June 15, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 13621 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Tuesday, June 15, 1982 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. FATHER ALBERT PALMER The SPEAKER. Is there objection The Reverend Albert Palmer, St. D This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., D 1407 is 2:07 p.m. e This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by the Member on the floor. 13622 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 15, 1982 privilege, or status under the Immigration PROMOTING RECRUITMENT the $300 burial allowance for certain and Nationality Act. AND RETENTION OF VETER deceased veterans was terminated. The The bill was ordered to be engrossed ANS' ADMINISTRATION change in law did not affect the bene and read a third time, was read the NURSES fit for veterans who were drawing VA third time, and passed, and a motion 89-059 0-86-29 (Pt. 10) 13630 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 15, 1982 and $14 million in each subsequent cities and provides for the Federal Mr. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I year, far above the cost of this bill. Government to share some of that thank the gentleman from Minnesota. Robert McBrien, the Treasury's spe burden. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask cial assistant in charge of reviewing re I stress that the city of New York is the gentleman from Minnesota a imbursements to New York, stated reimbursed only for extraordinary couple questions. that, "If there were a choice between protective measures and is required Mr. STANGELAND. I would be reimbursing the city and sending Fed like any other major city to provide happy to answer. eral forces, our choice is reimburse the ordinary protective services to the dip city." Mr. McBrien went on to say that Mr. MOLINARI. Would the gentle lomatic community. man from Minnesota explain, if he even if 400 Federal agents were perma What this legislation does is recog nently deployed in New York City, the would-there seems to have been some nize the reality of increase security confusion about an alternate bill, that Federal Government would still have threats to foreign diplomats and mis to reimburse the city for use of city the Secretary of State was going to sions by providing for the necessary submit a separate bill providing for police in any large-scale operation resources to meet the increased need. such as the protection of a head of protection of foreign missions. Cou1 d Since December 1979, there have been the gentleman clear that question up state, security along the route of a mo 23 terrorist bombings in New York torcade carrying controversial diplo for us? City associated with diplomatic prop The CHAIRMAN. The time of the mats, and at 24-hour guard posts erty. In five cases, the bombs were re around threatened missions. gentleman from New York has ex moved prior to detonation. During pired. The fundamental issue addressed in 1981, the police department main this bill is that the Federal Govern tained fixed-post coverage at 54 diplo ~· STANGELAND. Mr. Chairman, ment has recognized its obligation to matic locations. In the same year, I yield the gentleman 2 additonal min provide protection to foreign diplo there were 16 visits to New York by 13 utes. mats and has delegated that responsi foreign dignitaries that required spe Well, to answer the gentleman, first bility to the city of New York without cial security measures. of all, there is no alternative bill to providing sufficient funding to cover Let me briefly mention the diplo H.R. 6254. The State Department has the city's necessary efforts. H.R. 6254 matic protection arrangement here in submitted to OMB and OMB has merely removes the inconsistency of the District of Columbia, since this is cleared and is sending to the Speaker Congress recognizing a legitimate and the only other American city that has legislation that would permit the Sec necessary Federal expense but not a security situation resembling that of retary to reimburse State and local au paying for it. It also has the very New York. thorities only for extraordinary securi pleasant side effect of saving the Fed At present, the District assumes part ty functions and only with respect to eral Government money. I urge my certain security functions. It would be fell ow Members to support H.R. 6254. of the responsibility for diplomatic protection. The Federal Government limited to those functions that would Mr. STANGELAND. Mr. Chairman, be agreed to in advance. It would I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman assumes a large part because of the presence of the uniformed division of apply to consular offices. H.R. 6254 from New York (Mr. MOLINARI). ~oes not apply to consular offices, but Mr. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I the Secret Service in the District. The it applies to missions, missions that rise in support of the bill and would division works in tandem with the Dis are associated with the United Na like to make a few brief comments on trict police on diplomatic protection tions. the scope and purpose of the legisla and the financial burden is shared. It has been determined that putting Similarly, this proposed legislation tion. that the State Department has sub I think it is important that it is a contingent of uniformed Secret Serv ice agents in New York would be more mitted does not cover U.N. missions, made clear that this bill does nothing and so I, too, want to clear that up, to change the basic principles of local costly than having the New York Police Department provide protective that there is no alternative legislation responsibility for the protection of for at this time to H.R. 6254. eign missions and diplomatic person services and be reimbursed by the Fed eral Government. Mr. MOLINARI. I thank the gentle nel which ha've been a part of U.S. law man. I have one further question. for the past 6% 'years. Routine or ordi Many Members might have heard of nary diplomatic protection functions a forthcoming State Department pro We have heard mentioned on the are currently and will continue to be posal that will deal with diplomatic floor today that the administration provided for by local governments, in protection. Some have suggested that opposes this legislation. Does the gen cluding New York City. "Existing" we should delay consideration of this tleman know whether that is so? law-and I emphasize existing-now bill until the proposal is released. In Mr. STANGELAND. Well, I am provides that the Federal Government fact, I am told by the State Depart under the impression or the belief can reimburse State and local govern ment that the proposal as it now that the administration does oppose ments for services provided in connec stands would enable the Secretary of the legislation; but let me say that the tion with an extraordinary protective State to provide reimbursements to subcommittee and the committee took need that arises in association with a State and local governments in addi this under advisement at great length visit to or occurs at a permanent mis tion to New York for extraordinary and in the hearings that were held in sion to an international organization diplomatic protection services. There New York on May 7th and the subse of which the United States is a fore, the proposal endorses the princi quent hearings here. It was the con member. The law specifies that only ples behind the current law and can sensus, bipartisan support, that if we extraordinary protective services are only be seen as recognizing the need owe an obligation or a debt to New eligible for reimbursement and the for the Federal Government to play a York City or a bill to New York City, Treasury Department reviews each re role in diplomatic protection efforts. that bill ought to be paid. quest thoroughly. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we As I said in my opening remarks, the Present law, therefore, recognizes cannot ignore the increasing threats Secretary of the Treasury has verified that the presence of the United Na to foreign diplomats on American soil $13 million in legitimate expenses that tions headquarters in c~ew York and and the additional extraordinary pro are reimbursable, that have not been the resulting diplomatic traffic to and tective services required to protect reimbursed. from the headquarters place::> addition them as a part of our national obliga It is the contention of the subcom al security burdens on the police de tion. I urge my colleagues to recognize mittee and the contention of the full partment of the city of New York this as a national responsibility and committee that these debts ought to beyond that required of other U.S. vote in favor of this bill. be paid and they ought to be paid now. June 15, 1982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 13631 Mr. MOLINARI. Would the gentle cent. Congress then decided this proportion Marine Corps detachment to protect man know what the approximate cost was askew, which it surely was, and cut back our U.S. Embassy people at the U.N. was to the New York City Police De to 25 percent at that time. Throughout this period, the Soviet Union Therefore, I would say to all of my partment? and two of its republics had three votes in conservative colleagues who may be The CHAIRMAN. The time of the the General Assembly to one for the United prone to oppose this legislation to vote gentleman from New York has again States. The three Soviet members kick in 13 for it because Members are not voting expired. percent of the U.N. funds, a hair more than to supply moneys for the U.N.; you are Mr. STANGELAND. Mr. Chairman, half of the American contribution. voting to reimburse New York City for I yield the gentleman an additional 30 A lack of influence in relation to dollars is not the only thing we should think about. those expenditures incurred for police seconds. protection. Mr. MOLINARI. Would the gentle Where those dollars go is something we should examine carefully. For instance, I think it is vitally needed. I would man know what the cost to New York nearly 30 United Nations officials get sala City was when Pope John Paul visited say if the legislation does pass, I will ries of more than $100,000 a year. And that use whatever influence I have with New York City in 1979? fleet of limousines on the East River is not Mr. STANGELAND. I do not have the cheapest mode of travel. the White House to see that they sign that exact figure, I am sorry. It was an America's $1 billion supports dozens of this legislation into law. extensive cost. • global organizations. Many must be worth- Mr. FARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield Mr. MOLINARI. Well, would the They say in this editorial, and I dis such time as he may consume to the chairman of the committee yield? agree- gentleman from Georgia ' 13642 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 15, 1982 point out to the whole world those At this time, it is my personal privi Mr. GAYDOS. I want to t{lank my countries that are not adhering to the lege to yield to a very active member colleague from Pennsylvania. international trade law; those who of the executive committee, the gen Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the practice their little tricks and their de tleman from Pennsylvania Federal tax revenues rose by 15.8% in 1981- April 1982, most indexes of commodity FOUNDERS OF MONETARISM far more than the incomes of taxpayers. prices were at least 15-20 percent lower Marginal tax rates are still going up, not It can, of course, be argued that what we than a year before. Cotton was down about are experiencing is not genuine monetarism. down. 1 Does anyone really believe that the 2.5 percent-the same as in 1932-aluminum economy would have performed better if When reality fails to live up to the promise prices were down even more. Even the broad of theory, it is always the fault of reality. the tax collector had grabbed an even larger indexes of producer and consumer prices share? Nondefense spending will be at least Since October 1979, when the Fed did most had posted some monthly declines. Even as of what the monetarists advised, interest 17.4 percent of GNP in fiscal 1982, up from the old guard was chanting that budget 15.9 percent in 1979. Would anyone serious rates, M, and the economy have gyrated deficits cause inflation, inflation again went wildly. The monetarist response is that the ly argue that recession could have been way down as the deficit went up-just as in avoided if the O.M.B. had only let federal problem originated with lagged reserve re 1975, or 1933. quirements in 1968, or the Fed should have spending drift even higher? Yet even falling prices fail to persuade No, the problem is monetary, not fiscal. stepped even harder and faster on monthly bond buyers that they will not be exploited ups and downs of M, 89-059 0-86-30 (Pt. 10) 13662 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 15, 1982 (B) by inserting "and ending with the first dar quarter ending on December 31 of any (2) by striking out "major" in subsection calendar quarter which ends not less than fiscal year shall be submitted not later than (c) both places it appears in paragraph (1) 30 days after the date of the enactment of 20 days after the President transmits the and paragraph (2). the Department of Defense Authorization Budget to the Congress for the following Act, 1983," in paragraph (1) after "Decem fiscal year, and the reports for the other H.R. 6094 ber 31, 1979,"; and three calendar quarters of any fiscal year By Mr. FRENZEL: (C) by adding paragraph (1) the following shall be submitted not later than 30 days -On page 3, line 18, strike the figure new paragraphs: after the end of the calendar quarter. If a "$568,801,000" and insert in lieu thereof the "(2) Beginning with the first calendar preliminary report is submitted for any cal figure "$530,524,000". quarter which begins not more than 30 days endar quarter, then the final report for -On page 4, strike lines 8 through 12 and after the date of the enactment of the De insert in lieu thereof: partment of Defense Authorization Act, such calendar quarter shall be submitted to the Congress not later than 15 days after "(c)(l) No part of any sum that is appro 1983, the Secretary of Defense shall submit priated under the authority of subsection to the Congress each calendar quarter a the submission of such preliminary report. may be used- written selected acquisition report for all de " (3) The requirement contained in para "(A) for administrative expenses to pay fense systems which are estimated, in the graph (2) to report on a particular defense any employee of the United States Customs estimate used in planning each such defense system may be waived by a majority vote of Service overtime pay to an amount exceed system, to require a total cumulative financ the members present and voting, a quorum ing $25,000; or ing for research, development, test, and of the committee being present, of both the "CB> to implement any procedure relating evaluation of the defense system in excess Committee on Armed Services of the Senate to the time of collection of estimated duties of $200,000,000 or a cumulative production and the Committee on Armed Services of that shortens the maximum 10-day defer investment for the defense system in excess the House of Representatives."; and ment procedure in effect on January 1, of $1,000,000,000. The report for the calen- 1981.
<<