USVI Public Records

Document text

Approved For Release 2011/03/04 : CIA-RDP87BO0858R000600950003-3 The Senate met at 10 a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the President pro tempore {Mr. THurRmMonp). PRAYER The Chaplain, the Reverend Rich- ard C. Halverson, D.D., offered the fol- lowing prayer: Let us pray. Righteous God, trouble comes in like a flood—like an avalanche threatening to bury us: Libya and the Middle East, Nicaragua and Central America—oil crisis and farm crisis, with chain reac- tions exploding in many different di- rections—budget deadline and dead- lock like an irresistible force meeting an immovable object—an incompre- hensible national debt—unfavorable balance of trade with potential trade wars seething—and a host of other in- transigent domestic and international issues that challenge and provoke— and the Senate right in the middle of all of it. Help us to see, wise Father, that God alone is big enough to handle this cosmic mess and He is ready to enable those who bear the burden to find resolution. In His name Who is the way, the truth, the life. Amen. RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished majority leader, Senator Doig, is recognized. Mr. DOLE. I thank the President pro tempore, Senator THURMOND. SCHEDULE Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, under the standing order, the leaders have 10 minutes each, to be followed by special orders for not to exceed 5 minutes each for Senators HAWKINS, CRAN- STON, WILSON, Drxon, ROCKEFELLER, BINGAMAN, CHILES, LEVIN, RUIEGLE, Baucus, Gorse, and PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I would indicate that the list for special orders seems to be growing on a daily basis. I would hope sometime in the next few weeks we can reach some agreement for dividing special orders for the morning and afternoon, or limiting the amount of time for special orders. Special orders today will require 1 hour and 5 min- utes, Following the execution of the spe- cial orders, there will be a period for Senate THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1986 (Legislative day of Tuesday, April 8, 1986) the transaction of routine morning business, not to extend beyond_ the hour of 11:30 a.m. Mr. President, we are hoping we can move the rollcall vote from 11:30 to 12 noon. I will make that request, if the minority leader has no objection. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the vote on the hydroreli- censing bill occur at 12 noon rather than 11:30 a.m. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CocHRAN). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as soon as we complete action on the hydroreli- censing bill, which will just be the vote, we will move to S. 1923, the bankruptcy judges bill. It is my under- standing that that will not take more than a couple of hours. We have completed action on the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. That will leave the technical amendments to the crime bill. I think I am in a po- sition to say there will be no votes to- morrow. Maybe we will lay something down today and there might be some debate tomorrow, but I think this is a particularly bad week for Members on both sides who want to visit their home States. Mr. President, I hope Members will cooperate and try to clean up these minor bills that are on the calendar. I want to thank the Senator from Il- linois [Mr. Dixon} for his cooperation on the Federal Deposit Insurance Act last night. That action will be helpful to Senator Boren and others with par- ticular problems in.their States. Mr. President, I see no reason why we could not complete our work fairly early this evening. However, there will be rolicall votes today. S. 2335—ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 1986 Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will in- roduce later today a bill that will clar- y Presidential authority and strengthen the President’s hand in dealing with international terrorism directed at our country and our citi- zens. I am honored to be joined as an original cosponsor of this bill by the distinguished Senator from Alabama and chairman of the Judiciary’s Sub- committee on Security and Terrorism, JEREMIAH Denton. In addition to his work on this bill, Senator Dewron has a number of other important legisla- tive initiatives on the matter of terror- ism. I would also note that I have worked closely in developing this legislation with three distinguished Members of the House of Representatives: Con- gressman Jog Barton of Texas, who first suggested a bill and came up with the basic concepts we have included in it; and Congressmen Duncan HunTER of California, and Bos Livineston of Lou- isiana, each of whom has made valua- ble contributions to the final product. Those three Congressmen will be in- troducing the bill in the House today. NOT A “QUICK FIX” In light of ongoing events involving Libya, this is obviously an appropriate time for the Senate to consider legisla- tion related to terrorism. And, as my remarks will indicate, the substance of this bill will have direct bearing on sit- uations such as the one we see unfold- ing in Libya. But it is important to emphasize that this bill is not any kind of ‘“‘quick fix” reaction of the Libyan situation. I and my cosponsors have been consid- ering terrorism legislation for several months and have been working on this bijl for several weeks. It deals with an issue broader than Libya and more en- during than Qadhafi. Terrorism is a long-term problem and requires a long-term solution. Passage of the bill will provide one more important tool to help find that solution. REAFFIRMING THE PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY Let me briefly outline the contents of the bill. As I noted, its central pur- pose is clarifying the extent of the President's authority to deal with ter- rorism, thereby strengthening his hand as he copes with this problem. Personally, I do not believe this bill gives the President any new authority. In my view, the President’s constitu- tional role as Commander in Chief, his clear obligation and authority to defend the United States and its citi- zens and our country’s right of self-de- fense embodied in the Constitution and specifically included in the United Nations Charter already endows the President with decisive, independent power to respond to terrorist acts and to the threat of terror against America and Americans. But I am aware that some dispute that view. Certainly, our current debate—an unfortunate debate, in my opinion—over whether the President @ This “bullet” symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. S 4423 Approved For Release 2011/03/04 : CIA-RDP87BO0858RO000600950003-3 Approved For Release 2011/03/04 : CIA-RDP87BO00858R000600950003-3 S 4424 adequately consulted the Congress prior to the recent air strikes on Libya and whether and how the War Powers Resolution of 1973 applies to the cur- rent situation reflects the fact that there is honest disagreement on this issue. Harry Truman is famous fer saying that the “buck stops” in the Oval Office. Maybe that was true in Tru- man’s day. But today every Senator seemingly insists on putting in his 2 cents’ worth on that buck. This is no way to make or implement policies on terrorism. So it is very important to make clear in law—and equally important to make clear to the world, including the world’s terrorists—that the President does have extensive, flexible authority to do what is necessary to strike back against terrorists and to preempt planned terrorist attacks against the United States and its Citizens. By passing this legislation, we will cement the authority in law and send a strong message around the globe: The Presi- dent has the power to act and has the political backing of the American Con- gress in doing what he must. And if that message is sent now, through pas- sage of this bill, perhaps in the future, the President will not have to send as many of the kind of messages our F- 111’s delivered to Qadhafi this week. DEFINITIONS OF ‘“‘TERRORISM” AND “TERRORIST” What, exactly, does the bill do? It defines terrorism as a “form of aggres- sion’ against the United States. As such, it broadens the conception of terrorism from being just another kind of criminal act and calls it what it is—an attack on our country and our national interests. In that way, the biil will underscore that the President’s powers as Commander in Chief come directly dnd automatically into play when terrorism occurs or is being planned. The bill defines “terrorist” and “ter- rorist organization” to include all of those people and groups which can be shown to be directly involved in the planning or conduct of terrorist acts or which directly support such plan- ning or acts. It is not only the bomb- throwers we have to deal with; it is ev- eryone in the network, up to and in- cluding governments like Libya’s, which cpenly and aggressively espouse state-sponsored terrorism as an instru- ment of policy, and people like Qadha- fi, who masquerade as legitimate na- tional leaders. USE OF ALL APPROPRIATE MEASURES When such groups or people engage in specific acts of terror aimed at Americans, or when the President has clear evidence that they intend to, the bill reaffirms his authority, notwith- standing the provisions of any other Jaw, to “use all such antiterrorism and counterterrorism measures as may be necessary to prevent the loss of lives of U.S. citizens,” including use of “deadly force.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE Should the President utilize the au- thority affirmed in the bill, he would be required to report to the Congress within 10 days, specifying ‘in detail the terrorist threat or terrorist act which justified’ his action. AUTHORITY LIMITED TO TERRORISM SITUATIONS Perhaps the best summation of the bill is that it affirms the President's very broad authority but only in the relatively narrow—but, of course, criti- cal—field of dealing with terrorism. The bill has no application—and makes no judgment, cne way or the other—on the question of Presidential authority to deal with other threats to our Nation or other international situ- ations. The bill does not seek to expand, or in fact expand, any Presi- dential authority in these broader na- tional security or foreign policy fields. I have my own views about what the President can do in those areas, and each Senator undoubtedly has his or her own views, too. But this bill pur- posely avoids those issues. The ques- tion cf terrorism and our ability to deal with it is too urgent to get bogged down in an endless re-debate of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. PARTIALLY SUPERSEDES WAR POWERS RESOLUTION Having said that, though, let me make clear that this bill would super- sede the War Powers Resolution in those instances—but only in those in- stances—when the President might use, or contemplate the use of, Ameri- can military forces to deal with terror- ism. NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT FOR CONSULTATIONS In such circumstances, the bill would eliminate the near requirement—and I say “near requirement” because even the War Powers Resolution qualifies it by saying “in every possible in- stance”’—for prior consultations with Congress before using American forces. Let me also stress here that, in elimi- nating the legal requirement for the consultations, I am not suggesting there should be no consultations. On the contrary, such consultations are very desirable and helpful, to both the President and the Congress, whenever they are feasible and can be conducted * in a manner consistent with the Presi- dent’s overriding need to avoid jeop- ardizing the safety of our armed forces. But this is an age when madmen like Qadhafi have sophisticated weapons which can instantly annihilate large numbers of American military person- nel and, regrettably, when almost every word uttered in the deepest se- crecy on Capitol Hill ends up shortly thereafter on the evening news and in the morning paper. In this environ- ment, like it or not, we simply cannot undermine the President’s ability to act against terrorism by requiring him in every case to thrash out with some or all of 535 Congressmen the details of sensitive antiterrorist military oper- ations before they are underway. April 17, 1986 EXTENDS PERIOD FOR PRESIDENTIAL REPORT The bill would also supersede the War Powers Resclution in a second way—but, again, only when the issue at hand is terrorism—by extending to 10 days (from the resolution’s 48 hours) the time during which the President would have to report to Con- gress on action taken pursuant to the authority outlined in the bill. That ad- ditional time would provide the cppor- tunity for a more comprehensive, useful report. NO ARBITRARY TIME LIMITS Finally, contrary to the 60- and 90- day limits of the War Powers Resolu- tion, the bili would not put any time limit on the President’s use of forces in a terrorist situation. It would be my presumption that use of this author- ity, in situations such as we have just seen in Libya, would almost always be for operations of very short duration, well under any 60- or 90-day time- frame. But prudence dictates, to me at least, that we not build in any artifi- cial limits on the President’s flexibility to do what is necessary, when it is nec- essary. THE CHALLENGE OF TERRORISM Mr. President, international terror- ism is one of the most serious chal- lenges which confronts our Nation and our President. To deal effectively with it, the President needs two things above all else. First, he needs the clear and indisputable authority to strike at terrorism and terrorists with his full powers as Commander in Chief. This bill will reaffirm unequivocally that he has that authority. Second, he needs the political sup- port of the Congress and the people of the United States in doing what must be done. Passage of this bill will make it clear to everyone, everywhere— friend and foe alike—that our Presi- dent has that political support. Mr. President, I urge all of my col- leagues to join with Senator DENTON and me in passing this bill promptly and decisively. Mr. President, as an original cospon- sor of the War Powers Act of 1970, with Senator Javits, I ask my col- leagues to take a look at the debates and report on the War Powers Act. I do not think we ever dealt with state international terrorism. In 1970 and 1973 when the War Powers Act was passed, that was not a matter of great concern. Terrorism had been around for a long time but it was not concen- trated, widespread, or state sponsored. Mr. President, in effect what we seek to do, is to clarify the President’s au- thority to make certain the President will be able to respond to an act of ter- rorism without a long consultation with Members cf Congress, and that it will not in any way compromise our ef- forts or compromise the security of the American forces. Earlier in my statement, I outlined what I believe to be a number of areas of concern. We are not trying to give the President new authority. The au- Approved For Release 2011/03/04 : CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950003-3 Approved For Release 2011/03/04 : CIA-RDP87BO0858R000600950003-3 April 17, 1986 thority is limited to acts of interna- tional terrorism. The bill will outline what an act of terrorism is. It defines who may be participating in terrorism, whether it is a group, whether it is an individual, or whether it may be a gov- ernment that is involved. So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will have an opportu- nity to take a look at this bill. It is not partisan. It is nonpartisan; and I hope that we could have a number of co- sponsors, Republicans and Democrats. I will be joining Senator Denton in writing my colleagues a note to outline the provisions. I am hoping that later today the bill can be introduced and jointly referred to Foreign Relations and Judiciary but that has not been cleared by the dis- tinguished minority leader. I will do that later. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the bill be printed in the Recoryp at this point, followed by a fact sheet, There being no objection, the bill and fact sheet were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: S. 2335 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Anti-Terror- ism Act of 1986”. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) FINDINGS.— The Congress finds and de- clares that terrorsim is— (1) a form of aggression which results in the killing of innocent persons, the loss of civil liberties through intimidation and coer- cion, or the loss of property; (2) a form of aggression that has as its goal the furtherance of a political or ideo- logical objective by violent means; (3) directed against the orderly and demo- cratic conduct and security of all people; (4) a threat to the national security and national interests of the United States; (5) a threat to the safety of all United States persons; and (6) a threat to the continued and effective operation of the Government of the United States. (b) Purposes.—It is the purpose of this Act— (1) to protect United States persons from terrorism; and (2) to grant the President under appropri- ate circumstances the authority to punish terrorists or terrorist organizations for acts committed against United States persons. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act— (1) the term “terrorism’’ means activity, directed against Utited States persons, which— (A) is committed by an individual who is not a national or permanent resident alien of the United States; (B) involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdic- tion of the United States; and (C) is intended— Gi) to intimidate or coerce a civilian popu- lation; : di) to influence the policy of a govern- ment by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnaping; (2) the terms “terrorist” and “terrorist or- ganization” mean an individual, group, or CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE any combination thereof which are involved in an act of terrorism; (3) the term “national of the United States” means— (A) a natural person who is a citizen of the United States or a natural person (other than an allen) who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent alle- giance to the United States; or (B) a corporation or other entity which is organized under the laws of the United States, if natural persons (described in sub- paragraph (A)) own, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the outstanding capital stock or other beneficial interest in such legal entity; (4) the term “United States” means the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Com- monwealth of the Northern Mariana Is- lands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any other territory or posses- sion of the United States; and (5) the term “United States person” means any individual, organization, corpora- tion, or entity which is either a permanent resident alien or national of the United States or subject to its domestic jurisdiction. SEC. 4. OFFENSE OF TERORISM. (a) OFFENSE.—-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whoever organizes, at- tempts, commits, procures, or supports the commission of an act of terrorism shall be considered to have committed an act of ag- gression against the United States and may be pursued with deadly force. (b) AUTHORIZATION OF PRESIDENTIAL Acrion.—Notwithstanding any other provi- sion of law and except as provided in subsec- tion (d), the President is authorized to un- dertake actions to protect United States per- sons against terrorists and terrorist activity through the use of all such anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism measures as he deems necessary. (c) DuraTION or AuTHORITY.-—-Notwith- standing any other provision of law, subsec- tion (b) shall apply— (1) to all terrorists wherever they may be; and (2) until such time as the President deter- mines that no terrorist poses a threat to United States persons. (d) CONSTITUTIONAL LimITATION.—The au- thority granted to the President under this Act may be exercised in the United States only in accordance with the provisions of the United States Constitution. (e) INTERPRETATION.—Nothing in this Act may be construed as granting any authority to use deadly force within the United States which authority would not exist in the ab- sence of this Act. SEC. 5. REPORT. The President shali submit a report to the Congress not later than 10 days after the President takes any action under section 4(b). The report shall describe in detail the terrorist threat or terrorist act which justi- fied such action. Fact SHEET ON TERRORISM BILL ELEMENTS OF THE BILL Defines terrorism as an act of aggression by a foreigner, aimed at U.S. citizens and corporations, with the purpose of influenc- ing our policy. Gives the President clear-cut authority to deal with specific acts of terrorism with all appropriate means, including deadly force. Gives the President authority to act to preempt as well as respond to specific acts of terrorism. Makes clear terrorists include not only actual ‘‘bomb throwers” but also those who organize, lead, fund and support terrorists. Requires the President to report to Con- gress within ten days of utilizing his author- S 4425 ity, specifying in detail the terrorist threat or terrorist act that justified his action. Supercedes the War Powers Resolution by: (i) imposing no time limit, such as the 60 and 90 day time limits in the resolution, on the President’s use of force in a terrorist situation; (2) requiring no prior consultation with Congress; (3) and extending the report- ing period from 48 hours to 10 days. PROTECTIONS IN THE BILL Limits the authority to terrorist situa- tions. Insures, through the reporting require- ment, that the authority will be used only to combat specific acts of terror. Does not expand the President’s tradition- al powers to conduct foreign policy—only to react to terrorism. Applies only to acts by foreigners and has no impact on the rights of Americans. Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986,” which I am pleased to cosponsor to- gether with the distinguished majority leader from Kansas. I congratulate Senator Do.e for his leadership in in- troducing this important legislation, which I believe is an essential factor in the continuing development of a com- prehensive U.S. policy to combat inter- national terrorism. Mr. President, a consistent thrust of mine as a Senator has been to develop improvements in the credibility of the United States ability to act promptly against terrorism with unity of resolve and proper regard for the separation of powers within our Government. Terrorism can be discouraged only if would-be terrorists believe that the President of the United States has the power to take appropriate action promptly, with the backing of the Congress, irrespective of the political party of the President or the party in majority in either House of Congress. In this regard, I believe that this bill is one of the most important intro- duced since I have been in the Senate. The bill defines terrorism as an act of aggression against the United States, thereby triggering the President’s au- thority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, to pursue terrorists with deadly force, if necessary. As such, the bill does not create new au- thority for the President, but rather, as Senator DoLe has so eloquently stated, clarifies the extent of the President’s authority to deal with ter- rorism. . Such clarification is absolutely nec- essary in view of the second guessing frequently engaged in by some Mem- bers of Congress and the media which clouds the President’s existing author- ity to order military strikes when nec- essary to prevent terrorist attacks on Americans. Even now, in the wake of the strike conducted against Libya this week, we hear expressions of doubt about the President’s authority to take such action. The bill introduced today will ensure that the President does not speak with an empty voice in acting against terrorism. This unfortu- - nately has been the practice in the past on occasion when 535 Secretaries Approved For Release 2011/03/04 : CIA-RDP87BO0858RO000600950003-3 Approved For Release 2011/03/04 : CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950003-3 S 4426 of State undercut foreign policy deci- sions which the Chief Executive sought to implement. I believe that prompt enactment of the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986” will demonstrate that we are finally on the road to developing an effective policy against terrorism. For far too long, United States policy toward terrorism has been fragmented, reactive, defen- sive and ad hoc, dealing with each inci- dent as though it were an isolated oc- currence, entirely unrelated to other terrorist acts. This approach has ig- nored the voluminous record devel- oped by the Senate Judiciary Subcom- mittee on Security and Terrorism. Over the past 5 years, the Subcom- mittee has held numerous hearings on terrorism which have yielded abun- dant and conclusive evidence of a net- work, a global unity, in the sources of support, strategy, tactics, and goals of international terrorists. The thrust and power of this network amounts to a new, highly effective form of low in- tensity warfare which is being waged by various nation-states—including, particularly, Libya, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba—to erode the influ- ence and strategic position of the United States and Western democra- cies, in general, and to enhance the power of the Soviet Union, its client states and allies, in particular. This reservoir of information regard- ing the global and interrelated nature of terrorist activities has not been tapped sufficiently by the Congress, the public or the executive branch. Thus, our spasmodic and ad hoc policy toward international terrorism has persisted, despite the publicly declared policies and intentions- of terrorist groups and the states, such as Libya, which support them. However, the events of the last sev- eral.weeks have focused American and European attention as never before on the strategic and operational coordina- tion of international terrorists. De- spite protestations to the contrary by Qadhafi, United States and European intelligence services were able to con- firm that the terrorist attack on the West Berlin disco received support, en- couragement, and direction from Libya and other sponsors of interna- tional terrorism outside Germany. Presented with such intelligence, the President must be able to act quickly to prevent a terrorist attack, if possi- ble. If prevention is not possible in a given case, the President must act to punish, while the gun is still smoking, the terrorist group or groups involved and the nation-states which have fa- cilitated their criminal acts. The bill introduced today will make it clear that the President is authorized to take such actions, and that we in the Congress stand behind him. In addition to defining terrorism and clarifying the President’s powers to deal with terrorists, the bill’s defini- tion of “terrorists” and “terrorist orga- nizations” would cover not only the in- dividuals and groups who actually per- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE petrate an act of terrorism, but also the leaders of a state which organizes or supports the act. The bill makes any offense of terrorism committed against a U.S. person an act of aggres- sion against the United States, itself, which may be pursued with deadly force. Finally, in order to protect Congress’ oversight responsibility, the bill re- quires the President to submit a report to the Congress within 10 days after the President takes any action under the bill against terrorists or terrorist activity. The “Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986” is landmark legislation which could at least cause the tide of terrorism to ebb. Its enactment will demonstrate to terrorists that Congress and the Amer- ican people are solidly united in sup- porting prompt action by the Presi- dent to prevent terrorist acts and punish terrorists. The act will evi- dence, as well, the growing consensus in this country which is helping to de- velop a sound and consistent U.S. policy against terrorism. I urge my colleagues to support prompt consideration and passage of this legislation. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on this side we ran the hot line about chang- ing the time for the vote and there were no responses. I took that to mean that there would not be any problems. I now learn that a Senator has called - to say he can be here and vote at 11 or 1, but cannot be here at 12. Will the distinguished majority leader review this matter and see if that vote could be changed? Mr. DOLE. Yes. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader. Mr. President, before the distin- guished majority leader leaves the floor, I think his statement earlier was clear enough but I want to be sure that I understood it. I believe the dis- tinguished majority leader indicated there definitely would not be any roll- call votes tomorrow. Am I correct? Mr. DOLE. That is correct. Mr. BYRD. Does: the distinguished majority leader contemplate a session tomorrow? Mr. DOLE. I am not certain of that, but I will give that information. I am certain there will be no rollcall votes tomorrow. Mr. BYRD. I thank the majority leader. RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the minority leader is recognized. April 17, 1986 ACTION ON THE BUDGET RESOLUTION Mr. BYRD. On several occasions I have stated the feeling that the budget resolution should be called up and debated on this floor and that there should not be further delay. There are many reasons, Mr. Presi- dent, for avoiding further delay. One important consideration has been brought to my attention. I had the op- portunity to meet on Tuesday with a group of presidents from colleges and universities around the country, in- cluding one or more in my own State. These were both large and small insti- tutions. They warned me of the con- cerns which delay in acting on the budget will occasion. Mr. Joseph Murphy of the City Uni- versity of New York put it to me suc- cinctly: “While nothing happens, something bad happens.” That ‘‘some- thing bad” is the uncertainty in which students all around the country are finding themselves because they do not know what to plan in terms of stu- dent aid. This is the time of the year when students make decisions about attend- ing colleges and universities next fall. Delay in making decisions about the level of Federal support for student aid programs could affect hundreds of thousands of students nationwide. Some students, faced with this uncer- tainty, may plan a course of part-time instruction rather than full time. Worst of all, some students may decide to forgo college entirely because of the lack of certainty that aid will even be available. And this is true for many students who will need to depend on a Pell grant. It is not only the students who are put into this state of uncertainty by failure to produce a budget; counselors in high schools are also unable to advise students on the wise course of action concerning their college plans, and financial aid officers in the col- leges and universities are unable to plan for the coming term. We know that the President’s draco- nian budget cuts in higher education programs are dead. The President’s budget was rejected in the House. In the Senate it was rejected in the com- mittee. But what do we do? I was told in this meeting to which I have re- ferred that 70 percent of the Pell grants in West Virginia, indeed a simi- lar amount nationwide I was told, have been affected by the Gramm-Rudman legislation. If the Senate does not get to work on a responsible budget, we may see even deeper cuts for next year. Stu- dents in West Virginia and around the country need to know what the Senate | and the House will do about the stu- dent aid on which they desperately depend for their education. The bipartisan budget reported by the Budget Committee is more respon- sible in the area of education than the President’s budget—which has already Approved For Release 2011/03/04 : CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950003-3 Approved For Release 2011/03/04 : CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950003-3 April 17, 1986 Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speak- er, today I, Congressmen Duncan Hunter, and Bos Livineston, together are introducing in the House of Repre- sentatives the Antiterrorist Act of 1986. Senator Dore and Senator DENTON are introducing identical legis- lation in the other body. This legisla- tion is one part of a long-term strategy to deal with terrorism. As signaled earlier this week, our President has decided to fight back against terrorists, and we need to give him the explicit authority to do so. There is some question that under the existing War Powers Act our Presi- dent may have to consult with Con- gress before he initiates any counter- terrorism activities. Doing so may make it much more difficult to fight back against terrorism. Our act does two things specifically. It redefines terrorism as an act of ag- gression against the United States of America, its citizens, and American corporations. Number two, it explicitly excludes antiterrorism activities from the jurisdiction of the War Powers Act. Terrorists do not have to conduct committee meetings before they decide to strike; we should not require our President to do so either, as he at- tempts to fight back. Every American citizen is a potential victim of terrorism. Let us give our President the authority to effectively fight back and prevent, if possible, any more Americans from becoming actual jms of terrorism. IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 281 (Mr. SIKORSKI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SIKORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 281, the so- called double-breasting legislation and in opposition to weakening amend- ments. The opponents of H.R. 281 are using some unpoetic poetic license in their debate, and I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. H.R. 281 does not expand labor law into new areas. It does not. deny work- ers freedom of choice. It is not a power-grabbing attempt by unions to give them undue influence in the in- dustry marketplace. Its only purpose is to define already existing provisions of labor law that deal with prehire agreements which have been subvert- ed by antiworker members of the cur- rent National Labor Relations Board. H.R. 281 is needed to end these abuses and to restore to labor relations the original intent of Congress when it passed the Landrum-Griffin Act in 1959. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 2 O 1150 THE FBI: FIDELITY, BRAVERY, AND INTEGRITY (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to express my deep sorrow to the families of the two FBI agents, Benjamin P. Grogan and Jerry Dove, who were killed in a bloody gun battle in Miami on April 11. In the same incident, five agents were wounded during an attempted arrest of suspected bank robbers. This is a great and tragic loss to the Bureau and to the entire law enforcement community. These agents were performing rou- tine surveillance when they spetted a stolen car with a license plate match- ing one suspected of being used in recent Miami-area holduns. Special Agent Joseph V. Corless, a former col- league and supervisor of the bank rob- bery squad when I was an agent in New York, stated that the agents ra- dioed for backup and, when they had sufficient assistance, attempted to pull the car over. It was at that point that the agents were fired upon by ma- chine-guns from the suspects’ vehicle. These agents were professionals. They followed the proper procedures and reacted wisely and competently. They knew the risks, but they unfor- tunately lost their lives in the per- formance of their duty. As a former FBI special agent, I also am aware of the dangers involved in the line of duty, the risks that agents take every- day, and the selfless behavior they dis- play when confronted with a life-or- death situation. While it is difficult to express the proper sentiments in a 1- minute statement, I again offer my condolences to the families of the two slain FBI agents and commend their bravery and that of their wounded col- leagues. Fidelity, bravery, integrity, that is what the FBT is all about. LAFAYETTE, WHERE ARE YOU? (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, in 1917, Gen. Blackjack Pershing arrived on the shores of France and told a war-torn Europe, “Lafayette, we are here.” Today America asks, where are you?” The American people are perplexed and vexed to see pictures nightly on their TV screens of Europeans demon- strating against the American action in Libya. Congress is concerned and confused when the foreign ministers of France and Germany and Italy con- demn American actions, but give us no alternative in its place. After all, Ken- neth Ford, the brave sergeant killed “Lafayette, H 1931 by Libyan terrorism a week ago, was not just defending American interests, he was defending European interests as well. And our European allies have told us we ought to resort to diploma- cy. It is their failure to join us in eco- nomic sanctions and in evicting the Libyan embassies from the face of Europe that forced upon America this action, the least desirable, but only availabie alternative. To our European allies I say, we are ashamed of you. You should, at the very least, be quiet and, in fact, be doing more than that by backing up our action. Until you have a better way, please be silent. In 1917, “Lafayette, we are here;” in 1986, “Lafayette, where are you?” LIBYA-NICARAGUA CONNECTION IN CENTRAL AMERICA (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with this House, Mr. Speaker, a news item on television this morning. Film reports from Ma- nagua showed Libyan soldiers march- ing in solidarity with their Nicaraguan counterparts and denouncing the United States. I think it is important to note that this is the very first time that the presence of Libyan troops has been openly displayed by the Sandinista government. This should be a lesson to those crit- ics who misplace their naive faith in the empty words of good will from the Sandinistas. In this case, Mr. Speaker, actions speak much louder than words. I find it hard to believe that these Libyan troops are emissaries of peace or are there to encourage the Conta- dora process. However, perhaps they are there to share their expertise in agriculture and irrigation with the agrarian reformers in Managua. After all, the green revolution in Libya has made private ownership of land illegal, and the Sandinistas have demonstrated that they are eager to follow this same path. I point this incident out, Mr. Speak- er, even as we in this House continue to debate the true intentions of the Nicaraguan Government in Central America. As Managua echoes with the boots of Libya—a nation engaged in active terrorist warfare against the United States—let us fix in our minds the picture of those soldiers marching. Can a Libya-Nicaragua connection be the hope for the future of Central America? The hope for our hemi- sphere? I say no, Mr. Speaker, and I say the best way to stop such a connection is to grant the freedom fighters the wherewithal to oppose this disturbing alliance. Thank you. Approved For Release 2011/03/04 : CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950003-3 Approved For Release 2011/03/04 : CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950003-3 H 1932 EPUBLICANS DUCK CONTRA VOTE (Mr. FRANK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, history gets rewritten very promptly these days. We are being told that the reason the Republican Members of the House voted for the Hamilton substi- tute yesterday was because of their sense of outrage at a procedure which would have tied one piece of legisla- tion to another. That is the least plau- sible explantion I have heard for any- thing in a long time. They did that yesterday for one simple reason. They were going to lose on the McCurdy amendment. The American people will not support the President’s right to wage war by proxy in an unlimited way down there. So they knocked over the table because they did not like the way the cards were being dealt. Before anyone believes that they were upset at the notion of tying one thing to something not fully related, remember that this is the party which gave us this year with their over- whelming vote a new subsidy for to- bacco farmers as part of the reconcili- ation bill. These are the people who gave us the Gramm-Rudman mistake as part of a bill to extend the debt limit. These are the people, many of them who were here then, who voted for Gramm-Latta, which took a whole range of unrelated things and made them into one very inconsistent whole. There has not been a time since I have been here that the Republican Party has objected to the tactic of tying one thing to another. They were going to lose the vote yes- terday, so they kicked over the table, and now they are pretending to be procedurally outraged. They are a very unlikely set of candidates for that particular vestment. GREAT BRITAIN DESERVES OUR ENDURING GRATITUDE (Mr. ROWLAND of Connecticut asked and was given permission to ad- dress the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROWLAND of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Missouri (Mr. SKELTON] and I have introduced a resolution today putting Congress on record as giving its highest praise and thanks to Great Britain and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for aiding the United States against Libyan ter- rorism. : When the time came to confront ruthless terrorists, Britain stood with us. No other ally wears that badge of courage. Mrs. Thatcher took enormous per- sonal political risks to do what was right. By taking a stand in support of fré¥ péopie everywhere, Mrs. Thatcher risked criticism from political oppo- nents. She chose a courageous moral path rather than political expediency. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE Her actions will fortify and inspire us to continue our fight against terror- ism. The United States and the United Kingdom have long been allied in the great World Wars against tyranny and are joined in the North Atlantic alli- ance to deter aggression. A loyal ally understands that coun- tries have interests beyond their own borders, and our British friends recog- nize this. And for that, they have America’s enduring gratitude. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my col- leagues to join us in cosponsoring this very important resolution. AMERICA NEEDS A SENSIBLE OIL IMPORT POLICY (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, following the U.S. air strikes against Libya, Colonel Qadhafi sent his minister to the OPEC meeting in Geneva demand- ing an oil embargo against the United States of America. It is, of course, history now that the Geneva meeting denied-and, in fact, ig- nored that request We should not be surprised by that. The fact is that the United States is- only about 10-percent dependent upon OPEC oil today. We should, however, be reminded that in the late 1970's, when we were approximately 30-per- cent dependent upon OPEC oil, a simi- lar request for a U.S. oil embargo was not only heeded, but adopted, with awful effects on this economy. Now my father when I was very young gave me a good piece of advice. He assured me that through my life I would make a number of mistakes, but he cautioned me not to make the same mistake more than once. We in Ameri- ca ought to consider my father’s good advice as we approach the end of this decade. Should we allow ourselves to become so dependent upon OPEC oil that the next request by the minis- ter from Libya for an oil embargo against the United States would not only go unignored, but in fact heeded, and the United States might find itself in that same awful position It is time now, America, to wake up, to guard against that type of depend- ence on foreign oil. It is time now to adopt a sensible oil import policy for America. O 1200 ELDERLY VETERANS CARE ACT OF 1986 (Mr. RIDGE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RIDGE. Mr. Speaker, ensuring adequate health care for our elderly veterans is fast becoming one of the most critical issues of the decade. With the average age of the veteran April 17, 1986 population steadily rising, steps must be taken now to prepare the VA health care delivery system for the in- creasing demand for services. Conse- quently, I am introducing the Elderly Veterans Care Act of 1986. This legislation provides a tax credit to the families of elderly veterans who need home-based health care. The credit covers such expenses as home health aids, adult day care, respite care, nursing care, and medical or health-related equipment and sup- plies. Credit amounts will be determined by a Sliding scale based on annual income, similar to the dependent care tax adopted by Congress in the Eco- nomic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Fam- ilies with $10,000 or less in income wil? receive a credit for 30 percent of tly. home health care expenses they incur, up to a maximum credit of $1,050. Low-income families who do not: pay enough taxes will have any unusable credit refunded directly to them, The maximum amount of credit would be gradually reduced based on income over $10,000, with families having $50,000 or more in adjusted gross income ineligible for credit. Conse- quently, the most needy families re- ceive the greatest relief. This legislation is important because it represents a practical solution to the VA health care problem without for- saking our longstanding commitment to the men and women who have served this country. This measure pro- motes a compassionate alternative to institutionalized medical services by providing for care in the most natural environment—the veteran’s own home. Moreover, by granting the tax credit directly to the family, the proposal recognizes the temendous sacrifices they make as the primary caregiver to elderly veterans. It also recognizes the need for Congress to relief the con- tinuing financial pressure on the health care delivery system of Medi- care and Medicaid. The Veterans’ Administration pre- dicts that there will be more than 7 million veterans over the age of 65 by 1990. The VA itself has recommended the creative development of program initiatives to help meet the health- care needs of our maturing veteran population. My bill meets this chal- lenge by providing more flexible care for veterans, while making more hos- pital beds available for critically ill pa- tients. Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to intro- duce this important legislation, and I invite my colleagues to join in support of the Elderly Veterans Care Act. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LABOR LAW AMENDMENTS OF 1985 (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Approved For Release 2011/03/04 : CIA-RDP87B00858R000600950003-3