LET'S NOT GIVE DEADLY STINGER WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 7, 2011
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: April 22, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3
April 22, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 2055
theory, unaware that they are but
worshipping ancient idols in modern
disguise. According to the Cincinnati
Daily Gazette of January 3, 1879, Gen.
(later President) James A. Garfield
stated in an address in Chicago, to cel-
ebrate R-day (Resumption day, Janu-
ary 2, 1879):
We shall still hear echoes of the old con-
flict, such as the "barbarism and cowardice
of gold" and the "virtues of fiat money,"
but the theories which gave them birth will
linger among us like belated ghosts, and
soon find rest in the political grave of dead
issues ' ' '.
General Garfield evidently respected
the wisdom of our people too much to
expect that a later generation, such as
the present one, would not permit the
theories advocating the "virtues" of
fiat money to "rest in the political
grave of dead issues." What General
Garfield called a "periodical craze"
swept over this country in 1971 and
thereafter with a force apparently
never before experienced by our
people. The end of this great disease is
not yet in sight. If past experience
provides any worthwhile lessons, the
ultimate consequences of our failure
to stop this craze promise to be ex-
tremely painful. Conversely, if we rise
to the challenge and put an end to this
craze now, we shall solve the major
part of the economic problems of our
Nation, including the problems of run-
away debt and runaway deficits. And
we shall solve it in a painless, not to
say pleasurable way.
LET'S NOT GIVE DEADLY STING-
ER WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS
(Mr. DURBIN asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, in the
past week we have become acutely
aware of the risks of terrorist attacks
against American citizens at home and
abroad. We are evacuating Americans
from the Sudan, stepping up security
at our airports, Embassies, and mili-
tary bases. But at the same time, other
actions of our Government could be
placing Americans at even greater risk.
In recent weeks the administration
has begun sending guerrilla groups
one of the most dangerous weapons on
the market, the Stinger antiaircraft
missile.
The Stingers have already gone to
guerrillas involved in covert operations
in Angola and Afghanistan as part of a
new United States policy to offer more
sophisticated weapons to the United
States-supported guerrilla groups. The
Stingers are on their way. But we have
absolutely no control over their ulti-
mate fate. The administration has no
guarantee that these weapons will not
be sold or stolen or transferred into
the hands of terrorists seeking to re-
taliate against the United States.
Imagine this weapon in the'hands of a
Mu'ammar Qadhafi. The state-of-the-
art Stinger is deadly accurate, easy to
hide and operate, and can shoot down
not only military aircraft but a com-
mercial airliner.
How can we be sure these weapons,
though shipped to guerrilla groups we
might support, will not end up surrep-
ticiously in the hands of Qadhafi and
his allies, people who would like noth-
ing better than a sophisticated and
spectacular means of retaliation
against the United States?
Screening devices and searches
would pale into insignificance next to
the very real threat that a terrorist
could stand hundreds of yards from a
runway and strike, kill hundreds of in-
nocent people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
join in the fight against giving deadly
weapons to terrorists by sponsoring
the resolution I have introduced with
the gentleman from Oregon [Mr.
AuCoiN] to ban the transfer of Sting-
ers to guerrilla and paramilitary
groups.
STANDARD IN JUDGING
UNITED STATES AND LIBYAN
ACTIONS
(Mr. PARRIS asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I take
the floor today frustrated, but not
really surprised, by the requirement of
the United States, Britain, and France
to veto a resolution considered by the
United Nations' Security Council yes-
terday to condemn the recent United
States action against Libyan terrorists.
The resolution, did not mention
events leading up to the United States
action and instead mention Libya only
as a victim of an armed attack by the
United States.
This is simply another case in which
the U.N. majority is using a double
standard in practicing selective indig-
nation over alleged abuses by the
United States and other Western na-
tions while so often overlooking out-
rages committed by Socialist and Com-
munist countries.
Voting in favor of the resolution
were such well-recognized nonaligned
nations as Bulgaria, Congo, Ghana,
Madagascar, United Arab Emirates,
and the Soviet Union.
Calling this group nonaligned is like
being called ugly by a frog.
If a terrorist were standing beside
you with a stinger antiaircraft missile
on his shoulder, he could shoot any of
those airplanes down. He could do it
from more than 10 square miles of the
Washington area, or from a compara-
ble area in most of the world's major
cities.
If terrorists get these missiles, every
air traveler in the world will be at
their mercy.
Terrorists don't have these missiles
today. But tomorrow they could, with
the administration's decision to give
them to paramilitary forces in Afgan-
istan and Angola. Whatever the vi-
tures of these groups, airtight control
of their weapons isn't among them.
Transfer of Stingers to paramilitary
forces is a terrorist's dream. It is dan-
gerous and dumb. I invite you to join
Mr. DURBIN and me in cosponsoring
legislation to prohibit this transfer. If
we don't stop it now, the time will
come when we'll wish we had.
THERE IS A "STINGER" IN THE
HOUSE
(Mr. WALKER asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, a
couple of Members were speaking of
Stingers here a few minutes ago. Well,
a few minutes ago before that the
American people just got stung. We
had a resolution pass this House by
unanimous consent that has the effect
of increasing the outside earnings that
Members of Congress are allowed to
make by $7,500.
There was an end run around the
committee process, an end run done
around the procedure supposedly es-
tablished on this floor for unanimous
consent resolutions, to the floor. Sup-
posedly, supposedly the rule that says
that the minority leader has to be con-
sulted, the minority whip has to be
consulted, the majority leader has to
be consulted, the majority whip, that
the chairmen of the committees have
to be consulted and the ranking
member.
I understand those procedures were
not followed, that in fact we have a
resolution that passed this House that
has the effect of increasing the earn-
ings of the Members of this Congress
substantially, passed here by unani-
mous consent and was done so by an
end run.
REQUEST TO VACATE CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS
Mr. WALKER. So therefore. Mr.
Speaker, I would ask unanimous con-
sent that the proceedings by which
House Resolution 427 was approved be
vacated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
MONTGOMERY). Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. WALKER]?
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objec-
tion is heard.
STINGER: THE TERRORISTS'
DELIGHT
(Mr. AuCOIN asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. AuCOIN. Mr. Speaker, as we do
our daily mile of trotting between the
House Chamber and our offices, pause
for a moment and look south. There
you'll see passenger airliners climbing
out from National Airport.
Approved For Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3
 Approved For Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3
H 2056 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 22, 1986
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman from protecting the process that he says gentleman's objection that is standing
New York has objected, so therefore should not bring up a unanimous-con- in the way of achieving getting back to
the gentleman from New York stands sent resolution in a Chamber that is a relatively neutral position on this
in favor of raising the outside earn- empty. When I asked unanimous con- and so that the discussion can take
ings, with an end run, by $7,500 for sent to vacate the proceedings and place.
every Member of Congress. allow the Members an additional Mr. Speaker, do I understand the
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, will the $7,500 in outside earnings, that is pre- gentleman will still object?
gentleman yield? cisely the procedure that was used Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I still
Mr. WALKER. I will be glad to yield here a few minutes ago in order to object.
to the gentleman. pass the resolution. An empty Cham- Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I with-
Mr. GARCIA. I thank the gentle- ber was used, and nonconsultation draw my reservation of objection.
man for yielding. with the appropriate people was used,
Frankly, I am hearing this for the and we had this thing passed without The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
first time. And until such time as the the appropriate clearances having there objection to the request of the
proper authorities on both sides of the been made. gentleman from New York?
aisle can have an opportunity to talk Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, reserv-
about it, I will continue to object. ^ 1240 ing the right to object, I do not object,
Mr. WALKER. That is the proce- And now what the gentleman is sug- but I simply would like to inform the
dure under which we supposedly oper- gesting is, having done this end-run House the minority has no objection
ate here, that we do get things cleared. around the House, a chance to vacate to the legislation now being consid-
They were not cleared, that and get us back to neutral ground ered.
So the gentleman has, in effect, is in fact wrong. That is my problem. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, I
1.
l
_-1-
e _
P
i
-1.. t
t.-_
___
l_ - `?_ -- -_ .
ed t
h
e
p
f
rec
s
he situ
that the
t
e outsid
- t
o
wily lie to live with that. the resolution that is in fact, I think, a sor of House Journal Resolution 595,
wrongful resolution. to designate October 16, 1986, as
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that what "World Food Day."
the gentleman would allow is to do is (Mr
OILMAN asked and was
iven
.
g
(Mr. WEISS asked and was given by unanimous consent to get us back permission to revise and extend his re-
permission to address the House for 1 to ground zero, and then bring the res- marks.)
minute and to revise and extend his olution up, as the gentleman has sug- Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank
remarks,) gested, when there are people in the the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, I would House and we can look at this thing. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the
yield at this time to my distinguished There is no earthly reason why we distinguished chairman of the subcom-
friend from New York [Mr. GARCIA]. should allow $7,500 of increased earn- mittee, the gentleman from New York
Mr. GARCIA. Well, I do not want to ings by Members of Congress to pass [Mr. GARCIA], and the ranking minori-
get into a quarrel with my colleague this body by unanimous consent, and ty member, the gentleman from Utah
from Pennsylvania. But this is some- yet that is what was allowed here Just [Mr. HANSEN], for bringing this meas-
thing that has come up very suddenly. a few moments ago. ure up at an early date in order to
I think people have made decisions. I Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to yield to enable the administration, the Mem-
disagree. not necessarily saying I agree or the gentleman from New York. bers of Congress, aoem-
entire
disagree. What I am saying is that to Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I have tribute
make a unanimous-consent request no response. I will just say what I said Natioandn nay to proper gather respects to and nde together our
in World
when the Chamber is empty, before before. There are leaders on the ten-
the principals have an opportunity to tleman's side of the aisle who were Food Speaker, peaker, events such as the
talk about this, I would continue to elected by the people on the gentle- concert the U.S.A. for
object. man's side and leaders on this side. I "Live Spre the
I would ask my colleague from Penn- believe that that leadership, which I Africa Aid" " c production ncer and o only part of the "W aentre he
in-
sylvania that he talk to the leadership might add is excellent leadership for world"
credible contribution thousands of
on his side, have the leadership on his both sides, should have the opportuni- Americans are making toward ending
side discuss it with the leadership on ty to discuss it. I am certain that they Ald h
our side and let us see if we can re- can come back and do the same thing unger.
solve it. that the gentleman from Pennsylvania Since 1979, the National Committee
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the is trying to do here, and I would have for World Food Day, under the leader-
gentleman yield? no objection. ship of its chairwoman, Patricia
Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, I yield Mr. WALKER. The gentleman is ab- Young, and the auspices of the World
back the balance of my time. solutely right. But those leaders were Food and Agriculture Organization
not consulted with. That is the prob- [FAO] has undertaken hundreds of
WORLD FOOD DAY lem. The procedures that the Speaker projects and programs related to the
has laid out for unanimous-consent world's hunger problem. Without
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I ask resolutions to be brought forward world food day and the organizations
unanimous consent that the Commit- were in fact violated. involved , with its celebration, the
tee on Post Office and Civil Service be I have here a copy of it, and it says, ground swell needed that made the
discharged from further consideration frankly, that the unanimous consent massive media events possible would
of the Senate joint resolution (S.J. can only be brought up when assured never have existed.
Res. 296) to designate October 16, that the majority and minority leader- Yet, despite this outpouring of sup-
1986, as "World Food Day," and ask ship, the committee and subcommittee port, the problem of world hunger per-
for its immediate consideration. chairmen and the ranking minority sists. A recent world bank study states
The Clerk read the title of the members have no objection. That pro- that "since 1980 one-third of the popu-
Senate joint resolution. cedure, it is my understanding, was lation of 87 developing countries, 730
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is not followed here. That is the objec- million people, did not eat enough to
there objection to the request of the tion. The only way that we can get lead active working lives." And half,
gentleman from New York? back to ground zero is to vacate the 340 million, "subsisted on a Diet that
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, reserv- proceedings that violated that particu- stunts growth and severely jeopardizes
ing the right to object, and I shall not lar order, and then consult with the health." UNICEF informs us that
object because I have no problem with leadership and make certain that ev- every 24 hours 42,000 children under
the resolution, but I do think an ex- erybody gets consulted with. That is the age of 5 the as a result of hunger
planation is in order. The gentleman is all I am trying to achieve. It is the and related diseases.
Approved For Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3
 Approved For Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3
April 22, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE S 4641
at expanding the VOA's ability to reach
areas such as central Russia and to avoid
jamming behind the Iron Curtain.
Large sums also have gone to such ven-
tures as the creation of Radio Marti, a sepa-
rate radio network under VOA direction
that beams daily broadcasts to Cuba; In-
creasing by 200,000 a year the number of
American books put into foreign circulation;
a new system to teach English to foreigners,
and an Artistic Ambassadors program that
selects a number of talented young Ameri-
can musicians to tour other countries, giving
concerts and conducting classes.
But of all these projects, WORLDNET
perhaps best illustrates the mix of "global
village" technology, glossy packaging and
sky's-the-limit thinking that Wick and other
savvy media operators have brought to the
task of putting the administration into the
forefront of international propaganda ef-
forts.
During the past 21/z years, through
WORLDNET the U.S. government has been
able to reach 30 countries to stage news con-
ferences with such top officials as Secretary
of State George P. Shultz and Defense Sec-
retary Caspar W. Weinberger, to show for-
eign audiences live coverage of a congres-
sional hearing, and to help American scien-
tists and scholars talk with their colleagues
in other lands.
When the leaders of several African coun-
tries threatened to boycott the 1984 Olym-
pic Gaines in Los Angeles, some were in-
duced to change their minds after WORLD-
NET let them exchange views with Peter
Ueberroth, organizer of the games, and Tom
Bradley, the black mayor of Los Angeles.
Since last April, WORLDNET also has
been transmitting two hours of regular pro-
gramming each weekday to Western
Europe, where cable TV systems make it
available to more than 3.2 million European
households and hotels. Viewers get a half-
hour of news and a variety of other fare
ranging from cultural programs to Washing-
ton sportscaster George Michael's "Sports
Machine."
Similar daily programming in Spanish and
Portuguese is scheduled to begin this spring
to Latin America. And by late this year,
USIA says it hopes to begin additional re-
gional WORLDNET services to the Middle
East, East Asia and Africa.
"The only problem with WORLD-NET Is
that it's ahead of its time. The facilities
don't yet exist in other countries to make
full use of its potential," said Leonard
Marks, who headed USIA under President
Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. "But it's
the wave of the future. It's what all major
countries someday will be using to tell their
stories, and it's the United States that's
showing them the way."
In addition to USIA, the administration's
propaganda weapons include the Board for
International Broadcasting, which since
1974 has administered the two "surrogate"
radio operations established by the Central
Intelligence Agency in the early 1950s:
Radio Liberty, which broadcasts to the
Soviet Union, and Radio Free Europe, aimed
at Moscow's East European satellites.
But it is USIA, with its more wide-ranging
functions, that is the center of the adminis-
tration's web of propaganda activities. That
has made Wick the most influential USIA
director since the late Edward R. Murrow
during the Kennedy administration.
Unlike the suave and sophisticated
Murrow, Wick-a former lawyer, nursing
home owner, band leader, movie producer
and real estate investor-has the personal
style of a rough-edged, lone-wolf Hollywood
deal maker. He begins a newspaper inter-
view by telling the reporter, "I have to say
that a lot of the stuff that's been written
about me in the press was pretty scurri-
lous." Then he adds deadpan: "Why, some
of it wasn't even true."
His fondness for one-liners has not Inter-
ferred with his ability to translate his
friendship with the first family into funding
support once undreamed of in his tradition-
ally cash-starved agency. Moreover, even
people who disagree with his politics or dis-
like him personally concede that Wick un-
derstands the art of communication and has
a natural Instinct for innovation.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair-
man Dante B. Fascell (D-Fla.), who has
watched the USIA closely over the years,
says: "Despite some overzealous rhetoric
and some mistakes in his method of oper-
ation, Wick has done an extremely effective
job of modernizing the agency.... No one
has been more innovative and imaginative
in waging the war of Ideas."
Such praise hasn't been heard too often at
an agency that long was scorned by the pro-
fessional diplomats of the State Department
and kept on a tight leash by Congress. Its
charter, which stresses that the agency's
mission is to inform people in other coun-
tries about the United States, has created
innumerable internal conflicts over the
years about what USIA could or couldn't do
in furthering that goal.
"Under the Carter administration, for ex-
ample, there was a tendency to deny the
idea that USIA should advocate anything at
all," recalled Stanton H. Burnett, a career
officer who now oversees USIA programs as
counselor of the agency. "The feeling was
that we should function as a semi-news
agency and a semi-entertainment agency
but that in the realm of Ideas we should be
no more than a conveyor belt for every
stripe of opinion."
Wick, while conceding there has been
"something of a pendulum swing" away
from that approach, Insisted that his guid-
ing principle at USIA "is to tell the world
about America in all its diversity. It's simply
not true that I came aboard as the chief
apostle of a right-wing takeover and the
chief subverting agent of a conspiracy to
bend USIA and the Voice of America to our
philosophy. There may be people who
wanted to do that, but Congress had made it
very clear that that's against the rules."
But he added, "Telling about America
means telling people about America's for-
eign policy. Right now that policy is set by
Ronald Reagan and if we're going to tell the
story accurately, we have to make clea
what President Reagan believes in and wha
his policies stand for. There may be peopl
who don't like those policies, but that
doesn't lessen our responsibility to explain
them with forthright journalistic accuracy."
At the moment, Wick's attention is fo-
cused primarily on following up his January
trip to Moscow, where he discussed plans
for the cultural exchanges agreed to by
Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorba-
chev at the Geneva summit last November.
The agreements, the only concrete result
of the summit, call for reviving a series of
U.S.-Soviet exchanges that were suspended
after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghani-
stan. Reagan also proposed a new program
of people-to-people exchanges financed on
the U.S. side by private sector contributions.
At present, they are the only initiatives
showing promise of progress in the drive to
improve U.S.-Soviet relations, and USIA has
the responsibility for implementing them.
DEATH OF CHIEF JUDGE H.
CARL MOULTRIE
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish
to pay tribute to a truly outstanding
Jurist, Chief Judge H. Carl Moultrie of
the District of Columbia Superior
Court, who recently died.
Judge Moultrie set an example of
hard work and thoughtful deliberation
in carrying out his duties. He main-
tained a full-bench schedule even after
becoming chief fudge in 1978. I know
that his colleagues will miss his leader-
ship and direction, and his city will
miss his tireless devotion to home rule,
but both his bench and his city are
stronger for his work.
Mr. President, Judge Moultrie was
appointed an associate Judge of the su-
perior court in 1972: Prior to that he
had been a newspaper columnist, a
probation officer, a business executive,
and then a practicing lawyer for over
15 years. His activity in community
service is unparalleled in the District
of Columbia. He was active in church,
fraternal, neighborhood, social, and
criminal justice groups throughout
the community and the ' Nation, was
known to almost every citizen of the
District of Columbia and has been
honored by scores of local and nation-
al organizations. He was a past presi-
dent of the D.C. branch of the
NAACP, a board member of the Amer-
ican Lung Association and the D.C.
Heart Association, and an active
member of literally dozens of commu-
nity groups.
He was a graduate of Lincoln Uni-
versity (1936) and Lincoln University
Theological Seminary (1938). He
earned an M.A. from New York Uni-
versity (1952) and a law degree from
Georgetown University Law School
(1956), numerous postgraduate certifi-
cates in the fields of business and law
and an honorary doctor of laws from
Lincoln University (1979).
Mr. President, I want to extend my
sympathy to his widow, Sara, and his
son, H. Carl II, as well as Judge Moul-
trie's two grandchildren, and to thank
them for sharing this remarkable man
with the community he loved.
STINGER POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, I
have introduced a bill, S. 2286, which
would simply require democratic re-
sistance forces in Angola and Afghani-
stan to agree to the same security con-
trols for Stinger missiles as we have
with friendly NATO allies. Let me em-
phasize that this should not and
cannot be construed as a vote for or
against democratic resistance forces
but for safeguards and security con-
trols In a world increasingly threat-
ened by terrorism. When Colonel Qa-
dhafi says that he will export terror-
ism to America and "pursue U.S. citi-
zens in their country and streets," we
must protect ourselves.
I would like to bring to the attention
of my colleagues two recent articles
concerning topics of interest to all
Americans. The first article is an edi-
torial that appeared in the April 3,
1986, edition of the Los Angeles Times.
Approved For Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3
 Approved For Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3
S 4642 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
It is titled "Stinging Peace Prospects"
and is a very thoughtful analysis of
the chilling considerations that the
Stinger missile has when introduced
into a specific region of conflict. This
article also discusses the millions of
dollars in weapons intended for the
democratic resistance that have fallen
into the hands of a vast black market.
The second article appeared in the
April 16, 1986, edition of the Washing-
ton Post. This is titled "Truck Ex-
plodes Near AF Base West of Tokyo."
It is likely that terrorist groups parked
this truck outside the U.S. Air Force
base to further export violence and de-
struction against U.S. targets. The ar-
ticle states that "The truck contained
rocket launchers which detonated
before launching. The quantity of
launchers is presently unknown."
What if these had been confiscated
Stinger missiles, Mr. President?
Mr. President, I urge all of my col-
leagues to read these articles, and I
ask unanimous consent that they be
printed in the REcoiw.
There being no objection, the arti-
cles were ordered to be printed in the
REcoan, as follows:
[From the Los Angeles Times, Apr. 3, 19861
STINGING PEACE PROSPECTS
The next step in implementing the
Reagan Doctrine apparently will be to place
more sophisticated American weapons in
the hands of the guerrillas around the
world whom the President insists on calling
"freedom fighters." That would be a terrible
mistake.
Initial reports have suggested that the
muJahideen fighting the Soviet invaders in
Afghanistan, and Jonas Savimbi's UNITA
guerrilla force fighting to overthrow the
Marxist government of Angola in Southern
Africa, would be the first beneficiaries of
the new policy. Then, it is suggested, more
such weapons would make their way to the
contras seeking to overthrow the Marxist
Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.
Among the top-line weapons under consid-
eration for export to these groups is the
Stinger surface-to-air missile, an anti-air-
craft weapon that can seek out a target five
miles away and up to an altitude of 4,500
feet. It would be particularly effective in
downing helicopter gunships pursuing the
guerrillas.
Advocates of the exports are convinced
that the weapons would tilt the balance of
war to the guerrillas. Perhaps. But even
more certain would be an escalation of the
wars. The Soviet Union, which supplies the
governments in each of these nations, would
have no choice but to send in deadlier weap-
ons. However dim the prospect for negotiat-
ed settlements may be in these complex
wars, that prospect would-be all the dimmer
with the introduction of these lethal mis-
siles.
There is another chilling consideration.
Especially in Afghanistan and at the bases
in Pakistan that supply the guerrillas fight-
ing the Soviet Invaders in Afghanistan,
there is stack security. Millions of dollars in
weapons, intended for the resistance, al-
ready have fallen into the hands of a vast
black market. Protection of a weapon of the
value of a Stinger would be impossible. A
great risk would arise that at least some of
them would make their way into the hands
of international terrorists. The Stinger is, as
a recent report in the Christian Science
Monitor pointed out, "the ultimate terrorist
weapon." They are easily hidden, easily
transported, fired by a single person. No
civil aircraft in the free world would be safe
from them. And it is no comfort to say that
it really doesn't matter because the Soviet
version of the weapon, the SA-?B, already is
widely available.
There has always been a need for caution
by Washington in the support that it has
given to the resistance in Afghanistan. Af-
ghanistan lies along the Soviet border, and
Moscow can always outmatch and outsupply
more distant nations. The level of arms
there should be appropriate to the main-
taining of pressure for a settlement, not to
the triggering of a further terrible escala-
tion of that brutal invasion.
Angola is an entirely different matter.
Washington tends to forget that the Cuban
troops and advisers that are based in Angola
are in large measure in response to the guer-
rilla war that has been mounted against the
government. This is not a case of a nation
held hostage by an invading force. The only
invading force in Angola has been the army
of South Africa, arrayed in support of Sa-
vimbi's guerrillas. There has been a commit-
ment to a negotiated settlement breached
not by Angola but by South Africa. The
good faith of the Angolan government has
been evident in its commercial ties to the
United States that have assured the flow of
its petroleum to the free world. Washington
only squanders its power and corrupts its
commitment to freedom in giving arms and
comfort to the Savimbi guerrillas.
Introduction of the Stinger in the war in
Nicaragua would risk even more serious con-
sequences. The Sandinista regime in Mana-
gua has resisted activating the advanced
fighter aircraft offered by its Soviet and
Cuban allies, and a tacit weapons-technolo-
gy lid has been placed on the war until now.
But if the most advanced portable anti-air-
craft missiles are handed over to the con-
tras, an escalation of unpredictable conse-
quences would be inevitable. The careful ef-
forts of the Contadora nations to produce a
permanent peace would be undermined, if
not destroyed.
All three insurrections-in Afghanistan, in
Angola and in Nicaragua-have in these
days a new prospect for peaceful settlement.
The impatience of those who somehow
think that they can impose their will and
their solutions should not be allowed,
through the triggering of a new escalation,
to shatter that prospect and to deepen the
death and devastation of these wars.
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 16, 1986]
TRUCK EXPLODES NEAR AF BASE WEST OF
TOKYO
TOKYO, April 15.-A truck with a five-.
tube rocket-launching device exploded in
flames tonight near a U.S. Air Force base
west of Tokyo, police and base officials said,
and the fins of one projectile were found
inside the base.
No injuries or damage to the base were re-
ported.
A police official, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said the explosion occurred at
about 8:40 p.m. about a mile northeast of
the base at Yokota, 21 miles from Tokyo.
He said it was not known if any rockets
were launched from the truck.
Lt. Jim Reagan, a public affairs officer at
Yokota, said security police found the fins
of one rocket in an open area inside the
base.
He said Japanese police reported that the
vehicle, parked in a tea field, contained five
rocket-launching tubes that were empty. He
said base and Japanese police were investi-
gating.
In Washington, Pentagon officials re-
leased a statement saying the truck that ex-
April 22, 1986
ploded had forged license plates. "The truck
contained rocket launchers which detonated
before launching. The quantity of launchers
in the vehicle is presently unknown," the
statement said.
No person or group asserted responsibility
for the attack. Missile attacks last month
were aimed at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo
and other buildings, including the main site
of the summit meeting of industrial nations
planned for Tokyo in May. Responsibility
for those attacks was claimed by leftist radi-
cal groups opposed to the summit and to
celebrations of the 60th anniversary of Em-
peror Hirohito's reign.
White House spokesman Larry Speakes
said, "It's too early" to connect Libyan
leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi with the
Yokota attack.
The United States and Libya are in a mili-
tary confrontation arising from terrorist at-
tacks which Washington says were linked
with the Qadhafi government.
MITTS ACROSS THE SEA
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to
pay tribute to a sensitive and resource-
ful editor in my State, and to thou-
sands of other generous Michiganites
who recently showed America at its
best. These folks reached across thou-
sands of miles and put into the out-
stretched hands of poor children in a
faraway land the prized possessions of
their own childhood, so that those
youngsters might have the stuff to
make a dream come true. With their
generous action, these Michiganites
demonstrated beautifully how a caring
spirit can transcend national divisions
and ideological differences.
This spirit was demonstrated in a
dusty city of 125,000 in the Dominican
Republic named San Pedro de Mar-
coris. The city has achieved consider-
able attention among sports fans in
the United States because it has pro-
duced a remarkable-for its size-
number of baseball players for the
U.S. major leagues, more than a dozen.
Last February, a story in the Detroit
Free Press noted that those well-paid
athletes come home to San Pedro in
the off-season, some of them to fine
homes they have built with their earn-
ings. The story told how the big lea-
guers are heroes to the poor kids of
San Pedro, and how their homes are
symbols of what can be achieved with
disciplined skill. So those kids play a
lot of baseball, too-with a passion,
with a fire to get good enough to
become another Pedro Guerrero or
Joaquin Andujar or Pedro Gonzalez.
But they have little more than pas-
sion-no mitts, no real bats, no horse-
hide balls. They protect their catching
hands with cardboard and cans, swing
away with tree limbs and table legs at
rubber balls bound with rubber bands.
It's enough to make even a tough
editor in Detroit blink in sympathy.
And, back in Detroit, in February,
such an editor did blink, and think.
Neal Shine, the managing editor of
The Detroit Free Press, thought back
to his own childhood, when he and his
friends played baseball on the street
or in a vacant lot, and dreamed of
Approved For Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3
 Approved For Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3
April 18, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks E 1265
which also has problems with Jerusalem
and with Israel's borders, takes the logical
position of recognizing Israel within its 1967
frontiers, and declaring the disputed territo-
ries subject to negotiation. Alone among
West European states, the Vatican rejects
this approach and refuses to recognize
Israel.
Why? For the Vatican, the existence of a
reborn Jewish state is perhaps theologically
and certainly politically problematic. In
part it is a question of numbers; there are a
hundred million Arabs and only 4 million Is-
raelis. The Vatican, to which the practice of
Realpolitik has never been very foreign, can
count. There are 21 Arab states, some with
sizable Christian minorities. The Jews have
one state only.
That state did not merit a mention at the
Rome synagogue. (There is a precedent
here, Pope Paul VI visited Israel in 1964,
and not once during his stay in the country
did he ever pronounce the name Israel.) It
was right and good of the pope to denounce
anti-Semitism. But anti-Semitism is the
"Jewish problem" of yesterday. Anti-Zion-
ism-the threat to the safety and legitimacy
of Israel-is the Jewish problem of today.
The pope addressed the wrong Jewish
problem because he implicitly took the view
in his synagogue speech that Jews are ex-
clusively a religious community. Jews have
never thought so. They have always consid-
ered themselves a people.
To address Jews purely as a religious com-
munity is to deny their peoplehood. The
pope obviously does so without malice. But
others do so with malice. The charter of the
PLO calls for the eradication of Israel and
presents (Article 20) as a justification the
claim that Jews belong to a religion, not a
people. And religions have no claim to terri-
tory. (An awkward proposition, by the way,
when applied to Vatican City.)
In 1982 the pope received the guardian of
that charter, Yasser Arafat, which is bad
enough. But ignoring Israel rhetorically and
refusing to recognize Israel diplomatically
compounds the injury. It gives unfortunate,
if inadvertent, reinforcement to the premise
that Jewish peoplehood is a fiction and thus
Jewish statehood an error or worse.
After nearly 2,000 years of Christian anti-
Semitism-the "discrimination, unjustified
limitation of religious freedom, oppression"
which the pope deplored in his Rome
speech-something more is needed than a
call for mutual tolerance between Catholic
and Jew. That something is recognition of
Israel, now the hinge of Jewish life and
hope. The least one can do for a "dearly be-
loved brother" is recognize what is most
dear to him.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
LABOR LAW AMENDMENTS OF
1985
SPEECH OF
HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 17, 1986
The House in Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 281), to amend
the National Labor Relations Act to in-
crease the stability of collective bargaining
in the building and construction industry.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, we
have before us today the Construction Indus-
try Labor Law Amendments, H.R. 281, which
will remedy certain adverse decisions of the
National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] with
regard to the construction industry. From the
earliest days of the Wagner Act in 1935, it
was recognized that union election proce-
dures designed for the industrial workplace
could not be directly transferred to the con-
struction industry. A 1959 amendment to the
act, the Landrum-Griffin Act, permitted prehire
agreements and was intended to provide
workers in the construction industry with an
effective opportunity to secure union repre-
sentation.
Union certification procedures, which are
used in other industries covered by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, are usually imprac-
tical in the construction industry because
workers are constantly working at different job
sites, and projects may be completed before a
certification election can be held. For this
reason, current law permits employers and
unions to enter into "prehire" agreements
prior to construction and the hiring of employ-
ees. Under these agreements, an employer
and a union agree that work will be performed
in accordance with a union contract.
In recent years, however, two separate sets
of NLRB decisions have developed which
erode the ability of construction workers to
secure and retain the protections of collective
bargaining. One set of cases has permitted
the wholesale repudiation of lawful prehire
collective bargaining agreements. The other
set allows the avoidance of collective bargain-
ing agreements through corporate shell
games.
Under one set of cases, the Board held that
employers may repudiate valid prehire agree-
ments at will unless the union can prove that
the employer has a stable work force in which
it has established a majority support, or can
demonstrate majority support on each sepa-
rate job site. But stable work forces are a
rarity in this industry, which was the reason for
the original prehire amendment in 1959.
In the second set of cases, the Board per
gaining agreements through the use of
double-breasted-companies. A typical example
is company A, which has a collective bargain-
ing agreement with a union, sets up a related
company-company B-which it operates on
a nonunion basis. In some cases, most of the
work formerly done by company A is now
done by company B. In other situations, com-
pany A may go out of business altogether.
The Board placed its Imprimatur on this
double-breasting device, which then spawned
an ever-growing use of this technique for
avoiding lawful contracts. The structural char-
acteristics of the construction industry leaves
workers defenseless to such corporate manip-
ulations. The project-by-project ebb and flow
of the employment relationship allows for cor-
porate restructuring schemes and disappear-
ing acts with the greatest of ease.
To remedy these problems, the construction
industry labor law amendments specify that
multiple construction firms should be consid-
ered a single employer if there is a direct or
indirect common ownership, management, or
control among the nominally separate busi-
nesses engaged in the same or similar work.
It requires such employers to apply the terms
of a collective bargaining agreement to all of
their related entities within the geographical
area covered by the agreement.
Collective bargaining agreements will not be
imposed on truly separate or independent
companies. Instead, the bill requires that
common ownership, management and control
be considered in determining whether two or
more companies should be considered a
single employer. The bill would apply only to
companies that perform similar work in the
construction industry. The fact that one com-
pany has a small interest in another, or that
an individual company has dealings with the
other company would not be sufficient to de-
clare two companies a single employer. The
bill will, however, prevent a company with
union workers from setting up another non-
union company to perform the same work.
The bill merely prohibits employers or
unions from repudiating agreements, which
both have agreed to, before their expiration. It
does not expand the existing authority to
make prehire agreements in the construction
industry, and it does not impose a union on
employees against their will. Employees would
be allowed to decertify a union which repre-
sents them, but neither they nor the employer
would be permitted to break an agreement
into which both entered freely. The bill guar-
antees that after both parties have already
reached agreement, a company cannot break
prehire agreements at will, and force the
unions to demonstrate majority support
through a union certification election on every
job site.
I believe this legislation addresses the
unique collective bargaining complications in-
herent in the construction industry. The unusu-
al nature of collective bargaining in the con-
struction industry is no different today than it
was 27 years ago. Yet, this bill does not grant
new or expanded considerations to construc-
tion workers, but merely returns us-and the
NRLB-to the original intent of Congress
when it passed the Landrum-Griffin Act of
1959. I urge my colleagues to join me in sup-
port of this long overdue legislation.
LEGISLATION PROHIBITING THE
TRANSFER OF STINGERS
HON. LES AuCOIN
OF OREGON
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, April 18, 1986
Mr. AuCOIN. Mr. Speaker, Late last month,
Congress learned that the Reagan administra-
tion had reversed longstanding policy by de-
ciding to furnish highly sophisticated U.S. mili-
tary equipment as part of covert operations
overseas. According to recent news reports,
the administration plans to include Stinger
missiles in this new "arsenal for democracy."
I adamantly oppose this plan and along with
my colleague, Congressman DICK DURBIN,
have introduced legislation to prohibit the sale
or transfer of Stinger missiles to foreign para-
military forces.
At a time when the United States is fighting
an undeclared war against terrorism, world-
wide, we simply cannot afford to embark on a
policy that carries a risk that Stinger missiles
will fall into the hands of terrorists.
The Stinger is not some outdated weapon
cluttering up Pentagon warehouses. It is state-
.of-the-art U.S. technology, and what's more,
it's a valuable weapon our own soldiers could
use more of.
The Stinger works so well that when the
United States supplies this weapon to Saudi
Approved For Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3
 Approved For Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3
E 1266 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks
Arabia in 1984, we insisted on setting strict
conditions for its use. Yet, with no conditions,
news reports indicate that the White House
has apparently approved shipment of Stingers
to guerrilla groups in Angola and Afghanistan,
even though they have concluded that Sting-
ers are too sophisticated for use by the Con-
tras in Nicaragua.
If Congress worried about sending Stingers
to a sovereign government, we should be
doubly worried about supplying this weapon to
guerrilla groups with shifting alliances-and
shifting fortunes.
Stingers are small, they're effective and
they don't require maintenance. They're a top-
flight military weapon-and a perfect tool for
terrorists. A Stinger would be worth its weight
in gold to a madman like Muammar Qadhafi.
And that's the problem. The new adminis-
tration policy includes no guarantee that Sting-
ers won't be transferred or taken from a guer-
rilla group our Government is supporting and
given to a terrorist group we abhor. In fact, we
doubt that there's any way to guarantee
against it, and that's why the administration's
plan is so dangerous.
In the past 12 months, we have seen terror-
ists pick airports, airline offices, and commer-
cial jetliners as targets. Hundreds of people
have been killed in these attacks, scores
more wounded. With Stingers as part of the
equation, we might as well forget about ever
being able to protect the freedom of air travel.
Stingers could be easily concealed in urban
areas, and because of their long range, used
there against commercial airliners. Forget ef-
forts to upgrade airport security. Metal detec-
tors and baggage checks will offer no protec-
tion against a terrorist attack with a Stinger.
As a member of the Appropriations Commit-
tee, I have heard time and again from admin-
istration witnesses about the need to keep
U.S. military technology from falling into the
wrong hands. I have heard time and again of
the need to fund and initiate a more aggres-
sive policy to combat terrorism.
Supplying Stingers to paramilitary groups
that could be easily penetrated by agents of
the Soviets or of Qadhafi, does not make
sense. Sale or transfer of Stingers should only
be approved to meet the most vital national
security needs of the United States.
By supplying Stingers as part of covert op-
erations, the administration is increasing the
chances that the Soviets, or some terrorist
group, will steal one of our most effective mili-
tary weapons.
I am not quarreling, in this bill, with the
merits of current United States policy in
Angola and Afghanistan. That's a separate
issue. My sole concern is that supplying Sting-
ers as part and parcel of these operations
poses a terrorist threat to commercial air
safety.
To guard against this threat, my legislation
prohibits the transfer of Stingers to guerrilla or
paramilitary groups. It does not impinge on the
authority of the administration to conduct intel-
ligence or military operations overseas. It
does not affect current law regarding U.S.
arms sales or transfers to sovereign govern-
ments. The sole purpose of the bill is to re-
strict the transfer of Stingers to guerrilla or
paramilitary operations where we have no
control over who might ultimately gain control
of them, and to thwart even more ruthless at-
tacks on passenger airlines than anything
we've seen to date.
HON. MICHAEL D. BARNES
OF MARYLAND
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, April 18, 1986
Mr. BARNES. Mr. Speaker, the recent
change in attitude of the Reagan Administra-
tion toward the dictatorship of General Au-
gusto Pinochet in Chile is a welcome and re-
freshing one. The administration's policy, until
recently, has been one of quiet diplomacy,
trying to persuade General Pinochet to relin-
quish power after 13 years with an occasional
gentle nudge. As we are all painfully aware,
General Pinochet has not only ignored our
nudges, but more importantly, he has ignored
the cries of his own people for an early return
to democratic rule.
Lately, however, the administration has
taken some bold steps to illustrate U.S. frus-
tration with the Government of Chile. It intro-
duced a resolution in the United Nations con-
demning the violation of human rights in Chile,
and it listed Chile as one of the few remaining
dictatorships in a largely democratic hemi-
sphere. These are clearly signals that General
Pinochet can no longer ignore.
I would like to congratulate the administra-
tion for its recent moves in Chile, and to en-
courage it to take this policy even further. The
most powerful leverage that we have over
General Pinochet is the millions of dollars in
loans to his government pending this year in
the multilateral development banks. Let's
make it clear-with deeds as well as with
words-that the United States stands with the
democrats in Chile, not with the dictatorship.
The Washington Post editorial of April 2, the
full text of which follows, makes the most
cogent argument for an active U.S. policy in
support of a return to democracy in Chile: "It
is the smart way to fight communism, too."
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 2, 19861
COOLING ON CHILE
The Secretary of State now puts Chile on
the list of "odd men out," the surviving dic-
tatorships-Paraguay, Cuba and Nicaragua
are the others on his list-in a hemisphere
otherwise moving briskly toward democracy.
It is the latest in a nearly three-year series
of nudges meant to convey official Ameri-
can displeasure with President Augusto Pin-
ochet's style of military rule.
Unfortunately, the nudges are necessary.
In 1973 Gen. Pinochet ousted an elected
president who had brought Chile to civil
war by attempting to push a radical pro-
gram far beyond the bounds that his narrow
mandate 136 percent) could sustain. Gen.
Pinochet fashioned a system that now bids
to keep him in power for almost a full quar-
ter-century. Under his painfully undemo-
cratic constitution of 1980, the 69-year-old
ramrod can have himself elected, in a plebi-
scite without party competition, for a term
that would last, if he did, until 1997.
This prospect stirs two different groups of
Chileans. Leftists see a continuing dictator-
ship as an opportunity to get back into revo-
lutionary struggle. Centrists see it as a
deadly obstacle to Chile's return to democ-
racy. President Pinochet, in the name of re-
sisting the violent communist left, restrains
and oppresses the center. The left profits.
For a while after taking office, President
Reagan experimented with soft gestures
and quiet persuasion. The results were dis-
appointing, and he has turned to public crit-
icism of the regime's continuing abuses and
April 18, 1986
open encouragement of an accelerated
return to democracy. In practical terms,
that means legalizing the nonviolent parties
and holding real elections under a formula
other than the one by which President Pin-
ochet flouts Chile's established democratic
traditions now.
The administration had this policy in
train well before the changes in Haiti and
the Philippines made people aware of the
possibilities and benefits of a conservative
administration's efforts to democratize
right-wing regimes. Recently the adminis-
tration added a rhetorical flourish to this
policy with a brief but eye-catching pledge
to "oppose tyranny in whatever form,
whether of the left or the right," in a pro-
nouncement on regional security.
Chile is the right country for careful
American concern. The United States had
at least an indirect hand in the tragedy that
befell it in the 1970s; it still enjoys an influ-
ence in the 1980s. American favor and ac-
ceptance can be put to good use as induce-
ments for Chile's return to the democratic
path. It is the smart way to fight commu-
nism too.
LAKESHORE RESIDENTS NEED
RELIEF NOW FROM HIGH
LAKE LEVELS
HON. JACK F. KEMP
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, April 18, 1986
Mr. KEMP. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we
are all aware of the devastation and hardships
which have been imposed on residents living
near the Great Lakes as a result of the high
lake levels. Because every forecast points to
continued high levels at least through the
summer, with no real relief in sight, our con-
stituents will continue to wonder and worry
about when the next storm or strong winds
will hit, eating away at their property or de-
stroying their homes and belongings.
My own constituents, living on the shores of
Lake Erie, have been trying to cope with rising
lake levels for the last several years. Many
have seen their yards, piers, and stately old
trees slowly, but inexorably, disappear. Then,
a storm last December devastated the area.
While Lake Erie dropped by eight feet at
Toledo, OH, my constituents bore the brunt of
an 8-foot rise in the lake at Buffalo.
The December storm caused massive
amounts of damage. Homes were destroyed
or severely damaged, personal belongings
were lost, breakwalls were demolished, and
the lake continued to lap ominously close to
the peoples' homes. And, perhaps worst of
all, is the knowledge that this kind of storm,
with the accompanying devastation, could
easily strike again. Unless you have lived
through such an experience, I am sure most
people can only guess at the heartbreak and
trauma of such a disaster.
It has been frustrating to all of us to realize
that there are few Federal or State programs
established to deal with shoreline erosion and
the potential flooding caused by high lake
levels, combined with these storms. It also
has been frustrating to realize that there is no
quick, easy solution to the problem of high
lake levels. There is no plug at the bottom of
the lakes that we can pull so that the lake
levels will subside overnight.
Approved For Release 2011/01/07: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600910007-3