May 2, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5999 

Happened to the Schools; Totalitarianism 

and the Lie; Education in Defense of a Free 

Society; The Political Dilemma of American 

Jews; AIDS: Are Heterosexuals at Risk?; 

Against the Legalization of Drugs; How Good 

Was Leonard Bernstein?; The Professors and 

the Poor; Intermarriage and Jewish Survival; The Liberated Women; Authenticity 

and the Modern Unconscious; The Problem of 

Euthanasia. 

And the authors—Irving Kristol, Midge 

Decter, Thomas Sowell, Bernard Lewis, Lionel and Diana Trilling, Gertrude 

Himmelfarb, James Q. Wilson, Glenn C. 

Loury and dozens of other leading intellectuals and scholars. Mr. Podhoretz set a high 

standard for content. That standard obtained 

in the articles and also in the letters to the 

editor feature, which was as widely read as 

the articles. In fact, some readers who never 

managed to get articles accepted (and paid 

for) by Commentary got in anyway by writing long letters—for which there was no 

writer’s fee but the satisfaction at least of 

being published in Commentary. 

Commentary’s overwhelming achievement 

was its leadership in the world of culture in 

the fight against communism and the Soviet 

Union, one undertaken by the magazine’s 

first editor, Elliot Cohen. It is no exaggeration to say that Commentary in time became 

the scourge of the left, especially in culture. 

Major analyses of communist foreign policy 

by writers like Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Sidney 

Hook, Lexzesek, Kolakowsi, Richard Pipes 

and other scholars and by Mr. Podhoretz 

himself filled its pages. They were widely 

discussed and were read in Congress and the 

White House. And all this, mind you, by a 

magazine whose circulation never exceeded 

80,000. 

It is a truism that few editors leave behind 

successors who deserve the promotion. Mr. 

Podhoretz, however, is the exception. His 

successor as editor-in-chief is Neal Nozodoy. 

He has been the leading member of the team 

which transformed a Jewish magazine with 

deep involvement in Jewish and Israeli affairs into a publication which without compromising its cultural and ethnic roots became an important part of the resistance to 

those who sought and still seek the perversion of Western civilization in the name of 

new revolutionary slogans. 

f 

AUTOMOBILE TRADE WITH JAPAN 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the 

United States-Japan framework negotiations in autos and auto parts accelerate over the next few weeks, I want 

to bring to my colleagues attention a 

New York Times op-ed by Thomas L. 

Friedman published on April 16. Mr. 

Friedman describes the problems 

American auto and auto parts manufacturers face when trying to sell their 

products into Japan’s closed market 

and our limited chances of opening 

these protected markets unless we are 

willing to impose reciprocal treatment 

on Japan’s products in this country. 

Regarding the likelihood of concluding a market opening deal in the 

framework negotiations with Japan 

anytime in the near future, Mr. Friedman says: 

Don’t hold your breath. The Japanese will 

literally do anything to preserve their domestic car monopoly, even though it is one 

of the major causes of the massive trade imbalance between the U.S. and Japan that is, 

in turn, causing the yen to soar in value 

against the dollar. 

In fact, the higher the yen goes the less 

likely Japan is to open its auto market. 

With the yen rising against the dollar, Japan’s cars become more expensive and difficult to sell in the U.S., so Japanese auto 

company profits are squeezed. That makes it 

all the more important for Japanese auto 

makers to protect their home market from 

competition, so they can charge higher 

prices there and run up profits they need to 

cover losses abroad. 

What the U.S. is seeking is an end to Japan’s barriers. For instance, only 7.4 percent 

of Japanese car dealers, who are manipulated 

by the manufacturers, sell foreign cars 

alongside Japanese models. Almost 80 percent of U.S. dealers sell foreign models 

alongside their domestic brands. 

The U.S. is also seeking better access to 

Japan’s huge market for replacement auto 

parts, which has been largely closed to foreigners through Japanese regulations, customs codes and cartels. U.S. manufacturers 

have 3 percent of Japan’s $27 billion replacement parts market, while foreigners have 18 

percent of the U.S. replacement market and 

22 percent of Europe’s. 

Mr. Friedman believes we should be 

willing to take reciprocal action 

against Japan in an effort to get Japan 

to open its markets to United States 

autos and auto parts. Doing so will not 

result in retaliation. Mr. Friedman 

says: 

Maybe, just maybe, the Japanese need us 

more then we need them. 

For starters we should charge Japanese 

auto manufacturers a distribution tax on 

every car they sell in the U.S.—a tax that 

will be reduced in proportion to how many 

Japanese manufacturers open their showrooms to foreign cars. We should also inspect 

every Japanese car and part that comes into 

this country, and take our sweet time doing 

it, which is just what Japan does. 

He goes on to say: 

Hold on, the Japanese will say, that is a 

violation of the rules of the World Trade Organization. Rules? Did somebody say rules? 

Does anyone think that Tokyo shrank the 

U.S. share of the Japanese auto market from 

60 percent in 1953 to 1 percent in 1960 by playing by the rules? We’ll only win equal opportunity in the Japanese market when we play 

the game by their rules—which are no rules 

at all. 

Mr. Friedman has hit the nail on the 

head. Decades of painful history have 

proven that Japan will open its markets only when forced to do so. Now is 

the pivotal moment in auto and auto 

parts negotiations with Japan and the 

administration seems prepared to so 

what no other administration has done 

for 25 years: tell Japan that it faces 

equivalent restrictions on its goods if 

it does not open its market to our 

autos and auto parts. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed be printed in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

[From the New York Times, Apr. 16, 1995] 

WHERE DO CARS COME FROM? 

WASHINGTON.—The other day I was playing 

the computer game ‘‘Where in the U.S.A. Is 

Carmen Sandiego?’’ with my 9-year-old 

daughter, Orly. It’s a wonderful geographyteaching tool. You have to follow clues to 

different cities to trade down vile criminals. 

The clues we were given for one trip were all 

clearly pointing to Detroit. But instead of 

giving my daughter the answer, I wanted to 

see if she could figure it out herself, so I 

asked her: ‘‘Where are cars made?’’ And 

without missing a beat she answered: 

‘‘Japan.’’

From the mouths of babes. 

Where have I failed as a parent? I guess it’s 

the same place that we’ve failed as a nation. 

We have so blithely surrendered so much of 

the car market to the Japanese that my own 

daughter thinks cars come from Japan as 

surely as pizza comes from Italy and babies 

from the stork. 

My daughter, of course, was only part 

right. Roughly 25 percent of cars sold in the 

U.S. today are Japanese models. But if we 

were living in Tokyo she would be dead 

right, since only 1.5 percent of the cars sold 

in Japan are American. 

This week U.S. and Japanese negotiators 

will once again try to work out a deal for 

opening the closed Japanese auto market. 

Don’t hold your breath. The Japanese will 

literally do anything to preserve their domestic car monopoly, even though it is one 

of the major causes of the massive trade imbalance between the U.S. and Japan that is, 

in turn, causing the yen to soar in value 

against the dollar. 

In fact, the higher the yen goes the less 

likely Japan is to open its auto market. 

With the yen rising against the dollar, Japan’s cars become more expensive and difficult to sell in the U.S., so Japanese auto 

company profits are squeezed. That makes it 

all the more important for Japanese auto 

makers to protect their home market from 

competition, so they can charge higher 

prices there and run up profits they need to 

cover losses abroad. 

What the U.S. is seeking is an end to Japan’s barriers. For instance, only 7.4 percent 

of Japanese car dealers, who are manipulated 

by the manufacturers, sell foreign cars 

alongside Japanese models. Almost 80 percent of U.S. dealers sell foreign models 

alongside their domestic brands. It’s hard to 

sell a car by mail order. You need a showroom and U.S. cars don’t have many in 

Japan. And the old America-makes-thewrong-cars line doesn’t wash anymore. U.S. 

companies now make eight different righthand-drive vehicles tailored for Japan. 

The U.S. is also seeking better access to 

Japan’s huge market for replacement auto 

parts, which has been largely closed to foreigners through Japanese regulations, customs codes and cartels. U.S. manufacturers 

have 3 percent of Japan’s $27 billion replacement parts market, while foreigners have 18 

percent of the U.S. replacement market and 

22 percent of Europe’s. 

Clinton officials claim they are finally 

ready to tell Tokyo that either it enters into 

a meaningful agreement to open Japan’s 

auto market, with measurable results or the 

U.S. will impose punitive tariffs. 

(If this is true, it means the White House 

has rejected the brain-dead advice of the 

Pentagon that we must not allow ‘‘trade 

friction’’ to undermine our security ties with 

Japan. Nonsense. We’re Japan’s largest export market and we provide Japan with its 

security umbrella. We should use both as levers to promote our trade interests. Would 

somebody get the Pentagon a map. The last 

time I checked, North Korea and China were 

a lot closer to Tokyo than Washington. 

Maybe, just maybe, the Japanese need us 

more than we need them. How about a little 

less Keynes and a little more Machiavelli?) 

For starters we should charge Japanese 

auto manufacturers a distribution tax on 

every care they sell in the U.S.—a tax that 

will be reduced in proportion to how many 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 2, 1995 

Japanese manufacturers open their showrooms to foreign cars. We should also inspect 

every Japanese car and part that comes into 

this country, and take our sweet time doing 

it, which is just what Japan does. 

Hold on, the Japanese will say, that is a 

violation of the rules of the World Trade Organization. Rules? Did somebody say rules? 

Does anyone think that Tokyo shrank the 

U.S. share of the Japanese auto market from 

60 percent in 1953 to 1 percent in 1960 by playing by the rules? We’ll only win equal opportunity in the Japanese market when we play 

the game by their rules—which are no rules 

at all. 

Even a 9-year-old understands that. 

f 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION 

SERVICE AND 4–H 

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, periodically, it is my pleasure to address 

the Senate on the effective work of the 

Cooperative Extension Service and 4–H 

programs. 

The Cooperative Extension Service 

[CES] is at the heart of many American communities. Established in 1914 

by the Smith-Lever Act, the CES has 

been serving the needs of millions of 

Americans for more than 80 years. The 

CES provides education and one-on-one 

assistance on a wide variety of issues, 

from agribusiness skills and safe chemical handling to senior nutrition and 

child care. The U.S. Department of Agriculture works closely with each 

State’s land-grant university to provide information on these and other 

programs to participating communities. The hands-on approach increases productivity and keeps thousands of farms and families running 

smoothly. 

Local agents tailor CES programs to 

meet special area needs. In southeast 

South Dakota, for example, more than 

1,200 producers affected by flooding received information on cropping alternatives and financial management. In 

Day and Marshall Counties, CES 

agents organized more than 450 South 

Dakota families and businesses in a recycling effort. Another example is the 

successful Extension Service Indian 

reservation programs. On the Pine 

Ridge and Rosebud Reservations, 87 

farmers and ranchers completed training for their private pesticide applicators license. 

One unique program run by the CES 

in every South Dakota county is helping to put welfare recipients back to 

work. Every recipient of Aid to Families With Dependent Children [AFDC] 

must attend resourceful living classes 

offered by county extension agents. In 

these classes, welfare recipients learn 

basic skills such as household budgeting, and interviewing skills. No other 

State in the country has such a program to establish self-sufficiency. 

According to the CES, for every dollar invested in CES livestock programming, $4.60 to $5.80 is realized in the increased value of livestock sold. For 

every dollar invested in crop programming, the value of crops sold is increased by $5.90 to $8.62. Thousands and 

thousands of dollars in health care 

costs are saved through the nutrition 

and child care education offered by 

CES. Clearly, this is an example of a 

Federal program with an excellent return on the taxpayers’ dollar. Why? Because it relies on the common sense 

participation of local folks who know 

the unique needs in their own communities. 

Another program with a history of 

common sense result is 4–H. The mission of 4–H is to help young people become self-directed, productive, and 

contributing members of society. 4–H 

members have the opportunity to explore many areas of interest. Their 

projects can include raising cattle, 

hogs, and sheep. Other 4–H projects involve growing farm or garden crops, 

forestry and entomology collections, 

baking, sewing, handicrafts, art, electronics, horse showing, photography, 

public speaking, and much more. 

Nationally about 5.5 million young 

people are involved in 4–H annually. I 

always enjoy meeting 4–H’ers in my 

Washington office or at our State fair. 

They always give me helpful advice. 4–

H has helped them to become well-informed and articulate leaders. 

While growing up on a small family 

farm in my home State of South Dakota, I was active in a local 4–H club, 

the Humboldt Hustlers. The 9 years I 

was active in 4–H helped me develop 

my personality and better focus myself. That helped me to confidently formulate and pursue my goals. Each 4–H 

participant learns the value of teamwork, and gains knowledge of the community, State, Nation, and world in 

which he or she lives. I was fortunate 

to have attended twice the 4–H Club 

Congress in Chicago and the 1961 World 

Agricultural Fair in Cairo, Egypt. Participation in such programs by young 

people is even more vital today with 

the growing importance of the global 

community to the United States. 

The success of South Dakota 4–H is 

due to a team of very competent, wellinformed adult professionals and volunteers who help educate 4–H members. I 

remember in particular two professionals who helped me and other South 

Dakota youth. They were Glenn 

Schrader, who was the Minnehaha 

County agent for more than 30 years, 

and John Younger, who was the South 

Dakota 4–H leader for nearly 25 years. 

Both were instrumental in the development of 4–H within South Dakota, as 

well as nationally. All 4–H participants 

also appreciate their local 4–H leaders 

for the time, effort, and commitment 

they volunteer. During the time I was 

involved in 4–H, I had two leaders: 

Elmer Anderson and Harry Stofferahn. 

They shared the values and spirit of 4–

H to me and my fellow members, for 

which I am grateful to this day. 

With the reported decline in rural 

communities, my colleagues may wonder how these programs continue to 

serve a useful purpose. The Extension 

Service and 4–H programs are no longer 

just for rural areas. They have expanded from addressing traditional 

farm and home economic problems to 

current issues such as teen pregnancy 

and violence. In fact, nearly one-third 

of 4–H students now reside in urban 

areas. They have grown so fast because 

the lessons and values that are the essence of 4–H—head, heart, hands, and 

health—transcend geography and demography. More important, at a time 

when thousands of young people in 

urban areas face so many challenges, 

the lessons and values of 4–H are needed more than ever before. 

As Federal budgetary pressures grow, 

it will be tempting for Congress to cut 

funding for programs such as the CES 

and 4–H. I hope my colleagues will resist this pressure and continue supporting these effective programs. The 

CES and 4–H programs should be permitted to continue providing support 

for communities across the United 

States for many years to come. 

f 

CWO–2 PETER A. DAVIS, AN 

AMERICAN PATRIOT 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise 

today to salute CWO–2 Peter A. Davis, 

who died April 24, 1995, in a helicopter 

crash in Williamson County, TX. The 

accident that took the life of this fine 

man was a terrible tragedy for his family and for all those who knew him. 

Mr. Davis, born in Kittery, ME and 

educated in Laconia, NH, was on active 

duty and has served in the U.S. Army 

for 21 years. He is the son of Phillip 

and Maria Davis of Laconia. He is also 

survived by his wife, Bonnee Davis and 

son Nicholas Davis, both of Fort Hood, 

TX. 

Peter died in service to his country 

in the U.S. Army. I extend my deepest 

sympathies to Peter’s family and 

friends. As a member of the Senate 

Armed Services Committee, I am honored to represent Peter’s family in the 

U.S. Senate. CWO–2 Peter Davis joins a 

distinguished list of American patriots 

who have given their lives in service to 

their country. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO SHELDON L. MORGAN 

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I want 

to pay tribute to Sheldon L. Morgan, 

who recently retired as senior vice 

president after 23 years with the First 

Alabama Bank. He was manager of the 

bank’s corporate sales and services department, which included national accounts, industrial development, private 

banking, and corporate cash management. He had also served as head of 

First Alabama’s marketing division. 

Prior to joining the bank in 1972, 

Sheldon was manager of industrial 

trade development for the Mobile, AL 

Area Chamber of Commerce. His colorful career also carried him to the Alabama State docks, where he served as 

public relations director, and to the 

Mobile County schools, where he 

taught. He was in the U.S. Air Force 

from 1948 to 1952. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS