Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 23, 2016
Document Release Date: 
August 15, 2013
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
March 1, 1988
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2.pdf15.81 MB
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 Vol. 134 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1988 No. 22 ongressional Record tiO United States of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES ,OF THE l00' CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION United States Government Printing Office SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS Washington, DC 20402 OFFICIAL BUSINESS Penalty for private use, $300 SECOND CLASS NEWSPAPER Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Government Printing Office (USPS 087-390) Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 United States of America Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 100th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 134 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1988 No. 22 The Senate met at 12:15 p.m., and was called to order by the Honorable Join/ D. ROCKEFELLER IV, a Senator from the State of West Virginia. PRAYER The Chaplain, the Reverend Rich- ard C. Halverson, D.D., offered the fol- lowing prayer: Let us pray: He hath showed thee, 0 man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God??Micah 6:8. Eternal God', ruler of history and the nations, strengthen the Senators for their tasks and grant them discern- ment in their responsibilities. Help them to maintain the delicate balance between representation and leader- ship. Deliver them from lowest- common-denominator consensus. Where else, 0 Lord, can the Nation look for leaders if not to its elected servants? Grant to Your servants the will to leadership that they will guide the people in what is needed rather than what is wanted?what is right when people demand what is inimical to the common good. Enable the Sena- tors to prove their detractors wrong? to defuse cynicism?to be worthy of their high calling?to give the leader- ship our Nation so desperately needs in a time of moral anarchy and social decay. We pray in the name of Him who is righteousness incarnate. Amen. APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the President pro tempore [Mr, Smarms]. The assistant legislative clerk read the following letter: Senate U.S. SENATE, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, Washington, Dg March 1, 1988, To the Senate: Under the provisions of rule I, section 3, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable &nor D. ROCKEFELLER IV, a Senator from the State of West Virginia, to perform the duties of the Chair. JOHN C. STENNIS, President pro tempore Mr. ROCKEFELLER thereupon as- sumed the chair as Acting President pro tempore. RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized. RESERVATION OF LEADERSHIP TIME Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time of the Democratic leader and the Re- publican leader be reserved for their use later in the day. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. Without objection, it is so or- dered. THE JOURNAL Mr., PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Jour- nal of the proceedings be approved to date. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. Is there objection? There being no objection, it is so ordered. MORNING BUSINESS The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. Under the previous order, there will now be a period for the transac- tion of morning business not to extend beyond 12:45 p.m. with Senators per- mitted to speak therein for not to exceed 5 minutes. WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT LIVE BEYOND ITS MEANS? OMB THAT'S WHY Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, there is one fundamental weakness of our congressional war on the budget deficit. That weakness shatters the credibility of the whole Federal Gov- eminent effort to follow a responsible fiscal policy. Here's the weakness: The Congress plans its budget directly on the estimates by the Office of Man- agement and Budget and the Congres- sional Budget Office. Each year OEM estimates the revenues and expendi- tures of the Federal Government for the current and ensuing years. Those revenues and expenditure estimates tell us what the deficit is likely to be. Congress adjusts spending and taxes to meet the Gramm-Rudman goal. The estimates are absolutely crucial to achieving the deficit reduction pur- pose of Gramm-Rudman. And here is the crucial weakness of this law. The Gramm-Rudman law is failing. It is failing badly. Why? Here's why: The estimates of Federal spending and Federal revenues are consistently wrong. Consider the dismal record. In every single year?without exception since 1980 the projected deficit from the first budget resolution has been wrong. Usually it has been painfully, in fact, ridiculously wrong. And in every one of these 8 years it has un- derestimated, I repeat, underestimated the deficit. Mr. President, this is an extraordinary consistency of underes- timation. If anyone doesn't believe that this law as guided by OMB is stacked against deficit reduction just think about this record. The odds that in any one year the deficit will be un- derestimated in the first budget reso- lution are even. The odds that a fair and honest estimate will be too low in 2 successive years are 4-to-1 against. The chances of three underestimates in a row are 8-to-1 against. But this ? This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. S 1633 Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 S 164 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 1, 1988 failure has been consistent and con- sistently wrong for 8 years in a row. What are the odds against this if the estimates were honest, unbiased, and reasonable? The odds' against this 8 straight years of underestimate of the deficit are 256 to 1 against. If the budget estimates for 1988 and 1989 are also underestimates in the first resolution and every reasonable observer knows they will be, the odds against this deficit underestimation re- sulting from unbiased reasonably cal- culated estimates are better than 1,000 to 1 against. What does this,mean, Mr. President? This means that the Congress is going to continue to go through the motions of reducing the deficit. But we are going to fail. As a result the Federal deficit will continue out of control. The national debt will soar: Interest on the national debt will soon become the largest cost , of operating our Na- tional Government. Here is a cost that has two terrible consequences. First, the huge expenditure for interest on the national debt provides no real ben- efit. It doesn't educate a single child. It doesn't build a home for a family. It doesn't provide even one soldier, sailor, or airman to protect our coun- try. It does not protect the American people against environmental pollu- tion. It is an absolutely useless waste of our country's resources. It is simply tribute paid for the Federal Govern- ? ment's past irresponsibility. Second, that interest payment repre- sents the one and only Federal ex- penditures that we cannot control. We must pay it in full, every nickel of it. We can cut spending on scientific re- search. We can cut spending on health. We can slash welfare. But we cannot reduce the interest our Gov- ernment owes on its debt by a penny. Unlike other expenditures we cannot stretch it out. We cannot postpone it. We must pay it right on time. And why is this interest cost sweep- ing on like a tidal wave? Because our deficits go on and on, out of control. The national debt increases. Certainly the combination of increased demand for credit and a reckless fiscal policy tend to drive up prices in the long run. As prices rise interest rates rise. This combination means a soaring climb in interest service on the national debt. One of the reasons the estimates are so far off is because OMB consistently predicts interest rates will fall. OMB continues its series of happy, rosy, and erroneous estimates year after year. In the OMB never-never land, unemploy- ment falls. The GNP enjoys vigorous real growth. Meanwhile interest rates gracefully diminish. Our exports climb. Our imports diminish. All of this should speed up inflation. But npt in the starry eyes of the OMB. For them the future always promises a de- clining rate of inflation. So, of course, they also foresee interest rates follow- ing a blissfully accommodating down- ward path. Mr. President, all of this is fairy tale stuff. These are the kind of fantasies that fill the dreams of the suckers who spend their money to buy State lottery tickets. The odds of 256 to 1 against OMB doesn't discourage them from buying those dreamy deficit lot- tery tickets year after year. What a way to run the Government of the economic leader of the world. SOUND OFF!?AMERICAN MILITARY WOMEN SPEAK OUT Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, an article in the New York Times high- lights an important new book on women in the military. The book is entitled "Sound Off!? American Military Women Speak Out" and was written by Carl and Dorothy Schneider, two retired profes- sors from the University of Maryland. Unlike other books concerning the military and military women, this books takes a refreshing first-person approach and provides the reader with the opinions and views of the people who presently make up 10 percent of the Nation's armed services. Besides providing a firsthand view of women in the military, "Sound-Off" also addresses the critical issue of women in combat. The authors draw an important conclusion on the present combat-exclusion law saying: A jumble of a few laws, multiple interpre- tations, and thousands of administrative de- cisions, it invites disagreement and frequent changes of practice. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the New York Times, Feb. 28, 1988] A FEW GOOD WOMEN (By Richard Halloran) Since the draft was ended and the nation resumed its reliance on volunteers for the armed forces 15 years ago, a once predomi- nantly white, single and male institution has absorbed large numbers of black Ameri- cans, young married people and women. It's widely agreed, within and without the services, that they have done well in assimi- lating blacks into the mainstream of mili- tary life. Not all is perfect, by any means, but the armed forces may have done more to provide equal opportunity to minorities than any other American institution. Young married people now fill about a third of the junior enlisted ranks. That has compelled commanders to see that young families are cared for, especially when a husband and father is away at sea or in the field. Otherwise, he will not be attentive to duty and will not re-enlist. The role of women in the armed forces, however, is unresolved. The armed forces, reflecting the society whence they come, have not yet reached a consensus on where women fit in. Even more than American so- ciety at large, the place of women in a still uniquely male subculture is undecided. Among the main issues are sexual harass- ment, fraternization between men and women, duty assignments leading to promo- tion, medical care for women and the diffi- culties of handling a military career and a family at the same time. At bottom, the main unanswered question Is: What is the role of women in combat? Law and regulations preclude women 'from direct combat but definitions have been re- vised over the years to permit women to go In addition, the authors say: more and more into harm's way. Even The lack of a national policy endangers though earlier this month another step servicewomen and the national security. toward putting women closer to combat was While the services report their conformity taken when the Defense Department in- to the combat-exclusion law policy, the De- structed the services to open more places for partment of Defense waffles, the Congress women to serve, including ,as marine guards averts its eyes and the nation ignores the at American embassies and in some long- central problem of the dangers that service range reconnaissance aircraft, the issue's women will confront, resolution awaits a consensus among the American people and Congress, and that ap- pears Co be some years away. Meanwhile, Dorothy and Carl J. Schnei:- der have contributed a valuable book, "Sound Off!," on this issue. Now retired from academic life, they became interested In the problems of military women while teaching for the University of Maryland's Far Eastern Division at American bases in Asia. Unlike many books by academics that are heavy on theory,' analysis and turgid lan- guage, "Sound Off!" is an easy read and is filled with trenchant observations and with real people, mostly women, telling about their military experience in their own words. For instance, they quote an enlisted woman: "I know I'm making the same amount of money as a male in my rank. That's not to say that I won't be the first one picked to make coffee, but at least I know it's going to be equal pay." An Army captain is forthright on dealing with the fears of the wives of the men she has been working alongside: "Who wants their husbands? I have to deal with them all day. I certainly don't want 'em at night!" The authors observe: "The servicewom- an's experience as a minority member in the military world depends partly on which service she enters, partly on her own per- sonality and upbringing?whether she grew Anyone familiar with the current combat-exclusion laws and the present policies affecting military women will immediately recognize the obstacles the authors highlight. The DACOWITS report of last August and the GAO report of last November drew similar conclusions about the career obstacles and policy difficulties confronting military women. The Schneiders have provided us with a valuable resource from which to base our discussion on the current laws affecting military women. They highlight the difficulties military women face in pursuing fulfilling and rewarding careers. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this informative book as we look for ways to bring coherence and consistency to the current laws so women can truly "be all that they can be" in the U.S. military. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the article from the New York Times entitled "A Few Good Women" be inserted in the RECORD at this time. Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 March 1, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE up with brothers and how her father treat- ed her." On the critical issue of the military's policy on women and combat, the authors rightly assert: ."A fumble of a few laws, mul- tiple interpretations, and thousands of ad- ministrative decisions, it invites disagree- ment and frequent. changes of practice." They contend, again rightly, that the fault lies everywhere: "The lack of a nation- al policy endangers servicewomen and the national security. While the services report their conformity to the tombat-exclusion Policy, the Department of Defense waffles, the Congress averts its eyes, and the nation Ignores the central problem of the. dangers that servicewomen will confront." Even the Soviet Union and Israel, the au- thors say, "whose use of women in combat In time of war seized the popular imagina- tion, don't enroll women in their.peacetime military in anything like the numbers or the varieties of jobs that women have claimed in the United States military." While criticizing the failure of the nation and the services to resolve this issue, howeV- er, the authors do not. propose a solution of their own. Instead, they quote retired Army Brig. Gen. Mildred Hedberg: "We're going to have to educate the American public. Further change is going to have to be the will of the people." Unhappily, there are other shortcomings - that make this book not all it could have been, and the flaws as those a careful editor should have caught. The authors betray a lack of familiarity with military life; the book is sprinkled with mistakes that do not detract from its argument but erode the confidence of the reader. The authors often fail to explain the lingo military women use, and those unlettered in the language of the armed forces will be baffled. Too often, the writers fail to identify sufficiently the women who are quoted. Perhaps most important, the book fails to distinguish between those things common to men and women in uniform and those that apply only to women. A female lieuten- ant complains that master sergeants repeat- edly tested her authority. Any man who was ever a shavetail would say the same, and I speak from personal experience. Lastly, and this is clearly the publisher's fault, the book lacks an index. Those shortcomings aside, "Sound Off!" has a solid ring of authenticity. The Schnei- ders quote a female parachute rigger who must jump to test the chutes. -Once you get Out of that plane," she says, "it's you and God." To that, too, I can personally attest. Mr. PROXMIRE. I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro- ceeded to call the roll. Mr. DIXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. Without objection, it is so or- dered. PRESERVING THE DEFENSE IN- DUSTRIAL BASE OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. DIXON. In November of last year, I introduced a bill, S. 1892, de- signed to preserve the U.S. defense in- dustrial base. I will be sending a letter to my colleagues shortly to update ev- eryone on the status of this effort. The problem of increasing use of for- eign sources for critical components of U.S. military systems, I regret to say, continues, as does the diminishing ca- pacity of U.S. firms to compete fairly in world markets. I would like to cite just a few examples of the problem we are facing. A French defense contractor ap- proached one of our leading aerospace manufacturers to propose a joint ven- ture on the advanced tactical fighter [ATP]. However, when the United States company requested reCiprocal arrangements on French military sys- tems, they were turned down because they were reserved only for companies In the French industrial base. Lukens steel has been a major pro- vider of plate steel to the defense in- dustry. Recently, the Department of Defense imported armor plate from Belgium and France through memo- randums of understanding [MOW. The market for armor plate in the United States is small. Since 1980, three major producers have closed, and only two major and one small pro- ducer remain. Lukens' attempts to be allowed to compete in both Belgium and French markets have been unsuc- cessful. Gears are a small but critical compo- nent in defense weapon systems. Today, approximately 25 percent of all defense gearing products are from for- eign sources. A major, percentage of ship gearings are now coming from overseas producers. When the U.S.S. Iowa became inoperable in 1986, be- cause of the loss of critical gears, a U.S. manufacturer' was able to supply a replacement within 72 hours. For- eign producers cannot provide the ready and rapid response that is often necessary for repair and replacement. U.S. suppliers often can. U.S. gear manufacturers are continually being underbid by foreign companies subsi- dized by their governments, and not allowed, in turn, to compete in the for- eign markets. At this time, I also wish to address a serious issue directly related to main- taining the defense industrial base of this country. I will soon introduce companion legislation to S. 1892, in- tended to regulate and control the growing size and number of offset agreements that have become the normal, if unhealthy, condition' of the foreign sale of our military systems. Offsets are any arrangement where U.S. industry shares the production of a military system or purchases items from a foreign country to offset an es- tablished percentage of the cost of a foreign sale. I do not believe that offset deals are good for the economy or the national security of the United States. These arrangements have in- creased in the past decade from 50 percent of the value of a sale to 130 percent of the recent sale of Boeing's E-3 AWACS aircraft to France and Great Britain. - There are many types of offsets'. Some proponents in Government and Industry will argue that offsets are S 1635 good for America. They can create jobs for our prime contractors and in-- crease commonality and interoperabil- ity with our allies. I would agree that In some. cases this is true. But I would say that we should not let short-term? profits lead to long-term' decline of the Industrial. base. The transfer Of Ameri- can technology has led to increased foreign competition, unfavorable bal- ance of-trade, taken jobs from U.S. workers and increased the cost of mili- tary systems and their subcompon- ents. One subcontractor, not from my State, has provided us with data show- ing that they were forced to give up over $130 million in sales as part of offset arrangements in just 1 year. That is just one subcontractor in just 1 year. Imagine what that means to American industry if you multiply that effect among all levels of indus- try. You reach an inescapable conclu- sion-that offsets are hurting U.S. jobs, taking money out of our economy, and damaging our industrial base. America no longer has the luxury of being far ahead of the rest of the world in manufacturing and produc- tion. It isn't that we have fallen behind, but that the industrialized world has caught up, often with our help. Americans are generous people. We have given freely of economic and military aid to help our allies since the Second World War. We have helped rebuild the industries of Western Europe and Japan. We have supported Third World countries like South Korea until they are our competitors. It is in our interest to have strong allies and we do not? begrudge them their success. However, it must be un- derstood that a number of our friends and allies are competing against us using technology that was developed In America. We have given it or traded It away as the price of doing business or for perceived defense or diplomatic reason. For example, the Japanese ci- vilian aircraft industry has been devel- oped as a direct result of a series of co- production and licensing agreements with United States companies. The F- 15 sale to Japan allowed them to use the advanced technology from the air- craft and engines to develop a com- mercial aircraft that now competes with U.S. companies. An Italian manu- facturer is now producing a missile with technology they derived from a United States company and are now competing against that company in the world market. According to reports of the General Accounting Office and internal De- fense Department studies, there is no comprehensive national policy on de- fense offsets to guide government or Industry. Furthermore, there is no single agency with the lead in dealing with offsets. My bill will designate the Department of Defense, in coordina- tion with the Department of Com- merce; with the responsibility for es- tablishing an offset policy 'to monitor Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15 : CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 S 1636 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 1, 1,988 and control offset arrangements that Involve military systems. I have been accused by the press, members of industry? and some of my colleagues of introducing protectionist legislation. To the contrary. I believe strongly in free trade. My bills are de- signed to build America, not buy America. I support the two-way street, but I oppose the one way or dead end street. My office has found many ex- amples of U.S. companies having to compete on an unfair basis with for- eign competitors, or not being allowed to compete at all for foreign procure- ments. The United States has opened _ its acquisitions to get the best product at the best price, either foreign or do- mestic. All we ask is that everyone compete on a fair and level playing field. Let us preserve, not protect, America's industrial capabilities. Every industrial country in the world and many Third World countries have an industrial base policy. It is time for America to join the ranks of her friends and allies, and plan for the future. , RECESS UNTIL 2 P.M. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:45 p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now stand in recess until the hour of 2 p.m. There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:45 p.m., recessed until 2 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassem- bled when called to order by the Pre- siding Officer [Mr. BUMPERS]. CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are still in morning business? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for morning business has expired. Mr. HEINZ. Very well. WORLD BANK MEXICAN STEEL LOAN Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, I join today with my colleague, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. METZENBAUM], in of- fering this resolution in opposition to the proposed World Bank loan of $400 million to Mexico for the restructur- ing of its steel industry. This proposal could not possibly have come at a worse time. First, the global steel market is in disarray. Excess capacity abounds. In the United States, we have shed some 50 million tons of capacity since our peak in the mid-1970's. The European Community has undergone a similar reduction. That reduction has been ex- ceeded in this country only by the re- duction in jobs. Over 56 percent of the steel labor force has disappeared in the last 12 years, and steel industry employment is now at its lowest level since 1933 at the height of the Depres- sion Anyone who has been to western Pennsylvania or eastern Ohio knows first hand the pain and misery that these layoffs have meant not just for Individuals and families but for entire neighborhoods and communities. The lack of a forward-looking steel revitalization policy in this country has debilitated the industry and squandered one of our most precious resources?our skilled workers. The President's Steel Program of volun- tary restraints helped prevent a bad situation from getting worse and, more recently, has had some helpful impact In improving capacity utilization. Yet, nowhere in this process has there been an effort to look at the industry's longer term future and to develop a set of policies that help address the needs of this critical economic sector. Senator METZENBAUM and I last year Introduced major restructuring legisla- tion designed to help the integrated companies cope with their ever-in- creasing pension burdens outside bankruptcy court. That bill would pro- tect retirees, companies, and taxpayers alike by helping defuse what can only be called a financial time bomb. A few quarters of profits have given us the luxury of not thinking about the in- dustry's problems, but they have not gone away by any means. Indeed, on a long term basis, they are more severe than ever. In the midst of this continuing crisis, then, it is particularly distressing to see our Government going along with a World Bank bailout of the Mexican steel industry. A $400 million bailout at that in the form of a so-called loan to the Mexican steel industry, which has an almost minuscule capacity, about 10 million tons, is the equivalent of a $4 billion loan to the United States steel indus- try?a level of direct financial support nobody has even come close to sug- gesting our producers ought to receive. Let me repeat that. The Mexican steel industry, which is getting a $400 mil- lion loan for 10 million tons of capac- ity, is getting the equivalent in this country of what would be a $4 billion Government bailout to our 100 mil- lion-ton capacity domestic steel indus- try. Mr. President, I know those numbers are incredible, but they are accurate. Although this loan will not by itself create additional new capacity in Mexico, it will lead to very big produc- tion increases which will further clog international steel markets and it will make the Mexican industry, which now is not competitive, much more competitive, and at whose expense? The answer, Mr. President, is at the expense of other industries, other countries, and, in particular, our steel industry and our steelworkers, which are somehow expected to achieve the same results on their own with no Government help. Although this loan will not by itself create new capacity, it will lead to pro- duction increases which will further clog international steel markets, and it will make the Mexican industry more competitive at the expense of other in- dustries, like ours, which are being ex- pected to achieve the same results on their own. It is fair to say, Mr. President, that the Mexican Government appears to have made some useful promises in connection with the loan with respect to eliminating certain subsidies and price controls. But I have some ques- tions as to whether the commitments are sufficient to provide for fair trade in steel, but I also object to what is es- sentially bribing a country to do what Is in its own economic interest. I would rather focus our Govern- ment's efforts on facilitating a more modern, more competitive U.S. indus- try, in supporting the pension legisla- tion which Senator METZENBAUM and I have authored, which I earlier men- tioned, and in developing a stronger worker adjustment and retraining pro- gram for laid off steelworkers and others. On that point, Mr. President, it is something of a travesty that we only spend this year some $50 million for the entire Trade Readjustment Assist- ance Program, which is supposed to benefit all displaced American work- ers, no matter from what industry they are displaced. For the World Bank to spend eight times as much money, some of it our money, to put more American steelworkers out of work is both pernicious and grossly unfair. This loan will be harmful to the global steel industry and to our pro- ducers and workers in particular. It should be opposed for that reason. What is also particularly distressing, about it, if I might add, is what it says about our own Government's willing- ness to focus on our needs when it is thinking about other people's requests for help. Mr. President, we cannot afford the luxury of focusing on other people's needs before looking after our own first, and it is past the time, Mr. Presi- dent, that we recognized that fact. Mr. President, in due course Senator METZENBAUM will be offering this reso- lution for himself, myself, and others. I commend it to our colleagues. I urge our colleagues to join in cosponsoring Senator METZENBAUM'S resolution. I see the Senator from Ohio on the floor. I take this occasion to commend the Senator from Ohio [Mr. METZENBAUM] for authoring the resolution that he will shortly introduce. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my col- leagues. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Ohio if he wishes to make a statement. I plan to go to the polygraph bill shortly, but I am await- ing the arrival of Mr. SIMPSON, who is Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 March 1, 1988. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 1637 presently detained temporarily in a conference. Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank the leader. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Anims]. The Senator from West Vir- ginia has yielded to the Senator from Ohio. WORLD BANK LOAN FOR MEXICO'S STEEL INDUSTRY Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I send a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to the desk, on behalf of myself, Sena- tor HEINZ and Senator DIXON regard- ing a World Bank loan for Mexico's steel industry. Two days from now, the World Bank is scheduled to consider approving a $400 million loan to help Mexico re- structure its ailing steel industry. The administration thinks its a good idea. They couldn't be more wrong. How can the United States, as a prominent member of the World Bank help Mexico turn its steel industry around with subsidized financing when it will not lift a finger for the steel industy here at home? Why back an effort which could help a foreign country make more and better steel? There's already world- wide overcapacity. Why back an effort which could wind up costing American workers their jobs? It isn't fair. It doesn't Make sense. Certainly I'm concerned about Mexi- co's financial woes. The stability of our friend and neighbor is critical to our own national interest. But I'm just as concerned about the need to maintain a strong domestic steel industry. That's critical to our national interest too. It makes no sense to provide subsi- dies to help Mexico restructure its steel industry while turning a deaf ear to domestic steel companies and work- ers. But that is the present course of our Government. Indeed, the administration has called it folly to pump Federal dollars into domestic steel companies. This administration calls saving American jobs "folly." I call their steel policy a three-ring circus. The administration boasts that Mexico has agreed to change its own subsidy and pricing practices for steel as a concession for obtaining this loan. For instance, they say Mexico has ex- pressed a willingness to raise its own low energy prices which have helped keep the cost of Mexican steel down. This, the administration argues, will help make Mexican steel more com- petitive with U.S. steel. It's outrageous for the administra- tion to support a policy that would modernize our foreign competitors. It's nonsense for the administration to enable Mexico to produce more with less, all at the expense of the United States' industry. If this is part of the administration's "competitiveness" strategy then it is the most absurd investment our Nation could make. In- fact, Mr. President, it is such a bad idea the administration has been too embarrassed to share it with us. It was only yesterday that the ad- - ministration informed some of our staffs about the proposed loan. They gave us less than 3 days' notice. Mr. President, Mexico is facing an economic crisis. It needs our help, and we should do all we can to be a good friend to our neighbor. But I'm sure the U.S. Government, and the World Bank, can find more worthwhile projects to support than this one. Our Government has the ability to block this loan. The U.S. Government provides the World Bank with 20 per- cent of its funding. It has a crucial voice in deciding which projects are funded. It is a voice that needs to be raised to just say no. That is why I am offering this sense- of-the-Senate resolution today urging the U.S. Government to use its best ef- forts to prevent the approval of this loan. Over the past decade, U.S. steel com- panies have lost billions of dollars. Bankruptcies have proliferated. Plants have shutdown and communities have been destroyed. Precious Federal re- sources should be aimed at helping American workers and industry, not revitalizing a foreign one. I urge my colleagues to support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent at this point that I include in the RECORD a letter from Bethlehem Steel Corp., and another letter from LTV Corp. There being no objection, the mate- rial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: LTV STEEL CO., Cleveland, OH, March 1, 1988. Hon. HOWARD METZENBAUM, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR SENATOR METZENBAUM: Yesterday we were advised by representatives of the De- partment of Treasury that the World Bank intends to provide a $400 million loan to the Mexican steel industry for its restructuring and modernization. This loan is justified on the basis that Mexico intends to reduce its trade restrictions and some Mexican steel industry capacity will be eliminated. We believe that loan should be opposed by the Treasury Department. Worldwide steel over capacity is recognized as a "root" prob- lem to the world steel industry's current di- lemma. This proposal, while eliminating some inefficient capacity, appears to, through its modernization program, have the effect of increasing the Mexican steel industry's net capacity, particularly in qual- ity flat rolled steel products. We believe it is fundamentally wrong to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to subsidize restruc- turing and modernization of the Mexican steel industry. The end result can only exac- erbate the world over capacity problem, limit United States export opportunities and. absent VRA continuation, further threaten the domestic steel marketplace. We urge to oppose this action. Very truly yours, DAVID L. CARROLL, Vice President, Public Affairs. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., Bethlehem, PA, March 1, 1988. Hon. HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. DEAR HOWARD: I have just learned of the proposed World Bank loan of $400 million to assist the Mexican steel industry in its re- structuring efforts. This initiative appears to be proceeding despite the continuing world steel crisis and despite the Mexican government's deplorable record in managing its state-owned Sidermex- steel producing operations. I strongly object to any such loan unless and until a clear case has been made before the Steel Caucus on its merits. I would greatly appreciate any efforts by you and your Senate colleagues to assure that the World Bank is working toward the common good before any such loan is made. Yours truly, WALTER F. WILLIAMS. Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that addi- tional Senators may be added as origi- nal cosponsors before the close of busi- ness this day. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the res- olution be held at the desk pending further action of this body. Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, may I say that there is a request for this to be re- ferred to the committee, to the For- eign Relations Committee. There would be an objection to holding it at the desk. If the Senator would change his request to that of asking that it be held at the desk for the remainder of the day and then be referred to the committee, I do not think I would have to object to that. I am in sympathy with the objective of the Senator because I have steel mills in my State, of course, and I am interested in this matter. But I do have an objection that I would have to make on behalf of another Senator. If the Senator will change his request as I have proposed, I believe that would be agreeable. Mr. METZENBAUM. Under the cir- cumstances, the Senator from Ohio would change his unanimous consent request that it be held at the desk for the balance of the business day, and then referred to committee unless fur- ther action is dictated by the body prior thereto. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the resolution will be held at the desk for the remainder of the day, and the resolution will be re- ferred to the appropriate committee. ORDER OF PROCEDURE Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair. Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 S 1638 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 1, 1988 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been discussing with the distinguished acting Republican leader our going to the polygraph bill, Calendar Order No. 528, S. 1904. I understand from the distinguished acting Republican leader that there would be an objection. I shall move, and I also understand from the distinguished acting Republi- can leader, and Mr. HELMS, that there will be a request for the yeas and nays on the motion. Mr. President, I would suggest that Senators be informed by our respec- tive Cloakrooms that the vote will occur shortly. I will put in a brief quorum so the Cloakrooms may get out that message. Before I make the motion I would be happy to yield to the distinguished acting Republican leader for anything that he might wish to say at this point. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, indeed the majority leader has been very cooperative in sharing with those of us on this side of the aisle what his intention is today and even into the week. Because of the adjournment yes- terday we are in the position of morn- ing business where we are to receive a nondebatable motion to proceed to S. 1904, it is perfectly appropriate in every way, and we have those who have objected to any type of ordinary procedure to get to that, and under the rules here. I do appreciate the op- portunity to vote on the motion to proceed. That will be expected within a very few minutes. I assume, then, that I might pass on to those on this side of the aisle and to all of the Senators that additional votes could occur indeed during the re- mainder of the session today. I doubt seriously that this matter is going to be resolved today. I do not know in the totality of things that we will find out soon. But we are here to make progress on that. Then if disposed of in timely fashion, we will go on to either the Price-Anderson legislation or the intel- ligence oversight legislation as the ma- jority leader would direct. Is that the general understanding? I inquire of the majority leader. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yes. It is the understanding. I hope that during this week the Senate would be able to proceed to the congressional oversight legislation, Calendar Order No. 521, S. 1721 that came out of the Select Com- mittee on Intelligence, and also the Price-Anderson legislation. It would be my present inclination to try to take up the House bill, not necessarily in that order. But those are the two other pieces of legislation that I hope we could deal with this week and it could be one or the other, and then the other before the one. But I hope that the Senate will not be unduly delayed in complet- ing action on the polygraph bill. But in answer to the distinguished acting Republican leader those two bills to which he has referred are the two measures that I would hope the Senate could complete action on this week or at least take some action on one or both this week before we got out. I do anticipate the Senate being in a full week through Friday with votes. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader. Indeed, it is helpful to have this agenda because, as we do the ritual known as holds, those are not for purposes of total obstruction. They are essentially for the purpose of noti- fying the Members that they need to be prepared for this debate and get in- volved and ready themselves, and that is, therefore, very helpful, I think, on both sides of the aisle as we look at that kind of an agenda. I thank the majority leader. s Mr. BYRD. Yes. In many instances, those holds are for that purpose, as the assistant Republican leader has said, of informing Senators that the measure is about to be called up. They may have amendments they wish to debate, and so on. POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT OF 1987 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I now move that the Senate proceed to con- sideration of Calendar Order No. 528, S. 1904. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from North Carolina wishes to ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is not a debatable motion. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 15 seconds. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this motion is not debatable. I had said I would suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent that the call for the regular order be automatic at the end of 15 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro- ceeded to call the roll. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 1904, Calendar Order No. 528, a bill to strictly limit the use of lie de- tector examinations by employers in- volved in or affecting interstate com- merce. The yeas and nays have been or- dered. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GoaE], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. MATSIINAGA], and the Senator from Il- linois [Mr. SimoN] are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BIDEN] is absent because of illness. Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Doi], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. PACK- WOOD], and the ?Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. RUDMAN] are neces- sarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Cham- ber who desire to vote? The result was announced?yeas 74, nays 19, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 33 Leg.] YEAS-74 Evans Exon Ford Fowler Glenn Graham Grassley Harkin Hatch Hatfield Heflin Heinz Hollings Humphrey Inouye Johnston Kassebaum Kasten Kennedy Kerry Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lugar McCain Adams Armstrong Baucus Bentsen Bingaman Boren Boschwitz Bradley Breaux Bumpers Burdick Byrd Chafee Chiles Cohen Conrad Cranston D'Amato Danforth Daschle DeConcini Dixon Dodd Domenic' Durenberger Bond Cochran Garn Gramm Hecht Helms Karnes Biden Dole Gore NAYS-19 McClure McConnell Murkowski Nickles Pressler Quayle Stevens Melcher Metzenbaum Mikulski Mitchell Moynihan Nunn Pell Proxmire Pryor Reid Riegle Rockefeller Roth Sanford Sarbanes Sasser Shelby Simpson Specter Stafford Stennis Weicker Wilson Wirth Symms Thurmond Trible Wallop Warner NOT VOTING-7 Matsunaga Simon Packwood Rudman So the motion was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 1904) to strictly limit the use of lie detector examinations by employers in- volved in or affecting interstate commerce. The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof, the following: Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/15: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2 March 1, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 1639 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Polygraph Protection Act of 1987". SEC. 2. DEFLVITIONS. As used in this Act: (1) COMMERCE.?The term "commerce" has the meaning provided by section 3(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(b)). (2) EMPLOYER.?The term "employer" in- cludes any person acting directly or indi- rectly in the interest of an employer in rela- tion to an employee or prospective employ- ee. (3) LIE DETECTOR TEST?The term "lie de- tector test" includes? (A) any examination involving the use of any polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device (whether mechani- cal, electrical, or chemical) that is used, or the results of which are used, for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual; and (B) the testing phases described in para- graphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 8(c). (4) PoLyGnapll...?The term "polygraph" means an instrument that records continu- ously, visually, permanently, and simulta- neously changes in the cardiovascular, res- piratory, and electrodermal patterns as min- imum instrumentation standards. (5) RELEVANT QUESTION.?The term "rele- vant question" means any lie detector test question that pertains directly to the matter under investigation with respect to which the examinee is being tested. (6) SECRETARY?The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Labor. (7) TECHNICAL QUESTION.?The term "tech- nical question" means any control, sympto- matic, or neutral question that, although not relevant, is designed to be used as a measure against which relevant responses may be measitred. SEC. 1 PROHIBITIONS ON LIE DETECTOR USE. Except as provided in section 7, it shall be unlawful for any employer engaged in or af- fecting commerce or in the production of goods for commerce? (1) directly or indirectly, to require, re- quest, suggest, or cause any employee or pro- spective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test; (2) to use, accept, refer to, or inquire con- cerning the results of any lie detector test of any employee or prospective employee; (3) to discharge, dismiss, discipline in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against? (A) any employee or prospective employee who refuses,' declines, or fails to take or submit to any lie detector test; or (B) any employee or prospective employee on the basis of the results of any lie detector test; or (4) to discharge, discipline, or in any manner discriminate against an employee or prospective employee because? (A) such employee or prospective employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act,' (B) such employee or prospective employee has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding; or (C) of the exercise by such employee, on behalf of such employee or another person, of any right afforded by this Act. SEC. 4. NOTICE OF PROTECTION. The Secretary shall prepare, have printed, and distribute a notice setting forth excerpts from, or summaries of, the pertinent provi- sions of this Act. Each employer shall post and maintain such notice, in conspicuous places on its premises where notices to em- ployees and applicants to employment are customarily posted. SEC. 5. AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY. (a) IN GENERAL?The Secretary shall? ( 1) issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this Act; (2) cooperate with regional, State, local, and other agencies, and cooperate with and furnish technical assistance to employers, labor organizations, and employment agen- cies to aid in effectuating the purposes of this Act; and (3) make investigations and inspections and require the keeping of records necessary or appropriate for the administration of this Act. (b) SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.?For the purpose of any hearing or investigation under this Act, the Secretary shall 'have the authority contained in sections 9 and 10 of the Feder- al Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 49 and 50). SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. (a) CIVIL PENALTIES.? (1) IN GENERAL?Subject to paragraph (2)? (A) any employer who violates section 4 may be assessed a civil money penalty not to exceed $100 for each day of the violation; and (B) any employer who violates any other provision of this Act may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $10,000. (2) DETERMINATION OF AM0UN7'.?In deter- mining the amount of any penalty under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take into account the previous record of the person in terms of compliance with this Act and the gravity of the violation. (3) COLLECTION.?Any civil penalty as- sessed under this subsection shall be collect- ed in the same manner as is required by sub- sections (b) through (e) of section 503 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1853) with respect to civil penalties assessed under subsection (a) of such section. (b) INJUNCTIVE ACTIONS BY THE SECRE- TARY.?The Secretary may bring an action to restrain violations of this Act. The district courts of the United States shall have juris- diction, for cause shown,"to issue temporary or permanent restraining orders and injunc- tions to require compliance with this Act. (c) PRIVATE CIVIL ACTIONS.? ( LIABILITY.?An employer who violates this Act shall be liable to the employee or prospective employee affected by such viola- tion: Such employer shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropri- ate, including but not limited to employ- ment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and benefits. (2) Comm?An action to recover the liabil- ity prescribed in paragraph (1) may be maintained against the employer in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdic- tion by any one or more employees for or in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. (3) COSTS.?The court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. (d) WAIVER OF RIGHTS PROHIBITED.?The rights and procedures provided by this Act may not be waived by contract or otherwise, unless such waiver is part of a written set- tlement of a pending action or complaint, agreed to and signed by all the parties. SEC. 7. EXEMPTIONS. (a) No''APAICATION'Td:GOVERNMENTAWEM-', PLOYERS:=The provisionr7of ?this Act Shall