CONGRESSIONAL RECORD VOL. 134

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91B00390R000500460012-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 104
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 15, 2013
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: March 1, 1988
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

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