference to Title I, planning and implementation grants, and Title III, which provides that . two percent of the existing eiP.:ht percent excise tax on airline passenger tickets be reserved for the purpose of retrofitting plane engines for noise reduction purposes.

Time is growing short for an effective airport and aircraft noise abatement program to be crafted by the 95th Congress. In recognition of this we hope the Rules Committee will move promptly to report H.R. 8729 and H.R. 11986 to the floor of the House.

Sinc-erely, JOHN J. GUNTHER,

Executive Director.

AIRPORT AND Am.CRAFT NOISE REDUCTION ACT

Whereas, aircraft noise ts a. most serious problem facing the a.vta.tton industry today; and

Whereas, because of aircraft noise, certain airport developments possibly are being affected adversely, airport operations are being constrained and the communities that own and operate public airports a.re being judged legally liable for millions of dollars of damages in airport noise suits; and

Whereas, in an effort to protect themselves from the rising costs of noise damage lawsuits, communities that own or operate airports have begun to purchase those land areas which a.re genera.ting these suits, ut111zing valuable local and federal resources; and

Whereas, land purchasing is the most expensive solution to noise reduction and does nothing actually to reduce aircraft noise; and

22487 Whereas, existing Federal Aviation Ad

ministration Regulations have Imposed a.n excessive requirement on the airline industry by requiring that all existing nonconforming aircraft c<;>mply with FAR Requirement No. 35 (noise) by 1985; and

Whereas, the airlines a.re being seriously financially affected by the cost of bringing the existing non-conforming fleet into compliance with FAR No. 36 by 1985; and

Whereas, after a. thorough and exhaustive analysis of aircraft noise, the Federal Aviation Administration has found that a particular retrofit technology, known a.s Sound Absorbent Material, or SAM retrofit for short, is the most cost effective technology available to bring non-complying aircraft models into compliance with FAR No. 36; and

Whereas, the application of SAM retrofit technology to existing aircraft wlll result in a substantial reduction in aircraft and airport noise; and ·

Whereas, sufficient monies currently a.re being collected through the existing 8% excise tax on airline passengers to fund both airport development projects and the SAM retrofit program; and

Whereas, congressional failure to appropriate fully Airport Trust Fund monies is affecting adversely airport development projects throughout the nation; and

Whereas, the 96th Congress currently is considering a.n Act entitled the Airport and Aircraft Noise Reduction Act; and

Whereas, Title I of this Act authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to make grants to opera.tors of airports and to units of local government in the area. surrounding such airports for the purpose of planning and developing noise compatib111ty pro-grams; and ·

Whereas, Title m of this Act provides that 2% of the existing 8% excise tax on airline passengers be reserved for the purpose of allowing the airlines to bring their non-conforming fleet into compliance with FAR No. 36 (noise) by 1985; and

Whereas, if this legislation were adopted, it would reduce substantially aircraft noise currently impacting our cities with a. concomitant decrease in noise damage lawsuits.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the U.S. Conference of Mayors endorses the Airport and Aircraft Noise Reduction Act provided, however, that 2%of the existing 8% excise tax on airline passengers set aside for the airlines to bring their non-conforming fleet into compliance with FAR No. 36 (noise) by 1985 provided for in Title III of this Act be designated for this purpose for a period of five years only and that Congress provide for full aopropria.tion of Airport and Airway Trust Fund monies to allow for essential airport development projects throughout the nation and the retrofit progra.m.e

THE 60TH BIRTHDAY OF SOUTH AFRICAN FREEDOM FIGHTER, NELSON MANDELA

HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR. OF MICHIGAN



• Mr CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, July 18 was the 60th birthd;:i.y of South African freedom fighter, Nelson Mandela. The United Nations Special Committee Against Apartheid has called upon the world community to pay tribute to the contributions of this leader to the libera-

22488 tion struggle in South Africa, and to join with the special committee in demanding his release, as well as the immediate release of all political prisoners under the minority regime's control.

Mr. Mandela has been active in the nR.tional liberation movement in Sou,th Africa since 1944 when he joined the African National Congress and its youth league. As deputy national president of the ANC in 1952, he organized the Cam .. paign of Defiance of Unjust Laws. The imprisonment of over 8,000 volunteers in the campaign led the UN General Assembly to its first consideration of the problem of apartheid in South Africa. In 1961, Mr. Mandela was an organizer of the All-in-Africa Convention which sought to convene representatives of the peoples of South Africa to write a democratic constitution. Forced underground, he· led the 1961 nationwide strike to protest the establishment of the so-called Republic of South Africa. Mr. Mandela was arrested in August 1962 and was the principal accused in the infamous "Rivonia Trial," ir. which he and seven other codefendants (Walter Sislu. Ahmed Kathrada, Govan Mbeki, Dnnis Goldberg, Raymond Mhlaba, Elias Motsoaledi, and Andrew MlangenD were sentenced to life imprisonment. During the court proceedings the United Nations General Assembly condemned the political trials in Resolution 1881, passed October 11, 1963, a day subsequently proclaimed by the General Assembly as a Day of Solidarity with South African Political Prisoners.

Ambassador Leslie O. Harriman, chairman of the Special Committee Against Apartheid and Nigeria's representative at the United Nations, has suggested several actions which organizations and individuals may undertake to support the growing human rights struggle taking place in South Africa: The demand for the immediate release of Nelson Mandela and all South African political prisoners; dissemination of posters and other materials about their unjust imorisonment; contributions to the U.N. trust fund for South Africa; and assistance to the oppressed South African majority.

Mr. John F. Burns of the New York Times has written an excellent and moving account of Mr. Ma.ndela's life in South Africa's Robben Island prison. I hope my colleagues will read this article about the struggle to win the release of Political prisoners in South Africa and for freedom and justice for the South African majority. The article on Nelson Mandela follows: [From the New York Times, July 19, 1978] KEY BLACK LEADER TURNS 60 ON SOUTH

AFRICA PRISON ISLE (By John F. Burns)

CAPE TOWN, July 18.-Nelson Mandela., the man who would most probably head a. black government in South Africa., spent his 60th birthday today on an island in the mouth of Table Bay, within sight of the great sea route that brought the first white men to the southernmost tip of Africa nearly five centuries ago.

Mr. Mandela was not on vacation. For the 16th year he spent his birthday inside the gray stone walls of Robben Island, a prison fortress seven miles offshore, where the white rulers of South Africa. have confined

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS more than 360 men convicted of subversion in working for the establishment of majority rule.

Under government rules that make Robben Island a,s inaccessible as Devil's Island of colon'ta.l France; there was no news of how the tall, lightly bearded Mr. Mandela. spent his day. Even his wife, Nomzamo Winnie Mandela, herself under restriction in a town in the Orange Free State more than 600 miles a.way, was denied permission to make a special visit.

It was a day of fasting and prayer for the 43-year-old Mrs. Mandela., interrupted by frequent visits from the mailman, who bicycled up the dusty road to her home w\th satchels full of telegrams, cards and letters from presidents, prime ministers and other well-wishers all over the world. One, from the United Nations Special Committee · on Apartheid, saluted the men on Robben Island as "the authentic leaders of the oppressed people" of South Africa..

LEADER WITHOUT AN EQUAL Among those leaders, Mr. Mandela. ls with

out peer. Born into the royal family of the Transkef, the homeland of South Africa's Xhosa-speaking people, he forsook the possibility of tribal leadership for the rocky road of black na.tlona.lism. In 1964, when he was already in ja.11 for activities on behalf of the banned African National Congress, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiracy to overthrow the Government by force .

Today, in the Afrikaner farming town of Bra.ndfort, where blacks a.tone white-owned grocery still buy their provisions through a. hatch in a side wall, Mrs. Mandela. spoke of her husband's life in prison.

"Don't believe those stories a.bout a tottering old man you read in some of the proGovernmen t newspapers," Mrs. Mandela said, sm111ng and clasping her hands in delight as she sat in the front seat of a. visitor's car. "He's a.s upright and proud a.s the day he was arrested. Oh, he's just divine!"

From his former fellow inmates, political impressions emerged. "Nelson is exactly the srune man who was sentenced on 12 June 1964," said one man who was released after a. lengthy term. "He holds precisely the same views, and they are as dear to him now a.s they were then. What's more, he has had the grim satisfaction of seeing all his predictions fulfilled ."

"NO EASY ROAD TO FREEDOM" Mr. Mandela offered his political testa

ment, which has become a banned document, at his trial in 1964. A distinguished lawyer, he conducted his own defense. In an address to the court that has become known by one of his phra.ses-"no easy road to freedom"he forecast increasing violence unless the Government granted equality to blacks.

He explained at length then his decision to go underground and to lead Spear of the Nation, a. sabotage arm of the African National congress. which had previously been committed to peaceful petitioning.

"We have warned repeatedly that the Government. by resorting continually to violence, will breed in this country counterviolence among the people, until, if there is no dawning of sanity on the path of the Government, ultimately the dispute between the Government and my people wm finish up by being settled in violence and by force,'' he said.

Hand-copied passages from the speeches were a common feature of the birthday letters and cards that reached Mrs. Mandel~ today, many of them from young people in Soweto, the sprawling ghetto outside Johannesburg. For them, Mr. Mandela's forecast has been realized. Since the police opened fire on black rioters two yea.rs a.go, killing several hundred nationwide, increasing numbers of young blacks have been leaving South Africa for terrorist training

• July 24, 1978

abroad, many of them under the wing of the A!rica.n National Congress.

CONTACTS WITH OUTSIDE WORLD When Justice Minister James T. Kruger

grants permission, Mrs. Mandela. flies to Cape Town and boards a. police ferry for the 45-minute journey to the island. There, separated by a. wall of armor-plated glass and connected only by telephone, she and her husband a.re allowed to converse for 30 minutes with four white guards listening.

"The whole thing is so humilla.ting." e

LET'S KEEP OUR TRANSPORTATION SUBSIDIES IN PERSPECTIVE

HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE OF NEW YORK



• Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, we in Congress ~na.sh our teeth every time we have to vote on Federal subsidies for public needs, knowing as we do the impact the overall Federal budget has on the economy and on the private needs of American taxpayers.

But we often fail to compare levels of subsidy to various related matters, and without such comparisons our decisions may well suffer.

George Hamilton Forman, an attorney in Buffalo, N.Y., recently testified at a hearing held by the Interstate Commerce Commission on the preliminary study of rail passenger services in the United States done by the Department of Transportation, and in that testimony Mr. Hamilton cogently compared various subsidy levels to different modes of transportation.

I think his analysis warrants the careful attention of all Americans and particularly that of our colleagues in Congress, Mr. Speaker, so I am hereby submitting it for printing in the RECORD: STATEMENT BY GEORGE HAMILTON FORMAN First by way of introduction, I have used

railroad passenger service extensively over a. period of 30 years for pleasure and vacation travel and in later years for business travel a.s well. Since the introduction of Amtrak on May 1, 1971 I have ma.de numerous trips on Empire Service and on the Lake Shore to New York City and have extensively used the New York-Florida. service. Several trips have been ma.de on the Montrealer, Chicago-Detroit-Chicago-St. Louis as well a.s the Inter-American. The above list is in no way exhaustive or complete a.s to my ra.11 travel experience, but is mentioned to show that I have extensively traveled on Amtrak passenger service on a system wide basis.

I have read a transcript entitled a. ''Preliminary Report to Congress and the Public-A Reexamination of the Amtrak Route Structure" prepared by the United States Department of 'transportation, May 1978. DOT proposes to reduce the Amtrak system by 8100 miles, eliminating extensive service to the West replacing it with a. "City of Everywhere" train on one rou .. ~. The InterAmerica.n and Chicago-Florida service a.s well a.s several other trains are also to be dropped. According to the DOT study if the new recommended system were adopted in 1980 the projected operating subRidy would be $547 m1llion as opposed to $665 m1llton for the present system, a supposed savings of $122 million. (See page ES-3 of DOT study.)

I have some further misgivings concerning the creditab111ty of this DOT study and the

July 24, 1978 improper crediting of passenger miles vs. train miles statistics to various trains. An example would be the crediting of the Mon"trealer with a figure of 99 PM/ TM when the more realistic figure should be 215 PM/ TM. (See exhibit 1, Mr. Joseph V. MacDonald's comme~ts to Mr. Ullman published in Rall Travel News, Vol. 8 No. 9, first issue of June 1978, page 15.)

Credibility for this DOT study is further eroded by a statement of Brock Adams in the opening pages in which Adams expresses concern over what effect the size of the Amtrak · system and subsidy has on the intercity bus industry, which Adams refers to as a private sector competitor. Let's get the record straight. DOT budget 1977-78 is as follows:

DOT BUDGET 1977-78

(Millions of dollars) Ground:

Highway construction and safety ___________________ _ Mass transit ___________________ _

Amtrak-------------------------Other railroad ________ - - _ -- - __ - -Regulation _____________________ _

Air: Airways and airports ___________ _ Air carrier subsidies ____________ _ Research and technology _______ _

Water: Coast Guard ___________________ _ Shipping _______________________ _

Other ____________________________ _

DOT total

$6,251 2, 146

576 1,085

61

10, 119

2,417 77

349

2,843

1,203 682

1,885 83

14,930

It has been estimated that if the United States were to remove its subsidies to the airlines, a round trip ticket to the East Coast would cost over $1,000 and very quickly the airplane would be threatened as a means of travel. Similarly if these subsidies were removed from the bus industry that means of travel would be sorely pressed to continue in business.

"The current subsidy of the U.S. air traffic control system is $1.8 billion annually, and this"represents only a small fraction of public subsidies of airlines. Former Transportation Secretary William Coleman estimated that air travelers pay only % the cost of their transportation. Amtrak passengers, by comparison, pay almost 40 % . The subsidy of U.S. highways by non-highway revenue sources since 1920 totals well over $150 bilUon, and this does not take into account the social and environmental damages, or the $46 billion we spend annually to import petroleum from the O.P.E.C. nations." (Page 3 from Statement by Adriana Gianturco, Director California Department of Transportation regarding Proposed Cuts in Amtrak Service in Callfornia, May 11, 1978.)

In 1971 when Amtrak went into effect over % of existing passenger train miles were discontinued. One would think here is a golden opportunity for the intercity bus lines to pick up this patronage. On the contrary not only did the bus lines not generate any new business from these train discontinuances but in the 7 years since, their total passenger miles carried have steadily and persistently fallen off. (See DOT report page 7-21, Table 7-6.)

DOT has a built in bias in favor of highways and airlines and against railroad passenger service. This has been amply expressed by William Coleman, former DOT Secretary and now by Brock Adams. For a nation in which the President has stated an energy crisis is immin1mt anrt a sound energy policy must be placed in effect, the DOT has con-

CXXIV--1414-Part 17

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS trary to common sense proposed billions for highway and airport projects and a program of cuts for Amtrak, which if realized will capsize this nation's passenger train network.

Is it too much to ask that this nation have a balanced transportation network? Certainly the traveling public should have a choice as to travel on the highways or use of common carrier buses, airlines and railroad passenger service. In fact, various means of transportation can supplement each other. For example, buses providing short distance feeder lines to passenger trains for communities not on rail lines, public parks or tours, · etc.

The real competitor is the automobile and DOT's effort should be to build up energy efficient train service as an alternative.

In spite of the growth of private transportation, "Over its entire network, Amtrak has revised the long-term downward trend in intercity rail passenger traffic and has man -aged to increase passenger trips, train miles and passenger miles ." (DOT Report, pages 2-4.)

This has been done in spite of poor equipment and tracks, slow schedules, frequently late trains and the fact on some routes only one train a day each way provides the schedule necessitating "middle of the night" service in some communities. For example, if I want to go to Chicago or Cleveland I must be at Buffalo Terminal prior to the 3:45 A.M. departure of The Lake Shore. Clearly important long distance routes such as this should be served by a minimum of 3 trains each way scheduled throughout the day. Contrary to the DOT study if such were done the economic loss to Amtrak would not increase by 3 times for the route but would significantly drop because increased scheduling has the affect of more than doubling or tripling patronage, because now the trains are more convenient and attract more riders. High fixed charges, terminal expenses, etc. become less per train run and very importantly more feeder revenue is generated for the rest of the system.

This increase in service should not be limited to the Lake Shore Corridor but should be equally applied to route of the National Limited, Broadway Limited, and Chicago-New Orle::ins services, etc. Western long distance services should have at least 2 trains each way per day per route and especially during the summer season. Winter service should see an increase in ChicagoFlorida and New York-Florida service-Not the service cuts proposed for these routes. Tour train concepts should be develoned. Passenger service to our parks out West during the summer, ski trips for winter both in West and East would be useful under this approach.

Amtrak has not adequately developed the Florida service. Trains from Chicago-St. Louis-Detroit-Cleveland-Cincinnati and Atlanta should converge on Florida as well as an expanded New York-Florida service.

Mail should again be carried on passenger trains; if this were done additional revenue of over $100 million a year could be generated with but slight additional expenses. On the bottom line this could generate net profit for Amtrak.

An imaginative advertising program and fare system encouraging travel at off peak times should be pursued. Large fare increases tend only to drive people away and are counter productive. Also the removal of dining service and sleeper accommodations have a similar negative affect. If some Amtrak trains carry commuters on part of their route, this should be enc011raged and not driven away as the DOT report suggest.

Clearly the Public wants railroad passenger service and has shown that it wants a full system and will support such a system. DOT's "full service" scenario "E" is a start in the right direction and the spending of %, of a billion dollars to support and start

22489 such service is a bargain compared to the subsidies of other modes.

Respectfully submitted, GEORGE HAMILTON FORMAN,

Attorney.

[From the Rail Travel News, June, 1978] (The following is the text of Mr. MacDon

ald's last comments to Mr. Ullman on the preserva tlon of the "Mon trealer": )

I don't intend to comment on the whole preliminary report, since this will be discussed by Congress and the public before anything final is decided.

Of course, I am gratified that the Montrealer and the Lake Shore Limited are both included in the proposed system. These are both strong trains in terms of service rendered to the public.

However, one thing disturbs me about the presentation of figures relating to the Montrealer's productivity. In terms of passenger miles per train mile, the average as shown on Table 5-2, for all long distance trains is 137, while the Montrealer is shown as only 99, with a footnote reading, "Excludes intra-NEC passenger-mi1es and revenue but includes NEC train miles".

This is the most gerrymandered footnote I have seen since my college statistics courses. The correct figure is 215.

In Appendix C, "Operating Cost Estimating Methodology'', by which all the figures in this report were purportedly developed, the formula arriving at the 215 is spelled out. The formula is wildly gerrymandered in the various tables. The formula reads:

"It should be noted that the non-Corridor costs included all the expenses of long-distance trains operating in both NEC and nonCorridor service if the train had a restricted boarding policy. For those trains offering an unrestrictive boarding policy, only the portion of costs incurred in non-Corridor service were charged to non-Corridor operations -the basic assumption being that the NEC would replace the train with substitute service to fill the time slot."

The first category is exemplified by the New York to Florida trains, which do not handle passengers who are not traveling south of Washington, D.C Very properly all passengers, passenger miles and train miles all the way from New York to Florida are assigned to these trains, even though they travel 226 miles on the NEC.

The Montrealer exemplified the second category, in that it handles NEC passengers on an unreserved basis, runs several additional coaches and snack-bar coach between Washington and Penn Station, New York, and the train is prominently listed in the NEC timetables.

Following the formula in Appendix C, the passenger miles (excluding intra-NEC passenger miles) would be as shown in all the tables (5-1, 5-2, D-10 and D-11), namely 48.62 million, which is based on the 309-mile segment extending beyond the NEC from Springfield to Montreal. However, completely contrary to the formula, the train miles shown in· the tables include the 361 miles of NEC track as shown as 0.489 million, which cover the 361 miles of NEC track as well as the 309 non-NEC miles. Thus the train's performance is grossly distorted to a ridiculously low 99 PM/ TM, whereas following the formula in Appendix C would yield the realistic 215 PM/ TM. This distortion occurs in all the tables in the report, each with a sanctimonious footnote.

My fear is that when the subject of whose train is finally to remain in and whose is to be drop9ed is argued out, opponents of the Montrealer may trumpet the gerrymandered figure of 99 PM/ TM as evidence that the Montrealer is a weak train. I want this in- . formation in the hands of those who will be defending the MONTREALER and ask that you see that it be placed diplomatically in their hand.e

22490 SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS Title IV of the Senate Resolution 4,

agreed to by the Senate on February 4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees, subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate Daily Digest-designa ted by the Rules Committee-of the time, place, and purpose of all meetings when scheduled, and any cancellations or changes in meetings as they occur.

As an interim procedure until the computerization of this information becomes operational the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on Monday and Wednesday of each week.

Any changes in committees scheduling will be indicated by placement of an asterisk to the left of the name of the unit conducting such meetings.

Meetings scheduled for Tuesday, July 25, 1978, may be found in Daily Digest of today's RECORD.

9:00 a.m.

MEETINGS SCHEDULED JULY 26

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Rural Development Subcommittee

To continue hearings on USDA and DOE strategies for conserving energy and developing new energy sources, and on the Administration's proposed gasoline rationing program.

324 Russell Building Governmental Affairs Energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and Federal

Services Subcommittee To continue hearing,s on S. 2189, pro

posed Nuclear Waste Management Act. 1114 Dirksen Building

Joint Economic Economic Growth and Stab111zation Sub

committee To resume hearings on alleged misman

agement of ConRail's personnel and financial resources.

5110 Dirksen Building 9:30 a.m.

Commerce, Science, and Transportation Consumer Subcommittee

To hold oversight hearings on auto odometer requirements.

235 Russell Building Finance Administration of the Internal Revenue

Cod·e Subcommittee To resume joint oversight hearings with

the Select Small Business Committee on operation of the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act (P.L. 95-30), and on Administration proposals for a new jobs tax credit.


Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs To mark up H.R. 10899, proposed Inter

national Banking Act. 5302 Dirksen Building

Budget To continue hearings on the second con

current resolution on the Congressional Budget for FY 1979.

6202 Dirksen Building Energy and Natural Resources Parks and Recreation Subcommittee

To resume hearin<>'s on H.R. 125::!6. the Omnibus National Parks Amendments.

3110 Dirksen Building

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Environment and Public Works Water Resources Subcommittee

To hold hearings on S. 1592, to terminate further construction of the CrossFlorida Barge Canal project.

4200 Dirksen Building Foreign Relations

To hold hearings on the nomination of Talcott W. Seelye, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic.

4221 Dirksen Building · Rules and Administration

To receive testimony on S.J. Res. 142, authorizing the Fr,anklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission to proceed with construction of the FDR Memorial, and other legislative and administrative business.

301 Russell Building Governmental Affairs

Business meeting on pending calendar business.

3302 Dirksen Building 2:30 p.m.

Appropriations To mark up H.R. 13125, making appro

priations for FY 1979 for the Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies, and H.R. 12934, making appropriations for FY 1979 for the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary.

S-128, Capitol 3:30 p.m.

Conferees On H.R. 7843, to provide for the appoint

ment of additional Federal circuit and district court judges.

EF-100, Capitol JULY 27

9:00 a.m. Energy and Natural Resources



Veterans' Affairs To mark up S. 2828, the Veterans Dis

ability Compensation and Survivor Benefits Act; S. 1643 and H.R. 4341, to eliminate the requirement that the VA inspect the mobile home manufacturing process; and H.R. 12257, to furnish memorial headstones to honor certain deceased veterans.

412 Russell Building 10:00 a.m.

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Agricultural Research and General Legis

lation Subcommittee Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

that imported meat meets quality standards.

322 Russell Building Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

To continue markup of H.R. 10899, proposed International Banking Act.

5302 Dirksen Building Budget

To continue hearings on the second concurrent resolution on the Congressional budget for FY 1979.

6202 Dirksen Building Governmental Affairs Energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and Federal

Services Subcommittee To continue hearings on S. 2189, pro

posed Nuclear Waste Management Act. 3302 Dirksen Building

Finance Business meeting on pending calendar

business. 2221 Dirksen Building

Judiciary Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee

To resume hearings on conglomerate mergers and their effect on the economy, on a community, and on employees.


July .~.IJ,, 1978 Rules and Administration

To hold hearings on the nominations of John Warren McGarry, of Massachusetts, and Samuel D. Zagoria, of Maryland, each to be a member of the Federal Election Commission.

301 Russell Building 2:00 p.m.

Select Committee on Ethics To hold an open followed by a closed .

business meeting. Room to be announced

Conferees On S. 9, to establish a policy for the

management of oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf.

3110 Dirksen Building JULY 28

9:00a.m. Energy and Natural Resources



Finance Taxation and Debt Management Subcom

mittee To hold hearings on those sections of

the proposed Bankruptcy Reform Act (S. 2266 and H.R. 8200) which relate to taxation and the collection of taxes.

2221 Dirksen Building Judiciary Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee

To continue hearings on conglomerate mergers and their effect on the economy, on a community, and on employees.

9:00 a.m.

2228 Dirksen Building JULY 31

Energy and Natural Resources Parks and Recreation Subcommittee

To resume hearings on H.R. 12536, the Omnibus National Parks Amendments.


Commerce, Science, and Transportation To hold hearings on the nomination of

Francis H. McAdams, of the District of Columbia, to be a member of the National Transportation Safety Board.

10:00 a.m.

235 Russell Building AUGUST 1

Energy and Natural Resources Public Lands and Resources Subcommit

tee To hold hearings on S. 2590, to amend

P .L. 91-505, relating to land claims by the U.S. in Riverside, California, and S. 2774, to extend the boundaries of the Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada.

3110 Dirksen Building Human Resources Health and Scientific Research Subcom

mittee To resume markup of S. 2755, the Drug

Regulation Reform Act, and S. 3115, to establish a comprehensive disease prevention and health promotion program in the U.S.

9:00 a.m.

4232 Dirksen Building AUGUST 2

Energy and Natural Resources Business meeting on pending calendar


Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee

To hold hearincrs on S.J. Res. 134, extending the deadline for ratifying the ERA.

318 Russell Building 9:30 a .m.

Governmental Affairs Federal Spending Practices and Open Gov

ernment Subcommittee

July 24, 1978 To hold hearings on the quality of pa

tient care in nursing homes. 3302 Dirksen Building

10:00 a .m. Judiciary Penitentiaries and Corrections Subcom

mittee To hold hearings on S. 3227, to establish

a program of therapeutic communities in Federal prisons.


9:00 a.m. Energy and Natural Resources


3110 Dirksen Building Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee

To continue hearings on S.J. Res. 134, extending the deadline for ratifying the ERA.


Government Affairs Federal Spending Practices and Open

Government Subcommittee To continue hearings on the quality of

patient care in nursing homes. 3302 Dirksen Building

10:00 a.m. Judiciary Penitentiaries and Corrections Subcom

mittee To continue hearings on S. 3227, to

establish a program of therapeutic communities in Federal prisons.

2228 Dirksen Building Select on Intelligence

To resume hearings on S. 2525, to improve the intelligence systems of the U.S. by establishing a statutory basis for U.S. intelligence gathering activities.

9:00 a.m.




3110 Dirksen Building Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee

To continue hearings on S.J. Res. 134, extending the deadline for ratifyin6 the ERA.


Governmental Affairs Federal Spending Practices and Open Gov

ernment Subcommittee To resume oversight hearings on the

Government in the Sunshine Act (Public Law 94-409).


10:00 a.m. Energy and Natural Resources Public Lands and Resources Subcommittee

To hold hearings on S. 2475 and H.R. 10587, to improve conditions of the public grazing lands.


10:00 a.m. Energy and Natural Resources Energy Research and Development Sub

committee To. hold hearings on S. 2533, proposed

Gasohol Motor Fuel Act. 3110 Dirksen Building

AUGUST9 9:00 a.m.

Commerce, Science, and Transportation Science, Technology, and Space Subcom

mittee To hold hearings to receive testimony

from officials of the Department of Energy on nuclear waste disposal.

235 Russell Building

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 10:00 a.m.

Budget To mark up second concurrent reso

lution on the Congressional Budget for FY 1979.

6202 Dirksen Building Energy and Natural Resources Energy Research and Development Sub

committee To continue hearings on S. 2533 pro

posed Gasohol Motor Fuel Act. 3110 Dirksen Building

Environment and Public Works Water Resources Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed initiatives designed to improve Federal water resource programs transmitted by the President in his message of June 7, 1978.

8:00 a .m.


AUGUST 10

Energy and Natural Resources Parks and Re-creation Subcommittee

To hold hearings on S. 2560, to expand the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.

3110 Dirksen Building 9:00 a .m.

Commerce, Science, and Transportation Science, Technology, and Space Subcom

mittee To continue hearings to receive testi

mony from officials of the Department of Energy on nuclear waste disposal.


Budget To continue markup of second con

current resolution on the Congressional Budget for FY 1979. (Afternoon session expected.)


AUGUST 11 10:00 a .m .

Budget To continue markup of second con

current resolution on the Congressional Budget for FY 1979. (Afternoon session expected.)

10:00 am.


AUGUST 14

Energy and Natural Resources Energy Research and Development Sub

committee To hold hearings on S . 2860, proposed

Solar Power Satellite Research, Development, and Demonstration Program Act.

9:00 a.m.


AUGUST 15

Energy and Natural Resources Business meeting on pending calendar


9:30 a.m. Human Resources Labor Subcommittee

To hold joint hearings with Finance Subcommittee on Private Pension Plans and Employee Fringe Benefl ts on bills relating to the Employee Retirement Jncome Security Act (S. 3017, 901, 2992, 3193, 1745, 1383, and 250).

4232 Dirksen Office Building AUGUST 16

9:00 a.m. Commerce, Science, and Transportation Science, Technology, and Space Subcom

mittee To resume hearings to receive testimony

from officials of the Department of Energy on nuclear waste disposal.

235 Russell Building Energy and Natural Resources



9:30 a.m. Human Resources Labor Subcommittee

22491

To continue joint hearings with Finance Subcommittee on Private Pension Plans and Employee Fringe Benefits on bills relating to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (S. 3017, 901, 2992, 3193, 1745, 1383, and 250).

4232 Dirksen Office Building

AUGUST 17 9:30 a.m.

Human Resources Labor Subcommittee

To continue joint hearings with Finance Subcommittee on Private Pension Plans and Employee Fringe Benefits on bills relating to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (S. 3017, 901, 2992, 3193, 1745, 1383, and 250).

10:00 a.m. 4232 J?irksen Office Building

Foreign R'ela tions Arms Control, Oceans, and International

Environment Subcommittee To hold hearings on S. 2053, the Deep

Seabed Mineral Resources Act, now pending in the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

4221 Dirksen Building Judiciary Administrative Practice and Procedure

Subcommittee To hold hearings on S. 1449, proposed

Grand Jury Reform Act. 2228 Dirksen Building

AUGUST 18 10:00 a.m.





Judiciary Administrative Practice and Procedure

Subcommittee To resume hearings on S. 1449, proposed


AUGUST 24 10 :00 a.m.


Subcommittee To resume hearings on S. 1449, proposed




Subcommittee To resume hearings on the FBI Charter

as it concerns undercover operations. 2228 Dirksen Building



Subcommittee To continue hearings on the FBI Charter

as it concerns undercover operations. 2228 Dirksen Building

CANCELLATIONS JULY 27

10:00 a.m. Select Intelligence

To resume hearings to receive testimony from former Secretary of State Kissinger on S. 2525, to improve the intelligence system of the U.S. by establishing a statutory basis for U.S. intelligence gathering activities.

· 5110 Dirksen Building

July 24, 1978 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 22469 EXTENSIONS ... - GPO · PDF fileJuly 24, 1978...

Documents

Transcript of July 24, 1978 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 22469 EXTENSIONS ... - GPO · PDF fileJuly 24, 1978...