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