Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 12, 1987)
Editorial Congressional raise shows incredible gall Congress is facing a substantial pay raise — the first salary increase beyond cost of living adjustments in a decade — but probably only Congresspeople are pleased at the* prospect. President Reagan authorized congressional salaries to rise from $77,400 to $89,500 per year last week; the pay in creases will go into effect unless Congess rejects the pro posal by joint resolution within the next 23 days. With a huge deficit looming over America's head, it would be the heighth of gall for Congress to accept a pay raise. Leaders in Washington first should take care of the country’s economic problems before easing their own. The vice president, cabinet officers and deputy secretaries also stand to receive pay increases of 12 to 16 percent. The increases come after a presidential commission’s report that these federal officials are earning far less than they could in the private sector, allegedly making it difficult to recruit or retain qualified people for top government positions. However, these officials are mature adults who understood the terms of their employment when they ran for office or accepted appointment. The government is run on a basis of public service and not on a profit motive. What’s more, many qualified govern ment officials are actually vaulted into even higher-paying private sector positions after they leave office. The outlook is not all cynical. Some congresspeople, in cluding our own Peter DeFazio, have announced their inten tion to fight the pay increase. We wish these leaders luck in fighting an appalling bloat in federal pay. Reagan should give up opposing clean water bill Friday, the House passed 406-8 the Clean Water Bill that President Reagan last year killed with a pocket veto. This ac tion is an expected and welcome indication of the bill’s future. The bill is a necessary extention of the Clean Water Act of 1971, and enjoys wide support among business, labor, en vironmental, and state and local groups. Last year both houses of Congress passed the bill unanimously. The bill provides for $18 billion over eight years to help communities build sewage treatment plants. It imposes tight new controls on toxic chemical concentrations and provides a plan to improve the quality of the nation’s lakes. Reagan’s objection to the bill was its cost, calling it a “budget-busting” bill. The president’s original proposal for the bill was lor $6 billion, and his most recent compromise was for $12 billion. However, Congress is correct to stand tough on this bill. It is not going to break America with its concern for clean water. The House's action is a good sign for a good bill, and the Senate is expected to pass the bill by a wide margin on Mon day, perhaps after considering the president’s compromise bill. It the original bill passes, Reagan will face the choice of vetoing the bill and almost certainly being overridden — los ing a political battle over the first piece of major legislative action of the session — or quietly acceding to what is right and allowing the bill to become law. ' f \> WMC ON.FOWS.YOO MN'T SEEN NOTHIN’ YET. Letters Explanation Dear Gitte Naronde, you have created an exhibit that needs an explanation. Pictures of the type that you have displayed in the Apertures Gallery are used seriously in advertising and promote violence against women. If this is not your intent, please put up an explanation so that the intelligent minds at this university can be more fully aware of the dangers of this type of photography. As the exhibit stands, it is threatening and offensive to both women and men who do not understand your intentions. Carrie Clegg Russian studies No pay raise Many of you have written to me since the election to express your views on policy issues or ask for help in dealing with the federal government. 1 regret that I ain unable to respond to each and every one of you individually during this transition period. I was sworn in as your representative on Dec. 6 and will have a staff and office space soon. 1 expect to hit the ground running and begin to catch up Oregon Daily Emerald The Oregon Daily Emerald Is published Monday Ihrough Friday except during exam week and vacations by the Oregon Dally Emerald Publishing Co , at the University of Oregon, Eugene. Oregon, 97403 The Emerald operates independently of the University with offices on the third floor of the Erb Memorial Union and is a member of the Associated Press The Emerald is private property The unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law General Staff Advertising Director Susan Thelen Production Manager Wayne Lottmville Classified Advertising Alyson Simmons Assistant to the Publisher Jean Ownbey Advertising Sales: Peter LaFleur / Sales Manager Teresa Acosta. Brent Collins, Beryl Israel. Janelle Heit mann, Laura Goldstein, Catherine Lilia, Rick Mart*. Joseph Men;el. Joan Wildermuth News and Editorial 666-5511 Display Advertising and Business 686-3712 Classified Advertising 686-4343 Production 686-4381 Circulation 686 5511 Editor Managing Editor News Editor Spectrum Editor Spectrum Assistant Editor Editorial Page Editor Editorial Page Assistant Editor Sports Editor Photo Editor Graphic Design Editor Night Editor Associate Editors Community Politics Higher Education / Administration University Affairs Student Government Student Activities General Assignment Michelle Brence Lucinda Dillon Michael Rivers Curtis Condon Stephen Maher James Young Michael Drummond Capi Lynn Michael Wilhelm Lorraine Rath Michelle Brence Jolayne Houtz Shawn Wirt2 Chris Norred Stan Nelson Sarah Kitchen Tonnte Dakin Dennis Fernandes Reporters: Sean Axmaker. Mary Courtis. Karen Creighton, Gary Henley. Carolyn Lamberson. John McBarron Photographers: Elizabeth Asher. Sherlyn Biorkgren, Shu Shing Chen, Maria Corvallis. Derrel Hewitt. Bobbie Lo. James Marks, Dan Wheeler. Michael Wilhelm Production: Michele Ross / Ad Coordinator Kelly Alexandre. Elizabeth Asher. Ronwin Nicole Ashton, Virginia Bamaga, Sandra Bevans, Janet Emery. Manuei Flores. Donna Leslie. Curtis Lott. Ross Martin. Kelli Mason. Mike McGraw. Rob Miles. Angelina Muniz. Kara Oberst, Julie Paul. Kristin Sanburg. X Kang Xie on phone calls and written responses to your letters. A number of you have con tacted me to express your objec tions to the impending congres sional pay raise. I share your objections. I do not believe it is ap propriate for Congress to reward itself with a pay increase while our federal government faces a record budget deficit and Oregon and 33 other states are still suffering high unemploy ment and cutbacks in state services. As 1 stated in the campaign, 1 will refuse to accept the pay raise and encourage other lawmakers to do the same. My best to you for the new year. I look forward to serving as your representative during the challenging times ahead. Peter DeFazio Representative 4th Congressional District Open offer Rousseve (ODE. Jan. H). so you’re still here — so are we. Two years ago it was $100. last year $200. this year $400 for a proof of the “irresolvable con flict between religious faith (Christianity) and the secular reasoning.” Yes. the offer is open to anyone, but I must insist that Rousseve make an attempt this time (he didn’t even call last time). Students, encourage this ‘‘professor’’ to respond; Rousseve, stick to the abstract “psychology.” It is your only way to save face; don’t mess with things that you know nothing of — facts. Historically, the Bible has been the key to the past. Not one archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. And before you want to talk about evolution you should be aware of the fact that S.J. Could has found no in termediate fossils and has pro posed ‘‘punctuated equilibrium.” Now our forte — science. Tackle just one of these. Im plications of your philosophy are: Non-living things gave rise to living things, protozoa gave rise to metazoa, invertebrate gave rise to vertebrate, and the second law of thermodynamics was not always the case. Show us all how analytical you can be. Let me laugh again soon. Show me more of how you enjoy delving into subjects without doing any homework. Brian Frary Biology major Charlie Richards Economic major Alarming Has your first day of class ever been alarming? I don’t mean the discovery of three midterms, two papers and a final, but that so many can be misled about a serious issue. The issue is pesticides, and the situation was the first day of organic chemistry. Discussing alcohols, the professor remark ed that ethanol has a lethal dose in rats of about 13g/kg body weight which, lu: said, is about 30 times more toxic, than DDT. This was the alarming part. I thought, "what, is this the DDT that is a known carcinogen, that drastically impacts wildlife, that is banned in the United States, etc. and it's more toxic than DDT?” Well, this isn’t the case, and 1 write mostly so that the others in this class won’t think that pesticides are not as dangerous as “environmentalists” make them out to be. Remember, a pesticide is a toxic chemical and it is designed to kill. The facts given above pertain only to the short term, acute toxicity of ethanol and DDT. The professor did not mention anything about DDT's chronic or long-term effects such as its toxicity to the nervous system, reproductive system, its car cinogenicity, its environmental effects, the genetic damage it causes, etc. for not only rats but humans as well. The whole story of the toxici ty of pesticides is quite alarming. Brett A. Fisher Biology
